DIAMONDS IN RUST: Mrinal Sen’s Ek Din Pratidin (above) and Ritwik Ghatak’s Ajantrik (below) are among the films that have been damaged because of poor preservation

If you thought being on celluloid ensured a kind of immortality, think again. Much of India’s cinematic history and heritage seems to be in danger of being lost forever. Many of the old classics from the silent era, the first talkies, even films made as late as in the 1960s, have been spoilt beyond repair, thanks to the lack of proper facilities for preserving and restoring films.

Take Alam Ara (1931). The first Indian talkie, made by Ardeshir Irani, has been all but lost. Barring a few stills, no trace of the film remains. “But it’s not just Alam Ara,” says Sanjoy Mukhopadhyay, professor of film studies at Jadavpur University, Calcutta. “Most films belonging to the silent era have been permanently spoiled.”

Contemporary filmmakers have also borne the brunt of little or no effort to preserve their films. Mrinal Sen recently declined an offer from the Cannes Film festival to hold a mini retrospective of his films mainly because he had no good quality prints of his films such as Bhuvan Shome and Khandahar.

Many other well known films are languishing in various stages of degradation. Ritwik Ghatak’s Ajantrik, Mrinal Sen’s Mrigaya, Chalchitra, Ek Din Pratidin and Tapan Sinha’s Ankush are among those that have been damaged. Some of Satyajit Ray’s short films and documentaries have probably been lost to neglect as well. “Many of Ray’s short films and documentaries produced by the Films Division and Doordarshan, such as The Inner Eye, a documentary on Binode Bihari Mukherjee, a blind artist, and Sadgati, are lying with the government. No one knows the state of these films and repeated queries by film enthusiasts have gone unanswered,” says Arup K. Dey of the Satyajit Ray Society, Calcutta. As for Ray’s other films, most have now been restored by Josef Lindner, the preservation officer of the Academy Film Archive, Los Angeles, US.

The prints of Alam Ara have been spoiled beyond repair

Experts admit that India is sadly lacking in the field of preservation and restoration of films. Says editor-director and Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) alumnus Rabi Ranjan Maitra. “The state of film preservation in our country is pathetic. Not only is no initiative being taken in this regard, but the so-called experts also lack the necessary knowledge about the technology needed to preserve and restore films.”

The process of film preservation involves keeping a film in controlled conditions of temperature and humidity. Restoration, on the other hand, involves making a fresh print from an existing one after undertaking picture, colour and sound corrections — all of which are done digitally. The problem is that the National Film Archives of India (NFAI), Pune, the body primarily responsible for preserving and restoring films in the country, is short of both funds and qualified manpower.

Film preservation is a key process because films have organic components, which, like all organic material, are prone to decay. Poor storage and handling take a further toll on them. When exposed to heat and humidity, films deteriorate rapidly — a process that is hard to reverse. Attention must also be paid to a film’s “micro environment” or the condition inside a film can. Films stored in humid conditions can become a host for mould, mildew and fungus that will soon damage it beyond repair.

Being a tropical country, India is, of course, particularly at a disadvantage in this regard. As Purab Gujar of Cameo Media Laboratories, Pune, a private body that also undertakes the preservation and restoration of films, points out, “In the US and the European countries, the cold climate helps to protect films from damage. Besides, their technological and economic superiority also allows them to preserve films better.”

But Vijay Jadhav, director, NFAI, asserts that India does have the technology and infrastructure to preserve and restore films. “What we lack is adequate manpower and funds,” says Jadhav. “In foreign countries, quite a few private foundations fund the restoration of films. In India, however, neither the director nor the producer is interested in spending money to preserve his or her film. They want everything to be done by the government.”

According to Gujar, who helped restore Chetan Anand’s Haqueeqat and Jagmohan Mundhra’s Surag, a film restoration project needs at least 10 to 15 trained personnel working on it for a month and the entire process can cost between Rs 7.5 lakh and Rs 12.5 lakh.

Filmmakers, especially those who have seen their own work irretrievably damaged, admit that preserving and restoring films is no mean task. “The process of preserving and restoring a film is an extremely complicated and expensive one and not much can be done about the current situation unless there is more inflow of funds,” says a resigned Mrinal Sen.

Funds apart, preserving agencies also rue the lack of qualified manpower. There are over 17,000 prints at the NFAI. Each print needs to be checked at least once every two years. Roughly, at least 40 films need to be checked every day, which means that there must be at least 40 film checkers and 40 pieces of equipment — all of which is in short supply. In fact, NFAI currently has only about 8 to 10 men working on preserving archived films, reveals Jadhav.

Still, things may soon improve somewhat. Despite being hamstrung by the lack of funds, the NFAI has now begun digitising its films. “Once the films are digitally preserved, restoration can be taken up at any time,” says Jadhav. NFAI has also built 16 new state-of-the-art vaults to store films. “As each vault has the capacity to accommodate up to 8,000 reels (roughly 500 films), we may not lose any more films,” says Jadhav.

However, nearly everyone involved with preserving and restoring films agrees that the film fraternity also needs to take an interest in protecting their own valuable output. Often, filmmakers keep their films lying uncared for in their own labs, and don’t even bother to send a print to the NFAI where it could be better preserved. “Both the government and the film fraternity should be equally involved in the process of preserving films,” asserts P.K. Nair, former director, NFAI. “Filmmakers must also contribute financially to make sure that their films are properly preserved.”

Mukhopadhyay of Jadavpur University believes that inviting more private players into the scene could be the answer to the problem. “Private money has been used in the West to restore and preserve films. So why can’t this happen in India,” he asks.

That may or may not happen. But unless the process of preserving and restoring films is streamlined and infused with funds, much of our cinema — always a rich social and cultural document — will pass into oblivion. And that, surely, would be a pity.