(Person) Percentage - Sabanci University Research Database

The Asian Media & Mass Communication Conference 2010 Osaka, Japan
clock until mid-70s, brimmed with activities related to cinematic arts ... Despite paucity
of resources and a limited market, a few astonishingly good movies came out of Lahore
film studios during that period, which won popular acclaim for the artistes, kudos for the
producers/directors and substantiated cultural identity of Lahore and vivacity of its
citizens (Malik, 2003).
Such monopoly was maintained for about ten years after the advent of television in the country.
Pakistan Television Network “took a fair chunk of the audiences away from films” as well as
“some of the best talent” (Malik, 2003). In the years that followed, the VCR waft facilitated the
home screening of Indian films. To cut it short, the VCR took away the audience and the
television took away the creative ingenuity from films. Malik says
the present day Lahore is less than magnanimous in lending its best people to the
cinematic arts. Consequently, the surviving … film studios are today flooded with
dubious kinds of individuals (especially the financiers), who, to say the least, do not
enjoy good reputation (Malik, 2003).
These factors leave a negative impact on production quality and cast choices. Hence, the overall
reputation of the cinema industry is tabooed.
Taboo reflects violence and sexual innuendos that have replaced human images and creativity.
Malik says filmmakers have replaced “a rich tapestry of swirling images from many
masterpieces of yore” with violence, terror, brutality, and “libidinous allowances” (2003).
Noorani quotes famous film and TV actor, Qavi Khan, who says “things were not that bad in the
cinema of the fifties and the sixties, but then came the deterioration. The atmosphere in the
Lahore film studios is not congenial to creativity. Uneducated and unsophisticated people are
calling the shots there” (2006). Film actor, Shaan, blames the damage on Zia’s (semi)martial law
regime. “It gave the wrong people a very loud voice [that] killed art for the next generations”
(Isani, 2005).
The generations witnessed the birth of the Punjabi villain, Maula Jutt (Bhatti, 1979), in reaction
to martial law (Adeeb, 2010; Hashmi, 2010). The likes of this diehard villain destroyed, what
Ahmad calls, “the cinematic culture of Urdu movies” (2006). Raffat says “the fake-hero of Urdu
cinema faded against the spellbinding and charismatic personality of Mustafa Qureshi and Sultan
Rahi” who remind the archetype of the Punjabi folk hero, Jugga, the great dacoit. The hero no
longer fought the establishment but the ruthless villain (n.d.). The vulgar comedian joined him to
pitch his show in the Punjabi tradition of bhaands (Raffat, n.d.) who often opt for topical humor.
The trio of villain and comedian was completed with the induction of dirty dancer. Sehbai says
the terrifying villain, vulgar comedian, and dirty dancer “make the great triangle of our get-real
culture … The trio rules the other Pakistan that lies subliminally under the mainstream display of
art and culture” (Ahmad, 2006). This trio compromised the beauty of cinema, but persists against
the will of the elite and the critics. Their annihilating effects have shaped the decline of Pakistani
cinema. It constitutes, what Mumtaz calls, “over-the-top cinema, ranging from the cringe-worthy
– think Haseena Atom Bomb [Gorgeous Lady Atom Bomb] (Jahangiri, 1990) – to those that have
achieved cult status such as Maula Jutt which starred the unparalleled Sultan Rahi” (2007). He
has “670 films to his credit” (Gazdar, 1997, p. 1) and his replicas continue to fight the
establishment through films since Zia’s martial law.
35