| FOR
CINEMA, TO SOLOMON |
|
In the recently concluded Thamizh Semmozhi
Maanaadu, there was an interesting debate
or pattimandram, as it is called in Thamizh
chaired by the pre-eminent orator on the
Tamil screen, Solomon Pappiah. The topic
of debate was the contribution of different
media in the growth of Thamizh. The media
involved in the debate were cinema, TV
and print. Finally, the verdict was handed
to the print media by the experienced
mediator.
Now, the wisdom of the veteran can hardly
be questioned and he was absolutely right
in handing the crown to the print media
which, one must say, existed long before
any of the screens (big or small) came
into being. Because, print does not only
mean the medium in which machines impress
ink on paper for people to read. Print
refers to the written word which came
into existence from the time when wise
men inscribed their thoughts on dried
palm leaves.
Having declared print as the medium which
has undoubtedly contributed the most to
the growth of Thamizh, or for that matter,
any language that has a written script,
one wonders that would have come up trumps
if only cinema and TV had faced off against
each other in such a debate. Yes, these
two media were represented in the debate,
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
but
the print media with its rich history and legacy loomed
large which sort of killed the competition between
the two screens which could have been very intriguing.
The supremacy of the screens over the print media
in contemporary times was in many ways underlined
during the debate, with most of the speakers representing
either of the screens, the print media representation
being minimal. Yet, at the end of the debate, there
seemed to exist a stalemate between the two screens.
Here are some arguments that might decisively swing
it the silver screen’s way.
The speakers who vouched for TV chose mostly to dwell
on the huge reach that it had, being present in almost
every home, especially after the CM’s scheme
of free color TV sets, which was also pointed out
by the speakers. Yes, the reach might be undeniably
big and all pervading, but that does not directly
translate into impact. Cinema may not have the huge
and incessant presence of TV, but its impact is what
makes it click and that is why it is the big(ger)
screen. It is the impact of cinema on the minds of
people that made Kalaignar announce tax sops for all
films which had Thamizh titles. The CM, having been
in cinema himself, knows the impact that cinema can
have and thus chose this medium to maximize the use
of the language, at least in the titles. But, there
was never any such incentive for TV programs, not
because they were insignificant, but because their
impact just does not match up to that of cinema; which
is why we still have programs named Super Singer,
Honeymoon Travels, Jackpot and Deal or No Deal.
Even recent examples can be cited where often unknown
and forgotten Thamizh words were reintroduced through
cinema. No one would have cared for the meaning of
the word ‘Mavval’ had it appeared on a
TV soap. It became a statewide curiosity overnight
because it came through cinema. Even this year, a
sudden interest and curiosity was sparked off about
Sanga Thamizh and the history of ancient Thamizh kings
because of a film called Aayirathil Oruvan. That was
something that hours of educational and cultural programs
on TV could not do. The interest, though only short
lived, was started off only because of the impact
of cinema.
On a finishing note, there is a saying ‘familiarity
breeds contempt’. Because of the daily familiarity
and presence of TV, it is not often taken seriously
which is why it has a low impact factor. But, cinema
has maintained its big screen aura which keeps its
impact in tact. That is why, cinema is definitely
the bigger vehicle for propagation of the language.
|
