December 24, 2008 - Even More Iffi

Proof of junkets
Last week I wrote on how the ESG and the government spend big money on knowledge missions to Cannes and how at the ground level very little seems to be achieved each year because the Cannes Film Festival is exactly that, a Cannes do, and well IFFI is exactly what that means 'iffy.' After investigating the 2006 Cannes festival Francisco Martins Goa's king of special effects wrote in his report: "The entire venue comes alive with brass bands and non-electronic musical instruments only at different places (quoted verbatim, figure it out please.) The ambient noise level is conducive for maintaining serenity of the place for serious business talks." Appallingly he admitted: "We had not met together before we left for the festival. I understand that our
objective was to study the festival layout and plan to help Goa plan a better organized festival." The 2006 delegation among others consisted of the Chief Secretary JP Singh, Sanjit Rodrigues, CEO, ESG, Anju Timblo and Martins.

Opinions differ
The May 2007 Team Cannes reported in its section Street Décor: "The street décor is generally very mellowed and basic. There is no street animation like jugglers serenades, carnival parades etc or any other activity which causes hindrance to the movement of people and traffic.
The organizers have succeeded in creating a cinematic environment around the festival venue." The report goes on to say: "The success of Cannes is largely attributed to the huge grand and spectacular film market which is located in the main festival venue. Several companies from 90 countries and almost 5000 registered buyers/sellers participated." The team consisted of Diwan Chand, Special Secretary (I&P) and the ESG's Nandini Paliwal, Nikhil Desai and Ethel D'Costa.

While making its many recommendations ESG admitted: "IFFI currently does not possess the pull factor to ensure the presence of important film personalities such as business opportunities, good films, sizeable prize money etc." So why does the Congress hold IFFI when it is in government and oppose it as a waste of scarce public money when it is in opposition? Because, the ESG expense sheet is mind-boggling.

Expenditure on print media only:
2004-05 Rs.33,47,330
2004-06 Rs.55,79,765
2004-07 Rs.10,15,981
2004-08 Rs.43,74,724
Total Rs.1,43,17,800

Expenses incurred on invitees
Traveling-artists/delegates Lodging/boarding Artist fees
2004-05 Rs.10027709 Rs.6445186 nil
2005-06 Rs.10652880 Rs.21297010 Rs.4882040
2006-07 Rs.16540932 Rs.10462560 Rs.50522620
2007-08 Rs.7763819 Rs.5812601 nil
Total: Rs.44985340 Rs.44017357 Rs.55404660

Payments made to Cidade de Goa of this to accommodate delegates.
2005-06 & 2007-08 (as on 12.10.07): Rs.12440211.

Bottom line: Delegates/artists come to IFFI only if it's an all-expense paid junket in 5-Star hotels whereas ESG admits it has no clue how much film business is transacted each year. Add this to the fact Brilliant Entertainment Network which was allowed to bid for IFFI 2007 owes ESG Rs263 lakh while the Directorate of Film Festival, Delhi owes it Rs1,54,196.

Yellow journalism?
Shockingly this is what Team Cannes 2007 thinks of the media: "Accredited press be made to accept/sign a code of fair conduct at the time of receiving press accreditation cards in order to discourage yellow journalism and reporting of frivolous issues detrimental to the image of the festival and the organizers. This exercise will help to encourage/enable responsible journalism and invite responsible journalists to build upon IFFI as a serious film festival. Violation of the code should result in debarring said media persons/house from future festivals." And you thought we were a free democracy. Though I asked for expenditure on both the print and electronic media, ESG produced details for only the print media. Still after spending Rs.1,43,17,800 on the print media, ESG appears to have a compulsive obsession with the media because six of the 17 recommendations are to do with the media. And, they are all about how to make the media more pliable and cognizant of its own self-acclaimed role in the film industry. Oh yes, it actually says so in its report.

ESG's obsession
If you still think the current lot at ESG are not obsessed, this is what Team Cannes 2007 reported. "Festival coverage: The festival (Cannes) coverage is huge, highly professional without resorting to sensational news items or yellow journalism. Press invitations at parties is also restricted to invites per media depending upon the criteria's mentioned in media management (of the 17-page report which also has 17 separate recommendations.) The level of discipline
enforced and maintained at this prestigious festival is truly commendable as the press understands its roles, functions and responsibility. Most accredited press journalists at Cannes are frequent, serious festival attendees deputed by their media houses to cover film/trade related news items. Mismanagement or unruly behaviour by press (as noticed frequently during IFFI) is not tolerated by festival organizers leading to debarring of accreditation for that
particular press person/media house in the future." In fact, the report devotes three pages to dealing with the media.

The new cop in town
He had barely a six-month stint in Puducherry (changed from Pondicherry by the way) before he was suddenly moved out. It caused much speculation in the UT because during his short stint, he tried to bring in police reforms like the Goonda act that rubbed politicians the wrong side. So while there was speculation that he had been shunted out, the truth was is his post as the head of the Puducherry police was upgraded. So since someone (A. S Khan) who was of the rank of Director General of Police came in, Kishan Kumar who was an IGP was moved out. By the way, he is credited with introducing the beat system in the police there. A crime reporter in Pudcherry says, "He was for modernization." Others saw him by and large as "accessible, calm,
reserved" one who had no controversy surrounding him. In other words, a good cop. Will our politicians leave him be?