Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Filmmaking As A Social Act: Malegaon Ka Superman
Filmmaking As A Social Act: Malegaon Ka Superman
Malegaon is a city in Nashik District in the Indian state of Maharashtra. It is like any other
city of India, with its vast population hit by growing industries and hardships. It has an
estimate of 3 lakh power looms producing about 10 million metres of cloth (Philipose). It has
a mix of Hindu and Muslim population, majority of them being Muslims. Most of them work
in power looms to earn their daily living. Malegaon has its share of woes, worries, poverty
and suffering but, what makes this city special, is its very own Film Industry, popularly
known as Mollywood. Mollywood is a thriving film industry that churns out spin offs of
Bollywood and Hollywood films with twisted town-centric storyline ‘armed with just a
These films are not exactly spoofs but a reinvention of the popular characters and situations,
an appropriation into their own milieu. They may not be technically slick but they are hugely
benefitted by a collaborative effort by the people of the town which results in high
relatability. The people of Malegaon started making films using a VHS camera, and VCR to
A tracking shot is canned by mounting the camera on a cycle’s seat with extra
padding to ensure a jerk-free shot. A crane shot, on the other hand, is taken with the
aid of a bullock cart minus the bullock. “The cameraperson takes the place of the
1
bullock and a team helps lift the cart off the ground and brings it down again,”
explains Shakeel Bharti, a mimicry artist and filmmaker[ CITATION Ans11 \l 16393 ].
Now, they are making films on CamCorder and edit using digital software and even using
chroma for visual effects. This up gradation is a result of more and more people becoming an
active part of the filmmaking process. The funding of these movies also happens collectively
with many film enthusiasts within the town putting in their share. The town has developed an
advertising model where local businesses give funds for including their
shops/products/peoples and thereby giving them visibility. This model is also present in
Bollywood by way of branding (recently movies like Dabbang 2, Satyagraha etc. actively
indulged in characters promoting certain brands within the narrative) but while that serves a
corporate purpose of promoting major ‘brands’ alienated from the public, in Malegaon it
takes a more social connotation of helping each other in their ventures, promoting local
‘produce’ or ‘products’ that come from people themselves and involving more and more
people in the filmmaking process. The actors are also common people of Malegaon working
in power looms, so in a way, this filmmaking process not only becomes consumption of their
fantasies but also gives them a sense of creating their own fantasies, worlds and destinies.
These films are screened for the people of Malegaon that include a large number that
It would be inappropriate to look at these films as inferior copies of the ‘original’ films,
because these films do not try to recreate popular movies. The characters may be same and a
basic plot progression may also be somewhat similar but the themes and situations that are
depicted are very local and are pertaining to the social situations of Malegaon. So the
superman of Malegaon is not fighting a nuclear disaster or a fantastical villain but a local
gutka baron. Thereby the film tries to address the issue of how gutka affects the health of
those who consume it in Malegaon. The film also tries to include various concerns of the
2
town and reflects on it. Like in one of the scenes of the film superman is shown trying saving
people from drowning in a lake. This comes as a direct inspiration from the reality of the
town where many people have drowned and died. Even this situation is dealt
unconventionally where the superman himself drowns in the pond and other people end up
saving him. The ‘Superman’ in the movie is shown as a victim of diseases, and he is often
portrayed falling down and coughing, has an asthma problem and also feels dizzy and all of
this is attributed to the pollution in the town. While this phenomena of the film as an end
product creating awareness and impact in itself is a commendable achievement the larger
question that we ought to raise is what the filmmaking process itself means to the people of
Malegaon.
The issues and conflicts that dominate the narratives of these films are everyday issues of
Malegaon ranging from widespread tobacco abuse, to mobile network problems to pollution.
Now what happens when these issues intersect with the medium of cinema that the people of
Malegaon are working with? When the people of Malegaon work with these themes on a film
they transform these situations to either deliberate upon or depict a solution to the problem or
at-least reduce their hardships to satirical humour. Thus when the medium of cinema is given
to the these working class people, they tend to try and gain mastery over their difficulties or
any situation for that matter and at-least on screen exercise agency to modify them to their
wishes. Now there is a difference between films made about them by an ‘outsider’ giving
such a feeling of mastery over situations and them arriving at ways to subvert them. What
makes these films socially relevant is that the ‘subjects’ of the film (the people of Malegaon;
Malegoan itself) are themselves re-appropriating their identities and contexts in the process of
making a film. The people of Malegaon think about their problems, think about various ways
present for them and also think about ways in which they can make meaning out of it for
themselves. ‘If the audience could be made to participate in the making of a film, the
3
resultant work would not be just a display of communication, but the result of co-ordination
This article would like to argue that this model of filmmaking is far more socially relevant to
the sections of working class people like those of Malegaon as opposed to commercial
popular cinema.
There is an almost unquestioned belief among the producers, makers, distributors, audience
and even film theorists that popular commercial cinema especially Bollywood is for the
masses and caters to their needs and demands. Even the like of Satyajit Ray remarked about
The craving for spectacle, for romance, for a funny turn or two for singing and
dancing... has somehow to be met... There is no denying that if you think in terms of
tired and untutored minds with undeveloped tastes needing an occasional escape
through relaxation, you will admit that the best prescription is a well mixed pot pourri
While Vasudevan calls the popular cinema as ‘cinema of attractions’ (Nayar 48), Ashis
Nandy goes as far as to call popular cinema ‘self-assertion of the low brow’. Both Nandy and
Ray seem to be interested in the ‘untutored minds’ and ‘low brow’ and their reference here is
to the working class masses living either in urban slums or small towns. In doing so they are
at a danger of justifying the style and content of popular films as they seem to be concurrent
to the wants, desires and aspirations of these working classes, as though if cinema were to be
made for this section of people then it has to be in the form of masala (what Ray calls a well
mixed pot pourri ) entertainers. Ray and Nandy both perhaps ignore the factor of alienation
or a huge gap between the making of the film and its working class audience. It is just
opposite to the alienation that happens in the industries they work in where they are
4
completely unrelated to the product they produce often which is not at all for their own
consumption. In the case of popular cinema the product comes to them for their consumption
while they have not taken any part in its production. Mani Kaul explains the phenomenon of
The reason why the commercial cinema succeeds lies in the alienation that the
ordinary Indian faces in his life and work. If it were possible for such a person to be
truly involved with his work, if he could create an object through which he could
objectify himself, he would have no need to see such films. ...what I am talking about
is not a material alienation alone in the classical Marxist sense. This alienation is a
spiritual exhaustion, a relentless seeking after meaning. The relationship between the
cinema and its audience is based upon this need. But the needs are never really
satisfied. It's like Pavlov's dog—the bell rings with the promise of meat, but there's no
As Kaul puts it eloquently popular cinema has its popularity because it gives a conditioned
illusion of involvement and wish-fulfilment on screen. Neither is this working class audience
in any remotest way involved in the process of making the film nor is its wishes actually
fulfilling in reality. If films have to be made relevant and meaningful to these people then
films have to breakdown this alienation and act as creations by the people and for themselves.
Thereby the films can become a way of creating ‘an object through which he (worker) could
This is exactly what happens with films like Malegaon ka Superman made by the people of
Malegaon, for the people of Malegaon. In the documentary Supermen of Malegaon there is a
very poignant scene where the movie after it is made is screened for the first time for the
public (the consumer) and we get to see that the public here consists mostly of various people
5
of Malegaon who have done their part in either writing, directing, funding, facilitating,
helping or acting (the labour) in the film (the product). Or more simply the audience is
watching itself on screen tackling and transforming their own local issues, conflicts and other
aspects in the manner they would like them to emerge. This also obliterates the alienation
The chances of this model of filmmaking in becoming the almost ideal way of making
socially relevant films would be crippled if the makers decide to emulate and imitate the pop
icons and generalised populist notions and do not create anything of local significance. This
suspicion is bound to rise since almost all the Malegaon films are spin offs of popular films.
But as stated earlier the notion of these popular classics is totally deconstructed and subverted
to create parallel almost counter-narratives to the popular text. The grand machismo of
Superman is completely forsaken and the instead Malegaon’s Superman in a thin frail-bodied
protagonist who has health woes himself. He is also scared of going into water and often
lands up in hilarious accidents and quirky situations quite contrary to the established persona
of ‘The Superman’. He even gets spitted upon by a random person unknowingly. While we
could deliberate about the ideological underpinnings of this subversion, this article is more
concerned about what this subversion indicates rather than what it actually means. One major
inference that we can draw is that popular cinema, its representations and its relations to the
masses are not as fulfilling as it is made to seem. Analysing the characters of Amitabh
Bachchan in the films of 70s, Nandy claims that these characters act as ‘self assertion of low
brow’ giving quite a convenient exposition to the internal desires and fantasies of the working
class. But the question we need to ask is – why the iconic anti-hero characters of Bachchan in
films like Sholey are also subverted and deconstructed to comic characters in films of
Malegaon (Malegaon ke Sholey). This is indicative of a lack and clearly upholds Kaul’s
argument that popular classics do not really satisfy the needs but act as Pavlov’s bell. It is
6
precisely for this reason that when the medium of cinema is given to or taken up by the
working class people to work with and create their own narratives, they reject the commonly
held notions of these pop icons and nobody, be it Amitabh Bachchan’s angry young man or
ShahRukh Khan’s romantic hero or a superhero like Superman is spared the subversion.
Instead these pop icons are used to say things quite opposite to their dominant narratives.
Thus all the difference is made by the decentralization of tools and techniques of cinema and
inclusion of this working class in the process of filmmaking. For this model to work, the tools
and techniques of filmmaking has to reach to these classes and sections of societies.
Considering the massive cost of traditional film equipment this may seem like a distant
reality, but the documentary Supermen of Malegaon shows how digital technology has
enabled this democratization though very weakly and sparingly. CamCorder’s are getting
cheaper by the day and almost many have a mobile video camera in their handsets. The
technology of capturing motion pictures is spreading more and more across sections and
classes of society. With distribution platforms like YouTube atleast the urban population is
constantly exhibiting their stories in the form of film or video to the world and their own
local community. If exhibition platforms are made available for the people to collectively
watch enjoy and share their creation, this could add to the sociality of this mode of
filmmaking. Also cultural knowledge in terms of technology and texts should be made more
free and available to everybody. Piracy has enabled the people of Malegaon to expose
themselves to world cinema and it is by watching the makings of those films at the end of the
movie that they have picked up the ropes of filmmaking. While piracy is questionable we
must strive to find fair legal means to enable such decentralization so that more and more
people can gain the awareness that they can also make films.
There is a threat that looms large with the sudden visibility that the people of Malegaon have
received after Faiza Ahmed Khan’s documentary reached various film festivals. The threat
7
being Malegaon films compromising their locality for a greater global acclaim. Bohra
Brothers have bought the rights of Malegaon ka Superman and intend to release it nationally
as ‘Yeh Hai Malegaon Ka Superman’ thereby making them a part of the Bollywood industry.
There is a dangerous possibility for the people of Malegaon to aspire to become part of
Bollywood league and thereby making films for a larger generalized audience and no more
for themselves, beating the purpose of this model. It is to be noted that if such a thing
happens it will be a result of economic aspirations rather than stardom because these people
are financially not in a very good condition and aspire to do well economically. Improved
economic conditions within Malegaon can save their filmmaking to be bitten by the Bombay
Bollywood bug.
Thus this article proposes as its conclusion that the present model of filmmaking in Malegaon
transforms filmmaking itself into a social act and that this model bears vital socially
********
Selected Bibliography
Ansari, Humaira and Namita Handa. "Malegaon ka film industry." 15 January 2011.
www.dnaindia.com. DNA.
<http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report_malegaon-ka-film-
industry_1495032>.
Kaul, Mani. "Comments from the Gallery." India International Centre Quarterly. 8.1 (1981):
100-102. Print.
8
Khan, Faiza Ahmed. dir. Supermen of Malegaon. 2012. Film.
Nandy, Ashis. "Introduction: Indian Popular Cinema as a Slum's Eye View of Politics."
Trans. Array The Secret Politics of our Desires. Ashis Nandy. 1st Ed. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1998. 1. Print
Nayar, Pramod. Reading Culture Theory, Praxis, Politics. 1st Ed. SAGE Publications Pvt.
Ltd, 2006 . 49. Print.
Philipose, Pamela. "A town called Malegaon." Indian Express[Mumbai] 13 009 2006,. Prin