What is PUBLIC BROADCASTING?
Exercising of media broadcasting by the nations’ Government is broadly known as Public Broadcasting. It is financed and controlled by the public, for the public. It is neither commercial nor state-owned; it is free from political interference and pressure from commercial forces. It includes radio, television, internet and other media outlets whose primary mission is Public Service. In broadcasting, public service includes the social welfare of people, spreading information, speaking to and engaging as a citizen.
Public Broadcasting is wide ranging in its appeal, reliable, entertaining, instructive and informative, who serves only one master – Public. It strives to engage all communities through evocative broadcast programmes and outreach projects. It channelizes the information and ideas to help improve communities socially, culturally and economically.
Through public service broadcasting, citizens are informed, educated and also entertained. Public service broadcasting can serve as a keystone of democracy when it is guaranteed with pluralism, programming diversity, editorial independence, appropriate funding, accountability and transparency.
What are the Public broadcasting institutions in India?
The Major institution for public broadcasting in India is Prasar Bharati. Prasar Bharati through All India Radio (AIR) and Doordarshan (DD) networks provide maximum coverage of the population and are one of the largest terrestrial networks in the world.
Prasar Bharati provide most efficient media content of the highest quality that will empower and enlighten the citizens of India and its audiences outside the country through original and relevant programmes which inform, educate and entertain people.
Public Broadcasting or Publicservicebroadcastinghastheresponsibilitytoprovideservicestoa public comprised of many individuals with different linguistic cultures, languages, wide ranging differences and broad similarities. * Uphold Unity, Integration and values of country * Safeguarding the citizens right to be informed * Maintaining fair balance in the information flow * Promoting education specially in fields of agriculture, rural development, environment,, health, family welfare, science and technology * Promoting language and cultures of different regions * Promoting sports and games, so as to encourage healthy competition * Uplifting of women * Providing relevant knowledge to youth * Promoting social justice and combating exploitation and inequality * Takingspecialstepstoprotecttheinterestsofchildren,blind,andhandicapped * Promoting research and development

In the private FM Policy the focus shifted from Medium Wave (MW) to Frequency Modulated (FM) wave. It was planned to improve programme content, provide wider choice of programmes, improve broadcast quality, enhance technical features, renewal of old and obsolete equipment and addition of new facilities at radio stations.
FM Phase-I Policy was approved by the Government in July, 1999. The FM Phase-I Policy provided for selection of successful bidders through open option. The Phase-I policy met with the limited success. A total number of 21 channels are operational in 12 cities under this scheme. Original plan to put 108 FM radio frequencies.

The improved FM Phase-II Policy was notified in July, 2005 after considering the recommendations of Dr.Amit Mitra Committee and TRAI. FM Policy Phase-II has been well received by all stake holders. It has resulted in huge growth in FM radio industry. However, many cities still remained uncovered by the private FM radio broadcasting. * The license is valid for period of 10 years from the effective date and is non-transferable. * It marked a shift from the annual license fee regime to a 4 per cent revenue share or 10 per cent of the reserve one time entry fee limit—whichever is higher. * The permission is governed by the provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Indian wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933. * The permission holder or radio company cannot out- source, through any long-term production or procurement arrangement, more than 50 per cent of its total content, or which not more than 25 per cent of its total content can he outsourced from a single content-provider. * The permission holder cannot carry out networking or its channels with any other channel. What this means is that a radio company is not allowed to broadcast the same channel that it has in one city, in another one. * In the applicant company, total foreign investment, including FDI by OCBs/NRIs/PIOs and so on shall not exceed 20 per cent of the paid up equity in the entity. The majority shareholders must he vested with the management control. Only Indian residents can be directors and all executive personnel must he Indian residents.

The grounds for further expansion of private FM radio broadcasting by bringing in the Phase-III Policy are as under:-
(i)FM Phase-II Policy has been well accepted and has resulted in huge growth in FM radio industry, opening up new areas for creating employment.
(ii)A huge unmet demand exists for FM radio in many cities which still remain uncovered by the private FM radio broadcasting, as only a limited number of cities with a population of three lakh and above besides State Capitals were taken up for bidding during the first two phases of FM radio broadcasting.
(iii)Border areas, particularly in J&K, NE States and Island territories, are largely missing from the FM map. Even those places that were put up for auction could not find takers due to poor viability. A need is felt for promoting private FM radio in border areas with incentives to draw people to listen to Indian radio channels and to check cross border propaganda. Similar incentives are required for island territories.
Salient features of the approved policy for Phase-III are as under:- (i) Radio operators have been permitted carriage of news bulletins of All India Radio only in an unaltered form. (ii) Broadcast pertaining to the certain categories like information pertaining to sporting events, traffic and weather, coverage of cultural events, festivals, coverage of topics pertaining to examinations, results, admissions, career counseling, availability of employment opportunities, public announcements pertaining to civic amenities like electricity, water supply, natural calamities, health alerts etc. as provided by the local administration will be treated as non-news and current affairs broadcast and will therefore be permissible. (iii) Private operators have been allowed to own more than one channel but not more than 40% of the total channels in a city subject to a minimum of three different operators in the city. (iv) License fee will be determined as 4% of Gross Revenue (GR) or 2.5% of bid price for a city whichever is higher. (v) FDI+FII limit in a private FM radio broadcasting company has been increased from 20% to 26%. (vi) Networking of channels will be permissible within a private FM broadcaster’s own network across the country instead of in ‘C’ and ‘D’ category cities only of a region allowed at present. (vii) (vii) A choice is proposed to be given to the private FM broadcasters to choose any agency other than BECIL for construction of CTI within a period of 3 months of issuance of LOI failing which BECIL will automatically become the system integrator and set up co-location facilities and CTI.
D category Cities and cities with population upto 1 lakh: Rs. 50 Lakhs.
C category Cities: Rs. 1 Crore.
B category Cities: Rs. 2 Crore. A category Cities: Rs. 3 Crore.
A+ category Cities: Rs. 3 Crore.
All categories of Cities in all regions: Rs. 10 Crore.

In 1995, The Indian Supreme Court gave an interesting ruling. This judgement strongly critiqued the long - held government monopoly over broadcasting in this country. In early 1995, the court declared the airwaves as public property, to be utilized for promoting public good and ventilating plurality of views, opinions and ideas (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1236). This judgment held that the ‘freedom of speech and expression’ guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution includes the right to acquire and disseminate information. And, in turn, the right to disseminate includes the right to communicate through any media: print, electronic or audio-visual. “The fundamental rights”, said the judgement “can be limited only by reasonable restrictions under a law made for the purpose. The burden is on the authority to justify the restrictions. Public order is not the same thing as public safety and hence no restrictions can be placed on the right to freedom of speech and expression on the ground that public safety is endangered”. This judgement rightly noted that Indian broadcasting was being governed by archaic laws. The Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 was meant for a different purpose altogether. When it was enacted, there was neither radio nor television, but both these concepts were later sought to be fitted into the definition of ‘telegraph’. In view of this, the judges said it was essential that the Indian Parliament “steps in soon to fill the void by enacting a law or laws, as the case may be, governing the broadcast media, i.e. both radio and television”. Also, the judges instructed the Indian federal government to “take immediate steps to establish an independent autonomous public authority representative of all sections and interests in the society to control and regulate the use of the airwaves”.
Community radios came into formal existence in February 1995 when the Supreme Court of India granted permission to such start-ups with the wonderful words — ‘Airwaves are public property’. Since then, these have been the first elements for information evolution though they have contributed and backed much more agendas than just information dissemination. Having established that, allow me look into various aspects of the same:
Community radio keeps the community, be it the student community in campus based community radios or a rural community in a region based community radio, tightly woven together. It is because there are just a handful of stakeholders; they can use these radios in celebrating success and participating in the pains of one and all. Somebody’s obituary can reach the community at once and everyone can send in their condolences and then, the extraordinary success of a member of a community gets recognized among peers. The latter mention is deliberate because peer recognition is more important than national or international ones. We always want to do what the neighbours did, and at times wish to do it better. In that sense, community radio can ignite healthy competitiveness too. One, who is recognized on such a platform, has his feeling of belongingness in the community nourished. Moreover, any local talent can be featured on these platforms too thus giving him the first sense of some accomplishment. Such an activity can only help his talent grow and embark heights. Local interests and hobbies can also be nurtured on the radio; for example people in Saurashtra in Gujarat listen to Daayro with a lot of interest while it is not as prevalent in other parts of Gujarat. This is a good example of a community radio program. In all these ways, community radio can serve the principles of individual and collective development, uplifting talent, catering community interests, preserving latent art forms of communities and most importantly all of this happens usually without material benefits.
These community radio stations and other initiatives like the much-discussed Sangham Radio – India’s first rural community radio station – started by the Deccan Development Society in the Medak district of Andhra Pradesh, are fundamentally redefining the media landscape in India.
Concept of Community radio
Community radio is confined to a small geographical area. It depends on low power transmission covering not more than 20-30 km. radius. It serves a community which uses common resources for livelihood, has common development issues and concerns, which are relatively localized, nevertheless connected to national and regional development goals.
Community radio is a vibrant community broadcasting system to enhance pluralism and diversity. It is a truly people’s radio that perceives listeners not only as receivers and consumers, but also as active citizens and creative producers of media content. This form of radio is fully consistent with the letter and spirit of the Milan Declaration on Communications media have a responsibility to help sustain the diversity of the World’s cultures and languages and that they should be supported through legislative, administrative and financial measures. Community radio is distinguished by three essential principles: Nonprofit making, community ownership and management and community participation. Community radio is also characteristics by its limited local reach, low power transmission and programming content that reflects the educational developmental and socio-cultural needs of the specific community it serves. For the purpose of community radio, a community is defined as a non-sectarian group of individuals who are traditionally bound and share a common socio-economic and cultural interest.
CHALLENGES TO COMMUNITY RADIO
Community Radio plays a central role in community development. To play this role they need to provide quality programmes to ensure continued audience, and support from the community. It has been a great success in developed nations but has lacked in developing countries because of illiteracy and lack of awareness among people. Community radio faces the challenges in effective and quality programme production in terms of content, production quality and community involvement: * A high turnover of staff that causes a lack of journalistic and technical skills and thus a consistent demand for training. Training on offer in most countries does not address the specific needs of Community Radio. * Community Radio derives its strength and popularity from community participation. In practice participation is harder than it seems, because it is labor intensive, requires the right attitude, skills and mobile equipment. * Without proper management skills, as well as some knowledge of financial management and income generation, it is very hard for Community Radio to survive without donor funding, which will always, eventually, dry up. * Community Radio is by definition relatively small and often situated in locations where basic services, like a constant supply of electricity, are lacking. Due to these conditions equipment suffers and needs to be vigorously maintained and/or regularly replaced. * In many countries there is still a lack of a clear regulatory framework in which Community Radio operates.

Prasar Bharati is India's largest public broadcaster. It is an autonomous body set up by an Act of Parliament and comprises Doordarshan television network and All India Radio which were earlier media units of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
Prasar Bharati was established following a demand that government owned broadcasters in India should be given autonomy like those in many other countries. The Parliament of India passed an Act to grant this autonomy in 1990, but it was not enacted until September 15, 1997.
Dr. A. Surya Prakash[2] is the current chairperson of Prasar Bharati and Jawhar Sircar is the CEO,
Prasar Bharati Act
The Prasar Bharati Act provides for establishment of a Broadcasting Corporation, to be known as Prasar Bharati, to define its composition, functions and powers. The Act grants autonomy to All India Radio and Doordarshan, which were previously under government control. The Act received assent of President of India on September 12, 1990 after being unanimously passed by Parliament. It was finally implemented in November 1997. By the Prasar Bharati Act, all the property, assets, debts, liabilities, payments of money due, all suits and legal proceedings involving Akashvani (All India Radio) and Doordarshan were transferred to Prasar Bharati. At present the funding of Prasar Bharati is through Budgetary Grant and I&EBR (Internal and External Budgetary Resources). The Plan funding of Prasar Bharati is done after the funds are allocated by Planning Commission and included in the Demand for Grants passed by Parliament. The Plan schemes of Prasar Bharati for Content Creation and Procurement of equipment are implemented after the approval of Expenditure Finance Committee.
Prasar Bharati Board
Prasar Bharati Act stipulates general superintendence, direction and management of affairs of the Corporation vests in Prasar Bharati Board which may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things as may be exercised or done by the Corporation.
Prasar Bharati Board consists of: * Chairman * One Executive Member * One Member (Finance) * One Member (Personnel) * Six Part-time Members * Director-General (Akashvani), ex officio * Director-General (Doordarshan), ex officio * One representative of the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (India), to be nominated by that Ministry and * Two representatives of the employees of the Corporation, of whom one shall be elected by the engineering staff from amongst themselves and one shall be elected by the other employee from amongst themselves. * The President of India appoints Chairman and the other Members, except the ex officio members, nominated member and the elected members. The Board shall meet not be less than six meetings every year but three months shall not intervene between one meeting and the next meeting.
THE NETHERLANDS
Overview
Three players are dominant in the national Dutch television industry: the Netherlands Public Broadcasting (or NPO, founded in 1919, and nowadays including Ned 1, Ned 2 and Ned 3), the RTL Nederland group (RTL 4, RTL 5, RTL 7, RTL 8, and RTL Lounge) and SBS Broadcasting (channel 5, SBS 6 and Veronica). Ned 1 has the highest audience share, with 21 percent in 2008.The primary commercial competitors, RTL 4 and SBS 6, are behind with 13 percent and 11 percent audience shares, respectively. The two other public channels (Ned 2 and Ned 3) each have a daily share of about 7 percent. The percentages for the other commercial channels (Net 5, RTL 5, RTL 7, Veronica) are between 3 percent and 5 percent.
The Dutch public system is often described as “pillarized” , meaning that it is organized and run not by a single professional broadcaster but by various segments or “pillars” (along religious and political denominations) of society. Currently, the main body of the public broadcasting system consists of 11 national broadcasting associations. No broadcaster has its own station; rather, to simplify a very complex process, NPO allocates time on the three national channels (Ned 1, 2, 3) and six radio stations to each broadcaster (as detailed below). In spite of the pillarized system, publicly funded news is produced by NOS, a collaborative undertaking of the various member broadcasters
Funding
In 2000, the Netherlands public broadcasting system shifted its primary mode of funding from license fees to annual state subsidies.
The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science sets NPO’s budget annually. The budget for each national broadcaster is distributed in turn by NPO after approval of the fee by the parliament.
NPO allocates time on the three national channels (Ned 1, 2, 3) to the various broadcasters on the basis of the size of their membership and their capacity to add value to the public broadcasting system. The size of membership has historically been determined largely by sales of program guides (similar to TV Guide), sold by each of the broadcasters, with each sale counting as a single member; to ensure accuracy in membership figures, the private sale of weekly or monthly program guides violates Dutch broadcasting law. However, this method may now be changed as a variety of new, small social, religious and ethnic broadcasting associations enter the field. NPO has discretionary capacity of 50 percent of broadcast time to decide what programming is needed.
Protections of Autonomy and Accountability
The “Commission for the Media” oversees all broadcasters and ensures that they live up to their obligations as defined in the Media Act. In this capacity, the commission decides which associations and organizations will be incorporated into the Public Media system.
Transition to the Internet Omroep.nl is the main portal for all public broadcasting (providing access to all programs from all broadcasting associations, though most associations also have their own web portals as well), and Nos.nl is the primary news site. Funding is from a mixture of public revenues and advertising. A video-on-demand service launched in 2009 enabling content to be available online 10 minutes after broadcast is expected to generate additional revenues.
UNITED KINGDOM
Overview
The country’s public broadcaster, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which now includes several channels, is both the oldest and most watched media outlet in the nation. Founded in 1922, its 2008 portion of the audience share was 38 percent of all viewers. Following the BBC in audience reach is ITV, the oldest commercial television broadcaster in the country launched in 1955, also now including several portfolio channels; ITV’s 2008 share of the audience was 23 percent. While publicly owned, Channel 4 (and its portfolio of sister channels) is funded largely through commercial revenues and draws 12 percent of the audience share. (While Channel 4 is technically part of the U.K.’s public service broadcasting sector, the focus here will be on BBC.) Relatively more recent media outlets in the television field are Sky (a satellite service, est. 1990) and Five.
Funding
72 percent is drawn from the license fee. The remaining amount is primarily generated by the BBC’s foreign services through a combination of direct grants from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (6 percent) and commercial revenues (22 percent) raised by BBC Worldwide, the for-profit arm of the BBC that operates internationally, through a combination of licensing, advertising and provisioning of services
In negotiation with the BBC, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport sets the terms of the fee for a six-year period. The fee is collected by the BBC, as required under the terms of the 2003 Communications Act. Upon collection, funds are placed in a central government Consolidated Fund and then voted on by Parliament in the annual Appropriation Act as part of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport’s budget.
Protections of Autonomy and Accountability
The constitutional basis for the BBC is the Royal Charter, which guarantees its legal existence for at least 10-15 years. BBC’s “independent status” is thus rooted in the fact that it was originally “established by the crown and not by parliament, which means it is constitutionally separated from the government” The most recent charter renewals were in 1981, 1996 and 2006. The current charter will expire in 2016.
The BBC Trust (replacing the Board of Governors as of 2007) legally controls the corporation. The Queen, on advice from government ministers and an independent commissioner for public appointments, appoints its 12 trustees, including one chairperson, a vice-chairperson and 10 “ordinary members.” Of those 10 ordinary members, four must be designated as representatives of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, respectively. Trustees can serve up to two five-year terms.
According to the 2006 Royal Charter, the Trust is the guardian of both the finances and public interest of the BBC. It grants five-year licenses for individual BBC services and channels to the Executive Board, which oversees the day-to-day operational management of the corporation. These licenses set out the objectives and characteristics of new services, specify the benefits to license fee payers (i.e., the public) and set the required budget for the service’s provision.
Neither the internal (BBC Trust) or external (Ofcom or the Department of Media, Culture and Sport) authorities have the legal capacity to preview specific content prior to its airing. Ofcom does, however, annually monitor compliance with program quality standards across the entire field of broadcasting.
Transition to the Internet The BBC was an early adopter of online services, developing websites as early as 1994 and fully launching BBC Online in 1997.
PSBT
PSBT is a non-governmental, not-for-profit trust with the mission to create and sustain a credible space for public service broadcasting in India which is independent, participatory, pluralistic and democratic, distanced from commercial imperatives and state/ political pressures. We work to mainstream the Indian documentary and empower independent filmmakers by commissioning and mentoring films from across the country.
PSBT is one of the leading documentary producers in a country that lacks them. Documentary filmmakers usually fund their films through multiple sources, including funds specially created to support a film in various stages of its production, non-profit groups, cultural organizations and the odd munificent private producer. A bit like the Films Division, which is run and controlled by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, PSBT invites filmmakers to make films that will fill 52 weeks of programming a year. The completed projects are screened every week on the state-run Doordarshan and Lok Sabha TV, occasionally on DD News and on spec on the private broadcaster NDTV 24x7.
100% funding from Prasar Bharati and the Ministry of External Affairs.
The fact that PSBT films travel everywhere – television, NGO-supported screenings, on the DVD circuit – means they must appeal to as broad a spectrum as possible.
The PSBT model might ensure that several filmmakers, especially first-timers, get a shot at chasing their ideas, but it does not work for many others. Since PSBT wholly produces its titles and does not encourage partnerships with outside funders who might improve the budgets, filmmakers are stuck with poor production values,” complained a veteran director on the condition of anonymity. The PSBT’s insistence on volume to fill television slots means that already meager funds are spread over too many productions, the filmmaker added.
The organisation was initially set up as a result of a tripartite agreement between the trust, the government and Ford Foundation. The government stepped in as full-time funders after Ford Foundation’s media programme ended around 2005.
PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION VIDEOS
Participatory Video enhances research and development activity by handing over control to the target communities from project conception through to implementation, monitoring and evaluation. We believe that opening communication channels for project recipients is the key to developing successful participant-led projects with sustainable and far-reaching impacts.
Participatory Video (PV) is a set of techniques to involve a group or community in shaping and creating their own film. The idea behind this is that making a video is easy and accessible, and is a great way of bringing people together to explore issues, voice concerns or simply to be creative and tell stories.
This process can be very empowering, enabling a group or community to take action to solve their own problems and also to communicate their needs and ideas to decision-makers and/or other groups and communities. As such, PV can be a highly effective tool to engage and mobilise marginalised people and to help them implement their own forms of sustainable development based on local needs.
Participatory Video in a Nutshell * Participants rapidly learn how to use video equipment through games & exercises. * Facilitators help groups identify & analyse important issues in their community by adapting a range of PRA-type tools with Participatory Video techniques. * Short videos & messages are directed & filmed by participants. * Footage is shared with the wider community at daily screenings. * A dynamic process of community-led learning, sharing and exchange is set in motion. * Completed films can be used for horizontal and vertical communication"
How does Participatory Video differ from documentary filmmaking?
Whilst there are forms of documentary filmmaking that are able to sensitively represent the realities of their subjects' lives and even to voice their concerns, documentary films very much remain the authored products of a documentary filmmaker. As such, the subjects of documentaries rarely have any say (or sometimes have some limited say) in how they will ultimately be represented. By contrast, in PV the subjects make their own film in which they can shape issues according to their own sense of what is important, and they can also control how they will be represented. Additionally, documentary films are often expected to meet stringent aesthetic standards and are usually made with a large audience in mind. The PV process, on the other hand, is less concerned with appearance than with content, and the films are usually made with particular audiences and objectives in mind.
What are the origins of Participatory Video?
The first experiments in PV were the work of Don Snowden, a Canadian who pioneered the idea of using media to enable a people-centered community development approach. This took place in 1967 on the Fogo Islands, with a small fishing community off the eastern coast of Newfoundland. By watching each other’s films, the different villagers on the island came to realise that they shared many of the same problems and that by working together they could solve some of them. The films were also shown to politicians who lived too far away and were too busy to actually visit the island. As a result of this dialogue, government policies and actions were changed. The techniques developed by Snowden became known as the Fogo process. Snowden went on to apply the Fogo process all over the world until his death in India in 1984.
Since then, there has been no uniform movement to promote and practise PV but different individuals and groups have set up pockets of PV work, usually molding it to their particular needs and situations. PV has also grown with the increasing accessibility of home video equipment."
Engagement: Video is an attractive tool, which gives immediate results.

A rigorous but fun process giving participants control over a project.

Participants find their voices and focus on local issues of concern.

Participants share their voices with other groups or communities, including decision-makers, donors and general public.

Participants become a community, which takes further action.

InsightShare have worked with a wide range of groups internationally, from farmers to street children, in the UK and abroad.

Living stories are captured by communities themselves; projects can be documented and evaluated; policy information and decisions can also be transferred back to the community level through PV.

Group-working and listening skills, self-esteem building and motivation techniques; PV develops an active role for participants in improving their quality of life.

A range of impressive initiatives and suggestions can be documented by those directly involved, cheaply and effectively, and shared across the country and even further abroad; policymakers can be deeply affected by powerful stories and images captured at, and by, the grassroots.

Helping us identify issues/changes we may not be aware of.

Decision-makers, scientists, other diverse stakeholders and the public can connect with PV films and learn from communities or groups who are marginalised. Web 2.0 enables videos to be streamed and downloaded freely and shared across boundaries. Thus PV has the potential to bridge the digital divide!
RADIO DRAMA
Radio drama (or audio drama, audio play, radio play, radio theater) is a dramatized, purely acoustic performance, broadcast on radio or published on audio media, such as tape or CD. With no visual component, radio drama depends on dialogue, music and sound effects to help the listener imagine the characters and story: “It is auditory in the physical dimension but equally powerful as a visual force in the psychological dimension.”
Radio drama achieved widespread popularity within a decade of its initial development in the 1920s. By the 1940s, it was a leading international popular entertainment. With the advent of television in the 1950s, however, radio drama lost some of its popularity, and in some countries has never regained large audiences. However, recordings of OTR (old-time radio) survive today in the audio archives of collectors and museums, as well as several online sites such as Internet Archive.
As of 2011, radio drama has a minimal presence on terrestrial radio in the United States. Much of American radio drama is restricted to rebroadcasts or podcasts of programs from previous decades. However, other nations still have thriving traditions of radio drama. In the United Kingdom, for example, the BBC produces and broadcasts hundreds of new radio plays each year on Radio 3, Radio 4, and Radio 4 Extra. Podcasting has also offered the means of creating new radio dramas, in addition to the distribution of vintage programs.
The terms "audio drama" or "audio theatre" are sometimes used synonymously with "radio drama" with one possible distinction: audio drama or audio theatre may not necessarily be intended specifically for broadcast on radio. Audio drama, whether newly produced or OTR classics, can be found on CDs, cassette tapes, podcasts, webcasts and conventional broadcast radio.
Thanks to advances in digital recording and Internet distribution, radio drama was experiencing a revival in 2010.
Vividh Bharati a service of All India Radio has a long running Hindi radio-drama program: Hawa Mahal.

RADIO DOCMENTARY
A radio documentary or feature is a purely acoustic performance devoted to covering a particular topic in some depth, usually with a mixture of commentary and sound pictures. It is broadcast on radio or published on audio media, such as tape or CD. Some radio features, especially those including specially composed music or other pieces of audio art, resemble radio drama in many ways, though non-fictional in subject matter, while others consist principally of more straightforward, journalistic-type reporting – but at much greater length than found in an ordinary news report.

UNIT 4
Documentary Films strictly speaking, are non-fictional, "slice of life" factual works of art - and sometimes known as ‘cinema verite’. For many years, as films became more narrative-based, documentaries branched out and took many forms since their early beginnings - some of which have been termed propagandistic or non-objective.
Documentary films have comprised a very broad and diverse category of films. A documentary film is a movie that attempts to document reality. Even though the scenes are carefully chosen and arranged, usually through editing after filming, they are not scripted and the people in the movie are not typically actors. Sometimes, a documentary film may rely on voice-over narration to describe what is happening in the footage; in other films, the images speak for themselves without commentary. A documentary often includes interviews with people in the film for additional context or information.
In general, documentary films focus on real life and include footage of events as they happened. A movie about World War II might feature actors portraying soldiers, real or fictional, in the war, recreating certain battles or events. In contrast to this, a documentary film about World War II might primarily feature news reel footage of actual fighting, with commentary from experts and veterans who were in the war. It is this focus on documenting reality above drama or a fictional narrative that typically separates these movies from summer blockbusters and other popular films.
Documentaries can be split into six different forms. The following has been inspired by Bill Nichols books Introduction to Documentary (2001) and Representing Reality. Modes, too, distinguish documentary film from other types of film. Modes come close to movements in that a new mode usually has its champions as well as its principles or goals, but it also tends to have a broader base of support so that different movements can derive from a single mode 1. Poetic documentaries, which first appeared in the 1920’s, were a sort of reaction against both the content and the rapidly crystallizing grammar of the early fiction film. The poetic mode moved away from continuity editing and instead organized images of the material world by means of associations and patterns, both in terms of time and space. Well-rounded characters—’life-like people’—were absent; instead, people appeared in these films as entities, just like any other, that are found in the material world. The films were fragmentary, impressionistic, lyrical. Their disruption of the coherence of time and space—a coherence favored by the fiction films of the day—can also be seen as an element of the modernist counter-model of cinematic narrative. The ‘real world’—Nichols calls it the “historical world”—was broken up into fragments and aesthetically reconstituted using film form.
Early documentary filmmakers, bolstered by Soviet montage theory and the French Impressionist cinema principle of photogenie, appropriated these techniques into documentary filmmaking to create what Nichols would later call the poetic mode. Documentary pioneer Dziga Vertov came remarkably close to describing the mode in his “We: Variant of a Manifesto” when he proclaimed that "kinochestvo" (the quality of being cinematic) is “the art of organizing the necessary movements of objects in space as a rhythmical artistic whole, in harmony with the properties of the material and internal rhythm of each object.” (Michelson, O’Brien, & Vertov 1984)
The poetic mode of documentary film tends toward subjective interpretations of its subject(s). Light on rhetoric, documentaries in the poetic mode forsake traditional narrative content: individual characters and events remain undeveloped, in favor of creating a particular mood or tone. This is particularly noticeable in the editing of poetic documentaries, where continuity is of virtually no consequence at all. Rather, poetic editing explores “associations and patterns that involve temporal rhythms and spatial juxtapositions.” (Nichols 2001) Joris Ivens’ Regen (1929) is paradigmatic of the poetic mode, consisting of unrelated shots linked together to illustrate a rain shower in Amsterdam. That the poetic mode illustrates such subjective impressions with little or no rhetorical content, it is often perceived as avant-garde, and subsequent pieces in this mode (Godfrey Reggio’s Koyannisqatsi (1982) for example,) are likely to be found within that realm. 2. Expository documentaries speak directly to the viewer, often in the form of an authoritative commentary employing voiceover or titles, proposing a strong argument and point of view. These films are rhetorical, and try to persuade the viewer. (They may use a rich and sonorous male voice.) The (voice-of-God) commentary often sounds ‘objective’ and omniscient. Images are often not paramount; they exist to advance the argument. The rhetoric insistently presses upon us to read the images in a certain fashion. Historical documentaries in this mode deliver an unproblematic and ‘objective’ account and interpretation of past events.
Documentary forefather John Grierson offers an explanation for the move away from poetic documentary, claiming filmmakers, “got caught up in social propaganda …We got on to the social problems of the world, and we ourselves deviated from the poetic line.” (Sussex 1972) The expositional mode diverges sharply from the poetic mode in terms of visual practice and story-telling devices, by virtue of its emphasis on rhetorical content, and its goals of information dissemination or persuasion.
Narration is a distinct innovation of the expositional mode of documentary. Initially manifesting as an omnipresent, omniscient, and objective voice intoned over footage, narration holds the weight of explaining and arguing a film’s rhetorical content. Where documentary in the poetic mode thrived on a filmmaker’s aesthetic and subjective visual interpretation of a subject, expositional mode collects footage that functions to strengthen the spoken narrative. This shift in visual tactics gives rise to what Nichols refers to as “evidentiary editing,” a practice in which expositional images “...illustrate, illuminate, evoke, or act in counterpoint to what is said…[we] take our cue from the commentary and understand the images as evidence or demonstration…” (Nichols 2001: 107) The engagement of rhetoric with supporting visual information founded in the expositional mode continues today and, indeed, makes up the bulk of documentary product. Film features, news stories, and various television programs lean heavily on its utility as a device for transferring information. 3. Observational documentaries attempt to simply and spontaneously observe lived life with a minimum of intervention. Filmmakers who worked in this sub-genre often saw the poetic mode as too abstract and the expository mode as too didactic. The first observational docs date back to the 1960’s; the technological developments which made them possible include mobile lighweight cameras and portable sound recording equipment for synchronized sound. Often, this mode of film eschewed voice-over commentary, post-synchronized dialogue and music, or re-enactments. The films aimed for immediacy, intimacy, and revelation of individual human character in ordinary life situations.
The observational mode of documentary developed in the wake of documentarians returning to Vertovian ideals of truth, along with the innovation and evolution of cinematic hardware in the 1960s. In Dziga Vertov's Kino-Eye manifestoes, he declared, “I, a camera, fling myself along…maneuvering in the chaos of movement, recording movement, startling with movements of the most complex combinations.” (Michelson, O’Brien, & Vertov 1984) The move to lighter 16mm equipment and shoulder mounted cameras allowed documentarians to leave the anchored point of the tripod. Portable Nagra sync-sound systems and unidirectional microphones, too, freed the documentarian from cumbersome audio equipment. A two-person film crew could now realize Vertov’s vision and sought to bring real truth to the documentary milieu.
Unlike the subjective content of poetic documentary, or the rhetorical insistence of expositional documentary, observational documentaries tend to simply observe, allowing viewers to reach whatever conclusions they may deduce. Pure observational documentarians proceeded under some bylaws: no music, no interviews, no scene arrangement of any kind, and no narration. The fly-on-the-wall perspective is championed, while editing processes utilize long takes and few cuts. Resultant footage appears as though the viewer is witnessing first-hand the experiences of the subject: they travel with Bob Dylan to England in D.A. Pennebaker's Dont Look Back [sic] (1967,) suffer the stark treatment of patients at the Bridgewater State Hospital in Frederick Wiseman's Titicut Follies (1967,) and hit the campaign trail with John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey in Robert Drew’s Primary (1960.)
4. Participatory documentaries believe that it is impossible for the act of filmmaking to not influence or alter the events being filmed. What these films do is emulate the approach of the anthropologist: participant-observation. Not only is the filmmaker part of the film, we also get a sense of how situations in the film are affected or altered by her presence. Nichols: “The filmmaker steps out from behind the cloak of voice-over commentary, steps away from poetic meditation, steps down from a fly-on-the-wall perch, and becomes a social actor (almost) like any other. (Almost like any other because the filmmaker retains the camera, and with it, a certain degree of potential power and control over events.)” The encounter between filmmaker and subject becomes a critical element of the film. Rouch and Morin named the approach cinéma vérité, translating Dziga Vertov’s kinopravda into French; the “truth” refers to the truth of the encounter rather than some absolute truth.
5. Reflexive documentaries don’t see themselves as a transparent window on the world; instead they draw attention to their own constructedness, and the fact that they are representations. How does the world get represented by documentary films? This question is central to this sub-genre of films. They prompt us to “question the authenticity of documentary in general.” It is the most self-conscious of all the modes, and is highly skeptical of ‘realism.’ It may use Brechtian alienation strategies to jar us, in order to ‘defamiliarize’ what we are seeing and how we are seeing it.

The reflexive mode considers the quality of documentary itself, de-mystifying its processes and considering its implications. In Dziga Vertov’s Man with a Movie Camera (1929,) for example, he features footage of his brother and wife in the process of shooting footage and editing, respectively. The goal in including these images was, “to aid the audience in their understanding of the process of construction in film so that they could develop a sophisticated and critical attitude.” (Ruby 2005) Mitchell Block’s ...No Lies (1974,) functioned in a notably different manner, as it reflexively and critically questioned the observational mode, commenting on observational techniques and their capacity for capturing authentic truths. In this way, the reflexive mode of documentary often functions as its own regulatory board, policing ethical and technical boundaries within documentary film itself.
6. Performative documentaries stress subjective experience and emotional response to the world. They are strongly personal, unconventional, perhaps poetic and/or experimental, and might include hypothetical enactments of events designed to make us experience what it might be like for us to possess a certain specific perspective on the world that is not our own, e.g. that of black, gay men in Marlon Riggs’s Tongues Untied (1989) or Jenny Livingston’s Paris Is Burning (1991). This sub-genre might also lend itself to certain groups (e.g. women, ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, etc) to ‘speak about themselves.’ Often, a battery of techniques, many borrowed from fiction or avant-garde films, are used. Performative docs often link up personal accounts or experiences with larger political or historical realities.
The performative mode, the final mode Nichols discusses, is easily confused with the participatory mode, and Nichols remains somewhat nebulous about their distinctions. The crux of the difference seems to lie in the fact that where the participatory mode engages the filmmaker to the story but attempts to construct truths that should be self-evident to anyone, the performative mode engages the filmmaker to the story but constructs subjective truths that are significant to the filmmaker him or herself. Deeply personal, the performative mode is particularly well-suited to telling the stories of filmmakers from marginalized social groups, offering the chance to air unique perspectives without having to argue the validity of their experiences, as in Marlon Riggs’ 1990 documentary Tongues Untied about his experiences as a gay black dancer in New York City. The departure from a rhetoric of persuasion allows the performative film a great deal more room for creative freedom in terms of visual abstraction, narrative, etc. Stella Bruzzi pits Nichols’ conception of performative documentary at the polar opposite of observational documentary, commenting that performative pieces, “confront the problem of aestheticisation, accepting…authorship as intrinsic to documentary, in direct opposition to the exponents of Direct cinema who saw themselves as merely the purveyors of the truth they pursued.” (Bruzzi 2000)
With the filmmaker visible to the viewer, and freed to openly discuss his or her perspective in regards to the film being made, rhetoric and argumentation return to the documentary film as the filmmaker clearly asserts a message. Perhaps the most famous filmmaker currently working in this documentary mode is Michael Moore.
DOCUDRAMA
A docudrama is a film or television show which combines the fields of documentary and drama. One might call a docudrama a non-fiction drama, with a focus on real events and real people presented in a dramatized way. In addition to being filmed, a docudrama can also be written; in written form, the docudrama began to emerge in the latter half of the 20th century in the world of people like Truman Capote and Norman Mailer, with film following suit.
Several characteristics define a docudrama. The first is a tendency to stick to the facts as they are known, without offering commentary. The goal is to give people basic information, allowing them to draw their own conclusions. Most documentaries, on the other hand, include narrative and positional stances which are designed to influence watchers and readers. Docudramas also use techniques to bring the events discussed to life; rather than saying that person X and person Y had a conversation, for example, a docudrama will stage a recreation of the conversation.
Unlike a true documentary, a docudrama may include staged footage with actors. Depending on the topic, little to no documentary footage may be used. In some cases, docudramas may also create entirely staged hypothetical situations, as in the case of the 2006 film Death of a President. Some organizations use docudramas to draw attention to current events and issues, with several environmental films making docudramas about the effects of global warming, for example, illustrating what might happen if the sea levels rise dramatically.
The use of “drama” in the term “docudrama” can be confusing, because drama is usually associated with fiction. Docudramas do not integrate fictional elements, however, remaining true to the events they document as much as possible. Docudramas can make historical events feel more accessible, from the Roman Empire to current events, and many of them stimulate discussion and debate by not offering opinions, forcing viewers and readers to talk about the content with each other.
You may also hear docudramas called drama documentaries or dramatized documentaries. Some people criticize the field of the docudrama, arguing that the literary license used to reconstruct scenes and bring events to life can be somewhat misleading, especially for people who are not skilled at differentiating fact from fiction. Even when well-researched, a docudrama is only one presentation of events, and it is important to remember that there may be other interpretations and that many filmmakers are guilty of sins of omission, leading people to erroneous conclusions by not providing them with all of the facts.
A docudrama blends melodrama and documentaries mostly through the use of fact-based reenactment or dramatization of actual people, places and events. These known “stories” are shaped through rigorous research into a nonfiction drama. No matter how good your research, a docudrama must still be an interesting compelling story that not only captures the intended audience attention but also holds the facts together.
In-depth research is key to an exemplar docudrama. If there is not time for in-depth research or interest in building an authentic nonfiction story, then stop right here as fictionalized stories will likely be a better form to develop. Not all the research will fit into the story – there is much sorting and prioritizing of details and facts. Carlos Clark says that author(s) will likely only use 20 percent of the facts researched but the other eighty percent of the facts will give the author(s) a heightened understanding enabling them to illuminate the characters and their world in a way that pulls viewers into believing they are truly living the experience.
Like the documentary, the docudrama generally plays an important social or political role of informing and educating their audience on issues or topics that matter. The messages and experience conveyed in docudramas influence people’s thinking and beliefs about issues. Alan Rosenthal asserts that docudramas have a greater effect on society than more traditional documentary forms. (See Rosenthal’s books, Why Docudrama? Fact-Fiction on film and TV and New challenges for Documentary)
Like historical fiction, the docudrama form is based on or inspired by reality, by the lives of real people, or by events that actually happened. The story is created out of interviews, journals, photographs, tape recordings, sounds, and other primary source artifacts. Unlike documentaries, docudramas are generally constructed with a generous amount of reenactments or re-creations of reality rather than being confined to a narration of the primary source artifacts themselves. Some docudramas do combine historical footage or images with reenactments when they can but most are dramatized versions of reality. While some elements are fictionalized, the story is overall factual. Facts and other detail information (food eaten, clothing or hair styles, transportation, daily objects used) need to be verified by at least two credible sources especially those essential to your storyline. For example, Were purses used at this time? Was the Statue of Liberty standing when the pilgrims arrived? Was John Smith really saved by Pocahantas? But facts are not just about accuracy and integrity of the docudrama, they also provide a source details and tidbits that enriches and illuminates your characters and stories making them more believable and credible to your viewers.
Critics of docudramas worry that there is a potential tipping point when the storyline exercises too much dramatic license or imagining beyond the facts that serve the story rather than the facts. Authors may be tempted to invent a multitude of details or characters in order to increase emotional engagement resulting in a distortion of known facts that creates more fiction that fact. There is also a concern that viewers may not be able to distinguish between known facts and the fictionalized parts of the story. However, while the docudrama form incorporates a melodrama style that organizes dramatic conflict, setting and characters into a strong story plot, it also has a much higher responsibility to accuracy and to truth than fiction. Audiences want the storytelling, the entertainment and the drama but they also want the sense of gaining knowledge and understanding about topics that REALLY happened!
While there is a spectrum of fact-to-fiction docudramas, two general categories of docudramas can be developed without moving entirely into fiction short stories. The first is a reality-based story that is inspired by a setting, event, time period or real person but has taken considerable dramatic license to fictionalize details. Not every actual event, people and place can necessarily be verified as documented fact in a reality-based story. The key is while some details may have been conjured up to fill in the story, there is still an essential veracity that the docudrama stayed true to the real story, place, event or person. But this type of docudrama is still a nonfiction story that needs to meet the standards of developing a reality-based, credible interpretation of the topic while authentically bringing real events, places, people’s lives and issues to life!
The second type of docudrama is a fact-based story that while some very small embellishments of the story may take place to give insight or bridge gaps, the facts are rigorously accurate, characters and events portrayed can be documented as real, the setting created is authentic, and many credible detailed facts are woven together to create a rigorously factual story. For example, any re-enactment of dialogue between characters uses the actual narration from a journal or other archival source. Fact-based docudramas have an abundance of documented evidence to authenticate the dramatized nonfiction story.
MOKUMENTARY
A mockumentary (a portmanteau of the words mock and documentary) is a type of film or television show in which fictional events are presented in documentary style to create a parody.[1] These productions are often used to analyze or comment on current events and issues by using a fictional setting, or to parody the documentary form itself.[2] They may be either comedic or dramatic in form, although comedic mockumentaries are more common. A dramatic mockumentary (sometimes referred to as docufiction) should not be confused with docudrama, a fictional genre in which dramatic techniques are combined with documentary elements to depict real events.
Mockumentaries are often presented as historical yet witty documentaries, with B roll and talking heads discussing past events, or as cinéma vérité pieces following people as they go through various events. Though the precise origins of the genre are not known, examples emerged during the 1950s, when archival film footage became relatively easy to locate.[2] A very early example was a short piece on the "Swiss Spaghetti Harvest" that appeared as an April fools' joke on the British television program Panorama in 1957.
The term "mockumentary", which originated in the 1960s, was popularized in the mid-1980s when This Is Spinal Tap director Rob Reiner used it in interviews to describe that film.[3][4]
Mockumentaries are often partly or wholly improvised, as an unscripted style of acting helps to maintain the pretense of reality. Comedic mockumentaries rarely have laugh tracks, also to sustain the atmosphere, although there are exceptions – for example, Operation Good Guys had a laugh track from its second series onwards
.
Mockumentary (also known as mock documentary) is a genre of film and television in which fictitious events are presented in documentary format; the term can also refer to an individual work within the genre. These productions are often used to analyze or comment on current events and issues by using a fictitious setting, or to parody the documentary form itself They may be either comedic or dramatic in form, although comedic mockumentaries are more common. A dramatic mockumentary should not be confused with docudrama, a genre in which documentary and dramatic techniques are combined to depict real events. Mockumentaries are often partly or wholly improvised, as an unscripted style of acting helps to maintain the pretense of reality. Comedic mockumentaries rarely have laugh tracks, also to sustain the atmosphere, although there are exceptions - for example, Operation Good Guys had a laugh track from its second series onwards.

PREPRODUCTION
A documentary’s preproduction period follows research and covers all decisions and arrangements prior to shooting. This includes choosing a subject; doing the research; deciding who and what are going to be the subject of the film; assembling a crew; choosing what equipment will be necessary; and deciding the method, details, and timetable of shooting. It may also be a time in which you assemble final funding and distribution. Seasoned filmmakers never rely on spontaneous inspiration because once you start filming, the pace and demand of the work are all-encompassing.
In summary, the purposes of research are to * Assemble a context and basic factual information * Get to know the whole scene so that you can narrow down to what is significant * Become known and trusted by potential participants * Communicate your motivations and purposes for making a film * See a lot of characteristic activity so that you know what is normal and what is not * Understand who represents what so that you can make representative choices * See who will make a good participant and who won’t * Develop a proposal indicating intended content, theme, and style so that you can try out your ideas on other people and raise funds or other support * Decide what the ultimate purpose of making the film should be * Assemble all the human and material resources so that you can shoot

PRODUCTION
The second stage, production, is right after you get financing. Now you quickly get everyone together and spend nine to eighteen days of 14-18 hours each, shooting from dawn to dusk. Production is a ball buster.
During production everything happens at once. The actors, lights, camera, props, schedule, film stock, egos, temper tantrums, and all the rest.
This is the stage at which all the filming is carried out. All scenes planned out in pre-production are filmed at the relevant locations. Each scene is filmed as many times as the director deems fit, to ensure the best quality scenes will be used to construct the film. This is where the strength of the pre-production work is put to the test. Great care must be taken to make sure that all the filming is done correctly and all necessary shots are taken, as it is sometimes difficult or impossible to go back and repeat certain events if the filming is incomplete when it comes to the post-production stage.
POSTPRODUCTION
* The editing phase
Basically, the editing principles of fiction and documentary are the same. However, there are more possibilities when editing a documentary, as you are not bound by causality in the same way and thus do not need to tell your story in a certain way, which gives you a high degree of freedom; you should therefore consider alternative ways of piecing the material together. Try to maintain a certain sensitivity towards the raw material in order to avoid forcing it in the wrong direction because you are too focused on the story you had planned to tell.
Rather than throwing the good story or the good feeling overboard, it might be better to give up on style, aesthetics or beautiful pictures. counter-cinema (also “oppositional cinema”)
Counter-cinema refers to the rough grouping of films, film makers, and institutions which attempt to set themselves against the formalist and ideological domination of Hollywood cinema. The name “counter-cinema” suggests a discursive practice that actively opposes mainstream cinema and thus offers an alternative to the discourses that mainstream cinema helps construct. One could include avant-garde, art, and Third World cinema in this group, all of which attempt to create some level of distantiation in the viewer by questioning, subverting and/or openly challenging the basic codes and conventions of classical Hollywood cinema. These would include cohesive and linear narrative structure, continuity editing, mise-en-scene that perpetuates “cinematic realism,” cultural stereotypes, etc. Counter-cinema is often self-reflexive, bringing attention to itself as a film and to the institution of cinema. Examples of such films include anti-bourgeois films such as Godard's Weekend (1968), Potter's feminist Thriller (1979), and Riggs' Black/gay Tongues Untied (1990). While these films clearly distinguish themselves as "oopositional" in both form and content, the degree of distanciative effects varies greatly across films placed in these categories by film critics, and the battle over definitions gets to the heart of debates concerning the efficacy of using the institutional discourse of cinema as a means of effecting political change.
Another aspect of counter-cinema is its materialist positioning within the broader institution of cinema—is it independently funded, free of the strictures of corporate oversight, or is it contained within the dominant institution? Does it avail itself of governmental funding, and does this funding create explicit or implicit censorship? And does such positioning in its own right matter? If a film creates an effect of distantiation and forces the viewer to re-think his or her ideological assumptions, does it matter if it was funded by multinational corporations? (One might point to Midnight Cowboy (1969), which was not only funded by United Artists but validated with several Oscars.) At the same time, one might note independently funded efforts like The McMullan Brothers (1995), a light romantic comedy with little more than the producers' maxed-out credit cards to give it artistic—and thus by inference, political—credibility. Or what about the independently produced, internationally financed His Yen (1993) (released as The Wedding Banquet in the U.S.), with plot and characterization which plays with and ultimately subverts the standard romantic comedy genre, yet which adheres to many of the formalist practices of classical Hollywood cinema? Part of the complexity of this issue comes from the nature of discursive practice—challenging the practices of an institutional discourse such as Hollywood cinema does not necessarily mean challenging mainstream cultural discourses such as race and gender, or mainstream topical discourses about nature or progress—and visa versa.
Sanjay Kak (born 1958) is an Indian documentary filmmaker, whose work deals with social issues such as environmental activism and resistance politics. Kak studied economics and sociology at the University of Delhi, and is a self-taught filmmaker. Based in New Delhi, he is actively involved in the documentary film movement, and in the Campaign against Censorship and the Cinema of Resistance project.
His early work includes Punjab: Doosra Adhay (1986) about the Punjab in the days of the Khalistan struggle, and Pradakshina (1987), about the river Ganges. He followed this with a 1990 film about Cambodia's Angkor Wat temple, Angkor Remembered. In 1993 he released films about the Indian diaspora in England (This Land, My Land, Eng-land) and South Africa (A House and a Home). 1995 saw the release of Harvest of Rain.
One Weapon (1997) followed, "the documentary that marked Sanjay Kak as an explicitly political filmmaker", according to The Caravan magazine, and In the Forest Hangs a Bridge (1999) (about the making of a bridge in Northeast India; winner Golden Lotus Best Documentary Film, National Film Awards; Asian Gaze Award, Pusan Short Film Festival, Korea). His next films were Words on Water (2002), about the struggle against the Narmada dams in central India (which won Best Long Film prize at the Internacional Festival of Environmental Film & Video, Brazil) and Jashn-e-Azadi - How We Celebrate Freedom (2007) (about the Kashmiri freedom struggle).
Jashn-e-Azadi is a film that has "widely influenced the way Kashmir was perceived in India".[1] The film has had a chequered screening history.[2][3]
In 2008 he participated in Manifesta7, the European Biennale of Art, in Bolzano, Italy, with the installation A Shrine to the Future: The Memory of a Hill, about the mining of bauxite in the Niyamgiri hills of Odisha. He writes occasional political commentary, and is the editor of Until My Freedom Has Come – The New Intifada in Kashmir (2011).
His latest feature length documentary is on the revolutionary Maoist movement in India, called Red Ant Dream. The film was under production for more than three years and released in 2013.
Anand Patwardhan is an Indian documentary filmmaker known for his activism through social action documentaries on topics such as corruption, slum dwellers, nuclear arms race, citizen activism and communalism (religious sectarianism).[1][2][3][4] Notable films include Bombay: Our City (Hamara Shahar) (1985), In Memory of Friends(1990),In the Name of God (Ram ke Nam) (1992), Father, Son, and Holy War (1995), A Narmada Diary (1995), War and Peace (2002) and Jai Bhim Comrade (2011), which have won national and International awards. A secular rationalist, Anand Patwardhan is a vocal critic of Hindutva ideology and the caste system that it promotes leading to the dehumanization and genocide of those outside the caste system, i.e., the Dalits, Muslims and Christians.
Virtually all of Patwardhan's documentary films faced censorship by the Indian authorities but were eventually cleared after legal action. His film Bombay: Our City was shown on TV after a four-year court case,[10] while Father, Son, and Holy War (1995) was adjudged in 2004 as one of 50 most memorable international documentaries of all time by DOX, Europe's leading documentary film magazine; it was shown on India’s National Network, Doordarshan only in the year 2006, 11 years after its making, and that too after a prolonged court battle which lasted ten years and ended with the nation’s Supreme Court ordering the state-owned media to telecast the film without any cuts.[11]
His next film is, War and Peace (2002). CBFC India (Central Board for Film Certification, or the Censor Board), refused to certify the film without making 21 cuts.[12] As always, Patwardhan took the government to court, hence the film was banned for over a year.[13] However, after a court battle, Anand won the right to screen his film without a single cut.[14][15][16] As with his previous films, Patwardhan also successfully fought to force a reluctant national broadcaster, Doordarshan, to show this film on their national network. It was commercially released in multiplexes in 2005.[17]
His latest documentary, Jai Bhim Comrade, is based on a police firing incident against Dalits at Ramabai Colony in Mumbai in 1997. The film which took 14 years to complete is considered by many to be a watershed in Patwardhan's long career
AMAR KANWAR
Born 1964. Lives and works in New Delhi.
Emerging from the Indian sub continent, Amar Kanwar's films are complex, contemporary narratives that connect intimate personal spheres of existence to larger social political processes. The films link legends and ritual objects to new symbols and public events, which trigger emotional and intellectual disturbances in the viewer. Finding a contextual relationship with diverse audiences, Kanwar's work maps a journey of exploration revealing our relationship with the politics of power, violence, sexuality and justice. [1]
Recent solo exhibitions in 2013-14 have been at the Art Institute of Chicago 2013-14, Yorkshire Sculpture Park 2013-14, TBA 21, Vienna 2013-14 and the Fotomuseum Winterthur, Zurich 2012.
Recent group exhibitions in 2013 have been at the 56th Carnegie International, USA, Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, South Korea, Tarra Warra Museum of Art, Victoria, Australia, 13th Istanbul Biennial, 5th Moscow Biennale of Contemporary Art, Sharjah Biennale 11, Kochi Biennale, India, Bristol Museum, UK and the Guggenheim Museum, New York.
He has also had retrospectives at film festivals including the 5th International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Kerala, India (2012), the 13th Madurai International Documentary and Short Film Festival, India (2011), the Documentary Dream Show, Tokyo (2010), the Parallel Perspectives Film Festival, Hyderabad (2008), and the 9th International Short Film Festival, Bangladesh (2005).