I helped save MAMI in 2014. Its 2025 death fills me with rage.
That is the power of MAMI – Mumbai's only global-scale film festival.
I tell Rima's story because I witnessed it first-hand, having helped her become the filmmaker she deserved to be. But her story isn't unique. It echoes Nagraj Manjule's story. His debut, the brilliant Fandry, received its first public screening at MAMI. I saw the mist in his eyes too after a thunderous five-minute standing ovation – cut short only by the cruel clock. Even he confessed that MAMI wasn't just a festival for him: it was his film school. Chaitanya Tamhane (Court, The Disciple) and Anand Gandhi (Ship Of Theseus) walked similar dreams born on MAMI screens.
Countless others, perhaps less heralded but no less devoted, kept returning. For them, MAMI was Varanasi, Jerusalem, Mecca, Kaaba – a shifting pilgrimage defined by whichever theatre hosted the magic that year.
That's why, in 2014, when Shyam Benegal (then festival Chairman and whose office I was working in) and Director Srinivasan Narayanan told me the festival was shutting down – its sponsor vanished, funds zero – I snapped. I unleashed an angry rant on Sify.com. My editor, Sarita Ravindranath, wisely titled it: 'Mumbai's Rs Five Crore Shame: Who will fund a film festival' (The article is now lost behind a server with only a ghost in its original link).
The rest, as the cliché screams, is history. Manish Mundra was the first to step in, with what became, along with Anand Mahindra, the most generous cheques of that year. Then came Aamir Khan, Rajkumar Hirani and Vidhu Vinod Chopra. A lot of other filmmakers: I remember Hansal Mehta and Anurag Kashyap, who spread the word. And crucially, hundreds of Mumbaikars donated thousands, even lakhs. My friend Sanika Prabhu's mother donated one lakh rupees, despite knowing she wouldn't even be able to attend. In a rare, beautiful surge of collective will, they saved the institution that would later nurture the likes of Rima Das.
Don't mistake this for nostalgia. Or vanity. My clickbait title aside, I claim no credit for "saving" MAMI. I was a messenger; the film fraternity's collective zeal was the saviour. No, I write this now because I am obscenely, incandescently angry.
Why? Let me quote my own snarky beginning from that 2014 Sify piece, now scrubbed from the internet: 'It seems like the much-awaited yearly art bonanza, the 16-year-old Mumbai Film Festival (MAMI to most and MFF to some) will not see the light of the projector this year. The reason is as old as civilisation – lack of a few pennies. Ok, a lot of pennies. Obviously, the much-fabled large-heartedness of Mumbai, home to 26 billionaires (ranked 6th in the world) and 2,700 multi-millionaires, where 100 crore films have become a norm of sorts, has failed to find the pennies needed to make up 5 crores (less than 1 million USD) to run the festival.'
What's changed in eleven years? Mumbai's billionaire count quadrupled (92 in 2024, surpassing Beijing!). It boasts nearly 60,000 millionaires. ₹100 crore films are passé; ₹1000 crore is the new fantasy, even if Bollywood rarely hits it.
Back then, I spared no one: 'As for the Government of Maharashtra (which 'supported' MFF by giving a princely sum of Rs. 10 lakh every year) and Government of India (which believes it can serve one sixth of the world's population by financing a huge total of exactly one film festival every year), the less said the better.'
I demanded: 'How do you value it? How do you value art? How do you value that which promotes art and culture? How do you judge its importance in the life of a city, nation and world?'
I railed against the custodians of wealth: 'O you custodians of money with brand consciousness and PR skills, your sham CSRs and blind PR activities, your money rotting and stinking in Swiss banks, you who understand the price of everything but the value of nothing, you who equate everything to profit and loss who try to draw the map of the human heart over balance sheets… how can anyone show you what a film festival means to the life and breath of a metropolis you yourself reside in.'
Do you see it? Change the dates, update the billionaire count, and this same article could run today. Nothing has fundamentally changed. Festival Director Shivendra Singh Dungarpur calls the 2025 miss '..revamping the festival with a dynamic vision,' – a dishonest euphemism for bankruptcy. But is there hope? I remember Mr. Narayanan's grim warning in 2014: a hiatus is a death knell. Reputation shatters. If you couldn't raise funds this year, what hope is there later?
So, this is farewell. And you know what? Good riddance. Not because the festival was bad (though, let's be honest, its management was often terrible – but at least we saw the films properly). I say good riddance because we, Mumbai, we, this nation, do not deserve it. We don't deserve the pregnant hush before a masterpiece. We don't deserve luminous visions exploding across forty-foot screens. We deserve the cheap, disposable dopamine hits of Instagram Reels we endlessly, mindlessly scroll – our sensitivity eroded, our empathy drowned in the algorithmic deluge of dead pixels. In 2014, thousands cared enough to fund it. Today? The people are still here, but their hearts have been calloused by the relentless, AI-curated numbness.
Blame will fall on Mukesh Ambani. Whispers cite his displeasure with the last edition for withdrawing funding. Critics will note the cost of Rolexes gifted at his family wedding could fund MAMI for years. But I refuse that bitterness. Let's acknowledge the positive: he funded it generously for a decade. I've heard it's over ₹15 crores annually. That's significant. We should appreciate that.
But the burning, desperate question remains: Where did all that money go? The festival's quality didn't soar under the new post-2014 management (who, let's note, abandoned ship the moment the funding stopped). If anything, it frayed. For years, I've watched young volunteers scurry out for cheap dhaba lunches near the theatres – gone were the days when even journalists like me were sometimes fed cheap, plastic-packed lunches at the festival. Mukesh Ambani gave over ₹150 crores in a decade. In the pre-2015 MAMI, this would have funded the festival for three decades. But it could only fund ten now?
I have no answers. Only scalding questions. A furnace of anger. A choking desperation. And so, with a bitter symmetry that tastes like ashes, I end with the same words I wrote in 2014, believing it was truly over then:'The world won't come to an end if a film festival in a small corner of the world does not exist anymore. Yet, many things of value will die with it. Mumbai would die just a little bit more with the death of the Mumbai Film Festival. And so will something in the heart of each and every Mumbaikar. And all for the want of a few pennies we couldn't find in our pockets.'
Back then, Mumbai did find those hundreds of millions of pennies. It saved MAMI till Mr. Ambani funded it for a decade. Can it rally again in 2025? Eleven years older, eleven years wearier, eleven years number? I no longer have hope. Only rage. And a profound, aching grief for the dreams of another Rima Das, another Nagraj Manjule, who will now never find their screen, their light, their tears captured for eternity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
‘Court' Telugu film to be remade in Tamil: Thiagarajan acquires rights for a socially relevant story
The Telugu film 'Court', directed by Ram Jagadish and released on March 14, was an important film with a social concern. The film was produced by Prashanti Tipirneni and presented by actor Nani. Starring Priyadarshi, Harsh Roshan, Sridevi, and others, the film had music composed by Vijay Balkani. The film highlighted the misuse of the 'POCSO' Act and the necessary amendments to it. Dubbed versions saw strong OTT traction The film 'Court' was dubbed and released in languages including Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam, and beyond Telugu, and is now available for streaming on a popular digital platform. It was a work that spoke directly to society and was well received by the audience. It is reported that it has collected up to Rs. 58 crores worldwide. Even after its release on the OTT platform, its profound comments attracted viewers and critics from various walks of life. Thiagarajan bags Tamil remake rights Following this success, it has now been reported that the film will be remade in Tamil. As per Nakkheeran, actor and director Thiagarajan has acquired the rights for the Tamil remake of 'Court'. Although it has not been officially announced yet, plans for this are actively underway in film circles. It is said that actor Prashanth will reprise Priyadarshi's role, while actress Devyani's daughter Priyanka and producer Kathiresan's son Krithik will play the lead roles in the remake. The remake of 'Court', based on true events, has created anticipation among Tamil fans, and we have to wait to see whether the remake brings any change to the original version or not.
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
‘Masaan' at 10: It opened a window for indie cinema. Today, we are witnessing its quiet vanishing
Written by Anurag Minus Verma Masaan, the cult classic, just turned 10. It took me down memory lane. Back in 2011, I randomly messaged Neeraj Ghaywan on Twitter, saying I wanted to work in the film industry but was confused about how to get a shoe in. I had never been to Mumbai and had no idea what kind of struggle lay ahead. Neeraj, then assisting Anurag Kashyap on Gangs of Wasseypur, gave me his number and asked me to call. I still remember that conversation. He told me he had quit a well-paying job, was working 15-hour days as an assistant director, barely earning anything. 'I joined this industry a bit too late. You're in your early 20s, so it's the best time to come here,' he said. Four years later, Masaan premiered at Cannes. Neeraj cried during the standing ovation. And I remembered that voice on the phone: Uncertain, worn out, yet still chasing cinema as if all the answers to life's quiet miseries lay hidden in moving images, flickering in the dark, hypnotising strangers in silence. I messaged him a few days ago to ask if he had any specific memory from those days. He said: 'There was a time during those early days in Banaras when I had cramps even in my soles. I could barely walk. It felt surreal, like someone might tap me on the shoulder and say it was all a prank. But it wasn't. Despite the exhaustion and low pay, I never had second thoughts. I was having the time of my life.' To understand how Masaan was made 10 years ago, and how someone like Neeraj could be so afflicted with the desire to make films that he gave up everything for it, one must consider the kind of cinema that surrounded him. At the time, Indian cinema was going through a quiet rebellion. Films like Udaan (2010), Court (2014), Fandry (2013), The Lunchbox (2013), Ankhon Dekhi (2013), Miss Lovely (2012) and Sulemani Keeda (2013) emerged in that era. The idea of the independent film had begun to feel less imported. Its charm was so persuasive that even Ekta Kapoor, the architect of Indian television's saas-bahu New Wave, financed Love Sex aur Dhokha (2010). Metaphorically speaking, it was as if the big mall of Bollywood had started allowing a few local vendors to set up carts inside. Masaan, during that time, stood out by walking a line most films stumble on. It had the quiet ambition to merge world cinema sensibility with the storytelling pace of accessible commercial cinema. At the time, that was unusual. It wasn't loud in its portrayal of caste, the way some films flaunt their virtue. Nor was it so subtle, like much of arthouse cinema, that the idea melted into metaphor and escaped notice altogether. Masaan treated caste as a sadness that sits at the centre of love stories in India. Unlike the films and television shows that came later and kickstarted the 'small town' wave, Masaan didn't romanticise or exoticise the hinterland. There were no peppy background tracks layered with Spanish guitar to sell the charm of small towns or villages. The town in Masaan breathed, burned, and its people waited for something better, with no promise it would come. In that sense, Masaan offered a template for what Mumbai cinema could have become: Rooted in Indian reality, shaped with artistic clarity, yet still emotionally accessible to the public. The recent film All We Imagine as Light by Payal Kapadia too tries to walk that delicate line between arthouse and commercial cinema, between politics and love, managing a theatrical release and being embraced by many. Like Masaan, it proves that this bridge can be built, just not very often. A decade later, the space for such films feels even more fragile. The idea of the indie film itself seems to be fading, not with a final collapse, but with a quiet vanishing. What could have been a strong foray into stories with emotional depth and artistic clarity never quite passed the baton. Instead, the torch dimmed somewhere in the distance, and nobody seemed to care. I spoke to Varun Grover, Masaan's writer, too, for the occasion, who explained the cultural shift over the last decade: 'Today, if I took the Masaan script to anyone, I doubt it would be made. No studio or production house would step up like they did in 2015. Back then, the algorithm didn't control everything. In fact, people encouraged anti-algorithm films. Now, OTT platforms are even tougher. Executives only care about what the data says. YouTube might be the last standing platform for original voices, but even that is shrinking rapidly. Outside of that, I don't think there's much left. It's a pessimistic thing to say, but even in 2015, people were already pessimistic. They just didn't know how much more despair was coming. Maybe in 2035, I'll look back and say 2025 wasn't so bad. By then, maybe creators won't exist. Robots will create, watch, and distribute content. We'll just sit on the sidelines, doing our podcast, talking to each other and that's it.' The writer is an author, podcaster and multimedia artist
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Indian Express
No MAMI in Mumbai: Why seeking scale and corporate money may be bad for culture and soft power
Though the formal announcement came only earlier this month, the signs that Mumbai may not have its favourite film festival this year were writ large on the significantly scaled-down and visibly short-on-resources MAMI Film Festival 2024. With the title sponsor gone, the festival was austere. It was limited to just two venues and devoid of all the bells and whistles of the grand 2023 edition, which was spread over eight screening locations with the spiffy Nita Mukesh Ambani Cultural Centre as its mothership. But despite the budgetary constraints last year, the programme was good, and the logistics were mostly frictionless. The film bros were less angry, and the audience's general level of entitled behaviour was palpably more muted than usual. The MAMI team managed the expectations of the city's media cognoscenti through their social media channels even before the registrations for the much-awaited festival opened. The lobbies were overcrowded, but it was a delight to witness the young volunteers deal with the odd irate millennial or boomer cinephile frustrated with the complex matrix of festival rules and regulations, with quintessential Gen Z vibes. One was able to catch most of the films planned for, despite the fastest-fingers-first online booking platform, queuing outside the venue, followed by more queuing inside the venue. The refrain one picked up at the screening venues, on the sidelines, and social media was that MAMI is among Mumbai's most loved festivals. And, one gathered, through the six days of the festival, that the festival loved the city, too, because it showed up like an old friend. Everyone wondered if the festival would be able to survive the funding crisis. For a city of its size and economic heft, it is a travesty for a popular international film festival to find itself struggling for survival. It should not be an unreasonable public expectation in a creative industry powerhouse like Mumbai to have a decent international film festival. Though the city expresses its desire to be world-class by building all kinds of urban infrastructure, it often forgets to pay attention to its already world-class intangible cultural heritage. This may soon lead to a situation where there are too many roads with fewer places to go. The MAMI film festival, even a decade ago, was small but well organised until well-meaning folks decided it needed scaling up. From a couple of venues and involved participation by the independent and international film community, it became a jamboree that received more financial support and media glare than it could organically sustain in the long run. It would not be out of place to recall how the excellent Cinefan Festival of Asian and Arab Cinema in Delhi grew and grew before it unfortunately folded up as the art fund behind the reckless growth went bankrupt. For cultural institutions, joining hands with large corporate sponsors with changing values or expectations may not always be a good idea. Bell Canada, for instance, stopped funding the Toronto Film Festival after supporting it for 28 years. State support for cultural institutions, including film festivals, is also declining worldwide. Last year, Korea slashed its support for the Busan film festival by 50 per cent. The paucity of support for film festivals like MAMI indicates a limited understanding of culture's role in growing the overall market and shaping the country's soft power — a concept often invoked in the abstract but rarely backed with the support needed. Going through the programme, watching films, and tuning into the lobby conversations, it was clear that several countries spanning South, Southeast, and West Asia are taking cinema and film culture seriously and trying to catch up with the established hubs like India, China, Japan, Iran, Egypt, etc, by making substantial investments. Between watching films and watching people watching films, one discussed issues related to ailing film festivals like the MAMI with fellow queue mates. Many people said that instead of a big-ticket sponsor, a pool of resources should be created to secure the long-term prospects of the festival. It was felt that Mumbai's film and film-adjacent creative sectors should seriously consider supporting the festival financially. In a city where success is often measured and celebrated in box-office collection numbers, it cannot be very difficult to put together a few crores to host filmmakers and audiences from India and abroad. In an ideal world, corporate sponsorship and state support can make culture more accessible. Still, to remain primarily responsive to public needs and aspirations, the audiences must pay for the culture to the extent possible. Today, more than ever, independent media and cultural institutions are in dire need of public support. A paid membership programme or regular crowdfunding rounds would also help the MAMI leadership gauge how elastic or price-sensitive the demand for the festival is among the audiences. Each such vote and gesture of support works as a tetrapod protecting the festival and other such events and institutions against the unruly ebb and flow of resources. One would like to think that the choice of tetrapods, or wave-breakers, as the 2024 festival's visual identity was not a happenstance. Used to reduce the intensity of approaching waves on seafronts and harbours, and a common sight along the Mumbai shoreline, the tetrapods, in this case, were perhaps emblematic of the measures the festival organisers had to put in place against the receding waves of sponsorship and support. The writer is a Mumbai-based media professional working across linear and streaming platforms
