for the Arts grant (2023), Asia Art Archive – Shergil Sundaram Foundation archival grant (2022), Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute Independent Research Grant (2022), Philip M. Taylor Award for best article by a new researcher (2021), Charles Wallace India Trust fellowship (2017). Her research lies in Film History, Urban History, and Deccan history. She has published in Urban History, South Asian Popular Culture, Historical Journal of Film Radio and Television, and South Asia. She is the founding member of Khidki collective, a group of scholars committing to reimagining and building perspectives on regional identities with a view to challenging established narratives around history, nationhood and belonging.
Krishna applied the "Page 99 Test" to her new book, Film City Urbanism in India: Hyderabad, from Princely City to Global City, 1890-2000, with the following results:
Page 99 of my book discusses the burning down of Motimahal Cinema in Hyderabad in 1936, and how that led to one of the first legislations on cinema in Hyderabad, The Cinematograph Act, 1936. Large part of early film history of the Indian subcontinent has been about British India, often it stands in for the rest of India, subsuming all other histories under it. Unlike in British India where there was regular scrutiny of films and cinemas, in princely states like Hyderabad, cinemas and performances are relatively free to operate. The state did not interfere with them unless there was an incident that called for it. On 14 June 1936, the Motimahal Cinema located in the Residency Bazaar of Hyderabad, an erstwhile Prem Theatre which was converted to cinema, was burned down due to a fire. This fire led to the death of twelve women and two children. This incident was widely reported in the press across British India and beyond. The Nizam’s State Government set up a committee to investigate the accident and the committee’s report is one of the rare documents which gives insights into understanding early cinema in Hyderabad. The committee collected testimonies from workers, operators, and audiences in the cinema, and this helps us understand who were the people that watched film, what communities did they come from, how the cinemas were structured, and what was the film viewing culture like.Learn more about Film City Urbanism in India at the Cambridge University Press website.
At the time of the accident, the cinema was playing the film College Girl. The cinema was divided into first class, second class, royal box, and reserved seats which each class being guarded by a separate gate keeper. While there was a separate Purdah section reserved for women, some women also sat in the non-Purdah section along with men. There was also a separate zenana yard for women to relax during the break. The audience testimonies give insights into emerging tastes in cinema: one woman said to that committee that she and her husband had come to watch separate films in adjacent cinemas. Multiple cinemas in the same location indicates the sprawling business of film in the city. Other businesses like bicycle repair shops, restaurants, parking had emerged creating an entire urban economy around film going. We see a small glimpse of film as a part of urbanization, which the book discusses in depth.
After a thorough investigation the committee had concluded that the absence of Cinematograph Act in the state was responsible for the accident. They expressed their disappointment that the men present in the cinema had not made efforts to rescue women and children. They placed certain moral obligations of honour and valour on a modern man. During this tragedy one Ashrafunnisa Begum was termed as the heroine of Motimahal Cinema by the press for saving many lives.
Based on the recommendations of the committee The Cinematograph Act of 1936 came into existence. This act established guidelines of structural aspects, operational procedures, inspection protocols for cinemas. Cinemas which until then were operating in multiple ways were now forced to be standardized. This event led to the inspection of all the cinemas in the Hyderabad city, and shutting down of a few which did not meet the standards. Furthermore, the event also led to inspections in other cities of British India. The case also indicates the hands-off approach of the princely state towards regulation; an aspect which was so central to the colonial government.
Interestingly page 99 gives a sneak-peak into the method I follow in the first half of the book: to use various cases to discuss the larger distinctions and interflows of princely film history, from British India. It introduces the readers with the important actors in the first part i.e., princely state government, the British colonial administration, trader capital, early audiences, and practices. The case discussed above is one of the many other cases I use to tease out the details of capital, labor, infrastructure, and organizational details of film history in the princely city. The 99th page however does not give a sense of my second part of the book where the stage shifts from colonial world to post-colonial, and then the global world, where the actors and the networks they mobilize are different. In the post-colonial city, the state government, politics of linguistic identity, and questions of labour competition shape the film – city relationship. In the global city, the book locates the film-city relationship it is global outsourcing industries, transnational flow of capital.
--Marshal Zeringue
Posts
