Thiruvananthapuram: Veteran filmmaker Adoor Gopalakrishnan is considered women and Scheduled Castes (SC) filmmakers with a controversy in the Kerala government’s film policy conclave, who receive financial support from the Kerala State Film Development Corporation (KSFDC).
During his speech, Adoor expressed concern that Rs 1.5 crore allocated to SC and ST filmmakers could be misused. He said, “I had earlier told the Chief Minister that this amount could cause corruption. But no corrective action has been taken,” he said. He suggested that instead of paying Rs 1.5 crore to a single filmmaker, it would be more effective to support three filmmakers with every 50 lakh rupees.
He further stated that structured training was necessary before providing such financial assistance. “Those elected from the SC community must undergo at least three months intensive training by experts to learn budget and basic film production skills,” he said.
In a comment, which attracts strong reactions, Adoor said, “Do not give money only because someone is a woman, though she said that many talented female filmmakers are now emerging.
He criticized the current approach to allocating funds, arguing that public funds collected through taxes should not be distributed arbitrarily.
“Many people believe that by just applying, they are entitled to receive money to make a film. This is a misconception,” he said.
Dr. Several filmmakers, including Biju, objected to his comment during the session and attempted to respond, but Adoor continued his address uninterruptedly. He swipe on recent protests at KR Narayanan National Institute of Visual Science and Arts, claiming that the movement aims to reduce efforts to restore discipline in the institute.
According to him, protests eventually contributed to the decline of the institution. Adur reiterated and concluded that government money should not be directed to commercial enterprises, but should promote quality cinema.
His comment has moved behind the classes of the film industry and civil society, with many criticizing the tone and time of his statements in a conclusion with the aim of shaping the inclusive film policy.
