Calls for reforms in Bangladesh have gained momentum since July 36th or August 5th, echoing through various sectors, including the film industry. Before this tide of change, many mainstream filmmakers had close ties to the Awami League government. With the onset of the uprising, some feared a bleak future, hoping for a brighter path ahead. However, after the political shift, those expectations often proved mistaken. Among them, some who viewed the Awami League’s governance as authoritarian or who were critical of the party began voicing their support for the people’s uprising, starting around the end of July and gaining traction from August 1.
That day in Dhaka, television drama and independent filmmakers first gathered in front of the Parliament House. Despite heavy rain and police resistance, they dispersed, with some regrouping at Farmgate near a cinema hall, holding banners and placards. Other cultural figures soon joined in solidarity. The next day, August 2, more artists took to the streets, inspired by their peers, and assembled at the Central Shaheed Minar, a national monument in Dhaka. After that gathering, we all know the consequences and how Bangladesh’s political scenario changed. 5th August was a watershed moment for the country and this South Asian region. Within a few days, the filmmakers and artists, active in protest physically or virtually, had earnestly advocated for cinema reforms.
The post-uprising period saw dialogue across the board, with diverse opinions emerging on how the country’s film industry should move forward. The first major event, organised by the civic initiative “July Public Sphere” at the National Museum in Shahbagh, featured a keynote titled “Cultural Politics: Cinema as a Pretext” by filmmaker Kamar Ahmad Simon. This inspired a wave of activity among independent filmmakers, film educators, and students.
Efforts to establish a National Film Commission began with an outline committee consulting with prominent figures in civil society. The commission’s formation was coupled with a roadmap for film reform, aiming to incorporate a wide range of perspectives. Reform proposals also came from Bangladesh Cinema and Television Institute (BCTI) students. At the same time, within the Bangladesh Film Development Corporation (BFDC), two new committees were formed: the Anti-Discrimination Film Rights Protection Committee and the Bangladesh Film Development Forum. Additionally, organisations like the Centre for Asian Arts and Culture started hosting discussions on national cinema.
Entertainment journalists based in electronic media organised a seminar in which mainstream filmmakers participated. They discussed the necessity of reforms or structural changes. Topics included the introduction of e-ticketing and a box office system to ensure financial transparency and curb corruption in the government taxation system. Participants also emphasised the need for film grants to be merit-based scholarships and called for job security for artists and technicians.
Since young people were the driving force behind the uprising, many emerging filmmakers joined film certification boards and committees, even becoming part of the Ministry of Information search committees. Yet, similar to before, complaints arose about bureaucratic dominance within these committees. Even reports in the media highlighted dissatisfaction among commercial artists with the newly formed forums in BFDC. Nonetheless, a shared hope remains for meaningful change, a departure from past practices, and a future built on integrity.
We cannot ignore that corruption has an economic basis, and when corruption suddenly halts, it disrupts financial flows, leaving many unemployed. Power shifts often create confusion, making investors hesitant, and those previously aligned with the former government find themselves in difficult situations. For instance, projects linked to the previous administration may end up shelved, just as the biopic Mujib: The Making of a Nation excluded Ziaur Rahman during the Awami League’s rule or how Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was often omitted during BNP’s tenure. The film industry reflects this pattern of selective history based on who’s in power.
Our cinema isn’t separate from our cultural or historical context; it has always engaged with fragmented history. When a new government takes power, filmmakers quickly tailor narratives to fit its agenda. This has been the norm, especially under partisan rule. The information films aim to provide often distorts the truth. Half-truths can be more dangerous than lies. Thus, unbiased, independent filmmaking remains a distant dream in our country.
Over a decade and a half of authoritarian rule created a particular dynamic in the film industry. Many, including talented filmmakers and actors, worked on state-sponsored projects out of necessity. Yet, following the people’s uprising, these artists were viewed as collaborators with the regime and faced backlash. Productions involving them were halted, and actors in minor roles lost work. While the uprising may have dismantled an authoritarian system, it also introduced new challenges.
Film industry stakeholders strive to reorganise the sector, but actual change is a decade—or two-decade endeavour. Artists facing immediate financial hardships need short-term solutions. The future of ongoing projects is also uncertain. Hence, many post-uprising meetings and dialogues have emphasised short-term and long-term plans for the development of the film industry.
Immediate measures discussed include finding ways to reintegrate artists into work and creating a stable environment. Reducing bureaucratic control in film education and industry committees, ensuring more excellent cultural representation, and swiftly implementing e-ticketing and a box office system have been prioritised. The government has also been asked to consider tax benefits for the industry.
Long-term plans involve establishing a Film Council to oversee multiple commissions as needed, addressing the industry’s disarray. The BFDC could be transformed to serve this purpose, and a film centre could be developed to screen independent films and host festivals. Film education institutions would also come under this council.
These plans have been presented as demands in various forums. Short-term goals focus on achievable reforms, while long-term ones require patience. Another critical demand has been repealing laws that curb free speech, raised by a group named “Film Reform Roadmap 24,” consisting of young filmmakers. This demand seems justified as stricter certification and censorship rules are enforced, limiting creative freedom.
The post-uprising culture of open dialogue and raised expectations is a positive shift from the past. Previously, film professionals expressed frustration privately, but now they seek collective solutions and align their demands with state capacity.Beyond discussions, documentary projects about the uprising have started emerging, with some already completed. Even commercial filmmaker Raihan Rafi has announced a film about the uprising, potentially centred on a young activist named Mughdho or the event itself.
The film industry has seen the most vigorous push for change among all sectors. While topics like university education reform have been discussed, the sheer number of film-related initiatives, publications, and documentaries is unparalleled. Though street protests have occurred on other issues, film professionals have voiced their concerns in forums, bringing continuity to their discussions.
The energy surrounding cinema proves it has become an influential art form in Bangladesh, though the industry is still struggling. Few commercial, middle, and independent films are accelerating the hope. If we get at least five commercially successful films annually, along with a dozen break-even projects, it would strengthen the industry and nurture independent films, too.
Some call the July uprising a second independence or “Bangladesh 2.” While I disagree, it’s undeniable that the Liberation War of 1971 spurred a significant shift in the film industry, emphasising Bengali nationalism. However, today’s context is different. We now face domestic exploitation rather than colonial oppression. The uprising hasn’t fundamentally altered economic or social inequalities but has disrupted an authoritarian regime. True democracy remains elusive.
Comparing Bangladesh with post-revolution Iran, for instance, shows how an ideological shift can transform cinema. Bangladesh’s demand for film reforms is more pragmatic, addressing industry mismanagement rather than ideological changes. After the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the country shifted away from films that aligned with Western culture and began prioritising Islamic values and ethics in cinema. Numerous restrictions were imposed on filmmaking, and the censor board was restructured to reflect religious values. Iran’s film industry faced significant challenges just before the revolution. For instance, in 1978, an arson attack on the Rex Cinema, which had been locked from the outside, led to the deaths of nearly four hundred people. This incident fuelled the momentum of the Islamic Revolution. Even as the revolution unfolded in 1979, several theatres across Iran were set on fire. Yet, cinema as an art form proved indomitable. Like the mythical phoenix, it re-emerged in Iran as the “New Wave,” giving rise to directors like Dariush Mehrjui, Abbas Kiarostami, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, Jafar Panahi, and Majid Majidi. The world gained fresh narratives and innovative storytelling through their films.
Similarly, in Bangladesh, a violent attack occurred at a Cineplex in Rajshahi shortly after the government’s fall on August 5. This branch of Star Cineplex, located at the Bangabandhu Hi-Tech Park, was vandalised and set on fire. Fortunately, there were no reports of widespread attacks on other theatres. The association with “Bangabandhu” (father of the nation, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) might have made this Cineplex a target. Since his daughter, Sheikh Hasina, was the ousted prime minister. Such acts are the epitome of narrow-mindedness. Unlike Iran, where a shift in ideology influenced the film industry, Bangladesh’s cinema has not experienced that kind of ideological transformation. Instead, demands have arisen to address the industry’s long-standing irregularities and patchwork nature. Although the Awami League government established the Bangladesh Cinema and Television Institute (BCTI) in 2013, it lacked many essential features of a proper film institute. The same holds even today. During Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, numerous projects were initiated. Still, they often centred on constructing buildings at inflated costs, as newspaper reports have revealed, driven by motives of looting and corruption.
Mentioning the Iranian Revolution brings to mind the Russian Revolution. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin often emphasised that cinema was the most important among all the arts. Consequently, just two years after the revolution, in 1919, the Soviet government issued a decree nationalising the film industry. Moreover, the world’s first film education institution, The Russian State University of Cinematography (VGIK), was established. Numerous film studios and organisations were formed as well. Mobile cinema units were created to screen films in remote areas. Even if these units showed propaganda films, they nevertheless gave momentum to the country’s film industry. These government initiatives led to the emergence of cinematic giants like Sergei Eisenstein, Vsevolod Pudovkin, and Lev Kuleshov.
From the 1960s to the 1980s, a cinematic movement called Third Cinema arose amidst various social upheavals in Latin America. Cinema there ceased to be merely a source of entertainment and became a tool for political activism. This movement later greatly influenced many Indian filmmakers. Following the partition of India in 1947, a parallel cinema movement took root in India. The winds of change that swept through the country in 1947 found their way into cinema by the 1950s, with films focusing not only on love and romance but also on themes of nationalism, secularism, and humanism.
Therefore, it is natural for cinema to transform following a revolution or significant social change in a country. However, in Bangladesh, the mass uprising of July-August is unlikely to bring about sweeping changes in cinema. This is because the political change has been a shift in individuals, not a fundamental transformation of society or a replacement of one class by another. As a result, the film industry has not experienced, nor will it experience a complete overhaul. Nevertheless, the uprising was significant, given the extensive public participation and support it garnered. It naturally raises hopes for reforms in the film industry to drive it forward. I hope not only to create a national framework for the film industry but also to make strategic efforts to establish cinema as a soft power for Bangladesh, a topic I have discussed in more depth in a separate essay.
To conclude, regardless of any short- or long-term plans for the film industry or however many meetings and seminars we hold, implementing these ideas is only possible with the government’s genuine commitment. Therefore, film must be given the necessary importance at the policymaking level for meaningful change in the country’s film sector. If the government values cinema with a progressive, democratic mind-set, treats it as a promising industry, and places competent people in the correct positions to support it, the desires of the film community—where Bangladeshi films captivate international audiences, satisfy the domestic market by commercial success, and provide directors with the creative freedom they need—can be realised.
Bidhan Rebeiro: A Dhaka-based film critic and writer, Bidhan served as FIPRESCI jury member at the Cannes and Dhaka International Film Festivals.