Posted:
Hgg bhai, I deeply thank you for adding onto that experience by generously sharing the perspective of your Elder. Please do pay my respects to your Mother š³
Arshi ji/ Hgg Bhai
Permit me here to correct one of my primordial mistakes... In my somewhat defense, I never thought I'd be employing 'terms/models of trade' on CB in relation to SC, honestly thought I could easily operate and engage solely as 'Ivy', but the ethos of CB melted all my guardedness and now I am compelled to bring aspects of my off-line self here as well, because what I share in good faith has been always either appreciated/considered/reciprocated.
In that spirit, let me offer a clarification, what I/we term as 'industry/offscreen/TVT perspective' or as 'extra-curricular expositions' are anything but. And to call them terms disfavorable would be an insult to the discipline that they are derived from. I thus offer the correct/academic term for it, which we use in the course of our daily negotiations etc: the 'political economy model'.
A bit of background... Political economy (the concept) was originally developed and used in the discipline of moral philosophy and it had to do with studies of 'polities' (a state, or simply a geographical area with its own citizenry and government)... It was also dominantly used with an 'economic bent' to study production of goods/services and their buying and selling with respect to government bodies and the law. Also factored in were issues such as national income/wealth distribution. But later lots of related disciplines took root from the term, such as ecology, archaeology, culture studies and communication studies.
For those hailing from the communication discipline, we use the term to broadly describe the institutional impacts and features of media/telecommunication models. We pay particular attention to relationships between owners (channel, PH, their respective liaisons), employees (cast, crew etc), consumers (audiences - traditional and new media), advertisers, structures/context of production, models of reception, the state/government and the power relationships embedded in all the equations stated above.
While I streamlined my degree into film and new media papers mostly, I did end up taking maybe three television papers and one of them titled 'Watching Television' was an in-depth, gruelling investigation into the political economy model which was fascinating. Our professor made us tear apart the model and build it back 'brick by brick' understanding all the powerplays that drive the concept, production, dissemination/distribution and reception of creative products. It is a web, a game move and a chess play, analysing the way these power structures navigate, strike out and mutually handshake. Documentaries are another 'product' where the political economy aspect becomes absolutely salient, esp for Indie productions. Likewise with independent films, mainstream not so much because with so much pre-scribed already, the scope for contingencies become markedly lessened.
All posts that I have made on CB, have touched upon the features of this model in one way or another. I am unable to view television in any other way - if I have to go in-depth into the medium or show, I absolutely have to craft all my arguments/observations under the umbrella of the political economy model. That is why I am genuinely surprised to see so much resistance and dismissal where discussions of contexts of production and power structures that exist (they do so in every 'macro/micro' creative team) in SC are concerned. It is a valid communications industry model designed to make people understand 'media products' better, to think deeply about how all these 'players' are related and interdependent... Essentially, in a mindset where 'entertainment' is often-viewed with thinly-veiled tolerance, and discredited often as an attempt to 'pretentiously masquerade'... These models, their existence and employment, lends the entire field of 'entertainment media' some much deserved credibility and gravitas.
In relation to SC thus, under the political economy model the first question to ask, think on will be: What is the legal 'standing' of SP when it comes to Saraswatichandra? When the project was first concieved and then pitched, the first persons to have been consulted would have been the lawyers. They would have set out the boundaries, terms of 'adaptation' and essentially laid down the law in regard to what SLB, SP could and could not show in a product they would in future market/present as 'Saraswatichandra'... My contract prohibits me from giving out exact details, but before I left on my work sojourn, I was involved in drafting a very much similar contract in relation to a new season of a drama the company had acquired rights for. Now, the writer for this, though long-deceased had protected his work in so many legal ways, that for every season, new contracts absolutely have to be made, in accordance with the same ethical considerations that reigned in his era. That meant we had to go back to dusty old tomes, written in archaic english, to properly understand what could be shown or not under the name of the 'specific drama'... Anything less in our efforts, the littlest slack in due diligence and the company would be hauled to court for wilfully tampering with a 'foreign national treasure'.
I did ask Sir about the copyright protections around Saraswatichandra and he said it was hard to get any proper details as to it. The copyright history seemed 'murky' and the protections/clauses at best, were basic and neither did there seem, upon initial investigation, any evidence of a trust which protected or managed GMT's body of work. With the author deceased, and as years pass (life plus 50/life plus 70), even the most stringent of extensions, run out and basic copyright protections would have obliterated into nothing. A direct contrast to this would be Disney and their determined efforts/successful lobbying to keep Mickey Mouse firmly behind copyright bars. But I doubt the heirs of GMT ji, if there indeed exists no trust/foundation, would be so particular or strict in the matter. There is also the question of SLB, a fellow gujrati - I suspect, they would have handed over adaptation rights to SLB primarily on good faith - with the understanding that he would not tamper nor discredit, and authentically 'adapt', and the show will remain under his creative stewardship only. Hence, SP's 'oversight' of still showing SLB's name in the credits. They may be bound under the terms of contract... But I fear other important details may have been left vulnerably exposed, and after SLB was replaced, SP would have again had a discussion with their lawyers, this time solely with the agenda of how to circumvent the loop-holes and take advantage of the weak points of the contract, whilst legally/ethically staying within the rather elastic boundaries of the contract of the adapted work agreed and duly signed by all parties involved in the original negotiation.
Debate Mansion
