Rewire, I agree with most of your points and if I am not wrong (as I am not 100% sure I got your gist right) we have similar conclusion.

Nepe, I read your posting twice to analyze how I agreed with every sentence you made and yet our conclusion was slightly different, albeit opposite.

Your theory of relativity, a comical punch is relative to the interpretation of the imitation, is a true statement; but my point was not limited to imitation. I think a standup can discuss things beyond that is already covered in the west: everyday’s nothing (Seinfeld), Euphemism (eg Carlin), racism (Silverman, Rock) etc and etc. Without imitating the subject matter, style or approach there could be “higher” level of comedy than what we are served back home.

I think you have a point about the availability of the “capable” audience. A society that has given birth to such literary icons as Devkota, Sama and, ofcourse, Aryal cannot be that incapable. Your example of the theater crowd in those days and some good cinemas that have been created in the history are the testament to the literal creativity in Nepali media.

Then why is it that our conclusion differs? I think it is all in the number game and the percentage. We have lesser number of those capable intellects than is required to sustain the standard of the media products in masses.

An underdeveloped country like ours obviously have a lower literacy rates when compared to the western civilization. This, no doubt, would have a direct correlation to what the mass expects when they go to a media outlet. Sure we might have tens of thousands of those “capable” minds that would appreciate a quality product; but we have millions who would rather follow a “masala” show, regardless of the quality (I don’t think they are mutually exclusive). It is hard to keep making quality products for a smaller mass, while the larger mass appreciates an “easy” product. Coming back to our original point, we might be able to bring up a George Carlin of Nepal in Nepali stage and there would be a good following for a while, but to keep bringing more Carlins in this small society is an arduous challenge, and to expect a good crowd from that select pool is a daunting task compared to the relative ease in the west.

PS: Many times producers blame it on the low quality of the audience when their “arts movie” tanks. You don’t have to compromise a good presentation just to make a serious movie; and many such producers do that. The films you listed, Arth, Masoom are such examples which serve you a quality product with a slight bit of commercialism without making it too boring. Giddha, Shatranj are other such examples (as they say let’s give a shout out to Amol Palekar, Naseruddin Shah, Om puri and the likes). But there are few which are plain boring and forced; I totally agree with you on that.

DWI