THE Film Development Corporation, once the heartbeat of cinematic culture, now stands as a hollowed-out relic of its past. Established in 1957 and revitalised after independence in 1971, the corporation had flourished for decades as the nation鈥檚 premier film production hub. Since the early 2000s, this state-run institution has, however, suffered gradual disuse, bureaucratic inertia and technological stagnation. The corporation now struggles to retain relevance. Film-makers cite corruption, outdated technology and complex rental procedures as major deterrents. Even with lower rental charges, producers avoid the institution because of its inefficient service and obsolete facilities. Only one out of five sound studios functions, editing laboratories remain a decade behind and most post-production is now outsourced. The staff has halved since 2009 and income has declined so sharply that it has relied on subsidies since 2015. Although a Tk 322 crore BFDC complex project, launched in 2018, promises a digital-era revival, completion delays and institutional disrepair continue their dominance.
The institution鈥檚 predicament is not merely an administrative failure but also a systemic issue with profound implications for cultural landscape. The deliberate neglect of the institution by successive governments has made the local film industry heavily dependent on foreign, private-sector support. This dependence stifles local talent, limits creative expression and compromises the identity of Bangladeshi cinema. The inefficiency and corruption have created a vacuum that is filled in by private production houses, which, while offering advanced technology, do so at a cost that may be prohibitive for many independent and short-film makers. The decline of the institution has led to a centralisation of power and resources in the private sector, potentially eroding the democratic and diverse nature of the film industry. The corporation鈥檚 managing director says that the institution was deliberately weakened to foster foreign dependence which that points to a calculated betrayal of national cultural interests. This institutional sabotage, which has seen the once-thriving corporation fall from producing most of the films to being avoided by filmmakers, is a tragedy for the nation鈥檚 arts. The ambitious modernisation project offers a glimmer of hope, but its delayed completion highlights the persistent bureaucratic inertia.
Urgent, transparent reforms are required to revitalise the Film Development Corporation. Digital and technical upgrades should be prioritised. But, no less important are steps to simplify bureaucracy and restore credibility. The corporation鈥檚 potential remains significant but only if state support moves beyond lip-service into committed institutional rebuilding that places national culture above short-term neglect.
