Kathmandu Film Festival puts Nepali cinema’s past, present and future in focus

The Kathmandu Film Festival presented Nepali cinema as a developing cultural industry with a long history and an uncertain future. Its programme connected older films, current productions and debates about creative and institutional growth. This mattered because rising production and earnings do not automatically mean the industry is becoming stronger.

The festival screened restored classics such as Ke Ghar Ke Dera (1985) and Kumari (1977), alongside new films from Nepal and other countries. It hosted a conversation between Shabana Azmi and Swastima Khadka about women’s representation and artists’ social responsibility. Marco Müller led a masterclass on film aesthetics from the Global South and festival circuits. Two panels examined creative cities and Nepal’s film industry.

The closing panel brought together Hari Bansha Acharya, Ngima Gelu Sherpa, Thinley Lhamo and Prachanda Man Shrestha. They discussed originality, artificial intelligence, cultural identity and young filmmakers’ challenges. The festival therefore acted as both a showcase and a meeting place for shaping cinema’s next stage.

A film festival is an organised event that presents films and brings filmmakers, performers, critics, educators and audiences together. Screenings give films visibility and let audiences encounter different styles. Discussions and teaching sessions add another function: they help an industry share knowledge, question habits and imagine better work. This matters especially when production is growing faster than creative or institutional foundations.

Kathmandu’s festival screened new films from Nepal and around the world, plus restored Nepali classics. Shabana Azmi and Swastima Khadka discussed women’s representation and artists’ social responsibility. Marco Müller taught a masterclass on film aesthetics from the Global South and the international festival circuit. Panels explored creative cities and Nepal’s film industry across time.

These activities can strengthen an industry by linking its past to its future. They expose filmmakers to ideas, encourage public debate and create contact among stakeholders. The festival’s discussions also highlighted unresolved needs, including originality, cultural identity and responsible use of AI.

The article describes a striking change in the scale of Nepali filmmaking. Hari Bansha Acharya recalled a period when there was reportedly one film every five years. He said the industry now produces almost 100 films per year on average. This is not a small increase; it signals a major expansion in production capacity and output.

The change also reflects a shift in tools and formats. Earlier productions relied on celluloid and 16mm. Today, Nepali cinema includes digital productions, films winning international awards and arthouse titles appearing on international stages. Cinema exhibitions and box-office earnings are rising too. These developments have helped put Nepal on the world cinema map.

Yet volume alone does not guarantee a healthy future. Prachanda Man Shrestha warned that the industry could decline within two or three years if filmmakers keep repeating earlier hits without creative excellence. The festival therefore treated growth as an achievement, but also as a test of quality and originality.

Nepali filmmaking has changed both technically and industrially. Earlier productions were limited in number and depended on celluloid and 16mm formats. The industry now makes digital productions at a much larger scale, with films earning international recognition and generating more box-office revenue. This shift has made production more flexible and helped Nepali cinema reach wider festival audiences.

Artificial intelligence is beginning to support specific filmmaking tasks. Basanta Niraula used AI during Paanch Pandav’s pre-production to visualise a scene. Deepa Shree Niraula used it in Chhakka Panja 5 to make Deepak Raj Giri appear younger in one scene. These examples show AI working as a planning and image-making tool, rather than replacing every part of production.

Ngima Gelu Sherpa cautioned filmmakers not to use AI simply for faster results. He argued that filmmakers should follow every step of filmmaking. The future challenge is balancing useful technology with hands-on creative decisions, originality and the care needed to build strong films.

Production, cinema exhibitions and box-office earnings measure activity and commercial reach, but they do not by themselves prove that an industry is creatively healthy. If filmmakers mainly reproduce formulas from earlier successes, audiences may see fewer reasons to seek new films. The deeper problem is not repetition alone; it is the loss of originality and creative ambition.

Prachanda Man Shrestha said increased production and earnings alone could not secure Nepali cinema’s future. He warned that the industry might lose more audiences if it continued reproducing earlier hits instead of seeking “creative excellence.” His forecast was direct: if the same patterns continued, the film industry would fall further down in two or three years.

The warning changes how growth should be judged. Nepali cinema needs films that develop distinctive voices, not merely more releases that imitate proven successes. Internationally recognised arthouse titles show that originality can travel beyond Nepal. The festival’s debate therefore connected long-term audience trust with experimentation, quality and stronger creative foundations.

Nepali cinema is shaped by several connected groups, and each sees different risks. Actors bring performance, public visibility and questions about representation. Filmmakers make creative and technical choices. Educators help develop skills and critical thinking. Producers connect creative work with funding, audiences and commercial reality. The festival brought these perspectives together rather than treating the industry as only a business.

The panel included veteran actor Hari Bansha Acharya, filmmaker and educator Ngima Gelu Sherpa, actress Thinley Lhamo and filmmaker-producer Prachanda Man Shrestha. Acharya recalled the shift from celluloid production and stressed films’ role in preserving cultural identity. Sherpa warned against using AI only for speed and said young filmmakers struggle to find original voices. Lhamo raised questions about authentic representation, while Shrestha challenged formulaic production.

Their concerns overlap but are not identical. Actors focus on representation and cultural meaning. Educators stress process and development. Filmmakers seek originality, and producers must consider audiences and earnings. Together, they show why the industry’s future requires more than higher output.

Film industries can preserve cultural identity by turning a country’s experiences, places and social questions into stories that audiences remember. Original stories also help a national cinema stand apart from copied formulas. International recognition can then grow from distinctive work, rather than from imitation. The article presents this connection, but it does not fully explain how Nepali cinema represents Indigenous or Himalayan communities.

Hari Bansha Acharya said Nepal should be recognised and remembered not by its flag but by its films. The article also identifies Thinley Lhamo with Min Bahadur Bham’s Shambhala and says she spoke about the need for more authentic representation. However, the supplied text cuts off after the phrase “authentic re,” so it gives no further details about her point or specific communities.

What is clear is the wider challenge. Nepali cinema is expanding, while filmmakers are being urged to maintain originality and cultural meaning. Internationally recognised arthouse films suggest that local stories can travel. The article does not provide enough evidence to describe particular Indigenous or Himalayan portrayals.