:: Movies Plus

Corporates endanger Cinema

K. Hariharan 

The nomenclature "corporate" seems opposed to the concept of ‘independent’ cinema. Strangely, some of the better examples of independent cinema like Mithya or Taare Zameen Par seem to have come out of corporate-based productions and distribution outlets. This March saw one of the biggest gatherings of corporate media CEOs, VPs, and executives at the FICCI Frames 2008 discussing the future of Indian cinema and media. Corporate Indian cinema has finally arrived with big names like UTV, Saimira Pyramid, Percept, Sony Pictures, Adlabs and the unstoppable Anil Ambani.

However, when I look deeper into the dealings and transactions made in the name of corporate filmmaking, I find it seriously disturbing. Multi-picture contracts smelling like junk bonds are signed with actors and directors for crores and then labelled as films like Tashan and Love Story 2050. Looking at the incredible list of executive producers and consultants on a film called Aamir makes me wonder where they were when the film was being made or released.

And there is the absurd hype about our corporate bosses signing up Steven Spielberg and acquiring 500 cinema screens in the US, hoping that such news will boost a sagging share market. Can’t we more realistic? Many well-minded producers in the corporate fray explain it off by saying that these are pangs of labour pain being experienced by a new system taking birth. But will this new baby look and feel normal?

Last week I was at the IIM-Bangalore, addressing students on the values of independent filmmaking and the prospects for change, which is actually possible if the right kind of people come to the fore in the emerging world of corporate cinema. Looking at the kind of money and returns being projected today, somebody like me seems like a dinosaur working with a maximum budget for a feature film in 2000 at Rs 40 lakh.

At the cost of sounding like a blistering oracle I would like to reassert that the greatest talent of the Indian film fraternity was to prove to Hollywood that we could keep them at bay not only because of our unusual forms of melodrama but also because of our amazing ingenuity in using top-of-the-line capital intensive equipment to produce films at amazingly below-the-line budgets.

For this to happen independent filmmaking requires to prioritise the film first and the deal later. We seem to be aping the business angle of Hollywood by concentrating on the deal-making logistics more than on the film. We have to remember that cinema is unlike other industrial products where consumption is based on a blend of need-based survival and want-based aspiration. Cinema as a cultural product is totally dependent on the audience’s requirement for media as a negotiating instrument to seek upward social mobility. And this requirement is completely unpredictable, however much the filmmaker could claim that he or she knows the pulse of the audience.

My appeal to all MBAs who head corporate film houses is to keep an ear to the ground and trust the native intelligence of the independent-minded filmmaker to come up with the right approach to reach the audience. While instilling production discipline is important to induce a modicum of professionalism, it should not be at the cost of that crucial element called risk-taking-talent.

This is something which only creative artistes can master. Cinema is not about deal-making. It is about telling stories. If we don’t care, we will drive ourselves to cinematic bankruptcy like our Hollywood corporate honchos who continue to bankroll more of Die Hard, Superman, Shrek and Narnia. Are we getting ready for more remakes of Sarkar Raj, Don and Karz?

Let’s ask ourselves one simple question. Do we truly believe that the best days of Indian cinema were those which produced 40 films starring Rajesh Khanna between 1966 and 1974; and that between the years 1960 and 1970 we saw 100 films starring Sivaji Ganesan, 128 starring N.T. Rama Rao and 145 films starring Prem Nazir?

For a population so large, I think the primary responsibility of cinema’s cultural artisans is to keep up the sheer production of their art works for public display. It should be left to the rasika to choose freely from among such a huge number. These are simple kitchen truths which our grandmothers will vouch for.

Today, as a true rasika, even after discounting the presence of so many TV channels, I get to see a Aamir Khan film every three years; a Rajini or Kamalhasan film every two years; a Hrithik Roshan film every two years. By the time I get to see our up-and-coming Arya in Bala’s Naan Kadavul, I will be close to God myself to see if it is true or not. My father and my guru once told me, "When we make more movies, money will follow. But when we want to make more money, movies do not follow."

The writer is a film and documentary maker and director of L.V. Prasad Academy. He has made seven features including award winners like Ghashi-ram Kotwal in Marathi and Current starring Om Puri and Deepti Naval.