Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | Friday Review | Cinema Plus | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |

It is business after all A scene from “Namesake”, one of the representatives of the organised face of Bollywood.

Khan and Mishra are not just a lucky two. To make his first big budget film, “Fashion”, Madhur Bhandarkar has come under the protective wings of UTV Motion Pictures. And now, even a director like Shyam Benegal has joined the coterie of people who don’t mind their films being produced by a corporate house. Hence, his forthcoming film, now on a big budget, the romantic comedy “Mahadev”, is being produced by UTV. He has signed other films with UTV as well.

Well, such a trend spurts many interesting questions. Does this mean that the corporatisation of Bollywood has begun? What happens when business houses take over the responsibilities of a film’s marketing and distribution? Does it mean something like the studio culture of old Hindi films is on a comeback trail? Also, will it benefit the film industry and keep the audience happy at the same time? What are its ‘side effects’ after all?

Says Shyam Benegal, “Corporatisation is a new phase in Indian cinema. It is good for the industry. Making films has never been as easy as it is now. If it had come earlier, I would have made some more films. Every director needs money to make a film of his choice, and whoever would like to finance it, he would go with it.” Benegal feels today’s talented young and aspiring directors are very lucky. “They make films on the subject they want to without caring for where the money is coming from. See Anurag Kashyap, he is very talented. He wouldn’t have been able to make films as he is doing today if he didn’t have corporate support,” he says. But then, points out the ace director, “It is a highly competitive business and that’s why there are greater opportunities too.”

Notes UTV head Ronnie Screwvala, “We are working like a studio. This gives us an opportunity to try different genres. We can make a ‘Namesake’ and a ‘Kya Kool Hai Hum’ at the same time.”

Adds actor-director Anupam Kher, “Corporatisation is an announcement of change in the system. If the system changes, there are several people who oppose it too. It is definitely helping good directors.” Corporatisation or not, he says, “You are telling a story, after all. Corporatisation is like serving tea in a five star hotel. You get the same tea in a dhaba too. Now it’s up to you whether you have come for the tea or the ambience.”

Sudhir Mishra counters, “If you get your film financed by a corporate house, it makes one thing very clear to you and that is, you have to compromise on the content part. They tend to encourage entertainment-based films to generate maximum profit.” He says, “You often lose your independence too. For instance, you lose the editing rights. They may just give you a DVD to shoot. All the rights as to how the film is designed and presented go into their kitty. All films are shot and made according to their whims and fancies.” Pointing to the positive side of the trend, Mishra says, “I believe that if on one side, it may mar the creativity of a director, it might organise the very unorganised film industry on the other side. Every new system has its negative side too.” Kher feels, “I wouldn’t mind some changes in my script as I would rather make the film than not making it at all.” Benegal, though holds his own. “It’s not that the script is always the casualty,” he asserts. “I am getting my films produced by big corporate houses without compromising on my script.”

But corporate houses are not overly worried about the message or the medium. Funding films is a part of their business extension only. In most cases, it has nothing to do with their passion for filmmaking. Sanjeev Bijli, Marketing Manager, PVR, corroborates this, saying, “We do approach filmmakers to produce films as we did Aamir Khan for ‘Taare Zameen Par’ because we know his credibility. We are entrepreneurs first. We have been in film distribution and exhibition for 17 years, so we have a good idea about what sells.” He adds, “If we fund a film we do get involved in the making process, from reading scripts to marketing the film. We have a panel to see the script. We don’t tweak the script. We only suggest changes because we know what the audience enjoys. If the subject is viable, why would we make changes? If we are putting in so much money, don’t we have the right to make some profit?”

Making suggestions is not so bad, feels Siddarth Roy Kapoor, Marketing Manager, UTV. “We do exhaustive research when we fund a film. We set our target audience, use the media as a vehicle to promote the film. We do sit with the director at the script level and every change is done mutually. We don’t pressurise anyone,” he avers

Bijli feels, “Corporatisation brings in more transparency, discipline and accountability. And in the process if it organises the film industry, nothing like it.”

But is it possible to get a film produced by a corporate house without submitting to its conditions? Mishra feels, “The more money you take, the greater is the independence you lose. If you stick to your budget and take just some extra money that you need from them, you won’t have to compromise on your script, etc. They say they want to ‘improve’ the script.” People with “clout”, he says, can escape the conditions, but small filmmakers have to submit to their wishes. “If such a trend continues, creativity might be the greatest casualty,” he warns. And with new corporate and advertising companies foraying into films, the scenario cannot be discounted. Promodome Communications, a premier advertising agency, has just announced the launch of its first feature film, Jugaad, being made by its cinema wing Promodome Films . With Manoj Bajpai and Rohit Roy to star in the film, the company has signed up Anand Kumar (of “Delhi Heights” fame) to direct it. Says Sandeep Kapoor, its COO, “Today even a small film can earn us more money through the sale of music, distribution and TV rights, etc. We forayed into films after great research, especially from the money-back point of view.”

All said and done, money is a great factor and hence, to in the words of Mishra, “there will always be struggle between creativity and finance.”

Corporatisation is a new phase in Indian cinema. It is good for the industry.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail