Editor (TOI) - Suppose I tell you my readers aren't interested in this stuff.
P. Sainath - When did you last meet your readers to make any such claims on their behalf?
******************************************************************
Bandini was a hit.
Mother India was a hit.
Anand was a hit.
Hum Aapke Hain Koun was a hit.
On the other hand,
Neel and Nikki was a flop.
Julie was a flop. Still our Miss India - Neha Dhupia - found her reasons to make a claim that only sex and SRK sell in India. For an actress, she indeed seems to have some understanding of sales, nay, some
magic formula.
Not surprisingly, she is not a sales consultant. And she might have known that her magic formula was nonsense. She was merely trying to justify
the supply by inventing a corresponding
demand. Also, she was trying to suggest that supply merely
follows demand, merrily forgetting that supply
arouses demand as well. She used an apparently plausible but actually sloppy logic as a smokescreen to hide from her responsibility as an artist. She was blaming the audience for being vulgar; but it was
she who was selling herself naked, not the people. She forgot that
if lust is vulgar, so is greed. First she acted in a bad taste, and then she reacted in a
bad faith. Anyways, we forgive her and go ahead on our discussion.
Given the percentage of big-banner flops every year, it is highly unlikely that any such magic formula exists. And even if it does, it is hard to believe that it is known to the film-makers, let alone actresses.
To conclude:-
the-audience-want-this-and-not-that argument is rubbish. This argument suggests reversal of the order in which events actually take place. Actually, it is demand that follows the supply and not the vice versa. The audience doesn't have resources to design their desires. Moreover, nobody knows or tries to know what the audience wants. The real reason for the ongoing trend in film-making is something else. We will find out what is that.
******************************************************************
There are three main aspects of Cinema -
Art,
Craft, and
Commerce.
And there are two types of film-making.
1. The first type involves the application of craft to achieve an artistic end, while keeping commercial constraints in mind. Cinema, as a medium, needs commerce for its existence. However, it doesn't exist
for commerce. It exists for people who are involved in it.
Film-makers like Raj Kapoor, Gurudutt, Bimal Roy belonged to this class.
2. The second type involves single-minded pursuit of profit. Films are only the means, not the ends of their business. And art is only incidental to it. Commerce exists for itself.
The likes of David Dhavan, Karan Johar etc can be put in this category.
No matter how paradoxical it sounds, the first type did not exist before the advent of the second type. In fact, it was the second that lend an identity to the first. We will come back to this point again.
******************************************************************
Kaagaz Ke Phool was a flop. Mera Naam Joker was a flop. Silsila was a flop.
Lamhe was a flop.
Judwa was a hit.
The only pattern we see here is randomness. Since there is no known correlation between economic returns and (lack of) quality of movie, it is only reasonable for us to assume that film-makers will choose the first type of film-making, and reject the second type, in favor of their innate artistic passion. That would allow them to do what they always wanted to do, without affecting the economics of film-making. What else would a film-maker ask for?
Reality, however, is ironically opposite to logic. Most of the contemporary film-makers choose the second type. We wonder why?
The possible reason could be - 1. lack of will, 2. lack of skill, or 3. both.
I vote for the 3rd option - both (2nd following the 1st).
The mediocrity is systematically nurtured so that the whole generation of mediocre starlets survive, and prosper.
That sounds pretty sensational. Now the question is - who would nurture mediocrity, and why?
******************************************************************
The story goes like this -
The 1st generation film-makers left the comforts of home and security of job to follow their heart. People with passion and values, they added value to the film industry. Whenever they faced any occasional conflict between the interests of art and that of commerce, they decided in the interest of cinema. Their sincerity and loyalty to cinema laid the foundation of the Hindi Film Industry.
The subsequent generations of film-makers inherited a legacy. And they were in no mood to let go of it for any ideals of cinema. They wanted to cement their dominance on the industry.
Art could favor the artists, but commerce was to favor them alone. And when art was not loyal to them, why should they be loyal to art? To hell with loyalty!
They began their business. When they faced conflicts, they based their decisions on the cold logic of commerce, which finally led to the split of Hindi Cinema into two types -
Art or parallel cinema, and
Commercial or mainstream cinema. There was no such division earlier, and there is no such division anywhere else! However, art was
exiled from the mainstream commercial cinema. What remained there was a body without a soul.
What remained there was
Bollywood.
******************************************************************
There are two ways of doing a thing - artfully, or artlessly. Bollywood was
defined by artlessness. Bollywood
means artlessness. We have seen that artlessness was one of the very guiding principles on which Bollywood was founded.
Bollywood is a system in which actors like Balraj Sahni, Sanjeev Kumar, and Nargis not only look out of place but also look ridiculous. They are not needed anymore. Nobody wants them anymore.
With time, the very need of talent has been obviated from film-making. And when talent is not needed, talented are also not needed. Outsiders stay outside the studio. The gates have been closed for everyone except for those who are already inside.
The people of India, who are well accustomed to
Caste in social and
Dynasty in political system, don't seem to mind Monopoly, or
Star System, in Bollywood.
******************************************************************
Finally, here is a glimpse of Bollywood.
Just like an eye-catching ad is made to launch a product, a ramp-show like
Dhoom is organized to launch a star.
In a typical Bollywood scene, Chopra Jr. alias 'Ali', who is a bike mechanic in a Mumbai sub-urb, races a swanky super-bike in some foreign location. He finishes first, pumps his fist, and hops off in style, with his Gucci gogs on. As soon as he is spotted, hundreds of white babes cheer loudly and rush after him. The poor guy senses their intent and runs to save his modesty, but gives in after a while.
And then the lucky boy begins to parade the babes around like some fashion hot-shot in his sunny days. In the next scene he is seen rocking-n-rolling in a jazzy disc, where barely-clothed babes writhe their hips, and bounce their breasts in a lewd abandon, before the gawky eyes of masturbating men. For the ladies, our boy thrusts his pelvis back and forth and winks
"Excuse me to please".
That's entertainment for you and your family -
shakes,
thrusts and "
Excuse me to please". Now please don't cringe, my good friend, and don't frown. I have written only what you watch. I have written only what you
do. Nothing else.
Since Chopra Jr. can not act, the very need of acting is done away with a suitably written script, or suitably borrowed script, in which the character, his dialogue, and his emotions are reduced to the level of a comic strip. After that, an army of technicians is hired to show his biceps, and hide his face, which looks clueless throughout. Camera takes care not to stay on his face for more than a few seconds, so that the illusion of
acting is maintained. Finally, to match the level of the script, the whole film is reduced to the level of comic strip -
Excuse me to please.
Chopra Jr. represents a premise, around which a system of anti-thought has been developed. This system of anti-thought has been expanded to take up the entire mental space so that no scope is spared for alternative thought. Now it is hard for us to imagine an actor without a six-pack, and a movie without a stage and a
Dard-e-Disco. It is hard for us to imagine Hindi Film Industry without Bollywood.
When life asks "to be or not to be?", it sets a time limit as well. If someone continues to be an idiot, life doesn't have time to waste itself on him. After the
bollywoodization of Hindi Film Industry, we find ourselves at a
stage where
Dard-e-Disco is no more a choice; it's the only possibility remaining.
