Monday, March 15, 2010
Why I won't watch 3D!
I watched my first 3D movie in ‘Alice in Wonderland’. It was not as impressive as I thought it would be. Technology has arrived and there no doubt that in time all films (or nearly all) will be made in 3D. The most irritating part of watching a 3D film are the smudgy glasses. For a long time I kept having to raise the glasses to see properly. Then it occurred to me that the glasses may be the culprit. When the lights came on, at the end of the film unfortunately, I realized just how dirty the glasses were. I am surprised some serious eye disease isn’t going around thanks to shared glasses. I think I have sworn off 3D for the time being. In time, when people have their own set of glasses, the system will settle into a pattern and will work for viewers like me. The other thing that needs to settle into a pattern is the need, or the lack of it, for filmmakers to showoff the 3D aspect. I am sure the 3D experience like the 5.1 surround sound needs time to set a protocol of what is acceptable and what is just plain loud.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The Nonsense about Women’s quota bill
Having witnessed the moronic arguments about this bill I have to admit those against the bill do have a point. Their methods of expression might not be the best and their intentions can always be doubted, they are politicians after all, but they do point out serious shortcomings of the bill. Though I am completely against reservation of any kind, it has not worked for the last 60years and is never going to work, I will try to untangle this knot that everyone seems very keen on tying themselves into.
Here is my solution. No reservation in Parliament but reservations in parties instead. The parties can decide who they want to field and in which constituency as long as they have a total of 33% women candidates. Election Commission can monitor each party. It is simple and should make everyone happy. Including the electorate who at this time don’t seem to have a choice and are in imminent danger of being shafted. Let the onus of the reservation be on the parties. And, parties like SP and RJD can decide how many subsets they want to create. It will also mean that they will have to practice what they have only preached till now.
For us, the people, there will still be a semblance of merit.
Here is my solution. No reservation in Parliament but reservations in parties instead. The parties can decide who they want to field and in which constituency as long as they have a total of 33% women candidates. Election Commission can monitor each party. It is simple and should make everyone happy. Including the electorate who at this time don’t seem to have a choice and are in imminent danger of being shafted. Let the onus of the reservation be on the parties. And, parties like SP and RJD can decide how many subsets they want to create. It will also mean that they will have to practice what they have only preached till now.
For us, the people, there will still be a semblance of merit.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Is Hindi Cinema Dying?
In college I used to bunk classes two or three times a week to go see films. The idea was not to see films because I was a cinema buff or because brilliant films were playing all the time. It was simply a convenient way to be cool, both physically and metaphorically. At Rs. 3.45 I could cut the boring economics class and spend the hot summer afternoon in the cool air conditioned comfort on padded seats watching some of the worst cinema ever made (I’m talking about the mid 80’s here). I wasn’t lucky (cool?) enough to have a girlfriend then but those who did enjoyed the outings even more. When was the last time you wandered into a movie hall to kill time or to get out of the summer sun or to spend quality time with your girlfriend or to dodge that lecture on Malthusian theory? Movie going has now evolved from a casual pastime to a serious well planned entertainment activity. Recent advent of Multiplexes has changed the pricing model in such a way that it almost requires a 5 year plan type approach to cinema viewing.
How, you might ask, does this lead me to conclude that Hindi Cinema is dying? In fact there are pointers to the contrary. There is enough and more evidence that ‘well made’ films are not only finding audiences, they are even going on to make unheard of money. ‘Three Idiots’ has been a phenomenon of a kind and its success would suggest the question is a little crazy. But, sadly there is a but, that is only an illusion if you are looking at the picture from the small film’s perspective.
‘Well Made’- is the key. Unfortunately that is not the complete truth.
‘Well Made’ big films will not just do well they will continue breaking records as we have seen in the recent past. As a general principal people have a need to go out of their homes to be entertained and the cinema hall experience will remain at the forefront fulfilling this need. As incomes grow so too will the number of people frequenting cinema halls and ‘Well Made’ big films will be rewarded richly. The cheer though will not be spread universally. ‘Well made’ small films, unfortunately, will not survive long enough to benefit from these added footfalls.
All Films are watched. A truth that doesn’t bring any joy to most filmmakers.
Regardless of genre or quality all films released in India are watched by all audiences. I know this a generalization but it is true to a very large extent. Appetite for films is definitely undiminished and newer methods of finding content are always being explored by audiences. Sadly, not all of that translates into revenues for the producers. Smaller films are suffering what I call the curse of pre-selection. In itself this is not unique. World over audiences make these choices. They choose to see some films in the movie hall, some in the confines of their homes through various channels like Pay-per-view or video rentals and some they choose to not see at all. But in the Indian market pre-selection manifests itself in the following way: Much before a film is released the audience has already made up their mind about whether or not they will be going to the cinema halls to watch it. The other films are watched on pirated platforms. In fact smaller films with a promise of being ‘Well Made’ are equally desirable as the big films. Rampant piracy, through the neighborhood CD walla or Internet, ensures the audience will watch and even appreciate the films but it will not translate into a sale of any kind that benefits the producers.
The Cinema Pricing Model is Killing.
On the face of it an expensive ticket means the films makers recover their investment quicker. In fact a lot of happiness in the industry during 2006-2007 was attributed to higher ticket prices and the absence of entertainment tax, most multiplexes were exempt from it, and more transparent accounting systems. In 2010 the game has changed in such a way that small films are struggling to find any takers. At 200 bucks a ticket the cinema experience is naturally tilted towards the big film. Most small films do not inspire that kind of spending. For that kind of money, the average cinema goers is not rich, the audience wants to be blown away by a larger than life event.
Word of mouth doesn’t work as well in India.
Unlike the western world, where small movies grow when they receive good word of mouth reviews (Slum Dog is an example of a film that started with a limited release and then grew with each passing week), in India a good film that has not been preselected for viewing in cinemas has already been viewed in a pirated form before the first week is over. So, a good word of mouth review works more to the pirates benefit than to the filmmakers.
Cinema is not like the music industry.
The music industry has been suffering the piracy curse and has still, however hobbled and tattered and torn, survived. Unfortunately films are not going to be able to survive the way the music industry has. Unlike music, which has a pretty introverted creative process, a film’s creative process needs hundreds of people’s, not to mention expensive equipment, contributions before it gets to a place where it is viewable. The other big difference is that music is an interactive experience. Live music, whether in a bar or at a concert, engages the audience in a way recorded music can’t. Films don’t have that aspect of interactivity to bail them out either.
First the small film will go down and then the whole industry.
Given that small films are doomed to be watched for their content on TV or computer screens they are as endangered a species as the Tiger.
And, as nobody seems to be sponsoring a save the ‘well made small film’ campaign yet and there are no reasons to believe that the copyright act and the agencies that enforce it are going to come up with effective ways of enforcement, they are in eminent danger of falling of the edge.
Demise of the small film in the short run may not be of major concern for the people outside the film fraternity, I am tempted to think that some of the players within the film world might applaud and may even lend a hand in pushing it off the edge, but it is possibly the end of the entire Hindi film business. The ‘well made’ small film serves as the talent supply chain. Most talent leaving aside the actors and producers, a lot of whom are parachuted directly into the big film, has to work its way up from the small film into the big film bracket. If this supply to the talent pool dries up it may well lead to the complete business shutting down.
There isn’t a lot that can be done, is there?
Two things must happen immediately if we are to stem the tide. Firstly; pricing models of multiplexes have to change. There is no way the small film will get audiences if movie hall tickets are priced similar to the big film. Recent agreements of revenue sharing between producers/distributors and exhibitors did touch on this subject but no headway has been made to address the situation. Unless the average ticket price for a small film isn’t reduced to about Rs. 50-70 its survival is going to be difficult. An immediate example is available in the success of regional language films. In the recent past they have been turning a profit due to their affordable pricing both in production as well as in exhibition. Secondly, and this one is very very oft repeated; piracy has to be curbed. Especially piracy in the form of internet downloads. Unless these two things happen really soon Hindi Cinema as we know it will find it difficult to survive.
How, you might ask, does this lead me to conclude that Hindi Cinema is dying? In fact there are pointers to the contrary. There is enough and more evidence that ‘well made’ films are not only finding audiences, they are even going on to make unheard of money. ‘Three Idiots’ has been a phenomenon of a kind and its success would suggest the question is a little crazy. But, sadly there is a but, that is only an illusion if you are looking at the picture from the small film’s perspective.
‘Well Made’- is the key. Unfortunately that is not the complete truth.
‘Well Made’ big films will not just do well they will continue breaking records as we have seen in the recent past. As a general principal people have a need to go out of their homes to be entertained and the cinema hall experience will remain at the forefront fulfilling this need. As incomes grow so too will the number of people frequenting cinema halls and ‘Well Made’ big films will be rewarded richly. The cheer though will not be spread universally. ‘Well made’ small films, unfortunately, will not survive long enough to benefit from these added footfalls.
All Films are watched. A truth that doesn’t bring any joy to most filmmakers.
Regardless of genre or quality all films released in India are watched by all audiences. I know this a generalization but it is true to a very large extent. Appetite for films is definitely undiminished and newer methods of finding content are always being explored by audiences. Sadly, not all of that translates into revenues for the producers. Smaller films are suffering what I call the curse of pre-selection. In itself this is not unique. World over audiences make these choices. They choose to see some films in the movie hall, some in the confines of their homes through various channels like Pay-per-view or video rentals and some they choose to not see at all. But in the Indian market pre-selection manifests itself in the following way: Much before a film is released the audience has already made up their mind about whether or not they will be going to the cinema halls to watch it. The other films are watched on pirated platforms. In fact smaller films with a promise of being ‘Well Made’ are equally desirable as the big films. Rampant piracy, through the neighborhood CD walla or Internet, ensures the audience will watch and even appreciate the films but it will not translate into a sale of any kind that benefits the producers.
The Cinema Pricing Model is Killing.
On the face of it an expensive ticket means the films makers recover their investment quicker. In fact a lot of happiness in the industry during 2006-2007 was attributed to higher ticket prices and the absence of entertainment tax, most multiplexes were exempt from it, and more transparent accounting systems. In 2010 the game has changed in such a way that small films are struggling to find any takers. At 200 bucks a ticket the cinema experience is naturally tilted towards the big film. Most small films do not inspire that kind of spending. For that kind of money, the average cinema goers is not rich, the audience wants to be blown away by a larger than life event.
Word of mouth doesn’t work as well in India.
Unlike the western world, where small movies grow when they receive good word of mouth reviews (Slum Dog is an example of a film that started with a limited release and then grew with each passing week), in India a good film that has not been preselected for viewing in cinemas has already been viewed in a pirated form before the first week is over. So, a good word of mouth review works more to the pirates benefit than to the filmmakers.
Cinema is not like the music industry.
The music industry has been suffering the piracy curse and has still, however hobbled and tattered and torn, survived. Unfortunately films are not going to be able to survive the way the music industry has. Unlike music, which has a pretty introverted creative process, a film’s creative process needs hundreds of people’s, not to mention expensive equipment, contributions before it gets to a place where it is viewable. The other big difference is that music is an interactive experience. Live music, whether in a bar or at a concert, engages the audience in a way recorded music can’t. Films don’t have that aspect of interactivity to bail them out either.
First the small film will go down and then the whole industry.
Given that small films are doomed to be watched for their content on TV or computer screens they are as endangered a species as the Tiger.
And, as nobody seems to be sponsoring a save the ‘well made small film’ campaign yet and there are no reasons to believe that the copyright act and the agencies that enforce it are going to come up with effective ways of enforcement, they are in eminent danger of falling of the edge.
Demise of the small film in the short run may not be of major concern for the people outside the film fraternity, I am tempted to think that some of the players within the film world might applaud and may even lend a hand in pushing it off the edge, but it is possibly the end of the entire Hindi film business. The ‘well made’ small film serves as the talent supply chain. Most talent leaving aside the actors and producers, a lot of whom are parachuted directly into the big film, has to work its way up from the small film into the big film bracket. If this supply to the talent pool dries up it may well lead to the complete business shutting down.
There isn’t a lot that can be done, is there?
Two things must happen immediately if we are to stem the tide. Firstly; pricing models of multiplexes have to change. There is no way the small film will get audiences if movie hall tickets are priced similar to the big film. Recent agreements of revenue sharing between producers/distributors and exhibitors did touch on this subject but no headway has been made to address the situation. Unless the average ticket price for a small film isn’t reduced to about Rs. 50-70 its survival is going to be difficult. An immediate example is available in the success of regional language films. In the recent past they have been turning a profit due to their affordable pricing both in production as well as in exhibition. Secondly, and this one is very very oft repeated; piracy has to be curbed. Especially piracy in the form of internet downloads. Unless these two things happen really soon Hindi Cinema as we know it will find it difficult to survive.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Would you write a screenplay on deffered payment?
I've come across this question a lot. The answer has to be : Never!
Most 'paid' assignments don't get made into films. I'm sure somewhere on the net you will find a statistic of 90-10 or 98-2 (more likely) ratio to prove it. Chance of a 'no-money-upfront' deal making it through is set in fairytale land. Sure it happens, though I don't know anyone it has happened to, but it is the same thing as buying a lottery. In fact it is worse because you've got to work for 3-6 months before you have a shot at the dream as opposed to just forking out a couple of bucks.
My simple logic is: if a producer can't raise money for a script he's probably just fishing anyway. Basically the producer's plan is to take a writers investment and try to build his fortune on it. Doesn't sound like a good business deal to me.
I get a counter logic from desperately needy writers: "What if it was a reputable, verifiable person asking, should I do it?"
Writers are an insecure lot and easily buy into false dreams. But they've got to stop to think about what these producer credentials are worth. I mean, if they can't raise money for the most important component of a film they couldn't be worth much. Remember without a script a producer would have nothing.
The other fact to consider: A writers job is done when he hands in the script. So basically the writer is the only one to have delivered on his commitment. Everyone else can just walk away from there as they have nothing invested in it anyway.
Most 'paid' assignments don't get made into films. I'm sure somewhere on the net you will find a statistic of 90-10 or 98-2 (more likely) ratio to prove it. Chance of a 'no-money-upfront' deal making it through is set in fairytale land. Sure it happens, though I don't know anyone it has happened to, but it is the same thing as buying a lottery. In fact it is worse because you've got to work for 3-6 months before you have a shot at the dream as opposed to just forking out a couple of bucks.
My simple logic is: if a producer can't raise money for a script he's probably just fishing anyway. Basically the producer's plan is to take a writers investment and try to build his fortune on it. Doesn't sound like a good business deal to me.
I get a counter logic from desperately needy writers: "What if it was a reputable, verifiable person asking, should I do it?"
Writers are an insecure lot and easily buy into false dreams. But they've got to stop to think about what these producer credentials are worth. I mean, if they can't raise money for the most important component of a film they couldn't be worth much. Remember without a script a producer would have nothing.
The other fact to consider: A writers job is done when he hands in the script. So basically the writer is the only one to have delivered on his commitment. Everyone else can just walk away from there as they have nothing invested in it anyway.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Election time again.
Once again the heart is filled with dread. Instead of looking forward with enthusiasm I, like so many others, am dreading the outcome. This election I am having a harder time concentrating on the emerging stories than normal. The two main parties have nothing new to offer, their sales pitch is tired and worn out. The only thing that separates them is their jostling for the higher moral ground which I'm afraid is mostly imagined as the people see them as two sides of the same coin. So the Third Front with all its prime ministers in waiting is probably the only interesting boat to follow. That it has a very real chance makes me want to pack my bags and immigrate to Pakistan or Sudan or some banana republic.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Face booked cooked!
As summer approaches I don't know what to do with myself. It's been some time since I've written anything interesting. The economy is slow, it's too hot, nobody is buying films any more; the list of excuses is endless. Endless waiting for Mastang Mama's post production to finish and to get into the next stage, release and all the pre-release madness, has had a strangely soporific effect on me. It's like the tap has been turned off. I am spending time on silly pursuits like finding friends on Facebook. Its great fun to find people you meet every other week in real life on the net. But it is strangely addictive. For a long time I resisted getting onto both Facebook and Linkedin for precisely the same reason. I'm hoping to break out of this addiction sooner than later.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Time for security for politicians to go!
Much has been said about the horrific attack on Mumbai. My purpose today is not to talk about that as I am still very angry and will only end up bashing politicians and bureaucrats. More politician bashing is only going to be more and won't really serve a purpose.
One of the recurring themes through the course of this week has been to withdraw state provided security from politicians and bureaucrats. This suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. It is not because I think that would 'serve them right' as a lot of people believe. I think a larger more important policy shift can be achieved from this move.
In India neta’s (small, big or pint sized), bureaucrats, public servants and even the neighborhood paanwalla get a PSO for their personal security. This decision is based on an analysis of threat perception done by the police. In plain speak it says that our law and order situation is so bad that the police cannot hope to protect it’s citizens without assigning a posse of personal security guards to them. And only a lucky few who are in positions of power get it.
My rational is simply this; if you remove this security cover from everyone, except for a handful ministers in government, there will be added incentive for these people to invest their time and energies in providing a law and order apparatus that provides basic safety to all citizens. Their stakes in our safety will suddenly be different as it will also affect their safety. Police will have to account for lapses if any in a way that they don’t have to right now. I believe courts will be set up at double speed for speedy disposal of cases. Basically it will create an environment where being associated with crime will become a bad business decision.
In most developed countries politicians don’t need personal security. Average legislators go about their business like regular people. They have enough faith in the law and order machinery to provide them with protection. Why can’t we build our systems to provide for such security for the average citizens?
On a different note: For the life of me I cannot imagine why an Indian politician who has scores of murder cases against him needs the police to protect him.
One of the recurring themes through the course of this week has been to withdraw state provided security from politicians and bureaucrats. This suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. It is not because I think that would 'serve them right' as a lot of people believe. I think a larger more important policy shift can be achieved from this move.
In India neta’s (small, big or pint sized), bureaucrats, public servants and even the neighborhood paanwalla get a PSO for their personal security. This decision is based on an analysis of threat perception done by the police. In plain speak it says that our law and order situation is so bad that the police cannot hope to protect it’s citizens without assigning a posse of personal security guards to them. And only a lucky few who are in positions of power get it.
My rational is simply this; if you remove this security cover from everyone, except for a handful ministers in government, there will be added incentive for these people to invest their time and energies in providing a law and order apparatus that provides basic safety to all citizens. Their stakes in our safety will suddenly be different as it will also affect their safety. Police will have to account for lapses if any in a way that they don’t have to right now. I believe courts will be set up at double speed for speedy disposal of cases. Basically it will create an environment where being associated with crime will become a bad business decision.
In most developed countries politicians don’t need personal security. Average legislators go about their business like regular people. They have enough faith in the law and order machinery to provide them with protection. Why can’t we build our systems to provide for such security for the average citizens?
On a different note: For the life of me I cannot imagine why an Indian politician who has scores of murder cases against him needs the police to protect him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)