I haven't blogged for a long time. Even today I don't really have much to say. Posting some pictures I took yesterday that I'd like to share. These were scenes I caught in Mumbai.

Mumbai is smoking hot at sunrise.

A picture of the afterlife.

Bright and ready to go.

Silhouettes 

To be or not to be a producer: That is the question.

Last week I had an accidental meeting with a producer I’ve been trying to meet for a long time. I have been trying to get this gentleman’s attention because I wanted to pitch a film to him. As it happened, I didn’t have to pitch because I got to hear his views on the relationship between directors and producers when he hijacked a conversation about a completely different subject. The gist being- directors must produce their own material. As I met him at a neutral venue, a friend’s office I had dropped in for coffee, I was glad that I didn’t get to pitch to him and disagreed with him wholeheartedly. To me his assertions were not only wrong they seemed silly. His ‘I know it all’ attitude further pissed me off.

Mulling over the conversation later on my way home I realized there was some truth in what the man said. At this point in time studios are farming out films to directors who are also willing to act as producers. This is just how the system is evolving, especially if you are working on small or mid-budget films. (Maybe the aforementioned producer had been having his chat with studio heads as well. But I digress) The system works like this -Studios that have faith in a project hand over a fixed amount of money and the director turns in the finished film. On the surface it seems like a good situation for both parties. The director gets to be in control, more or less, of his vision and the studio gets their film within a tightly laid out budget with minimal, a couple of midlevel executives taking turns at auditing the shoot/script, supervision and associated pain of managing creative egos. In addition the studio gets full control over the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

My quarrel with this arrangement is that it doesn’t take into account a basic fact; most directors aren’t great producers. The skill sets required for the two jobs are not identical or interchangeable. Proximity to the subject does not ensure automatic transfer of skills. A good publisher or editor doesn’t automatically make a good writer or vice versa. Similarly just because a director in seeing the film clearly in his head doesn’t mean that he is also able to see the logistics needed to bring the vision to life.

In real life there are very few examples of directors being good producers. A good producer isn’t merely the manager of resources. A producer is the creator of opportunities. A good producer is able to steer the director to a completely new and hitherto unseen horizon. He is able show the director a new path, sometimes several paths, thereby increasing the choices available to a director. A good producer nurtures a director’s vision like no one else can.

When it comes to the business end of filmmaking the producer’s contribution is even more valuable and quite literally worth its weight in gold. Most directors aren’t businessmen. Making deals doesn’t come naturally to them. They might over time develop some of the skills but it is not an instinctive thing with them. The ability to smell a business opportunity in a chance encounter is a producer’s special ability. To turn the screws on an already good deal thus making it a great deal without breaking it down is an invaluable talent.

On a personal note- I am a writer and director. That makes two hats. If I add another one of a producer it will kill me for sure. But how does one survive in this industry that believes that anyone can do any job?

De-risking a risky business= Bigger risk

One of the biggest changes in the past decade or so for the film business has been the advent of corporate funding. In addition to rapidly mushrooming multiplexes, this was hailed as the savior of our business. Finally money that didn’t come with ‘strings attached’ was being made available. And indeed it did work like a godsend for a few years. ‘Multiplex’ films were attracting funding and audiences were finally getting a choice. Filmmakers with alternate dreams were able to dream. And just when things were looking rosy, the dreams started to sour. Today multiplexes no longer encourage these small ‘Multiplex’ films. Instead some corporate distribution and exhibition chains are even charging a minimum guarantee from filmmakers to exhibit their films. Consequently activity in this category has almost come to a standstill.

Sadly, the churning that led to the advent of the ‘Multiplex’ film and then to its fall also had another, maybe unintended, casualty; the indie producer and his distribution partner, who produced and distributed Bollywood masala, albeit on a smaller scale, got marginalized. These producers, much maligned for their dubious dealings and shady funding sources, were an essential part of Bollywood’s development brigade. They made small commercial films with tomorrow’s stars. Behind the screen talent almost always got their break with their films. These producers started getting marginalized as soon as the distribution business corporatized and started consolidating different avenues under one roof.

Today’s situation is that very few small to medium budget films are being launched. Quite a few finished and semi finished films are sitting on the shelves, their producers unable to muster either a buyer or money for distribution. Many reasons have been attributed to the current situation. Piracy, lack of quality in the ‘Multiplex’ offerings, exorbitant ticket prices, the general economic slowdown, et al have been cited, and are perhaps in their own way responsible.

But one of the biggest reasons, to my mind, would be the attitude of the ‘Corporates’ towards risk. Managed by upwardly mobile executives recruited from diverse business – some sold soap while others were bankers in their earlier avatars – they have brought a new term into the business with them: ‘De-Risking’. These executives who live from quarter to quarter don’t like taking chances. ‘De-risking’ sounds wonderful and probably works very well in the businesses they come from. Every script, every project is funneled through a model that seeks to reduce the risk element for the corporate investor. Hence they prefer bankrolling ‘safe’ projects. And to be fair to them, small to medium budget films represent a risk. As do large unwieldy multi-starrers. De-risking for the most part, is about working with stars who can guarantee an audience. And when it comes to stars, more is always better, so of course multi-starrers are a favorite.

Nobody seems to have done an analysis on success/failure ratios of small and mid budget films versus big budget films. But I am willing to bet that more money goes down the crapper on big budget films than it does on the smaller, smarter films. So, what then is this brand of de-risking all about? Clearly those who de-risked their business with films like Guzarish, Raavan, Kites, Veer, Blue, Action Replay, Teen Patti etc. ended up looking foolish. Some maybe even lost their jobs. How’s that for de-risking?

The other argument often heard is that it takes the same effort to make and promote a small film as it does in the case of a big film. This is utter nonsense. How can anyone compare the rigors of a 100 day shoot followed by a 6-9 month post production followed by a 3 month long promotion with a 35 day shoot, 3 month post and a 4 week long promotion? I’m not even counting the umpteen hours/days spent hanging around for a star to show up for that costume trial or that dance rehearsal. Not to mention the time it takes to get all the dates organized. What about the bruising the ego takes at the hands of ‘stars’ and their entourages? It would be easier to understand a more honest comment, which would run like this: ‘we prefer rubbing shoulders with big stars because some of the glamour rubs off on us’. Or ‘they party a lot more and the booze is better’.

In a business with so many intangibles, the first principle for any executive should be to take a leap of faith. Belief in a script is important, possibly more important than anything else. There is also a unique, much ignored, learning from the film business that unfortunately the ‘corporates’ can’t borrow from other businesses, which is that last week’s success is over and done with and if you follow that model you are going to end up with a turkey. Every new film has to be a ‘new’ film. Cosmetic changes don’t do it. The past record of the filmmaker or the star doesn’t do it either. Simple de-risked formulas don’t work because the audience doesn’t care too much about business strategies. Audiences only care about seeing cinema that takes them where no one has taken them before.

Now for a truth, told in corporate speak, that might make the people who matter take notice: The presence of stars or directors with a great track record don’t necessarily provide an insurance against failure. They do however, provide a bloated package that might be difficult to recoup at the box-office. Thus de-risking might be risky. The only insurance available comes in three forms; they are script, script and script. But then everyone knows this and nobody has the time to read anyway.

Where our courts have failed us

First off I’d like to say that I don’t have any theories on who killed Arushi Talwar. It is a sad case and the last thing I would want to do is prejudge anything on the basis of idle chatter gleaned from the media. Isn’t that a simple enough sentiment?

I’ve been watching and have been baffled by the case as much as anyone else. The cause for my bafflement though is not on account of this unsolvable case but because of the sheer stupidity associated with it and around it. And I’m not even talking about the incompetence displayed by the investigating agencies. Everyone around me has already formed very definite views on who is guilty and what must happen next. Media reports based on selective leaks, in some cases triumphant and self-laudatory press conferences, from police, CBI, lawyers seem to be the basis of every ‘informed and therefore authoritative’ opinion.

Everyday a new set of leaks and a new set of speculation are on offer. These are selectively twisted and released by the media to suit their current favorite theory. There is no care for the legal procedure or any concessions for simple things like decency. Worst of all is the slanderous gossip doing the rounds besmirching the poor victim’s character. Senior police officers, representative of the media and talking heads on television have speculated on just about everything. All taking their turn at playing armchair Sherlock Holms.

In all of this, and this is not the only instance; it seems to happen in every so-called high profile case, the court is a mute witness. Dubious evidence instead of being presented in court is discussed on television. Speculation is beamed as fact across the country ruining lives of not just the accused but anyone even remotely connected with the investigation. Media circuses driven by TRP gods have been allowed to play out without a word from the one authority that actually has the power to determine what really happened. The court has the power to shut this orgy down. It definitely has the power of pull up that idiot police officer, and more of his tribe, whose conduct of a press conference can only be described as shameful. Yet these learned people who run these courts have chosen not to do so. One wonders why they don’t take charge? A few contempt of court indictments will go a long way in restoring some order. I think the time has come for our courts to use their powers a little more forcefully otherwise we risk becoming a circus nation. And our courts run the risk of becoming irrelevant.

Shortcuts to Disaster

When was the last time an ‘inspired’ or should I say lifted (is stolen too strong a word?) film do well in India? Can anyone remember? I can’t think of a single one that’s done well in the last couple of years. While out and out chori hasn’t worked even the legit remakes have by and large been duds. Leave aside a few stray examples like ‘‘Don’ and ‘We Are Family’, both didn’t set the box office on fire or get any critical acclaim, most have been duds. ‘Wanted’ and ‘Ghajni’ seem to be the only real hits. But those were more star power driven than content driven. Why then does Mumbai’s film industry still trust in remaking/adapting films? Is it possible that nobody has done an analysis of money made vs money lost by such ventures? I think a study like this could surprise quite a few of these short cut seekers.

Why does Bollywood trust in remakes? It is an interesting question to ponder over even if you disregard my suggestion that there is no money or a good name to be made out of it. There could be many reasons but I suspect the primary reason would be a lack of confidence on the holy trinity’s (Producer, Director & Star) part in their own ability to read and judge a script. Reading a script is still an alien concept in Mumbai. Reading a script means being able to visualize what the words on paper are saying. Sadly, most directors, who are supposed to be able to decipher a script, are as at sea as the producer. This lack of confidence then flows and infects the only marketable commodity they have i.e. the ‘Star’, who are famous for being illiterate anyway. In such circumstances it is so much easier to just pick up a DVD and you have the recipe for a success.

Unfortunately life is not that simple.

Adaptations are tricky. It takes a writer of great ability and understanding to adapt a piece of work. It takes hard work to find, identify and then translate into contemporary language the moments that made the original. In cinema it gets even more complicated as a simple translation from English (or Korean or Spanish….) to Hindi is not the end of the job. Characters have to be reworked and cultural subtext has to be weaved into the narrative. Making it infinitely more complicated than it might seem. All of this goes beyond the simple task of translation as is undertaken by the producers and the hacks commissioned by them. And, as is well known, producers don’t spend too much money or time on a writer who has to ‘merely adapt’ as opposed to create original work.

So what motivation does the writer thus hired bring to the job? Do they get their hands dirty and dig deep? Clearly not it seems from the superficial tripe that passes for popular cinema in India. Directors, who are given the original DVD to work with similarly don’t get too involved in the script and look mostly for styling cues while making their magnum opus. So, good looking but sadly vacuous cinema gets produced. Neither audiences nor critics are impressed and producers are left wondering why they have a turd on their hands.

It is tempting to ask, it has been stated by a great number of acclaimed producers and directors, are there no Indian scripts or writers of merit? In fact this lament has become fashionable and appears regularly in interviews by producers and directors just before their adaption hits the screens. This is utter RUBBISH! These are feeble complaints from incompetent illiterates. The stench of their ineptitude would put Mumbai’s gutters to shame. To use an example from the business of publishing; is it conceivable that a publisher will publish material that is either stolen or re-written? When was the last time you heard a publisher say – Let’s rewrite Gone With the Wind? Why then remake films? The fact is that none of Bollywood’s production houses have put in position a system of reading and evaluating scripts. I will agree with the producer’s complaint that they are subjected to insane number of half baked/inept scripts sent in by untalented hopefuls. The nature of the business is such that it attracts a lot of not so great talent that bombards producers with material. But it is in the producer’s interest to set up a system to sift through this material. Prospecting and panning for gold is a good analogy. But you must believe there is gold in that pile of dirt.

I think there are a great many really good writers out there with many interesting stories. Stories they have lived with for years, stories that have been worked on and polished word by word. Writers who are hungry. Writers who belong to India’s gullies and mohallas. They share the pulse of India’s audiences. These writers and their stories are waiting to be discovered while Producer and Directors watch DVD’s and contemplate ripping them off.

A word of unsolicited advice for the holy trinity then; before you rip-off that DVD please walk around the graveyard, it is full of such unhappy ventures. Ventures that bankrupted bigger better names than you.

Films are made from the heart

As more and more ‘different’ films do well, both critically and financially, one thing is clear- the old think tanks (read gasbags) of the film industry don’t know what is what. The filmi dhandawalle – those unseen punters, those guys who buy and sell films and make projects are about as clueless as the next person. I would dare to say that they might even be more clueless as they have forgotten, maybe they never learnt, to see a film for its content. They only evaluate it in terms of the conventional logic handed down to them in the form of 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge.

The conventional logic of big name actors, masala entertainment (songs & dance, fights and stunts), big production values and big promotions doesn’t really work anymore though they are still the benchmark for buying and selling films. In the last few months I’ve met a set of bewildered old school guys who are looking to find a convenient logic in the way the business works today. As there are no fundamentals their logic floats around without an anchor. They rubbish anything they’ve not seen before. I’ve seen many small films written off at first- case in point is ‘PEEPLI LIVE’. I’ve heard it being called a documentary, a fringe film meant only for the film festivals, etc. Then all of a sudden when the film started to pick up steam and its promotions began to connect with audiences the same people started saying- it is Aamir’s magic, he is the badshah of promotions, etc. They completely missed one basic fact- that ‘PEEPLI LIVE’ looks interesting. Audiences are interested in it because it holds the promise of engagement, of entertainment. It doesn’t matter to the audience that this promise doesn’t come packaged with the usual masala or even big production values.

So, is there a lesson in all of this for the struggling filmmaker? A clear message I see is that films need to be made from the heart. This little message escapes most filmi businessmen. So, the next time a knowledgeable filmwalla tells you something about your script or your casting choices or your film, I would suggest listening to your own heart instead. At least there is a 50% chance of it being right.

Ravi Baswani – RIP my friend

What one word would I choose to describe Raviji? Quickwitted? Generous? Talented? Arrogant? Eccentric? All these and more come to mind. But all of them together don’t do justice to him. ALIVE is the one word that I most associated with him.

When my producer Nikhil Panchamiya introduced me to Ravi Baswani and announced that he would be writing dialogues for my film I didn’t know what to make of it. I knew, was even a fan of his work as an actor, but dialogue? I wasn’t so sure. My first meeting started with me asking him how he’d like to be addressed. Being from the advertising business I found the ‘ji’ business of Bollywood tiresome. Also, as a first time director I didn’t want to start the project being either servile or impertinent. ‘Call me Ravi’ he said, dismissive of the need for any pre or postfixes. He had neither the time nor patience for such trivialities. In time I learnt to address him as Raviji not because it was expected off me but because I liked to.

Quick to find a laugh Raviji had a razor sharp wit. Having often borne the brunt of his wicked wit, I learnt that the only way to deal with him was to keep giving back as good as you got. Loud and raucous laughter amid passionate disagreements made an average day of working together.

I hit it off with him from the first day itself. One of the first things that worked for us was a passion for being punctual. In a business where time has a stretchable quality, he set very high standards. Arriving 5 minutes before a meeting, we would both sit on the stairs outside the producer’s office waiting for time to tick down while we cracked inane and sometimes insane jokes. Our laughter, I am sure, let those inside know that we had arrived much before we walked in the door. Working with him was a pleasure as he never said never. Rewrites and more rewrites were delivered by him even as he passionately argued and fought with me over each written word. The script was turned upside down and inside out as he expected the same work ethic from me the scriptwriter. His commitment to the project saw him work way past writing just dialogues. He became my unofficial script editor and a very loudly vocal critic. Our association continued into the postproduction stage as he would come to the dubbings as a guardian of his words and end up coaching actors and supervising every little nuance.

People who knew him would know that Raviji wasn’t everybody’s cup of tea. To like him one needed a thicker skin than normal, luckily I have a rhino’s hide, as he was brutally honest (sometimes too honest and too brutal), opinionated and never afraid to express himself. Many would say Raviji wasn’t an easy guy to like. But a lot of people, like me, liked him for the very same qualities that made some people uncomfortable.

The last conversation I had with him was about 15 days back. Towards the end of the conversation he casually told me that his directorial debut was about to take wings. I knew it was a long cherished dream and to hear that he was about to embark on this journey made me very happy. I joked with him about writing dialogue for his script. He laughed and told me that if I wrote dialogue he would end up with a Punjabi film. As it turns out fate had other plans for him. I wish him peace where ever he is.