Hi Readers! My last article ‘Small is (not) Beautiful’ evoked very good response. I received numerous mails and messages and thank you all for the same. If that article was understood and followed by budding producers and directors, much wastage can be avoided in South Cinema. Kudos to the Engeyum Eppodhum team for once again proving that small can be beautiful with an excellent content and performances.
In this issue, my attempt will be to analyze the audience and explain what really helps to achieve box office success. To understand this better, I visited theatres with a couple of friends and interacted with the audience where two hit films were running for over 50 days. One film can be categorized as a hit, while the other is a blockbuster. Though both films were appreciated, we wanted to understand why one mass entertainer became a blockbuster (without a big hero) while the other, a classic and performance-driven film, is just a hit, despite having a big hero.
We interacted with around 150 members of the audience at theatres where both these films were screened. Film names are not important, as our inferences will be more or less the same for all such films. With this analysis for a hit and a blockbuster, one can extrapolate the type of audience which will make a film just average or even a flop. Our observations are:
A Blockbuster Mass Entertaining film
Composition of Audience
Youth (students, office going, jobless and roamers) – 33% (the majority being jobless and roamers)
Middle aged & families – 43% (28% were couples and the rest were with children)
Retired/ elderly people – 7%
Others – 17%
Total – 100%
Repeat Audience composition out of the total audience interviewed
Youth – 50% (i.e. out of 33% youth audience, 17% were repeat audience, watching it for the second time). Most of the repeat audiences were neither employed nor students, but jobless and homeless). Children who came to watch were all with their parents and hence become a part of family audience group.
Middle aged & families – Mostly, the men in this group (and in a few cases women) said they were watching the film for the second time. Men who had watched the film with friends and co-workers brought their families for the second time. So the men in most families said they were watching it for the second time.
Retired/ elderly people – All were first-time viewers.
Others – Women had who watched it once with their husbands, came for the second time in groups of ladies (friends, mothers-in-law, relatives, etc.). Large groups of ladies were seen in the age group 35-45, which is unusual.
Total repeat audience: Over 50%. None had watched the film more than twice.
Let us move on to the film which was appreciated as a classic film but became just a hit to understand the kind of audience who are patronizing the film.
Classic and Performance oriented Hit Film
Composition of Audience
Youth (students, office going, jobless and roamers) – 10%
Middle aged & families – 85% (includes middle-aged individuals and teenagers who came with their parents).
Retired/ elderly people – 5%
Others – 0%
Total – 100%
Repeat Audience composition out of the total audience
Youth – 0% (the teenagers who came to watch the film with their parents are all first time watchers).
Middle aged & families – 20% (80% of this group are also watching it for the first time). When asked to explain how they were watching the film for the first time more than 6 weeks after its release, some said they had come to watch the film (a) based on recommendations of friends and relatives, (b) out of curiosity or (c) they didn’t get the time to watch it earlier. Some said they actually came to see some other film but when tickets were not available, they came to watch this film as they had not seen it earlier).
Retired/elderly people – 0%. All were first-time viewers.
Any other – 0%
Total repeat audience: Close to 15%.
So except for the 20% repeat audiences belonging to the middle aged and families group, every one who came to watch this film was a first timer, though the film was in its seventh week when the survey was conducted and one would expect more repeat audiences than first timers for such a classic performance oriented film.
What can we learn from these observations?
Youth support determines box office success: Clearly, youth makes a huge difference between hit and blockbuster status for a film. Though top artistes’ fans might throng to theatres in the first week, it is ultimately the universe (or sub-set) of youth who are not fans of any specific artiste and are regular film watchers who constitute a big chunk of the audience. If this group is not interested in a film, it is difficult for such a film to become a big hit. If this group also likes a film, then nothing can stop it from becoming a blockbuster. The recent hits 100% Love, Kandhireega, Mankatha, Engeyum Eppodhum and Dookudu are an example of how youth can make a film a grand hit.
Middle aged individuals and family audience constitute the major chunk of the audience: Middle aged individuals are mostly from the working class and rarely find time to watch films as they are busy in both family and professional affairs. They come to theatres only if the film is very good. If this group likes any film, they also bring their families, thus becoming repeat audience and increasing the box office revenues.
Family groups are comparatively rare in theatres, as they are busy running their families; their children have several other entertainment options like TV channels, theme parks, stage plays, music events, etc. To bring them to a theatre and worth spending time and money, the film must be really good and get good word-of-mouth publicity. The biggest advantage is if they come, they come in groups (at least 3 to 4 tickets per group). By attracting this segment, one can be sure of a large component of audience patronage. Recent hits which attracted family groups were Deivathirumagal, Kanchana and Salt & Pepper.
Repeat audiences determine the final box office status: The blockbuster film had almost 50% repeat audience, while the hit film had just 15% repeat audience. This is where the success of a film lies. If a film gets repeat audience due to its content and performances, it has a higher chance of becoming a bigger hit compared to a film which does not get the required repeat audience and relies solely on first time watchers.
My understanding of the audience based on this study also helped me to categorize them. Audience can be classified as:
Low hanging fruits: Fans of the stars, students, office going youth, jobless and roamers (homeless and roadside living). These audiences are easy targets for a film as they will certainly come if any big star’s film releases. They will all watch it once for the star. Some fans might watch it for a second or third time. The humongous opening week’s collections of Mankatha and Dookudu are clear testimony as to how big this “low hanging fruit” group can influence the box office success of a big star’s film. This segment is estimated to contribute to around 35 to 40% of the total audience.
Middle level audience: Families and working individuals. This segment comes to watch films mostly during weekends as many do not find the time to visit theatres during weekdays. However, when they come, they come in large numbers with their other members and hence contribute to bigger audiences on overall basis. This segment is estimated to contribute to around 50 to 55% of the total audience.
Top level audience: Aged and retired people form this segment. For this audience, coming to theatres is not a must, unless the film carries excellent reports in newspapers and magazines for its quality; they will not patronize other films. This niche audience will watch films on a selective basis; hence their composition can at best be 5-10% of the total audience (depending on the film).
The above three segments constitute the whole universe of audience. Out of them form the repeat audiences, who vary at each level.
Repeat audience: The low hanging fruit audience can watch a film repeatedly for the sake of a star if it is good but the middle level audience will not watch it again unless it is a mass entertainer. A classic or performance driven film will clearly be a one-time watch for this audience. The top level audience needs to be excluded from this list as their watching for one time itself is a big achievement.
Based on the above analysis it is clear that the box office success is largely dependent on low hanging fruits and middle level audience who chose to watch a film; if they love the film, they become the repeat audience. If a film can attract their attention, a large opening is assured; if the film turns out to be a mass entertainer, their repeat viewing can be expected.
Films can be categorized as: Mass Entertainers/Mainstream films, Class or Performance driven films, Realistic Films and Artistic films.
(Pl. check out Galatta Cinema - Oct'11 issue to see the table with example of films)
Our study and analysis reveal that the highest level of audience attraction is for mass entertainers/ mainstream films and class or performance driven films compared to realistic and artistic films. However, this is only one side of the story. The above attraction means one time watching interest for a film but does not necessarily convert it into a big success. The level of box office success (as explained earlier) depends largely on repeat audience.
Clearly, mass entertainers score on repeat viewing. A mass entertainer ensures repeat audience as audiences are able to enjoy the experience of watching such films every time they come to theatres due to the lead hero, making and entertainment values it offers. However, class or performance driven films do not get adequate repeat audience from the segments of audience who are attracted to watch it once, even if it stars a big hero. This segment mostly watches a film just once and feels good about it. The challenging categories are realistic and artistic films. They do not get any repeat audience at all; even the select audience groups who come to watch such films see them only once.
However, this does not mean there is no market for realistic or artistic films. To be viable, they have to be made in a very small budget (Rs.1.5 to 2 crores budget in any language) as is currently done in Malayalam films.
Class or performance driven films must be made in a limited budget, considering the limited repeat audience (not more than 15%) it attracts and never in big budgets, especially if it involves a big artiste. Such a film should not be made in mainstream film budget assuming the same number of audience will come for both a mass entertainer and a class film just because it has a big artiste in it.
While a mass entertainment film can be made in mass or big budget due to the kind of opening attraction it has and the repeat audience it gets, all the other categories of films must be made either in limited or small budget to be economically viable for producers. While every film has a market and scope, if one understands the commercial limitations based on this study and make a film within such economical limitations, the financial viability of such films can be assured. Otherwise, it will be a blind risk for the Producers.
Your views are welcome and can write to dhananjayang@gmail.com
Please read this article in Galatta Cinema - Oct'11 issue with images and tables, which could not be uploaded in this blog.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
SMALL IS (NOT) BEAUTIFUL
Small is (not) Beautiful
Hi Readers! I hope you enjoyed reading the live case study in the August issue of Galatta Cinema on our film Deivathirumagal (also spelt as Deiva Thiirumagal). In this issue, I wish to write on the flooding of small films in the South, films which fade into oblivion within a week or two. On an average, South Cinema produces 450 to 500 films; of them, over 55% to 60% are small budget films (meaning almost 300 films!). You will be disappointed to know that of these 300 odd small films releasing every year in the four South Indian languages, not even 25-30 are financially successful! We were earlier told that “Small is Beautiful” (meaning small films are good) but this is no longer true. Small films are finding it most difficult to succeed in South Cinema nowadays. Let us look at the data for 2011 so far.
In Tamil, of the 90 new films released till August 2011, 62 (69%) belong to small category (budget less than Rs.3.5 crores); of these, only two (Potta Potti and Kullanari Koottam) were spoken about and did average business. All the other 60 films were washed out and would not have recovered even the print and publicity cost.
In Malayalam, of the 55 new films released till August 2011, 28 (51%) belong to small category (budget less than Rs. 2 crores); of these, only one (Rathi Nirvedam) was a hit; three films (Ithu Nammude Kadha, Melvilasam & Chappa Kurish) did average business.
In Telugu, of the 60 new films released till August 2011, 30 (50%) belong to small category (budget less than Rs. 3 crores); of these, only one (Alaa Modhalaindhi) became a hit; two films (Jai Bolo Telangana & Dongala Mutha) were average grosser.
Though small films constituted 50% to 69% of the new films releasing in these three languages, their success ratio is just 10% or less. Clearly, something is seriously wrong and it is high time we address this. There are many things not going right for small films and I am attempting to address some serious issues:
Cluttering of new releases of small films
On 29th July, three small films were released in Telugu (Kireedom, Sanchalanam & Paravasamai); all of them bombed. On 5th August, three small films were released in Malayalam (Veetilekulla Vazhi, Oru Nunna Kadha & Ninnishtam Ennishtam 2); all of them bombed. On 12th August, four small films were released in Tamil (Konjam Veyil Konjam Mazhai, Sagakkal, Sankarankovil, Uyarthiru 420); all of them bombed.
The above are just examples of dates when many small films were released simultaneously in the last eight months and became flops. There were several such weeks in these three industries where multiple small films were released, and all of them bombed.
A small film rarely grabs audience attention, especially if it features a new artiste and a new director in addition to a new banner. In this situation, if it comes along with two or three other small films, where is the chance of such a film getting noticed and the audience coming to watch it?
Small or big, each film takes considerable effort and money to produce and then release. In this situation, what is the hurry to release a small film simultaneously with other small films? When a film maker and producer have taken almost an year to make a film, why not wait for another week or month and release it as a solo film or at best, with another small film? When a small film producer learns that there are many other releases on the same day, why does he or she not decide to postpone the release to a more appropriate date? What is the hurry? If the interest cost of the investment is an issue, losing out the entire investment is a bigger issue, when the film does not get a chance to be noticed by the audience.
Just ‘Good’ is not ‘Good enough’ with Small Films
If small films are to get noticed and spoken about, they need to be VERY GOOD or especially OUTSTANDING, especially when cluttered with many other films. Look at the films that flopped in all the three languages. None of them are worth talking about, and their failure is nothing to be concerned about. If it is a small film, being just GOOD is just not good enough (e.g. Vengayam, Potta Potti, Dongala Mutha & Chappa Kurish). If they are just GOOD, they might at best be average grossers, not hit films. They necessarily need to be VERY GOOD or OUTSTANDING (like last year’s Mynaa, Bindaas, Malarvadi Arts Club, Traffic). They have to be very good in their script or storyline, making, performance and promotions within this small budget (e.g. Mynaa). If they cannot be such outstanding films at least on paper (script) first, then they should not be made at all.
The biggest issue we are facing is the prolific releases of small films, films which are just not worth even reviewing; hence even Internet sites do not review or write about them, leave alone popular newspapers and magazines. I fail to understand for whom these small films were made and from where these producers found money to make such films (which do not achieve even the base quality needed).
The film industry has too many budding film makers who have worked for just one or two years as assistants (some of them have not even worked as assistants); with a film idea, they go around searching for a producer. If they find a naïve producer (who comes from a small town with big dreams), they catch hold of him, promise him huge or safe returns, make such films and finally end up with their producer’s entire investment written off. The director got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to direct a film, an opportunity which would have otherwise taken more years, hence he is happy; then he starts searching for another such naïve producer. But the producer, who invested and lost his money, ends up with no option but going back to his roots and earning again to recoup his losses.
It is unfortunate that most small film producers have no clue about the business opportunities and challenges in South Cinema. They just enter for the glamour and short term glory (one or two weeks of press publicity with their name as the producer) attached to it, then end up losing their entire life’s earnings. As a producer and well wisher of the film industry, I am currently trying to organize a three days’ workshop for new producers with the help of other experienced producers in Tamil Cinema to counsel new producers on the opportunities and challenges before they commence a new film so that they make wise decisions. I hope this initiative finds acceptance among them and they come forward with their active participation.
Films should not be made in a hurry and regretted in leisure
Most films are made in a hurry, without proper evaluation of the merits of the script, experience of the director and the potential of the film with such a casting; this is revealed by the facts before us. Most small film producers have little or no experience in the film industry; so they get carried away by the assurances of budding film makers and make such films in a hurry. Just have a glance at the advertisements of small films which appear every Friday in popular newspapers. Most of them are not worth a second look; such is the fate of these films even while they are under production or during their release.
Most small films are made like many people deciding on their marriage or having children or shifting jobs in a hurry, then regretting at leisure on how to manage the changes in their lives. The same is the case with small film producers. Without taking the advice of experienced producers and film makers or study the market in detail, they just make the film based on wrong assurances and hopes of budding film makers and production managers who promise to take care of the production part and mesmerize them with promises of big profit opportunities from their films. Most small film producers are given (false) hopes of making films like Mynaa or Alaa Modhalaindhi, but what they end up getting is not even 10% of such wonderful films!
Films are not fast food to be cooked and served instantly
Films are forever; they have the potential to influence society and create history. Whether they are small or big, films can bring glory at the global level if they are outstanding in theme and execution. Every film has an opportunity to be a part of the history, and hence needs to be made with all the seriousness, passion, sincerity and intensity like we cook rice at home. Making rice cannot be instant. It has to go through several processes before it is ready to eat. If rice is made in a hurry or the process of cooking is hastened, it will not be tasty. Rice is not like fast food (instant noodles), which can be just mixed with water, boiled and made in two minutes. In the same manner, every film needs to go through multiple processes before being produced. A small film producer should not decide to produce the film in a hurry (like making fast food). He has to go through several processes to understand whether the storyline is outstanding or not shown in films so far, whether the casting is presentable to the audience (I have seen many small films in which I could not stand the lead cast or actors as they had very average or rough looks; in the pretext of showing real people, most film makers forget that films are forever and for the common man, who wishes to see glorious people on screen), whether the director can deliver on his promise to make an outstanding film, whether the film can be made in a small budget or will exceed it, how to earn the revenues through other rights (satellite, overseas, etc.) to mitigate the risk, and many other aspects before green signaling a small film. If a small film producer does not follow the process and cooks rice like noodles in two minutes, he will end up with bad tasting rice (film) which is not worth eating. One recent example is Theneer Vidudhi (Tamil). A film made in a hurry, it ended up by going back to the producer in two weeks, losing over half the investment!
Films require film makers with rigorous training and learning
The problem with most small films is that they are made by less experienced or learning film makers who are able to convince naïve producers. These producers also do not understand whether the budding film maker can deliver on the film or not, then end up with a dud in their hands. Otherwise, there is no reason why so many such bad films are made in the small film category.
Most young people who come to the film industry aim to be either actor or directors. But unfortunately, they are not prepared to go through the rigorous training and learning needed to become a person with calibre. Learning the art of film making is like penance; until the learning is achieved on all fronts (including script and screenplay writing, dialogue writing, directing, camera techniques, production planning, etc.) one should not aim to be become a film maker. For at least 4 to 5 years, they must assist a couple of good film makers in at least 3 or 4 films and learn all the techniques before venturing into film making on their own. Film makers who do not have this patience and rush into film making after assisting for just one film (or come with no experience) rarely succeed in the film world.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with most budding film makers. How else one can explain a person serving tea and coffee in the office of a popular director becoming a director for a forthcoming film in Tamil? Just because he interacted with him and his assistants, does it qualify him to be a film maker? In the same way, on what basis can a film designer aspire to become a film director and get the opportunity? How can a stunt Master think he can be a good director for an entire film? He or she can be a good director for stunt scenes, but being the director for the entire film is a different ball game and needs rigorous learning of the technique of story telling. Just because Prabhu Deva and Raghava Lawrence succeeded as film makers, can every choreographer aim to become a director? The technicians who are fit to get into direction are the men who see the film along with the director in every shot, which is the cinematographer and the man who edits every shot, which is the editor. None of the other technicians can really become good film makers in a hurry, unless he or she has gone through rigorous training and learning. I can quote many live examples of wrong choice of directors by producers, which led to duds in small category films.
Small Films must create necessary excitement before they are released
Small films with no artiste value cannot have a big opening in the market unless they create good excitement before their release. Subramaniapuram, Vennila Kabadi Kuzhu, Pasanga, Mynaa, Malarvadi Arts Club and many such films created huge excitement before their release and when they met the expectations of the audience after release, they became big hits. The excitement will be there only if the subject chosen or execution of the film is most spoken about before release, or the film attracts the attention of the audience in some way for being ‘new’ or ‘innovative’. Unless there is some pre-release expectation from a small film (built up through its promotions and talk), the chances of its standing on its own feet after release are remote. A small film being released without expectations can still be a hit, if the subject and the execution are outstanding. Unfortunately, I do not have a live example for this; this is a testimony to how difficult it is to achieve such a feat.
The large number of failures in small films actually lead to aversion or disinterest among the audience to watch a small film, even if it is good, which is not good for the industry. Good small films must be encouraged and supported by the audience. For that to happen, this cluttering of new small films must reduce; an increase in the number of good small films will make the audience realize that “Small is actually Beautiful”.
In Hindi Cinema, the audiences have become more accepting of “different” and “offbeat” films and there is a trend towards content cinema, movies which are not ‘typical Bollywood’. Whether it is Tere Bin Laden or No One Killed Jessica, there is an audience for every variety of theme, budgets and star casts, and hence small films are thriving there. Even in the South, a market for content-based small films can exist and thrive, if they are made well and come with proper phasing.
Every film is a gamble, big-budget or small, star-studded or not; no one can exactly predict its fate at the box office. But if the film has been made well with a small budget, the chances of its success are high, as well-made films are always praised and appreciated by critics and audience. Both critics and audience look for such well-made good films, especially if they are made in small budgets with new artistes. When such a film comes to their notice, they go out of their way to support it (e.g. Pasanga, Mynaa, Kalavani, Traffic, Salt & Pepper, etc.). It is just that such films are rare in most film industries.
In reality, small budget films provide opportunities for new film makers to enter uncharted territory; they also facilitate the discovery of fresh talent and add a novel dimension to the Indian film industry. If producers and budding film makers realize this and fulfill their responsibility to bring out well made films, small films can actually be beautiful and their success will encourage more such ventures.
Your feedback on this series/ article may please be sent to him at dhananjayang@gmail.com.
Hi Readers! I hope you enjoyed reading the live case study in the August issue of Galatta Cinema on our film Deivathirumagal (also spelt as Deiva Thiirumagal). In this issue, I wish to write on the flooding of small films in the South, films which fade into oblivion within a week or two. On an average, South Cinema produces 450 to 500 films; of them, over 55% to 60% are small budget films (meaning almost 300 films!). You will be disappointed to know that of these 300 odd small films releasing every year in the four South Indian languages, not even 25-30 are financially successful! We were earlier told that “Small is Beautiful” (meaning small films are good) but this is no longer true. Small films are finding it most difficult to succeed in South Cinema nowadays. Let us look at the data for 2011 so far.
In Tamil, of the 90 new films released till August 2011, 62 (69%) belong to small category (budget less than Rs.3.5 crores); of these, only two (Potta Potti and Kullanari Koottam) were spoken about and did average business. All the other 60 films were washed out and would not have recovered even the print and publicity cost.
In Malayalam, of the 55 new films released till August 2011, 28 (51%) belong to small category (budget less than Rs. 2 crores); of these, only one (Rathi Nirvedam) was a hit; three films (Ithu Nammude Kadha, Melvilasam & Chappa Kurish) did average business.
In Telugu, of the 60 new films released till August 2011, 30 (50%) belong to small category (budget less than Rs. 3 crores); of these, only one (Alaa Modhalaindhi) became a hit; two films (Jai Bolo Telangana & Dongala Mutha) were average grosser.
Though small films constituted 50% to 69% of the new films releasing in these three languages, their success ratio is just 10% or less. Clearly, something is seriously wrong and it is high time we address this. There are many things not going right for small films and I am attempting to address some serious issues:
Cluttering of new releases of small films
On 29th July, three small films were released in Telugu (Kireedom, Sanchalanam & Paravasamai); all of them bombed. On 5th August, three small films were released in Malayalam (Veetilekulla Vazhi, Oru Nunna Kadha & Ninnishtam Ennishtam 2); all of them bombed. On 12th August, four small films were released in Tamil (Konjam Veyil Konjam Mazhai, Sagakkal, Sankarankovil, Uyarthiru 420); all of them bombed.
The above are just examples of dates when many small films were released simultaneously in the last eight months and became flops. There were several such weeks in these three industries where multiple small films were released, and all of them bombed.
A small film rarely grabs audience attention, especially if it features a new artiste and a new director in addition to a new banner. In this situation, if it comes along with two or three other small films, where is the chance of such a film getting noticed and the audience coming to watch it?
Small or big, each film takes considerable effort and money to produce and then release. In this situation, what is the hurry to release a small film simultaneously with other small films? When a film maker and producer have taken almost an year to make a film, why not wait for another week or month and release it as a solo film or at best, with another small film? When a small film producer learns that there are many other releases on the same day, why does he or she not decide to postpone the release to a more appropriate date? What is the hurry? If the interest cost of the investment is an issue, losing out the entire investment is a bigger issue, when the film does not get a chance to be noticed by the audience.
Just ‘Good’ is not ‘Good enough’ with Small Films
If small films are to get noticed and spoken about, they need to be VERY GOOD or especially OUTSTANDING, especially when cluttered with many other films. Look at the films that flopped in all the three languages. None of them are worth talking about, and their failure is nothing to be concerned about. If it is a small film, being just GOOD is just not good enough (e.g. Vengayam, Potta Potti, Dongala Mutha & Chappa Kurish). If they are just GOOD, they might at best be average grossers, not hit films. They necessarily need to be VERY GOOD or OUTSTANDING (like last year’s Mynaa, Bindaas, Malarvadi Arts Club, Traffic). They have to be very good in their script or storyline, making, performance and promotions within this small budget (e.g. Mynaa). If they cannot be such outstanding films at least on paper (script) first, then they should not be made at all.
The biggest issue we are facing is the prolific releases of small films, films which are just not worth even reviewing; hence even Internet sites do not review or write about them, leave alone popular newspapers and magazines. I fail to understand for whom these small films were made and from where these producers found money to make such films (which do not achieve even the base quality needed).
The film industry has too many budding film makers who have worked for just one or two years as assistants (some of them have not even worked as assistants); with a film idea, they go around searching for a producer. If they find a naïve producer (who comes from a small town with big dreams), they catch hold of him, promise him huge or safe returns, make such films and finally end up with their producer’s entire investment written off. The director got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to direct a film, an opportunity which would have otherwise taken more years, hence he is happy; then he starts searching for another such naïve producer. But the producer, who invested and lost his money, ends up with no option but going back to his roots and earning again to recoup his losses.
It is unfortunate that most small film producers have no clue about the business opportunities and challenges in South Cinema. They just enter for the glamour and short term glory (one or two weeks of press publicity with their name as the producer) attached to it, then end up losing their entire life’s earnings. As a producer and well wisher of the film industry, I am currently trying to organize a three days’ workshop for new producers with the help of other experienced producers in Tamil Cinema to counsel new producers on the opportunities and challenges before they commence a new film so that they make wise decisions. I hope this initiative finds acceptance among them and they come forward with their active participation.
Films should not be made in a hurry and regretted in leisure
Most films are made in a hurry, without proper evaluation of the merits of the script, experience of the director and the potential of the film with such a casting; this is revealed by the facts before us. Most small film producers have little or no experience in the film industry; so they get carried away by the assurances of budding film makers and make such films in a hurry. Just have a glance at the advertisements of small films which appear every Friday in popular newspapers. Most of them are not worth a second look; such is the fate of these films even while they are under production or during their release.
Most small films are made like many people deciding on their marriage or having children or shifting jobs in a hurry, then regretting at leisure on how to manage the changes in their lives. The same is the case with small film producers. Without taking the advice of experienced producers and film makers or study the market in detail, they just make the film based on wrong assurances and hopes of budding film makers and production managers who promise to take care of the production part and mesmerize them with promises of big profit opportunities from their films. Most small film producers are given (false) hopes of making films like Mynaa or Alaa Modhalaindhi, but what they end up getting is not even 10% of such wonderful films!
Films are not fast food to be cooked and served instantly
Films are forever; they have the potential to influence society and create history. Whether they are small or big, films can bring glory at the global level if they are outstanding in theme and execution. Every film has an opportunity to be a part of the history, and hence needs to be made with all the seriousness, passion, sincerity and intensity like we cook rice at home. Making rice cannot be instant. It has to go through several processes before it is ready to eat. If rice is made in a hurry or the process of cooking is hastened, it will not be tasty. Rice is not like fast food (instant noodles), which can be just mixed with water, boiled and made in two minutes. In the same manner, every film needs to go through multiple processes before being produced. A small film producer should not decide to produce the film in a hurry (like making fast food). He has to go through several processes to understand whether the storyline is outstanding or not shown in films so far, whether the casting is presentable to the audience (I have seen many small films in which I could not stand the lead cast or actors as they had very average or rough looks; in the pretext of showing real people, most film makers forget that films are forever and for the common man, who wishes to see glorious people on screen), whether the director can deliver on his promise to make an outstanding film, whether the film can be made in a small budget or will exceed it, how to earn the revenues through other rights (satellite, overseas, etc.) to mitigate the risk, and many other aspects before green signaling a small film. If a small film producer does not follow the process and cooks rice like noodles in two minutes, he will end up with bad tasting rice (film) which is not worth eating. One recent example is Theneer Vidudhi (Tamil). A film made in a hurry, it ended up by going back to the producer in two weeks, losing over half the investment!
Films require film makers with rigorous training and learning
The problem with most small films is that they are made by less experienced or learning film makers who are able to convince naïve producers. These producers also do not understand whether the budding film maker can deliver on the film or not, then end up with a dud in their hands. Otherwise, there is no reason why so many such bad films are made in the small film category.
Most young people who come to the film industry aim to be either actor or directors. But unfortunately, they are not prepared to go through the rigorous training and learning needed to become a person with calibre. Learning the art of film making is like penance; until the learning is achieved on all fronts (including script and screenplay writing, dialogue writing, directing, camera techniques, production planning, etc.) one should not aim to be become a film maker. For at least 4 to 5 years, they must assist a couple of good film makers in at least 3 or 4 films and learn all the techniques before venturing into film making on their own. Film makers who do not have this patience and rush into film making after assisting for just one film (or come with no experience) rarely succeed in the film world.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with most budding film makers. How else one can explain a person serving tea and coffee in the office of a popular director becoming a director for a forthcoming film in Tamil? Just because he interacted with him and his assistants, does it qualify him to be a film maker? In the same way, on what basis can a film designer aspire to become a film director and get the opportunity? How can a stunt Master think he can be a good director for an entire film? He or she can be a good director for stunt scenes, but being the director for the entire film is a different ball game and needs rigorous learning of the technique of story telling. Just because Prabhu Deva and Raghava Lawrence succeeded as film makers, can every choreographer aim to become a director? The technicians who are fit to get into direction are the men who see the film along with the director in every shot, which is the cinematographer and the man who edits every shot, which is the editor. None of the other technicians can really become good film makers in a hurry, unless he or she has gone through rigorous training and learning. I can quote many live examples of wrong choice of directors by producers, which led to duds in small category films.
Small Films must create necessary excitement before they are released
Small films with no artiste value cannot have a big opening in the market unless they create good excitement before their release. Subramaniapuram, Vennila Kabadi Kuzhu, Pasanga, Mynaa, Malarvadi Arts Club and many such films created huge excitement before their release and when they met the expectations of the audience after release, they became big hits. The excitement will be there only if the subject chosen or execution of the film is most spoken about before release, or the film attracts the attention of the audience in some way for being ‘new’ or ‘innovative’. Unless there is some pre-release expectation from a small film (built up through its promotions and talk), the chances of its standing on its own feet after release are remote. A small film being released without expectations can still be a hit, if the subject and the execution are outstanding. Unfortunately, I do not have a live example for this; this is a testimony to how difficult it is to achieve such a feat.
The large number of failures in small films actually lead to aversion or disinterest among the audience to watch a small film, even if it is good, which is not good for the industry. Good small films must be encouraged and supported by the audience. For that to happen, this cluttering of new small films must reduce; an increase in the number of good small films will make the audience realize that “Small is actually Beautiful”.
In Hindi Cinema, the audiences have become more accepting of “different” and “offbeat” films and there is a trend towards content cinema, movies which are not ‘typical Bollywood’. Whether it is Tere Bin Laden or No One Killed Jessica, there is an audience for every variety of theme, budgets and star casts, and hence small films are thriving there. Even in the South, a market for content-based small films can exist and thrive, if they are made well and come with proper phasing.
Every film is a gamble, big-budget or small, star-studded or not; no one can exactly predict its fate at the box office. But if the film has been made well with a small budget, the chances of its success are high, as well-made films are always praised and appreciated by critics and audience. Both critics and audience look for such well-made good films, especially if they are made in small budgets with new artistes. When such a film comes to their notice, they go out of their way to support it (e.g. Pasanga, Mynaa, Kalavani, Traffic, Salt & Pepper, etc.). It is just that such films are rare in most film industries.
In reality, small budget films provide opportunities for new film makers to enter uncharted territory; they also facilitate the discovery of fresh talent and add a novel dimension to the Indian film industry. If producers and budding film makers realize this and fulfill their responsibility to bring out well made films, small films can actually be beautiful and their success will encourage more such ventures.
Your feedback on this series/ article may please be sent to him at dhananjayang@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
