Show Me the Money!
iView Author: Uttarika Kumaran (Mumbai, India)
Email: uttarika [at]gmail[dot]com
Show Me the Money!
I was watching a documentary on The Lord of the Rings film trilogy today. Apparently, the entire project which spanned a period of eight years, cost a preposterous $280 million to make. A lot can be said, mostly positive, about the intrinsic power of cinema to transform one man’s vision into a reality more palpable than any art form has ever come close to achieving. It is a flattering tribute to human creativity to allow such ambitious projects to take off the ground, and when executed with skill and backed up by talent, astound us all with their ability to move us to the deepest reaches of our hearts.
Of course, $280 million isn’t exactly spare change either, not for those campaigning relentlessly to increase funding for AIDS research, or for those who’d like to see that money go into an effective system to combat cross-border terrorism. It certainly won’t eradicate world hunger or facilitate free universal medical care, but $280 million can always offer a helpful push in the right direction – just a little perhaps but to the relief of thousands, if not more. In such times, should filmmakers be held morally culpable for indulging in expensive flights of fancy in a world where many don’t even have the luxury of survival, let alone of imagination?
At the same time, it would be presumptuous on one’s part to support the complete abolition of cash-liberal film making, or any other art form for that matter, in trying times. History has had quite a few instances where a socio-political transformation has often been preceded by an artistic revolution encouraging people to look at the world differently, in a way that couldn’t have been imagined before. Although I’m not sure whether any artistic revolution has ever run up the kind of bill as this one has.
The question that needs to be asked in the first place is whether such lofty aspirations are even the true driving force behind the proliferation of big budget mainstream films that has quite fittingly earned it the stature of a global industry? With the ridiculous amounts that have been spent on films in the past few decades, it’s obvious that filmmaking is no longer an art – it’s a business. The commercialization of art doesn’t necessarily have to herald the death of art, but when a commercial product is strutted around under the guise of true art, is when we should pose the question – is it really worth it?
I have more respect for a businessman who directs formulaic big-budget films with the sole purpose to entertain and fill the coffers of his producers, than an ‘inspired’ filmmaker who will burn crores on an ‘artistic’ or ‘off-beat’ film that would be ripped apart in any Screenwriting 101 class. The colossal waste of resources on a film that bombs its first day at the box office IS morally wrong, and not just in today’s world. There will always be better ways to spend money and resources than to indulge the egos of inadequately talented men.
Then there are those films that can’t quite be termed bad or good, but just plain obsolete or simply a complete waste of everyone’s time. Revolutionary Road for example, revolved around a theme that has already been skillfully explored by Stephen Daldry’s The Hours. I’m not sure if anybody has anything left to depict about the silent oppression of stay-at-home wives in postwar ‘50s American suburbia without repeating themselves, in either theme or emotion. Then we have Watchmen (production cost of $120 million) which did so little of adapting and so much of merely copying the graphic novel panel by panel, it was no wonder that even Alan Moore didn’t want anything to do with it.
To put things in perspective – for every masterful stroke of characterization and special effects brilliance in The Dark Knight ($185 million), we also have films like the five-hour futuristic disaster Waterworld ($250 million) that didn’t have a single saving grace to rescue it from the clutches of box-office doom. If Pirates of the Caribbean (over $250 million) bowled you over with its refreshingly witty take on the fictional pirate archetype, you must have been just as disappointed by Spiderman-3 ($258 million) which evidently couldn’t match up the buzz generated by the previous two movies and drowned in a long list of supporting characters and an overdose of seeing Tobey Maguire hopping all over the place.
In reality, Spiderman-3 was not a film that needed to be made – it was just a lazy attempt to cash in on the interest generated by Spiderman 1 & 2, not to mention a multi-million dollar merchandising deal. Watchmen too hoped to capture an already established cult fan base and ride the bandwagon on the recent trend of adapting graphic novels into films that are more digestible fodder for an attention-deficient non-reading public.
In short, whether you agree with me on the above or not, you’ll surely agree that there will always be those films that you watch and wonder, why was this ever made? But to really let a bad film get your goat, you should instead ask yourself – what could that money have been used for otherwise?
Not all films need to admit a social responsibility, but every filmmaker must accept responsibility for a bad product and be willing to speak up for it. With misplaced notions of their own importance, certain big budget filmmakers dangerously believe themselves to be at the helm of an artistic revolution based purely on a conviction of their own supposed genius.
This is most definitely the case in Bollywood, where a director’s past three consecutive failures are graciously overlooked, keeping in mind the handful of hits he happened to churn out 15 years ago. While vast resources are constantly directed towards the same filmmakers who suffer from an outdated vision and limited scope, a systematic bias entrenched in the industry continues to shut out fresh talent from all the action. What ensues is the violent unleashing of terrible films made by the same filmmakers over and over again, on an unsuspecting yet always hopeful viewing public.
What if every big budget film proposal were to pass through a test for its viability, entertainment appeal, relevance and the skill sets of those involved in its production? Imagine an industry where every filmmaker must continue to prove his capabilities, regardless of the hits he’s delivered in the past; and if he cannot, then make a tasteful exit into retirement. Is this an impractical solution or a terrifying one for those in the business? I would really like to know.
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Veey well written article. but i must say that while i agree with most of this article, the last paragraph is too whimsical. there are two reason behind me saying this, one, it is unfair to write off film makers because of a few bad film. Film making is still, under all the gloss and money, an art, and an artists ideas often contradict with everyone else’s and thus their products fail commercially. Two, film is a very subjective business, there is absolutely no way in hell to predetermine the success, commercial or artistic, of a product before it is completed. What sounds great at a pitch meeting may turn out to be shit and vice versa. Why else do we hear these stories so often that are about how a great film took many years and battles to be finally made because the maker could not find people who believed in his project. you might say that some people are benefitting from a few successes they have had and just making mindless trash, but i dont think its even about success. today its about showmanship in life on part of a film maker. How else do you think that someone like a Samir Karnik who made the disgusting Kyun ho gaya na and the mediocre Nanhe Jaiselmer continues to be a film maker who has work.
So while you bring up a very good issue, i think you (and ‘we’) need to think more about it before suggesting the kind of solution that you have.
hopefully the merits of the script and the director’s competence are the frist criteria that the financiers look into otherwise all that we as viewers will be able to watch would be shit!shit! and … wait for it … mor SHIT! please dear studio heads use ur fucking heads. oh btw great piece.
@Ayush – You’re right. There’s no way to really predetermine whether a film will succeed or not, but what I’d like to see in place is a system of appraisal that always keeps filmmakers on their toes. Every pitch should be considered for what it is in essence as a narrative, not for its proposed star cast or its filmmaker’s past successes… or failures. The reason I was venting out on filmmakers who’ve been unable to deliver hits in their past few successive attempts is precisely because of the reason you raise –
Why else do we hear these stories so often that are about how a great film took many years and battles to be finally made because the maker could not find people who believed in his project.
Is it that the maker couldn’t find people who believed in his project (I think every able, talented filmmaker with a good idea cannot help but be noticed… considering the usual fare we are subject to on screen), or that the people he approached would rather play it safe and enlist an already ‘established’ director with a not-so-great script but with the correct credentials to rope in stars on his project and ensure at least a certain level of commercial success at the box office?
Box office duds or bad films can’t be avoided but shouldn’t they at least find it a little more difficult to get made, instead of being able to breeze through with immediate funding, while better, more innovative scripts lie languishing for years?
If showmanship is a deciding factor, then again, let’s call filmmaking a circus show, not art. But yes, this is a topic that requires further thought and a genuine desire to change status quo, in case it is bothering more of us.
@Vivek – hopefully. :-)
dil ko behlane ke liye ghalib yeh khayal acha hai
Uttarika, i do like your ‘why-why-why, why-don’t-we-rethink, wouldn’t-we-ever’ concern in the post..
though,
it’s not like $280 mil was squandered or something, right? not even like the endeavour was meant to be an example of commissioned artistic excess. am no fanboy of the series, but the LOTR trilogy you begin your well-intentioned post with made close to 10 times the money spent on it. and these are films whose artistic merit don’t invite any questioning, certainly not by any amateur 101’s.
i disagree with your “I have more respect for a businessman who directs formulaic big-budget films with the sole purpose to entertain and fill the coffers of his producers, than an ‘inspired’ filmmaker who will burn crores on an ‘artistic’ or ‘off-beat’ film that would be ripped apart in any Screenwriting 101 class.” i would proclaim the reverse.
no man/woman qualifies as inadequately talented – definitely not over a few crores, give or take. but end-up as being inadequately talented for A Particular Project.
your last paragraph’s wondering – it is indeed pretty much how the whole equation operates currently. no filmmaker is handed-out a green-card to perpetually make films, unless he/she delivers (one way or another). am not saying the scene here is as WE desire it to be, but diverting funds from the industry is no solution, ‘coz then only the very same despised entities will get to perpetuate and dilute ‘collective taste’.
keep writing here :-)
LOTR was $280 million for all 3 three hour plus movies and together they have grossed more than titanic has. What abt superman returns the hopeless rehash of the most lousy superhero ever imagined? It was worth ovr $200 million alone.
@Uttarika
Before commenting on economics read it first!!
I’ll strongly recommend, to read atleast something of economy.
Money is not static, if you are investing $280 millions then you are not neccessarily taking money from some other place and purpose (fighting HIV, poverty, hunger etc.), if film comes out a hit and gets a positive Return on investment then actually you have just added this much money into economy (and GDP). I am not a master of economy but this much I know.
Its very easy to comment upon big budget failure from a office pc but show a little humility, don’t preach which film should not have been made, let it be decided by the producer and director. There has never been any guarantee of which film is going to work (though predicting a failure is simpler as 90% are failures) and saying the filmmakers have done any thing wrong by making a film is even wronger (I know there is nothing like wronger but hope you’ll get the message) :-) .
hmm… so let me get this straight – you get a return on the investment if the film comes out a hit. The great lesson in Economics 101 notwithstanding, my entire point was made in the context of films that don’t succeed even by a long shot. Of course, a more convincing argument you could have put forth is by bringing to my attention all the many thousands of jobs, technical or otherwise, that are created in a thriving film industry (regardless of successes or failures), which offer a sustainable source of livelihood for a whole lot of people. Now if that had been a point, it would have been well taken.
Also, I certainly didn’t mean to preach – as far as I’m concerned, $280 million can be used just as legitimately to send a group of chimps to space and make a reality show out of it – it is a purely a matter of subjective taste about what you would rather see the money being used for. As for my seemingly distasteful armchair commentary – unfortunately, cinema is one such medium that moves just about anyone to have an impassioned opinion about some aspect of it – whether it’s me with my post above or you, who has immediately discounted 90% of films being made today as failures (even I’m not that harsh).
As much as this critical spirit, misplaced or otherwise, might have its shortcomings, it is a spirit that websites such as the one we are on hopefully thrive upon. So all I can say is bring it on!