Will of people or ‘weel of peepool’
While increasing ‘democratization’ in sports, technology and telecommunication has helped improve standards, Hindi cinema has seen a trend of reverse democratization. It is the rule of a few people, for a few people and by a few people. Indeed, more’s the pity here.
Democratization as a term has spread from the political lexicon to the realms of social scientists and economists. It is difficult to generalize what it stands for; however, the two commonly accepted tenets of democratization are equality of opportunity and “majorityism”. While there are equally forceful examples of ills of democratization, the positives far outweigh them. Democratization of sports is one such example. All three major sports in the USA (Baseball, Football and Basketball) saw this in the 70s and 80s where the opportunities became available to the till-then deprived ethnic groups and small-town populace. The result, most of the popular role models emerged from these groups who have since dominated these sports. The impact that these role models have had on raising the aspirations of people towards more positive ends can’t be exaggerated. We see something similar in India in cricket. Run your eye through the names of the members of the team that won the T-20 World Champion and you will see how cricket in India has become democratic and has come to be dominated by small town boys. And a whole of lot of good it seems to have done to cricket in India too! Telecommunication is another example where the availability of connectivity at the hands of small scale farmer or trader has helped eliminate middlemen and reduced inefficiencies. So on the balance, it is a phenomenon which needs to be accepted or sometimes even forced upon a system for positive ends.
This brings us to the key question of the post – why has cinema in India (especially Hindi cinema) followed a trend of reverse democratization? Why is it being increasingly reduced to a mediocre pot-pourri of cliques, camps, star scions and cronyism? I am not just talking about filmmaking here even film-watching (with the going rates of tickets in multiplexes) is becoming less democratic. And should it surprise us, therefore, that the benefits of democratization as seen in other fields like better quality output and a more efficient system eludes the film industry.
Let me take equality of opportunity first. We seem to have regressed over the years – the classic strugglers’ tales of taking the train from Peshawar, Lucknow et al to Bombay (Mumbai) has metamorphosized to a plush drive in a 7 Series from Malabar Hill to a suburban studio (possibly with star parents and friends in tow). May be there is a difference – the more technical aspects of filmmaking still require real craft and can’t be substituted by a famous last name but what about the more visible aspects like acting or even directing (as long as you can hire the right technicians and bring in the stars who were your childhood buddies). Is there a genetic code to acting which passes on through the generations or is the framework of commercial Hindi cinema such that a toned physique and the ability to match steps with music good enough for our audiences? And once you have accepted the above, then how does it matter who the director is or what the story is? Bring on the formulaic elements, redeem it with some foot-tapping music and onward ho with the cannon of a media blitz. A 1000-print distribution, 4 days of screening and we are done! The standard argument put forth against this is at the end of the day the audience is the ultimate arbiter and their acceptance should be good enough. My riposte to that is what chance you have given the audience when there is no equality of opportunity. Secondly, what if the audience rejects you umpteen times and you keep coming back till one fine day you deliver more due to providence than talent. Are we the only industry where the stranglehold of so few on commercial cinema is so complete? There have been instances of camps and groups elsewhere in the world but they seem to be driven more on congruence of views and sensibilities (sure there is some commerce in it too). But, in our cinema, blood is thicker than celluloid. So where is the equality of opportunity for talent that is still boarding those trains from small towns and cities into Mumbai everyday? And, who, eventually, is the loser here?
What about ‘majorityism’? While one could argue about the pros of the concept, the replacement of it by ‘minorityism’ is possibly a bigger evil. The pricing of a ticket in major cities works on the principle of exclusion. This price threshold ensures that only a certain section of audience can watch the movie. Elsewhere (in the absence of a multiplex in town), the single movie theatre would hardly experiment with a relatively unheralded movie. So the ‘majority’ which still lives in the non-multiplex world is fed the formula while the minority wonders whether it is worth experimenting with a Rs. 250 tab on a ticket. It is a Hobson’s choice really, either cater to the lowest common denominator and spiral into a bottomless pit or address the ‘minority’ and pray that they spend that amount. It is a losing battle for good quality cinema either way. Then why lament the relative lack of commercial success of good cinema and rant about the biggest hits of the year being Namastey London and Heyy Babyy. Or, why grudge the success of Bhojpuri cinema in Grade B and C centres. They fill up a vacuum. True ‘majorityism’ in a democracy should endeavor to do both – cater to lowest common denominator while constantly lifting it up. It is difficult to envisage that scenario emerging in a hurry in current times.
I am not sure there are easy answers here or if I am qualified to find them. But I do believe there is a need to stem this process of reverse democratization here. And I believe it starts with genuine equality of opportunity in the creative process and then reworking the economics to ensure true ‘majorityism’. What do you think? Do let me know while I am off to catch Dhol; heck, I can pay for it and Tusshar is our bona fide Jack Lemmon to Arbaaz’s Walter Matthau.
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
“democratization” subrat?
i am not really sure but from the analogies the connection you are making is pretty thin…
its more akin to capitalism with a thin veil of democracy be it sports or telecommunication…
films? theres nothing reverse happening here…
its just that the spoils are not in the same league yet.
how else do you explain the influx of new faces on and behind the screen the past few years?
We are in a land that has been nurtured on an adage ‘Raja ka beta raja’.With such imperialistic and dynastic mindset what else can you expect..This is visible in family run businesses,politics, even in civil services where one IAS/IPS officer’s son first thinks of making it to elite cadres of administration..
So why film world be without its nepotism,cronyism et al? This mind set is not easy to change and yes there are no easy solutions..yet there is light, a brighter side..So long for every Salman Khan there is SRK,for every Ajay Devgan,Akshay Kumar,for every Aditya Chopra,Anurag Kashyap,for every Rakesh Roshan a Ram Gopal Verma ,i think Hindi Film industry is alive and breathing with or without a democratic tag.
DPac, Krysh – we have had this surfeit of new faces/talent happening every two years over the last 10 years or so and then they disappear. Sustainability (with or without ability) still needs a cliques. In fact, I had run through just the list of major/known releases from May this year before writing this. While we consider these last 4-5 months, I could only see a Metro, a few Emraan Haashmi movies and small releases like Swami, Apna Aasman which bucked the trend that I spoke about.
Subrat
Emraan Hashmi belongs to Mahesh Bhatt family. So don’t include him among the outsiders.
Very nice article!
Mainak, yeah that fact just slipped my mind. Glad that you liked the article