Kamal Haasan says film industry needs corporate investors who are bold

TIMES VIEW
Already brave — and empowering
Actor Kamal Haasan correctly demands bold corporate investors for cinema — fortunately, they're already there. To begin, for any corporate to enter the famously unpredictable cinema industry, where billions ride on a star's abs or the whistle-ability of one song, boldness is an inevitable part of the game. Against a backdrop of creative caprices, several corporate houses have not only entered cinema's whirlpool with courage — but have also revolutionised the industry.
Think back over the last few years — some of the most vibrant in Bollywood's history. From breakthrough small films like Khosla Ka Ghosla, Dev D and Udaan to big-budget dramas like Jodhaa Akbar and Barfi, corporates have backed a wide range of films, many not obvious commercial winners. Intelligent marketing strategies have enabled this — with their ability to work across sectors, corporates have sold cinematic content diagonally from TV to caller tunes, reducing the dependence on box office earnings alone, and increasing filmmakers' ability to innovate.
Alongside, corporates have brought a whole new sensibility to the film industry, once famously closed off to the real world, producers churning out rose-scented love stories and family dramas despite social conditions changing dramatically. But corporates, whose business is to understand change, made the cinema world less cliched and far more real. Additionally, corporates have revolutionized production too. With tight time and budget schedules, corporate houses ensure films — remember Pakeezah, produced over 13 languid years — don't yawn endlessly on. This keeps films taut and tight and artists on top of their creative game. Finally, for those carping about cinema being more creative in organic chaos — would they prefer the days when mafia dons ran the movie world, producing the kinds of films only they liked to watch?
COUNTERVIEW
Assembly lines kill creativity
Sanjiv Shankaran
Memorable cinema is seldom made against a backdrop of compromises. So it is difficult for a classic to be compatible with the underlying philosophy of a joint stock company. A joint stock company is the most effective way of organising some kinds of activities, but classic cinema is not one of them on account of incompatibility of goals. It is unlikely that the assembly line of slick movies churned out today by production houses that are organised as joint stock companies and run like any other business will deeply influence subsequent generations. India`s experience with its own cinema illustrates the point.
Satyajit Ray's first movie Pather Panchali was not just an Indian classic but one that has a special place in the annals of world cinema. Ray started making it when he still held a job in an advertising agency. He took a month's leave without pay to shoot a part of the movie and invested his personal savings in it. Finishing the movie took time on account of paucity of funds. Yet, Ray refused to make compromises on the script when he went about trying to raise money to finish the movie. The movie was finally made with the help of financial support from West Bengal government. If it is still watched half a century later, it was because of Ray's uncompromising dedication to his craft. Could a Pather Panchali be made out of today's assembly lines?
Cinema is most engaging when it is a medium of creative expression. Beyond a point, there will always be incompatibility between creative expression and corporate culture because aims do not match. It is quite possible that advances in movie making technology, which lower the financial threshold to make one, will in future allow talented directors to produce work untainted by compromise. Classics will be the outcome.