"HOUSE FULL" boards are rarely seen at cinema halls these days, I think it’s only fair to dissect the situation and figure out why?
Many actors say that they read the script of a film and then decide which film they want to be a part of. The script is paramount! But all that is bull, only 2 or 3 actors are able to do that, the rest need to make money so they can pay next months bills. The majority of actors will work on any film as long as they’re paid for it. It doesn’t matter if it’s lead actors or character actors. Recently, it was reported that Arshad Warsi wasn’t happy with the script of Golmaal 3 and didn’t want to be a part of film, but when the producers threw 3 crores at him and he changed his mind. Well, right there is the reason I don’t want to watch this film, because obviously the story is going to be lousy and the only reason the actors seem to be a part of it is because they’re being offered big bucks.
Obviously, the only reason they’re making sequels in India is to make money, producers have finally figured out that people who supported them in the first film will be curious and turn up for the sequel, so who cares about the story, right! Well that’s not the point of sequels, at least not entirely. Yes they can make you money, but only make them if there’s enough good material for another story. When you watch a trilogy like Back to the Future, Matrix or Lord of the Rings, the thing that stands out the most is that the stories got better or more entertaining with each sequel. But some films can’t have sequels, so there’s no point in making them. Why cheat the public just for a few more buck, sooner or later they’ll figure it out and stop coming to see your films and it will be disastrous for producers in the long run when the public knows they can’t be trusted. This is what’s happening with Yashraj Films (more on that later).
With the media the way it is today, actors use and abuse the media and vice versa. So it’s become very difficult to comprehend if what they’re saying is true or false. Well, here’s a way to determine just that. Most articles we read today are part of a publicity stunt which occurs a few days or weeks before the release of a film. So if an actor is in the news just a few days before the release of a film, as hard as it may be to believe, its part of the publicity for their film. The only time an actor really says anything they mean these days is if there is no film release in the near future.
Actors need to take their craft seriously and not just look at publicity. If their work is good they will be remembered. No one forgets Tom Hanks after his film has been retired from the screen because he gives a sincere performance and the story is good. That doesn’t mean there’s no publicity involved in his films, but there’s a right and wrong way of doing things and at the moment Bollywood is more in the wrong than the right.
There was a time when a Yash Raj Film was one of the most anticipated films of the year. Then they began mass producing and the story took a back seat to the number of films they could churn out. Soon after, the audience realized this and stopped watching their films. In the last 5 years, since the mass production began, all of the following Yash Raj films have flopped: Pyaar Impossible, Rocket Singh - Salesman of the Year, Dil Bole Hadippa, Roadside Romeo, Bachna Ae Haseeno, Thoda Pyaar Thoda Magic, Tashan, Aaja Nachle, Laaga Chunari Mein Daag, Jhoom Barabar Jhoom, Kabul Express and Ta Ra Rum Pum. This is the reality of cinema today. The audience isn’t stupid. With the advent of the internet and sites like YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook and imdb, the public is far more aware of what’s out there. This knowledge changes the way they think.
Hollywood films are far superior to Bollywood films any day. Bollywood is still about 30 years behind in terms of story and technique. They’re just now getting into techniques which were used in Hollywood 30 years ago. The problem is that the Indian audience has by now seen at least a few Hollywood films and they find it very easy to figure out the Formulaic Hindi films. Even today, a Hollywood film with a 1 star rating is far superior to Bollywood films which receive 4 stars. The screenplay is the biggest difference. For some reason, Indian’s can’t get out of the Indian mentality; we live in a world that’s vastly different from 30 years ago. It's not just about clothes and style we're different mentally.
The biggest problem in India with writers is they consider Syd Field a script writing guru. Syd Field, who has NEVER written a film script in his life, is being taken seriously because he is from the west (a white guy) and feels the 3-Act Structure is how films should be made. Note to all Indians, not all white guys are gods. He is totally a scam artist, I don’t care how many books he has written on screenplay writing, he has no idea what he’s talking about. The easiest films to figure out are the 3-Act Structures:
Act 1: Setup (of the location and characters)
Act 2: Confrontation (with an obstacle)
Act 3: Resolution (culminating in a climax and a dénouement).
You know exactly what to expect and when it will happen because there are only three types of things that will happen in this story at certain intervals. Indian films are based on this 3-Act Structure, that's what makes them so predictable. I like to call it the Boy Meets Girl (Act 1), Boy Loses Girl (Act 2), Boy Gets Girl Back and They Live Happily Ever After (Act 3) structure.
A 3-Act Structure gets writers obsessing on plot, when character should be driving the story. It gives a false sense of security. It makes screenwriting structuring an exercise in mechanics and stifles creativity. It's based on the entirely spurious assumption that you can impose structural constraints on your story from the outside. It rests its authority on the howlingly wrong interpretation of Aristotle's theory that there's a beginning, a middle and end in every story, not three acts.
Any advice on how to write a screenplay should offer something that helps writers break out from the tyranny of iron-clad templates. The 3-Act Structure looks decidedly tired and old-fashioned, guidance on screenwriting structure needs to get real and stop pedaling the patented formulas and regurgitating material from the so-called 'definitive' bibles.
For writers who want to create something more exciting than the usual Bollywood lackluster, there seems little point in following tips designed to suit every scriptwriter.
Inglourious Basterds is not a 3 act structure, neither is Ben-Hur and thousands of other films. A film should be structured as per the films’ demand. You can’t decide on a 3-Act Structure before you start writing, this is why screenplays today are so horrible. Some stories work as two acts, some as five, so it’s totally dependent on the narrative of the story, not on any formula, how you write a screenplay.
The worst thing you can do when screenwriting is to choose what kind of structure you want to use before you've got a solid idea of what your story needs.
Another problem is the lack of characterization in Indian films. Shahrukh Khan has been portrayed as the same character in all his films since Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge there is no difference. That’s because when an Indian screenwriter writes they keep Shahrukh, Salman, Akshay, etc. in mind, they know what their personalities are like and base the character on that. This is absolutely the wrong way of characterizing. The way a character behaves should come from the mind of the writer not the personality of the star. It’s the actors’ job to portray a character which is different from whom they are, but sadly it's not the case with over 90% of Bollywood actors.
Every time I watch Swades I feel it was written for Aamir Khan, Shahrukh is simply trying to ape him. Since Swades was written and directed by Ashutosh Gowariker, who also wrote and directed Lagaan - starring Aamir Khan, it’s not difficult to fathom that he probably had Aamir in mind when he wrote it. Next time you watch Swades think of how Aamir would have played it. This will show you how characterization in done in India.
How you create your character is probably the single most important aspect of screenwriting. Indian screenwriters should start with that, and shape their narrative around the demands of the character. Not the other way around.
The primary reason a Hindi film flops is the story is no good. No superstar or ace director can save a bad story. A good story can have bad acting and direction and still become a hit, but not the other way around. If things are to change in Hindi films, writers need to stop using the predictable 3-Act Structure and concentrate on characterization and story.
© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment