My Name Is Khan and I'm Full of BS

By Anant Mathur (May 28, 2010)

I finally had the unfortunate opportunity of watching My Name is Khan (MNIK) on DVD. I’ve always believed that a Rajesh Khanna film called “Red Rose” is the worst Hindi film ever made, that is, until I saw My Name Is Khan – the honor now belongs to MNIK. I can’t believe the critics gave this sorry piece of celluloid a 4.5 or 5 star reviews. The film is not even worthy of receiving negative stars, that’s how dreadful it is. If Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna and MNIK are the kind of films we can expect from Karan Johar, he should stop making films. If you haven’t seen MNIK, I suggest you stop reading here. If you have seen the film, please continue.

 
******SPOILER ALERT******

When will Bollywood get over its 9/11 hangover? What makes Bollywood filmmakers think they know what happened during 9/11 in North America? Apparently, as My Name Is Khan reveals, they know absolutely nothing!

The greatest problem with “My Name Is Khan” is the time line and I don't understand why no one has picked up on it. We’re shown that Rizwan Khan meets Mandira Rathod pre 9/11 in San Francisco of all places. She has a kid (Sameer Rathod a.k.a. Sam) who’s about 13 years old. Rizwan and Mandira get married and shortly after witness planes crashing into the two towers as its shown live on TV. The 9/11 disaster occured in 2001, yet the time line keeps jumping between 2001 and 2007-2008 periods; this is the biggest flaw of this film.

In June 2008, Rizwan Khan says it’s been 179 days since Sam’s death which means Sam died in 2007. Apparently, Sam is still 13 years old in 2007 - six years after Rizwan met the 13 year old - unless he has taken some potion for eternal youth, he should be 19. Sam is killed on November 27, 2007 because children in school are picking on him for being Muslim (even though he’s a Hindu). Mandira tells Rizwan if she didn't marry him Sam would be alive. She suggests Rizwan ask the president why this happened and maybe he can stop all this Muslim hate. So step-father Rizwan Khan’s journey to meet the president begins.
 
What boggles the mind is if 9/11 happened in 2001 why in the world is Rizwan Khan going to see the president in 2007. It’s not very believable that in a place like California, thousands of miles from New York (where 9/11 actually occurred) children would beat up a kid for being Muslim and riots would occur 6 years after the fact. There’s no reason for the time shifts between 2001 and 2007-2008, the film would have worked if Karan Johar stayed in 2001. The only explanation I can think of for the time shift is the Hurricane sequence when we find Rizwan in Wilhemina, Georgia (a city that doesn’t exist in reality). The Wilhemina, Georgia sequences have nothing to do with the story of the film and only add unwanted time to an already long film. In fact, Georgia is not known for hurricanes and there were no hurricanes in the state in 2007 or 2008, so even those details are wrong! Had Karan Johar done an ounce of research he’d have known that.

It’s sad to see that Karan Johar has no idea what really happened during and post 9/11 in North America or any clue about the George W. Bush presidency or any knowledge of where hurricanes occur and yet he’s made a film about all this.
 
When Rizwan is having an attack, upon seeing yellow (he has a fear for the color) and stops in the middle of the street with a cable car approaching, the people get out of the cable car and are abusive towards him. In India this is very likely but, this would never happen in North America, here people are informed about such things, especially in a big city like Frisco, people would actually try to help him.

In another scene in 2007, we’re shown people rioting and beating up Muslims or threatening them. Sorry Karan Johar, North America is not like India where anyone can start race riots and get away with it, law and order is still paramount here. And those riots never really happened in Frisco so why make them up?

Not once in the film is Rizwan treated badly for being a Muslim. Mama Jenny whose son is killed in Afghanistan, by Muslims, loves him. Even people at immigration cleared him without any problems when he arrives at the airport. The only time he gets arrested is when he starts shouting “My Name is Khan and I’m not a terrorist” at a ralley. That’s just another factor showing how lame this film is. The scenes with the reporters look like they’re forcefully added to the film.

Rizwan suffers from Asperger's Syndrome (AS), but nothing is said about what this disease really is or how it affects different people, what causes it or what can be done to help people who have this - we're only given a generic description. When you have a platform such as Karan Johar did, it’s very sad that he doesn’t use it to inform and educate people; this was also the case with R. Balki’s “Paa”.

If Indian filmmakers can’t talk about or explain a disease they shouldn’t make a story around it, it’s very insulting to people who suffer from these diseases. They’re not creating any awareness. After people watched My Name is Khan no one cared about what AS is. Karan Johar should watch films like Philadelphia (1993) to learn how to construct a touching story. Philadelphia made people aware and changed the perspective of many people. I highly doubt My Name is Khan will do any such thing. 

There isn't even a mention of how many people suffer from AS for goodness sake. It took me 2 minutes to find out that an estimated 60 million people suffer from Autism around the world and AS affects 20 million people worldwide. Boys are three to four times more likely than girls to have AS. If Karan Johar can waste 2 minutes on showing the names of sponsors and friends, the least he can do is devote 10 seconds to an insert with statistics about AS.

There are lots of reasons Rizwan could have suffered from the disease, we’re told that he has the disease in childhood, before his father died, so it can’t be because of his father’s death. Nothing else happens in his life, that we’re told about to cause it. What’s the reason? Was he born with it? Did he develop it later? Can he be cured? No explanation is given. We’re also told that Rizwan is afraid of the color yellow but again the why, how, where and when are missing.
 

Another thing I didn’t understand is why Rizwan is travelling the country running after President George W. Bush; why not stay in Washington. You'll never guess where he meets the president at the end... Washington - SURPRISE! And when he does meet the president it’s not even the one he was chasing all those months, elections have happened and it’s the president elect that he meets (some black dude who doesn’t look anything like Mr. Obama).

I have said this many times: Indian filmmakers need to start doing research, it’s sad that in the world of today with Wikipedia and thousand of other ways to do research online, Indian filmmakers still come up with such bullshit and buy the reviews to con people into watching their films.

Unless they’re making these films for uneducated fools who have never seen a single film in their lives, this bullshit needs to end. The audience is used to well researched Hollywood films in North America, if Bollywood can't do the same they should stop releasing their films in North America, the audience here won’t buy your crap. Kajol is wasted in this film and Shahrukh hams yet again, trying to imitate Dustin Hoffman’s Rain Man and Tom Hanks’ Forrest Gump doesn’t make you a great actor Mr. Khan. Tom Hanks and Dustin Hoffman are remembered for their portrayals of Forrest Gump and Rain Man, but such will not be the case with this forgettable Shahrukh Khan performance. SRK showed much promise when he first arrived in Bollywood – Karan Johar and Aditya Chopra have ruined his talent.

Hard to fathom why Fox Searchlights released MNIK? It’s depressing to see India is so backwards in terms of story telling, at least get the bloody time line right!! Throughout the film Rizwan keeps saying “I can repair anything” and even has a sign in the later reels, how one wishes he could repair the screenplay of this film.

I don’t want this post to get too long, but I would like point out that I haven’t even touched on half of the other problems with this film like how did all those people (friends and family of Rizwan) get to Wilhemina – a town of just over 200 people – in the middle of a hurricane? I’m sure there’s no airport in Wilhemina and Georgia is on the opposite side of the United States, over 2000 miles away, from Frisco and Rizwan's friends and family.

All the money spent on making and promotion of My Name Is Khan could’ve been better spent making 10 sensible films like “A Wednesday”.

I would like to end by saying My Name Is Khan is VERY DISAPPOINTING!!!!

P.S.: I came across this comic about MNIK and I think it’s 1000 times better than the actual movie. I hope you will enjoy it and get the bad taste of MNIK out of your system. Please click on this link for the comic:

http://www.thevigilidiot.com/2010/02/16/my-name-is-khan/

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

The Price of Success!

By Anant Mathur (May 23, 2010)

For a long long time I have been saying that critics are paid for writing reviews in Bollywood. This became even more evident after the Producer’s Strike in 2009. Ever since the strike, critics have been giving 3 to 4 stars (out of 5) to every big film that’s released. After seeing these films I find that most of them don’t even deserve 1 star.   

A prime example is the recent release Housefull. Many critics gave it 4 stars or more and praised it madly, but there were a select few who reviewed it honestly and gave it what it deserved (1 star). Now, I'm all for every film having it's target audience and maybe some viewers not liking a film as much as the others. But critics take an academic approach to films and try to come to understand why a film works, how it works, what it means, and what effects it has on people - without being biased. Thus, I find it hard to digest that the difference would be so drastic that some critics give the film 4 stars while others are giving the same film 1 star. 

Below are links for Housefull reviews by two of the country’s top critics. One is witty, honest and hilarious. The other is just hilarious and obviously paid for by the producer or distributor. I leave it to you to decide which one you believe, but after seeing the film I could only believe the one which gave it 1 star.

Khalid Mohamed's Review of Housefull
Taran Adarsh's Review of Housefull
 

The latest bollywood release "KITES" is getting mixed reviews. I haven’t seen the film, but after seeing the trailer, I have no interest in seeing it on the big screen. The film seems to be very high on gloss and low on story, then again, most love stories are. It's becoming increasingly obvious that the positive Kites reviews are the ones that may have been paid for. Below are some links for reviews of Kites, you decide:

Khalid Mohamed's Review of Kites
Komal Nahta's Review of Kites
Taran Adarsh's Review of Kites
Subhash K. Jha's Review of Kites
Nikhat Kazmi's TOI Review
Mayank Shankar's HT Review
Raja Sen's Review for Rediff
J. Catsoulis NY Times Review
Kevin Thomas' L.A. Times Review
Peter Debruge's Review for Variety
Sarita Tanwars Review for Mid-Day
S. Gupta's Indian Express Review
Anpama Chopra's NDTV Review
Rajeev Masand's CNN-IBN Review
Martin D'Souza's Review of Kites
Apurva's Review for Chakpak
Sampuran's Ent. Daily Review

The way success is measured in bollywood is all wrong. If a film costs 2 crores to produce, collects 3 crores and is taken down after the second week, it’s considered a hit - only because it made more money than its cost. Whereas, if a film costs 50 crores and collects 45 crores, it’s considered a flop even though it was in release for more than 5 weeks and drew 15 times more business than the small budget film. Amazing!

In order to tell if a film is truly successful we must look at how it performs in the weeks following its initial release and not its budget. For example if a film makes 20 crores in the first week of release but falls 80 percent in the second week (earning 4 crores) and another 90 percent in the third week (earning 40 Lakhs for a total of 24.4 crores), it should be considered a terrible film no matter what the budget is. The reason being, in the first week the film made an exuberant amount of money because of strong promotions, star power, etc. But once the audience realized it was no good, the collections dropped dramatically and it was off the screens in 3 weeks. It doesn’t matter if the paid critics gave it 4 stars, the target audience has spoken. If the film is any good it would’ve lasted for more than 3 weeks.
 

Let’s take another example, 3 Idiots collected 54 crores in it’s first week, 50 crores in the second week (a drop of only 8% in collections). This suggests that the film is pretty decent and audiences have liked it and seen it on more than one occasion. In the third week the collections were steady at 28 crores (a drop of 44%). Fourth weeks collections were 14 crores (a drop of another 50%). In the fifth week the film was still going strong (collecting 9 crores – a drop of 36% from the previous week). This example shows the progression of a hit film over the course of the first five weeks in release. As you can see the collections never fell below 50% from week to week and even in week five, 3 idiots made more money than most movies do in their first week. Unlike flop films which are considered hits because of their first week’s collections, a true hit has considerably smaller drops in collection from week to week and stay on the big screen for more than 5 weeks. 3 Idiot was the highest grossing film for 4 straight weeks and stayed in the top 5 (in collections) for 12 weeks.

Kites will likely be declared a hit after the first week of release. On average Hindi films have a 500 screen release. Kites is being released on 2,500 screens worldwide, more than twice that of Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (1200 screens). It is commonly believed that distributors of KANK knew the film would flop and thus designed a wide release that would ensure the film makes its money back in the first week. Like KANK, distributors of Kites expect to make their money back in the first week as well and probably will. But I think it’s the weeks following the initial release that will tell the real tale of whether the film is loved by audiences or not.

With 10 thousand shows daily, a hyped up film like Kites is bound to make its money back in the first week, just the names associated with the film will pull in audiences in week one. The producers and distributors of Kites along with the media may declare it a hit after the first week, but whether the audience truly loves it won’t be known till at least 3 weeks after its release when the numbers can really be compared.

Collections of KANK fell more than 65 percent in the second week and the trend continued for the next three week. The first week’s collections of KANK were just about 15 crores. For weeks four and five collectively it was a less than 1 crore. Week five’s collections were a dismal 23 lakhs after which the film was yanked (total collections: 24 crores). My Name is Khan had the same fate; it too had a wide release of over 1500 screens, did bumper business in the first week (due to the names attached) then dropped tremendously in the following weeks. Now compare this to a film that’s loved by the audiences like 3 idiots and you’ll understand what I mean.

"A Wednesday" lasted for more than 7 weeks and even though it didn't make as much money as Kites will probably make in the first day, it's a good film because the audience went to see it week after week. It wasn't released on 2,500 screens and didn't have the promotional budget or star power of Kites but it lasted longer than most "wide release" films do.

Another advantage Kites has is its distributor Reliance owns 525 screens worldwide and close to 200 screens in the United States. So, even if Kites is taken off other screens after the first week, reliance can keep it going on their screens for weeks, the audience will wonder why it's still running and may go to see it for curiosity's sake. 

I would like to end this post with the same issue that started it, the reviews of critics. In my opinion, buying reviews is the wrong way of promoting any film. Not only are producers cheating the audience, but they fail to realize the audience will smarten up and stop coming to see their movies; YashRaj Film has been experiencing the audience’s wrath for several years now.

I believe that over the last few years critical reviews have hurt the success of films. If the critics didn’t review films on the day they were released they would have a better chance of success than they currently do. Instead of getting into bed with the critics, Producers should be able to get a court order preventing critics from reviewing films until after the first week of release. This way the audience can decide if the film is good without the critics influencing their judgment. And films will likely not be taken off screens after 2 days or in some cases 2 shows.

The audience should be the final authority in the success or failure of a film, but when their judgment is manipulated by a critic’s review, it’s unfair to the success of the film. In the end, critics usually send the wrong message and it’s the film that pays the price.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Tip # 23: The End

By Anant Mathur (May 21, 2010)

The last thing an audience sees in the movie theater are the words “THE END” or something to that effect. It symbolizes the completion of your entertainment, whether you are satisfied or not is up to you to decide. It is the responsibility of every filmmaker to leave the audience with a memorable ending. A reason for them say: “Wow, what an incredible film”.

Usually films have a reasonable story until they get to the end, by the time we arrives at the conclusion it almost seems as if the writer was too tired to come up with a suitable end. The film you have given 2-3 hrs of your life to ends up as a big fat pile of garbage.

Filmmakers need to realize that it doesn’t matter how good the first 2-3 hrs of the film are, what the audience remembers most, by the time “THE END” pops up on screen, is the last 10-15 minutes. And if that doesn’t provide an appropriate finish, it leaves a bad taste in their mouth.

Most filmmakers don’t even know when to end their story, they drag it out and a five minute ending becomes 30-40 minutes of torture.

Although there are many other vital elements to creating an entertaining story, I strongly believe that with a great ending, half the work is done.

The ending of a film needs to be gripping, spellbinding and should keep you on the edge of your seat. It should be something worth talking to your friends, family or co-workers about. The best response an audience can give a films is a round of applause before leaving the theater. Now that’s a film worth seeing!

The audience should respond positively to a film they’ve just given 2-3 hrs of their life. When I view films today, I end up saying “I want the last 2-3hrs of my life back”. Films are supposed to entertain us not stir up feelings which make us wish we didn’t see the darn thing.

Special Effects, Big Stars, Big Budgets aside, the primary purpose of a film is to leave you entertained. It doesn’t matter how much money was spent to make the film, if it’s not entertaining, it will leave the audience unsatisfied.

There are a lot of factors involved in telling a successful, crowd-pleasing tale, but it’s the ending which you remember when you’re exiting the theater. A brilliant ending can't save a horrible story but if a movie is going to be bad at least you get some gratification for sitting through it.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Tip # 9: Casting

By Anant Mathur (May 16, 2010)
 

One of the things that baffle my mind is why Indian screenwriters construct stories with actors in mind. What end up happening is that the character takes on the personality of the actor rather than being an original entity! This is why it seems that Shahrukh Khan has been playing the same character, in every film, for the last 15 years or so.

Today, Ninety percent of Bollywood films have actors portraying characters they never should be playing. That’s one of the key reasons why so many films are bombing these days. You shouldn’t hire friends or popular actors unless they can do justice to a role. After the story, the actors are probably the next worst thing to cut corners with. There is no excuse for not using proper actors in your project. Actors are supposed to breathe life into your characters and miscasting your film can irreparably hinder its success.

When a director first gets a script, he reads it through several times to get a feel for what the story is about and who the characters are. As he reads the script, he gets an impression of the characters. He then has a meeting with the Producer(s) and the Casting Director to share his ideas of the characters.

After the meeting, the Casting Director’s job is to sift through scores of potential actors for every part and audition them, only bringing the strongest candidates to the producer and director’s attention. The producer and director choose from the candidates that have been pre-selected by the casting director.

Two things the director and producer look for when reviewing candidates are:
 
         1. DO THEY HAVE RANGE?
         The general idea here is, “Can they act?” and you need to find this out quickly. 
         Can an actor give you both ends of the spectrum? Are they believable when 
         they are in a tense, dramatic scene? Are they believable in a comedy? Another 
         way to approach it is to see how different the actor and character are? Never 
         hire an actor who is similar in personality to the character, he won’t have the 
         range to push the character to a new level.

         2. CAN THEY TAKE DIRECTION?
         Any good actor will make a choice when they enter the casting room. They will 
         decide who this character is and give you their interpretation. So, what the  
         director needs to do is give them some “direction” – ask them to read the part 
         again but do something totally opposite from what they just did. This gives the 
         director an idea if they have range, and if they can take direction.

Improperly casting a film can be a disaster for your movie and cause some embarrassment. Do not proceed with a film under any circumstances unless you’re thrilled with your cast, you’ll only wish you had when you see it in the editing room.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Tip # 14: Brainstorming Session

By Anant Mathur (May 04, 2010)

Often times a screenwriter is stuck trying to find an idea for a story. One way I find helps a great deal in such situation is to brainstorm. By brainstorming I don’t mean to think of the plot or characters or dialogues, but instead let it all go. Just start writing the first thing that comes into your head, don’t worry about grammar, punctuation or if it makes any sense. Write without any comma, periods, question marks or exclamation points. Let it be a large single paragraph of what comes into your head.

Consider the following example, I am trying to think of a story and I have come up with this so far [A divorced mother with a young daughter, is just leaving the home of her husband to start afresh] but now I’m stuck…

So what do I do now?
Well, I brainstorm, here’s how…

the ex-mrs. yadav is leaving the house she has called her home for the last 10 years she has sole custody of her daughter pia and left her drunk wife-beating husband with the bottle to do what it wants to him as she exits the gate of the house it begins to rain heavily a security officer calls a taxi for mrs. yadav and her daughter they swiftly jump into the car and instruct the driver to head to the airport but just as the driver pulls onto the highway they get stuck in a massive traffic jam up-ahead is a large-scale accident involving some 25 vehicles one of those in the accident is mr. rajesh singhania a local business man on his way to collect goods for his business he’ll never make it now the manufacturer closes in 10 minutes he picks up his cell and calls his secretary miss juneja and asks her to call the manufacturer and inform them of the mishap sweating profusely he hears back from miss juneja who informs him that the manufacturer will be at the warehouse for another hour and if he can make it in that time he can have the good today desperate mr. singhania looks for a way to get out of the traffic jam and reach his goods he comes across a taxi and throws the driver out taking over himself he backs the car out through traffic and gets to some local roads where traffic is moving well finally gazing into the rear view mirror singhania  notices the yadavs in the back he jams the breaks and the car comes to an abrupt stop pia not wearing a seatbelt flies out of the windshield and lands on the road a few feet ahead.

Well that’s it, this may not be the best paragraph or story ever written, but it does have some potential, I have created a few situations which I may be able to use, the characters are solid and action is fast moving. Plus it may motivate me to come up with a story around the whole idea. That’s pretty much all it takes to get out of a jam when you’re unable to write. This way of brainstorming has helped me on many occasions and I hope it will do the same for you.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Bollywood or Bust!

By Anant Mathur (April 27, 2010)

Many millions of young men and women travel thousands of miles to the glamorous world of Bollywood, eager to make it in the film industry. A few are successful, but most find disappointment and leave their dream behind to pursue something else.

So what is it that makes the successful ones so different?

There are 5 things you must have if you want to be successful in Bollywood:

5)    Money
4)    Connections
3)    Luck
2)    Luck
1)    Luck

Money!
Bollywood is one place where money talks, proudly! If you have the cash you can be anything you want (actor, director, producer, writer, etc.). A few Crores is all you need to get your first film on the floors, the distributors are so desperate they’ll release anything. The story is not important.
 
Connections
Since most people who arrive in Mumbai are not loaded, it is extremely helpful to have connections in Bollywood. If you don’t, well it’s not the end of the world; it just means your journey will be more difficult.

If you have connections use them wisely, if you’re striving to be an actor, settle for small parts, they’ll lead to bigger ones. If you want to be a technician work in any and everything it doesn’t matter how bad a film is at least you’re getting your name out there which will generate more work for you.

For those who have no connections, well the first thing is to get connected. The best way to go about this is to meet people. Make connections with media people, producers, distributors, anyone involved in films, no matter how small, do odd jobs to get your foot in the door. Once the foot is in the door, make every effort to get noticed.

Luck! Luck! Luck!
The most important ingredient you need to be successful in Bollywood is not talent but luck it is so important that it occupies the top 3 spots of the 5 things you need to be successful. Being in the right place at the right time is very important, as is the ability to convince film people that you’re worth the risk. And if your luck stands and your film is a potential money maker, no matter how little the profit, you will find you have a permanent place in the glamorous world of Bollywood.

Singh is Kinng and Welcome are two of the most successful films in recent years, both are horrible films (and both are lifted from Hollywood films), but they did tremendous business at the box office, why? The answer to this question is... You guessed it: Luck! Luck! Luck!

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Actors Say A Lot Of Things, But When The Story Is No Good...

By Anant Mathur (April 16, 2010)

"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.

Give Credit Where Credit Is Due!

By Anant Mathur (April 16, 2010)

Filmmakers and people associated with films are often asked: “Who has the toughest task in making a feature film?”

Well, depending on whom you ask you will receive different answers. A director will say his is the toughest task, a writer will say that without his creative vision there is no film, and an actor will say that without him the story can’t communicate with the audience so his is the toughest part because they have to act out the correct emotions and get into the skin of a character.

But none of these are actually true. The toughest task in filmmaking is, in fact, the producer’s role. The producer is the one who finds the story or comes up with an idea for one; he hires the writer, the director, the crew and the actors. The toughest part of making a film is arranging the financing, and guess what, that’s also the producer’s headache. And if he selects the wrong writer or director, the film doesn’t work (this is a problem with many Bollywood films) and flops big time.

Most directors will tell you that they have the toughest task, but directing is arguably the easiest part of filmmaking. Unless you’re making something like Star Wars, Terminator or The Matrix, a director’s job is simple: get the actors to do what the script says. Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge was written and directed by Aditya Chopra. He also wrote Veer-Zaara, but his father (Yash Chopra) directed it, now the stories of both these films are quite similar to an extent and their genre is the same. So it makes no difference if Yash Chopra directs it, if Aditya Chopra does or if you give it to a newcomer. It’s a very easy story to direct anyone could have done it. In Hollywood, most TV shows (eg. M.A.S.H., Baywatch, Friends, 24) and several movies series (eg. Original Star Wars Trilogy, Superman, X-Men and Alien series, etc.) have had different directors directing each episode or film, but you can't tell it's a different director because the screenplay is done well and the director knows exactly what to do.

Let’s take another example, Karan Johar wrote and directed Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham and Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna. He also wrote Kal Ho Naa Ho which was directed by Nikhil Advani (a newcomer). Watching the film, you can see that it’s a Karan Johar film in terms of the plot, style and how everything unfolds, but it’s not directed by him, and you don’t really notice that it’s not directed by him. So here we can see that it’s the writer’s work we see on screen not the director's. Karan recently directed My Name is Khan which was not written by him (probably because he’s not comfortable writing something like that) but he received praises for directing a different genre successfully, well of course he did it successfully - all the work was done for him by the writer. Even if someone else directed it, there wouldn’t have been much difference in the way the story was told, because if a writer has done what they’re suppose to it makes the director’s task very easy, especially if you’re working with well established actors like Karan Johar and the Chopras do.

Most Indian directors can’t handle directing newcomers - that’s why the likes of Karan Johar and Aditya Chopra stay away from them, they have no idea about film direction they’re only in this business because of their fathers. Do you really think Aditya or Karan would have had the same success if they were struggling artists and not their father’s sons?

On the other hand, directors like Rakesh Roshan, Raj Kanwar and Subhash Ghai have no qualms about directing newcomers because they know how to extract a performance from an actor. Rakesh Roshan and Subhash Ghai also have another advantage on directors, they themselves were actors so they know how actors are and how to get them motivated.

Actors who have done more than 1 film are very easy to direct, they know what’s expected of them and they don’t need to be told how to deliver a line as compared to a newcomer who has no clue about filmmaking. With newcomers, a director’s task is a little harder, but at the end of the day, that’s what their job is: to direct actors and shoot the best possible scene. When a newcomer doesn’t deliver it’s the director’s fault for not being able to get the right performance out of them and settling for what they’ve got.

Directors are given too much credit when it comes to filmmaking and that’s wrong in most cases. It should be the producer who receives the credit for getting a film made. Remember, it’s the producer who receives the best picture award not the director. The only time a director is more important is when he’s making a complicated sci-fi or action film, in that case, yes he’s the most important part of a film because he’s the only one who knows how to shoot these complex scenes.

A director has many people helping him: the writer, cinematographer, art director, editor, costume designer, assistant director, etc., so he’s not even responsible for most of the visual ideas on screen. It’s a fact that a badly directed film can be saved with good editing, but a badly produced film can’t be saved.

After the producer, the writer is probably the next most important person associated with a film. He can make or break your film. Without a good screenplay the director won’t be effective, no matter how good he is and the same goes for actors and the rest of the crew. If a story is not spellbinding it doesn’t matter who’s associated with the film, it won’t be successful.

We can argue till the end of time what part of filmmaking is the toughest, but in my experience of watching films and making them (producing, writing, directing, editing, etc.) I find the producer’s task to be toughest.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Why are Indian writers and critics so stupid?

By Anant Mathur (April 09, 2010)

I was reading a review on the film Jaane Kahan Se Aayi hai (starring Riteish Deshmukh and Jacqueline Fernandez) when a thought entered my head: Why are Indian writers and critics so stupid?

Don't these dumb idiots know life can't exist on Venus, even a 4 year old kid knows that! Grow up guys; there are planets outside our own solar system - why can't the girl be from one of those planets which can support life, instead of our solar system. Its little things like this which pisses off the audience for paying 250 Rs to see an idiotic film. At least get your science right! Do some research - it's not difficult - especially these days with Wikipedia and Google. Or here’s an idea… grow a brain?

It’s terrible to see actors like Riteish and Jacqueline work so hard and people not come to see the film because of idiotic concepts or lack of research. To waste talented actors in shit like Aladin and now Jaane Kahan Se Aayi Hai is a shame.

I have seen many Hollywood films based on female aliens coming to earth and I can guarantee that this one doesn’t even come close to any of them. One that really stands out in my mind is the Hollywood comedy My Stepmother Is An Alien, a brilliant idea which is well executed.

Why doesn’t anyone question stupidity in Hindi films? How can a writer, director, producer and actor all think that a girl coming down from Venus is a possibility? Shouldn’t someone at some stage of production have said “wait guys, life can’t exist on Venus how about if the girl is from Planet X”. And why do all Hindi films have to be about a loser who become a hero by the climax rolls around, can’t he just be a normal guy having an off day or something.

I doubt Indian writers and critics have the brain power to comprehend what I’m talking about. So it will be a sad day if Jaane Kahan Se Aayi Hai flops at the box office, but I will be the first to tell you, it won’t be a surprise.

If you would like to watch some really good Sci-Fi films about aliens, I highly recommend the following:
1) Forbidden Planet (1956)
2) It Came from Outer Space (1953)
3) I Married A Monster From Outer Space (1958)
4) The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951)
5) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
6) Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956)
7) The War of The Worlds (1953)
8) My Step Mother Is An Alien (1988)
9) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
10) Starman (1984)

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

"The Hurt Locker" - An interview with Writer/Producer Mark Boal

If you caught the Oscars a week ago, you saw Mark Boal pick up the Academy Award for writing "The Hurt Locker". Be sure to check out the videos of him answering questions from the StoryLink Community shortly before his big win:

http://www.facebook.com/video/?id=102333436077

A Backwards World?

By Anant Mathur (17 March 2010)

This week I want to write about a thought that came into my mind a while ago when I was thinking about how backwards the world we live in is.

Think about all that we go through in life and then we end up being 60 or 70 years old and are unable to enjoy anything. We have finally reached the pinnacle of life and have the means to do whatever we want and nothing needs to be done. The children are all grown up, house is paid for, there’s a BMW parked in the driveway. All we can do is find new ways of spending our salaries or pensions.

For most of us, life goes something like this…

1. We’re born
2. We go to school and get an education.
3. After we graduate we look for a job
4. Once a job is secured we find that perfect mate (if we haven’t already) and get married.
5. Then we have children.
6. We help our children get the best possible education so they can get a great job.
7. Once our kids find a great job, they leave the nest and start the cycle again or we live with them through their cycle until we’re dead.

But throughout this cycle there are a lot of heartaches and pain, the number one problem being that we never seem to have enough money to pay for the needs of our children. And I think the system is to blame for that.

The way I see it, the system needs to change, instead of getting a low income when we’re in our 20s and it gradually going up as we’re promoted and get older, wouldn’t it make more sense if we get paid a higher income in our 20s and we can save for the future instead of struggle through life. Think about it, why do we need to be paid $150,000 in our 60s? When our kids have left or are working and the only person we have to support is our spouse.

We start out in our 20s making, let’s say, approximately $25000 or so per year. Part of that goes for the student loan(s) we took out to complete our education, some goes towards that piece of junk parked in the driveway, majority of it goes towards rent and groceries, and if there’s anything left over we might go grab a beer with our friends and bitch about how we hate our job, our boss and how underpaid we are.

So, wouldn’t it make more sense to be making $150,000 (per year) when we’re in our 20s, we can enjoy spending time with our kids without the worry of how we will pay for their Braces, Piano Lessons, iPod, xBox, or in certain cases that operation they really need. We'll have no worries about mortgage payments, and we can drive a BMW while we're young, instead of when we're in our 60s and too afraid to go fast. And as we get older we have money saved, so we can start getting paid less. In our 30s we make an average of $100,000 per year. In our 40s we make $70, 000, and $50,000 in our 50’s. By the time we make it to our 60s the average yearly income drops to $30,000 or $25,000. Then when we retire, we get our pensions, the same as in the other system. Doesn't that seem like a more interesting approach to how we should be living?

But the way we’re brainwashed into life, people will wonder what the hell is wrong with me. They want to get paid more not less as they progress through life and work harder and harder. But to them I say… wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in a world where we felt like we belonged instead of strugglin’ and bitchin’ our way through life?

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Avatar is weak to say the least!

By Anant Mathur (March 06, 2010)

Normally this blog is meant for Bollywood topics, but I couldn't resist taking this opportunity to talk about a film that has broken records and wooed the world over.

Most of the times before a movie is even released, I can tell by watching a trailer, how good or bad a film is going to be. And after watching the trailer for Avatar, the first thought was, “I can’t believe James Cameron made this. It looks horrible.”

 

But something strange happened - once the film was released it became an instant hit with the audience. Even the critics were giving it 5/5 or 10/10, calling it a must see or the greatest thing in modern era of filmmaking. Some even called it the future of movies. So, after hearing so much about it for weeks, I finally decided to see Avatar - the highest grossing film ever.

I have enjoyed more than a few James Cameron films over the years. Terminator is a work of sci-fi genius. Abyss created an interesting world and was filled with tension. Terminator 2 is an action masterpiece and has what I believe to be the best special effects of all time. Even Titanic was far better than I expected it to be and has one of the most beloved romances in a movie.

So after 12 years it would not be an overstatement to expect an outstanding James Cameron film. Still, even after hearing so much about Avatar, I wasn’t too excited about watching it. So going into it, I had very low expectations, and you would think that by the end of Avatar I would be feeling a little higher than when it started. Sadly, it wasn’t so. I was very disappointed with the film.

The biggest problem I have with Avatar is that it lacks creativity. It is literally Dances with Wolves in space. There’s nothing wrong with taking an idea and remaking it, Hollywood recycles old ideas all the time. Remaking Ben-Hur with color and sound makes sense, but why do we need Dances with Wolves with 15 times the budget and blue Native Americans? No amount of special effects, robots, battleships and CGI characters can change the fact that this story has been told hundreds of times before and all those versions are much better than this. The film not only lacks soul but has no humour what so ever, a surprise considering Cameron’s previous works use humour as a great tool.

As far as the 3D goes, I mean what was the point. This is not a film that is required to be seen in 3D. Films like Spy Kids 3 and Shark Boy and Lava Girl are great in 3D but in Avatar 3D is wasted. You don’t even notice the 3D in Avatar and the 3D goggles become a nuisance. 3D doesn’t make this film any better or any worse, just more expensive. If expensive motion-capture used to cover up a thin storyline is the future of cinema then the future seems very bleak.

Like most movies these days Avatar is way too long, glossing the details (why the Earth is dying, what Unobtainium does, etc) and instead spending time on flight scenes, enchanting ceremonies, spirit trees and bonding with nature.

The research is very pathetic in this film (not something I’d expect from a James Cameron film, since research is usually very good in his films). In Avatar, we’re told Unobtainium is supposed to be mined underground - below the trees? As far as I know there are two types of mining, Surface mining and Sub-Surface mining. In surface mining you destroy vegetation and dirt in order to reach buried deposits. In sub-surface mining (which is what they seem to be talking about in Avatar) you dig tunnels or shafts into the earth to reach buried deposits. So if they’re talking about sub-surface mining then what’s with destroying the trees? There’s no need for that. Also, the story goes completely away from obtaining unobtanium to a killing spree for no apparent reason whatsoever!

I’m very disappointed with the number of 10/10 reviews the film is getting. It only shows that people have no idea what a good story is these days, they’re only interested in eye candy and Avatar has plenty of that. The story is so predicable it’s depressing to know James Cameron thought this was a good idea. Dances with Wolves isn’t the only film Avatar borrows from, perhaps a more accurate example would be Enemy Mine (1985) or Pocahontas (1995). The battle between Humans and Aliens (and the chosen one saving the day) has been around for decades and makes the ending very predictable. The script is so weak at times it feels like it was written by monkeys. The dialogue is so bad it forces you to raise your palm to your face in disgust. If anything this film lowers the intellect of the audience. The aliens win the final battle and the lead character is amalgamated into one of them, ooh big surprise there!

It’s heartbreaking to know that most of the 10/10 reviews for Avatar are based on Visual Effects. In my opinion, the visual effects are alright, I don’t think they’re as mind boggling as they’re being made out to be. Very few VFX movies have the kind of effects that can stand the test of time, the one exception being Terminator 2, even today they look fresh. The bottom line is, in 20 years, the visual effects of Avatar won’t be talked about. If you have ever played any computer games you will agree that several things have been taken out of PC games, like Command and Conquer, Heroes of Might and Magic, Warcraft, etc. Basing reviews solely on visual effects is just so wrong.

I don’t really care if people continue to make mindless movies like Avatar, that’s just fine, everyone has a right to make what they want. But please don’t make them out to be the greatest thing ever, when they truly are not! Avatar doesn’t even belong in the top 1000 films of all time, let alone being the highest grossing film of all time. I saw this film because of what everyone was saying about it. I should have stuck to my guns and gone with what I said after watching the trailer and not seen it. If you haven't seen it, consider yourselves lucky. If you have, please don't recommend this film to anyone based on the Visual Effects.

And that's all I have to say about it!

Avatar is weak to say the least! (Part 2)

By Anant Mathur (March 08, 2010)

Well the proof is in the pudding as they say!

Last night at the 82nd Academy Awards (The Oscars), Avatar, which was nominated for 9 Oscars, got snubbed big time; receiving only 3 awards and those too in the visual category (Art Direction, Cinematography & Visual Effects). This just proves the point I was trying to make, Avatar is just eye candy, good visually but no soul. Not surprising that the film wasn't nominated for any of the awards in the acting or writing categories. Just the mere fact that it didn't even win any awards for sound should tell you how unimportant Avatar is!

By the end of the night, it was almost a certainty that Avatar wasn't going to win for Direction or Best Picture, both of which went to The Hurt Locker along with the sound editing, sound mixing, film editing and Original Screenplay awards. Sandra Bullock received Best Actress Oscar for The Blind Side and Jeff Bridges won Best Actor for Crazy Heart. Mo'Nique won Best supporting Actress for Oprah's Precious which also received the Best Adapted Screenplay award. The other top award for Best Supporting Actor went to Christoph Waltz for Inglorious Basterds (a film I believe is at least 100 better than Avatar and only received one award because The Hurt Locker received the other 6 it was nominated for).

It's good to see that the folks at the Academy Awards got away from the popularity of the big budget blockbuster films to determine the awards and decided to give the important awards to lower budget films like The Hurt Locker, Crazy Heart, The Blind Side and Precious, which in my opinion truly deserve it over an unoriginal piece of crap like Avatar.

Congratulations, Kathryn Bigelow for becoming the first woman to win the Best Director Oscar!

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Every Story Doesn’t Need To Be Told!

By Anant Mathur (February 05, 2010)

It seems these days, especially with the availability of Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, iPhones, and god knows what else - every Indian celebrity, no matter how small, has an opinion. Honestly, who gives a flying pig about what these celebrities have to say!

I’m normally a calm person, but there are a few things in this world that really piss me off!! This time it’s the Indian media and their constant struggle to leave things alone. Why can’t they understand that every story doesn’t need to be told!

Like the recent so called “controversy” surrounding Shah Rukh Khan and the Pakistani cricketers. All he said was “Pakistani cricketers need to be part of the IPL 3,” but such a comment from a world renowned celebrity was unacceptable to Shiv Sena. They expressed their discontent over the actor's comments saying SRK has insulted the 26/11 martyrs. What the Pakistani cricketers have to do with the 26/11 victims, is something that boggles the mind. Let the Indian intelligence agencies figure out who the terrorist is. Unless intelligence reports say Pakistani cricketers are terrorists, they should be allowed to play. This isn’t even a story worth anyone’s time (weren’t Pakistani players part of IPL1), besides who cares what Shah Rukh wants to do. Why would you report this?

If Shah Rukh really wants Pakistani players in IPL3 why didn’t he select them for his team?

Shiv Sena is also saying they won’t let Shah Rukh’s film My Name Is Khan release unless he offers an apology. They’re tearing down posters of My Name Is Khan. Oh dear lord… not the posters, I’m so afraid. Yeah, boo hoo, Shah Rukh is in trouble; lets all go watch his film so he feels better, they tore down the posters, posters people! Now we have to see this film! The more money he makes the better he'll feel.

Why do controversies like this always happen when a film is about to be released? Why don’t they happen when an actor has no release in sight for months?

I’m willing to bet all my Monopoly money that come next Friday the film will release regardless of what Shiv Sena does. Why? Because all of this is a publicity stunt and Shiv Sena is in on it with Shah Rukh and company. These imbeciles should be careful tearing up the posters – what if they get a paper cut? Who will save them from bleeding to death?

I actually wanted to see this film before all this nonsense started; now I’ve lost all interest. I’m just hoping this stunt backfires on them and no one goes to see the film when it is released next Friday. Then at least they’ll have a reason (the Shiv Sena) for the film flopping and won’t have to defend the fact it was the story that was lousy.

Recently, Pooja Bhatt said that she supports Shah Rukh Khan’s stand and is happy because he’s not giving-in to the Shiv Sena. Oh, how nice! Or could it be that she’s only doing this because her own film Kajraare which releases next month and stars a Pakistani actress may go through similar controversy and she would like to garner the support of Shah Rukh Khan and company. That deserves an “hmmm”, don’t you think.

Pooja Bhatt went on to say that she’s surprised that Karan Johar and Shah Rukh’s other friends don’t stand up and support him. Here’s some news for you miss Bhatt, “they’re in on it with the Shiv Sena, it’s all a publicity stunt”. Besides, Karan Johar is the biggest sissy on the planet do you really think he has the guts to stand up to anyone?

I honestly don’t give a rat’s behind what Shah Rukh Khan, Karan Johar or any other celebrities’ political beliefs are or what they do in their private life and their opinions hold the least bit of interest for me. Do they care what you, I or the next person has to say? Will they visit your Twitter page and post a reply to your opinion each time you post something? They need to leave their opinions for their friends, family and colleagues like every other man, woman and child on the planet.

All I want from these “actors” is “acting”, that’s all nothing more, just a few lines of dialogue which might sound nice on the screen or make me wanna puke and say that was horrible, but again that’s my opinion! You may not agree with it, and that’s your opinion! There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion just as long as it’s not the story of the day, week or month.

With the kind of money these celebs are making I’m sure their day can be better spent than wasting time on Twitter. How about going out and handing some food and blankets to the poor and hungry or going to the hospital to visit the terminally ill. If you want free publicity there’s a way, and you might get yourself into heaven too! Oh and if your really pressure them, I’m sure the hospital will give you a humanitarian of the year award just for showing up!

Actually, you can’t just blame the celebs; it has to be shared equally by their friends in the media who put them in the news. Don’t news agencies have editors anymore?? How can any gibberish be published or broadcasted? What ever happened to having a good Editor-In-Chief? 90 percent of the reports that are published or broadcasted aren’t even news, its rubbish dished out by celebs or more likely their publicity agent and/or producers of their upcoming film. You have to remember folks, every story that the media preys on these days is usually given to them as a press release by publicity agents, producers or the celebs themselves. Media people, especially in India, are too stupid to go out and find stories on their own. This is why every celeb is friends with someone in the media; they know exactly who to dish their bullshit to.

When it was just Doordarshan no one cared what the celebs were doing, only news and facts were reported. Now with so many news channels its all about competition, journalists (a term I use very loosely on these idiots) have no integrity, who ever can get something from a celeb first will get published or broadcasted, it doesn’t matter what the content is, what matters is how popular or unpopular the celeb is.

It’s like Coca Cola, does it really matter what the content of their ad is, as soon as you see the logo; you know what the product is. In this case, as soon as fans of a celebrity see the name of their favourite celeb, they’ll click and watch or read what the fuss is all about. This is the kind of power celebs have and it’s this same power they abuse with the help of the media. Celebs today feel it’s important to get into bed with media because they can help them rise to the top.

Bollywood celebs need to smarten up before the audience gives up on them. There’s only so much people will take before everything starts to sound fake, as it does now, sadly no one has noticed as yet! But pretty soon people will stop believing anything these celebs have to say or sell and realize that all these controversies are publicity stunts!

Honestly, if a celeb really wants to impress us with their actions, they should go help a person in need instead of wasting their time on Twitter. Go help a poor man build a home or console a parent who lost a son that was defending the country. And do it when your film isn’t up for release or elections aren’t approaching. You have the money and the power is in the palm of your hands! You can point fingers or lend a helping hand, the choice is yours!

A parting though…

The last I checked (which was right before writing this article) India was a democratic republic. And as such it has a constitution which lists Fundamental Rights for Indian citizens, these rights include: Freedom of Speech and Expression. Freedom of Speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. Freedom of Expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Oh dear god, can this be true?
By George, it is!

Well if it’s written in the constitution then arrest these Shiv Sena bastards, because they’re breaking the law by stopping a citizen from exercising these freedoms. It is our constitutional right to speak our mind. And if any one has a problem with that… too friggin bad! Hang the bloody Shiv Sainiks for using the name of a god in vain, they’re nothing like Shiv or Sainiks – they’re no better than a third-rate terrorist group whose bark is worse than the bite!

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Leaked! Are You Kidding Me?

By Anant Mathur (January 20, 2010)

Yesterday (January 19, 2010) I came across an article about the upcoming film Tera Kya Hoga Johnny and how it was leaked on the internet. This article really bothered me about the irresponsible media and film producers trying to fool it's audience. I recommend that you read the article before continuing, it can be found at the following link:

Tera Kya Hoga Johnny leaked on internet

Now that you've read the article, let's continue.

This article really irritated me, so much so that I decided to write about it. I mean, is the Indian Media really so stupid that they don't understand viral marketing. I don't think so... In fact, I know they're a part of it. Perhaps the Indian audience isn't aware of what Viral Marekting is and these fools are taking advantage of it.

If you're unaware of it, Viral Marketing refers to marketing techniques that use pre-existing social networks to produce increases in brand awareness through self-replicating viral processes, analogous to the spread of pathological and computer viruses. Viral promotions can take the form of video clips, interactive Flash games, advergames, ebooks, brandable software, images, or even text messages. Launched in 2002, BMW Films was among the earliest viral marketing campaigns. It attracted nearly 55 million viewers and helped to elevate the career of Clive Owen.

In our example, nobody knew that the film Tera Kya Hoga Johnny was on YouTube until the Media announced it. After reading the article I went to YouTube, but TKHJ had been removed, interestingly though, it only had 2141 views, which is quite low by YouTube standards, so why the panic? I mean, two thousand people watching a film on YouTube aren't really going to effect the out come of the film's release, these same people would probably watch pirated DVDs of the film anyways. People who want to watch the movie in the theatres don't care if it's on YouTube and don't believe for a second that the producers don't know that!

The part I found extemely interesting was that the YouTube user who uploaded the file, TKHGatSominal14, joined YouTube on January 18, 2010 and the leak was already in the news on January 19th - So, how many people could've known by the time media found out, Zero would be my guess.

The truth is, it was uploaded by producers for free publicity (YouTube pirates don't just upload just one movie) and the Media was part of a press release to advertise it. The fact is people read the article and went to YouTube just as I did. When the number of views hit 2000 people, the producers decided to remove it. I mean, don't tell me people go to YouTube looking for upcoming Hindi films that are leaked? What a bunch of bull crap!

This is just a publicity stunt which the producers believe the dumb Indian public will fall for! They're probably right, but it still doesn't justify doing it.

Leaked? Are u kidding me!!!

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

What a hypocrite!!!

By Anant Mathur (June 06, 2007)

I was pretty bugged today. In the morning I was reading the newspaper and came across an article written by Pritish Nandy former journalist and currently the owner of the production house Pritish Nandy Communications (PNC). In his article Nandy wrote about how Mumbai is changing and he doesn’t like the way people are treating used book sellers who sell books on the roadsides of Mumbai.

Mr. Nandy mentioned it’s a part of the Mumbai culture and how Mumbai is loosing its identity because of things like this. Even street food vendors are being asked to get off the streets. All that made sense, but what really got me riled up was that he’s talking about the heritage of Mumbai and how people are forgetting the old way of life which shouldn’t be forgotten, then a few moments later I came across another article which spoke of PNC starting 3 new multiplexes in the next year. I mean talk about hypocrisy the guy is preaching about the old ways and then on the other hand he himself is out to destroy the way we watched films in single screen theatres. Isn’t that a part of the Mumbai culture and aren’t we destroying that by going to Multiplexes. If you're for heritage and culture why not try and save some of these single screen theaters rather than opening up multiplexes.

I for one think Mr. Nandy needs to grow up. If he thinks that we should not forget our culture. Perhaps he should be the one we need to start with. What say Mr. Nandy? How about bringing back single screen with cheap ticket prices where the masses can enjoy films, instead of going with the trend of high price Multiplexes which profit the owners and which are foreign to our culture and our beloved city of Mumbai. What say?

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.