Week after week, I find myself among a sparse audience in theaters, particularly for smaller productions like Vadh 2. As a film critic, it's essential for me to view every film, regardless of its quality—good, bad, or otherwise. However, it saddens me to witness the near-empty seats for most releases, especially for independent films lacking star power. My disappointment deepened when renowned director Anurag Kashyap criticized theaters for the poor turnout of his film, Bandar, and Imtiaz Ali's Main Vaapas Aaunga. It's disheartening that a filmmaker of his stature attributes the lack of audience engagement to insufficient showings, highlighting a troubling trend in the industry today.
Despite receiving positive reviews, Anurag's Bandar struggled to attract viewers. This disconnect between critical acclaim and audience interest is common. Even with Bobby Deol's impressive performance, the film's dark themes, characteristic of Anurag's style, failed to draw crowds. Interestingly, he pointed fingers at theaters for prioritizing the Hollywood film Obsession, which is also a low-budget project. In a show of solidarity, Anurag voiced his concerns not only for his film but also for Imtiaz Ali's work, which, while initially slow to start, has begun to gain traction.
Typically, films without major stars rely heavily on word-of-mouth to boost their visibility. The pandemic has significantly altered the landscape of filmmaking and distribution, with many films opting for OTT releases. Even as theaters reopened, the trend of direct-to-streaming premieres continued. While it's challenging to determine if OTT audiences differ from traditional moviegoers, streaming platforms have become a reliable option. Anurag's acclaimed Kennedy also premiered on Zee 5 in India.
Like many, Anurag is puzzled as to why his fans, who appreciate his unique style, are reluctant to visit theaters. This situation raises questions about the influence of Hollywood on local cinema. Should distributors prioritize Indian films over international blockbusters? This debate extends to regional cinema as well, with Punjabi filmmakers advocating for more support. In some areas, like Maharashtra, there are measures in place that benefit Marathi films. However, the distribution of cinema remains a business-driven endeavor. Without government intervention to establish a subsidy model, theaters cannot be expected to shoulder the financial burden.
This isn't the first instance of a Hollywood film overshadowing Bollywood. India has become a significant market for American cinema. With Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey set for a nationwide release next month, one wonders if any Hindi film would dare to compete. Nolan's fan following in India is immense, as evidenced by the audience's preference for Oppenheimer over Barbie. Ideally, Payal Kapadia's All We Imagine As Light, which earned India recognition at Cannes, should have thrived at the box office.
Unfortunately, while cinema can portray an ideal world, reality often diverges from this vision. Audiences may criticize poor films, but they often overlook quality cinema that doesn't resonate with their tastes. No one can dictate what audiences should enjoy—not even esteemed critics or frustrated filmmakers. Just as creators have the freedom to produce what they wish, audiences have the right to choose what they watch. The distribution system is not the sole factor at play.
Anurag will undoubtedly secure his legacy in cinematic history, but there's no guarantee that even with additional screenings, his films will achieve box-office success. The silver lining is that he and Imtiaz will continue to create films that reflect their vision. Occasionally, audiences may connect with these works, rediscovering their charm weeks after release or during reruns. Ultimately, the mantra remains: 'what sells, gets seen.'
