NO MORE LUNCHES
WITH PROPOSAL MAKERS

The situation hasn’t changed much since. But the fact remains that Bharat Shah’s opinion matters a lot in the film industry. Shah’s success story, his enviable position, as he puts it, have a lot to do with “hard work” and “solid analytical thinking” which form the basis of his business decisions. From a diamond-merchant, to distribution, financing and exhibition, Shah has indeed come a long way

There was a time when you were known to finance more than half the films under production. But over the past one year, you are believed to have drastically cut down on film financing due to the prevailing instability. Apparently, you’ve adopted a wait-and-watch approach. True?

It is not as if we have cut down on film financing totally. We’re still working with the regular banners, especially those with whom we share a long-standing association. But, yes, we have stopped financing the new banners. Even films with new directors and non-descript stars are a clear ‘no’. The reason is that films with a new set-up have limited chances of survival at the box-office. Aunty No. 1 was an exception, and though the producer was new, we backed the project because of Govinda’s presence.

But mega-starrers have limitations of their own, primarily because the known stars are eternally tied up with other projects, and it becomes difficult to set a deadline for the completion of your own. As it is, the situation has become dismal today. Production costs have increased considerably. Earlier, four films could be made with the money it takes one to make one today. The risk factor is so great that one single flop can cause severe losses, thanks to the incredible cost-structure.

How long do you expect this phase of uncertainty to continue? Is it true that financiers and distributors are now imposing conditions on producers to show them confirmed dates of stars, apart from seeing the rushes before releasing the next instalment?

I don’t know about others, but I don’t resort to such a practice. Not that I think it’s wrong. It will definitely be in the interests of financiers and distributors if they set a time-frame for the completion of a film. There are producers who start off with great enthusiasm and then take as many as three to four years to complete a film. The star’s position often nose-dives during the period and the subject becomes stale. In fact, distributors should add a penalty clause in the contract, which will give the producer an added sense of responsibility about the time factor. And as for the current situation, it is very difficult to say how long this state of affairs will last. The finance market itself is very tight, since most new financiers are refusing to enter the market due to fear of underworld threats. Distributors, producers and exhibitors who have suffered massive losses in the recent past have started doing some serious re-thinking. If you consider the past two months, the industry hasn’t had a single success apart from Pyar Kiya To Darna Kya. I guess only a few big successes can salvage the situation.

Of course, one good fall-out of this phase is that proposal-makers who are not quite serious about the business of filmmaking will be totally wiped out. In our case, we will back only those projects and banners which have very good directors and ones which can never fail, like Rajkumar Santoshi, Ram Gopal Varma, Mani Ratnam, Subhash Ghai, the RK banner and Rakesh Roshan.

What is your opinion on take-over projects? Have you taken over any such films in the recent past?

Take-over projects are mostly problematic and one never knows the extent of liabilities involved. Apart from Mazhar Khan’s Gang, and Aur Pyar Ho Gaya — we bought the world-rights of both the films — we’ve never taken over incomplete projects. In the case of Gang, the film has been considerably delayed due to Mazhar’s illness, but it should hopefully be released in a few months.

Some time back, there were rumours that you had taken over Venus, which was reportedly going through a severe financial crunch?

My involvement with Venus is limited only to the extent of acquiring the world rights of all their films. I entered into this arrangement with Yes Boss, which means that the world-rights of all Venus’ productions will be with me. But there is nothing more to it.

What’s happening to Pahlaj Nihalani’s Indian? There has been no news on the film for a long time, leading to rumours that you have backed out of the project.

Pahlaj Nihalani will be able to answer that one better. Every time I ask him about the film’s next schedule, he tells me it will begin shortly. The film had been on hold for a brief while since Pahlaj was tied up with a couple of other productions. He wanted to release those films before he started work on Indian. But those films did not fare as well as he had expected them to.

As for me, I have no intentions of backing out of Indian at this stage. I’ve made a considerable investment in the initial song picturisation. Besides the film took off to a very good start. I am hoping that things will be sorted out and work on the film will start soon.

What was your reaction when Border went on to become a very big success breaking several box-office records?

I always had this gut feeling that Border would set some kind of precedent at the box-office, though critics chose to dismiss it off in the initial stages. The film, basically, had the undercurrent of patriotic feelings and emotions and there was a certain authenticity in the way the director was going about the whole subject. I expect a similar response to Veeru Devgan’s Hindustan Ki Kasam, for which he is taking a lot of pains.

Until very recently, you were the permanent Mumbai distributor for all Yash Chopra films. What was your reaction when Yash Chopra decided to set up his own distribution outfit?

It hasn’t made much of a difference. We have taken up some very interesting films in the recent past, including Mani Ratnam’s Dil Se, Ram Gopal Varma’s Satya, Rakesh Roshan’s recent film, Smita Thackeray’s Haseena Maan Jayegi and Tutu Sharma’s Gharwali Baharwali, apart from regular banners like Mukta Arts.

Coming to the exhibition sector, your counterpart, Shringar Films, which also ranks among the top three distribution concerns in the country, created a niche for itself in the exhibition sector with its recent expansion plans and theatres like Cinemax and Cinestar. In contrast, you are keeping a conspicuously low profile on the exhibition front. Why?

In the first place, I don’t think this idea of converting the existing theatres into hi-profile mini theatres will work. Basically, these mini-theatres with limited capacity are only good for the elite and the well-off, who can afford the expensive ticket-rates. Besides, these theatres are only suited for classy films.

I did get proposals to take up the management of the theatres, but I preferred not to take them. I’d rather go for bigger theatres which have a much larger capacity, and are in a position to release mass-oriented films. Frankly, I have my own doubts how long these theatres will continue to fetch good business. Today, the print-costs of a film are so high, then there are the theatre-rentals and so many other factors. I guess in due course, these theatres will only be used on a small scale for trials of films for want of business. That’s my personal opinion.