Indian film industry (Bollywood) Perspectives and

outlook
An interview:
What makes the Indian film industry (Bollywood) unique?
First of all, even though filmmakers, the government, and the media keep pronouncing it as such there is
no such thing as the Indian film industry in terms of nationally integrated structures of financing,
production, distribution, and exhibition, even if there is some overlap and circulation of personnel between
the six main film industries in India. There are many film industries in India of which the Bombay-based
Hindi film industry, now better known as Bollywood, is the most well-known globally; however, Hindi
films comprise about 20% of the total number of films produced in India, with an equal number [and
sometimes more] of films being made in Telugu and Tamil every year. When all of the films made in all of
the languages about 20 or so are tallied up, that is what makes India the largest feature film producing
country in the world; Bollywood doesnt make 800-1000 films a year, it makes approximately 200 or so a
year.
Now to answer the question: I think what is quite remarkable is how despite years of hostile or indifferent
government policies, high rates of taxation, complete disinterest by much of the organized sector, scarcity
of capital, and a very decentralized structure, the Hindi film industry managed to survive and continue to
make films that were successful, touched peoples hearts, and were seen by millions of people all over
the world. The example of the Hindi film industry counters all of those theories trotted about by neoliberal
economists and Republican politicians in the U.S. about how excessive taxation and regulation kills
entrepreneurship it definitely did not do that for the Hindi film industry! Filmmakers complained and
continue to complain about the Indian governments economic policies that affect them negatively, but it
didnt stop them from making their films.
The second feature that I also find unique is that Hindi films have circulated all across the world since the
1950s Morocco, Egypt, Nigeria, Ghana, Israel, Tanzania, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Poland, Indonesia,
Soviet Union, Peru, China, and many more countries without any significant diasporic community
without any marketing effort on the part of their producers. These films circulated far and wide and
cultivated loyal audiences and the producers sitting in Bombay had no idea. Its a hobby of mine to collect
stories/anecdotes about where Hindi films have turned up the most interesting example was when a
student in an anthropology class at Barnard College where I was giving a guest lecture mentioned he had
seen a Hindi film on video in a Yanomami village in the Amazon! In that sense, these films have managed
to reach all sorts of unexpected and unanticipated audiences on their own strength with zero promotion or
marketing. I often found myself telling filmmakers in Bombay stories about where all their films had
reached and they were quite surprised!
From a business perspective, what are the similarities and differences compared to Hollywood?
They are both similar in that they are both large, commercially oriented, profit-seeking, globally circulating
mainstream entertainment industries. However, thats where their similarity pretty much ends. In contrast
to Hollywood, the Hindi film industry is highly decentralized, has been financed primarily by
entrepreneurial capital, organized along social and kin networks, and until the early 2000s was governed
by oral rather than written contracts. The Hindi film industrys structures of finance and distribution, sites
of power, organization of labor, and overall work culture are quite distinct from Hollywood. It has been and
continues to be an industry of free-lancers who come together for a particular film project.
Until the advent of what is referred to as corporatization, which really started to take shape in some sort
of serious manner about 5 years ago, there was no integration between production, distribution, or
exhibition, although that is beginning to change now. Finally, a very important difference between the two
industries is that Hollywood has always had the support of the US government, since the early 20th
century, to help its goals of expansion, unlike the Hindi industry, which first took shape under a colonial
power. The British were trying to figure out how to promote their own films in India and had no interest in
fostering Indian filmmaking; after Independence, the Indian government treated films akin to a vice in
terms of its censorship and taxation policies.
How has the industry evolved over time?
what key developments do you see in the next few years?
Tejaswini: Actually when it comes to media generally, and the Hindi film industry specifically, it is very
hard to predict trends. The sort of changes that have taken place in the Hindi film industry from industry
status, corporatization, and the advent of multiplexes to the celebration of mainstream Hindi cinema in the
worlds most prestigious film festivals none of that could have been predicted by members of the
industry. When I first began my research, most filmmakers were absolutely certain that the Central
government would never grant industry status to filmmaking, and yet two years later, it did.
However, if I have to predict, I would say that the increasing integration between the production,
distribution, and exhibition sectors that I mentioned above will continue. However, even with large
companies like Reliance Big Entertainment and UTV, it appears that the independent producer and
distributor are still required to carry out the actual work of producing and distributing films. The increasing
partnerships between Hollywood and Hindi filmmakers will also continue; although I cant predict where
that will lead.
In terms of market reach, do you see the Indian film industry gaining a wider acceptibility (beyond
the Indian diaspora)? Would language, culture and a highly typical desi flavour act as deterrents
in the process?
Tejaswini: I already believe that Indian films have a global audience neither language, culture, or
songs have posed a problem in the past, but the challenge for filmmakers has always been to realize
those profits. Part of the problem is that the global mechanisms for data collection publications
like Variety with its very EuroAmerican perspective for example produce a very narrow picture that
basically ignores and/or erases the global presence of Hindi cinema.
Also, there was nothing intrinsically universal or less culturally specific about Hollywoods films. It was not
the content, but a series of historical factors that have led to its global dominance from the devastating
impact of World War 2 on the European film industries to the U.S.s neocolonial relationships with Latin
America and Japan. The U.S. is actually one of the most protected and closed film markets in the world
as the MPAA is a very powerful lobby.
As I had mentioned, the U.S. government from the early part of the 20th century saw the economic and
ideological potential of film exports and Hollywood was often referred to as the little State Department.
In fact, Will Hays, the head of the MPAA in the 1920s asserted, every foot of American film sells one
dollar worth of manufactured products somewhere in the world. So the issue of expanding market reach
has to do with political and economic factors rather than simple content.