I always thought my films were commercial. They were parallel cinema but that doesn't mean it was not meant for all kinds of ticket-buying audiences.

But it had a fixed audience...

Not necessarily. Zubeida had larger audience. Mamo eventually had a larger audience, even Kalyug had a very good audience. So it's not really true to say that. We tend to pigeon hole and miss the good stuff. I think it is a mistake by separating commercial cinema and saying this is parallel cinema. It is not correct to say that people, who are making slightly different films from what the mainstream prefers, are not meant to be commercial.

In fact, they are meant to be commercial because if they were not meant to be commercial, how will they cover the costs?

Is it getting difficult even for a legend like you to make movies these days? Or has corporatisation made the process easier?

Corporatisation has made filmmaking easier than what it was before. It has opened up more options. For people in their 20s and 30s, it has never been as good as it is today. Because of multiplexes, the choices are greater. Therefore you can actually make films of your choice and there will be an audience, who will come to the theatres because it will meet their choice of movies.

Look at films like Aamir, Mumbai Meri Jaan, A Wednesday, some of Ram Gopal Varma's films, Anurag Kashyap's films, Vishal Bhardwaj's films... Would you say that they are typical commercial films? They are not. But they are all doing well.

These young people are making exciting films that they couldn't have made 10-15 years ago. Finance would have been difficult for them to make films like this. But today, it is possible. So things have become better.

Also read: 'When I make a film, I have no silly delusion'

Back

|

Next