The importance of being relevant

Living in the fear of digital platforms killing business, defiant exhibitors allegedly try to wound smaller films in order to showcase their exasperation.

Even as Vikram Bhatt’s horror film 1921 released on January 12, many fans had to return home disappointed as they could not find the movie playing at a single multiplex. The reason? The biggest multiplex chains of the country came together and decided against screening the film, because its producer and distributor, Reliance Entertainment, did not accede to one of their demands.

For some time now, multiplexes have been subject to a major slowdown. The gross reports for 2017 show that the overall business done by Hindi films has come down by Rs 500 crore in the last four years — from around Rs 3,300 crore in 2013 to Rs 2,800 crore 2017. And this is despite humongous hits like Baahubali 2, Dangal and Tiger Zinda Hai gracing the box office in recent times. However, interestingly, the same time period saw the revenues shifting significantly towards the sphere of digital rights — a non-existent concept just a couple of years ago.

Multiplexes have now come down heavily on the fact that films are finding their way to over-the-top (OTT) media platforms much quicker than what they deem healthy for the business. Rajender Singh, head of programming, Inox Cinemas, comments, “This is not a new rule. In the earlier days, a film was not made available on TV for almost a year. Of course, things have changed now with new revenue streams coming in. But some producers have started flouting this rule and are releasing their films on other platforms soon after the theatrical release.”

Mukesh Bhatt, one of the most respected producers in the fraternity, however, has his own take on the matter. “It is unfair for theatres to put in such a clause and hamper the producer’s chances of making money. We agree that a film should be held for a period of time before it is available on any other platform. But exhibitors and producers should come together and discuss it. This is not just one party’s problem. It is our collective problem and we need to solve it as a family,” he says.

Mukesh also believes that it is unfair that a film as small as 1921 is being looked at with the same parameters as a larger film riding with a big star. “Today, a film barely runs at theatres for two weeks. Even a Salman Khan movie is more or less over in four weeks. In such a scenario, it does not help if a film is held back from a digital release for eight weeks. Moreover, films get pirated. So should a producer wait for piracy to hamper all its chances on OTT platforms? Maybe there could be a separate understanding drawn on each film,” reasons Mukesh.

Rajender, however, points out to the other side of the same coin. “This is a content-driven industry. We have enough examples of how many star-driven films have not lasted more than four weeks, but a content-driven film has sustained over eight weeks. We really cannot pre-determine which film lasts how long!” he says.

Well-known trade pundit Amod Mehra weighs both options and agrees that theatres need to be helped. “We often blame the theatres for hiking ticket costs and not allowing food inside, but no one really thinks about their overheads. The cost of operating a theatre in Juhu could well be about a crore a month. So, it is natural that the exhibitors feel the pinch when the audience decides to watch the movies on OTT platforms and not come to the theatres. It is important that the movies are held back from other platforms till the theatrical run is over,” he feels.

Thankfully for the producers of 1921, and the viewers, the issue was sorted out by Friday afternoon with the film going back to the theatres. “We are hoping that we can all come to an agreement and sustain it without any breach,” concludes Rajender.

For now, all’s well that ends well, but with the mushrooming of OTT platforms and the ease of accessibility they offer, something must soon be worked out between both the parties in question here.