What had happened in the ’80s? Desi upper middle-class had pretty much stalled watching Bollywood films in cinemas. They preferred to watch the same movie a few weeks/months later, when it came on video tapes. You could rent these from the local library, at a nominal R10-R20 a night. Which means Bollywood producers practically earned nothing from it.
 
Television, albeit with a single channel, was a new thing too. And this is also where a lot of good Bombay filmmakers showcased their works through TV series, that everybody loved. There was a fair bit of Hindi art-house cinema at video-rentals too. 

Cinema box office progressively belonged to the ‘masses’ (as against upper/middle ‘classes’). Ticket rates were cheap, which means many cinemas stank as well—there was hardly any money for the upkeep. 

Poll

Who will win the Punjab Elections?

BJP 32.79%

AAP 42.62%

INC 24.59%

Submit

View All In Poll

The bread-butter assembly line of movies—a lot of them remakes from the South (so many of them starring Jeetendra), much else being random action, over-the-top, obsessive madness—appealed to formulaic, popular tastes. I’m talking about four decades before you’re reading this. Meaning, the same time-gap as between the two world wars, and the ’80s itself (to give you perspective!). 

What brought the desi middle class back into theatres? Primarily, in the ’90s, a string of ‘family entertainers’—that also encouraged theatre owners to spruce up their lobbies/balconies, charge a range of ticket rates. Liberty Cinema in Mumbai, with Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! (1993), for instance, was a big move in that direction. 

More so it was the advent of multiplexes in the early 2000s that started a split in theatrical audiences again—between ‘masses’, patrons of cheaper seats/popcorn at single-screen cinemas still; and the ‘classes’, that went to watch ‘multiplex films’ showing at multiple audis, offering greater choice simultaneously. Bheja Fry (2007), for example, was a ‘multiplex hit’.

By the mid-2000s, you’d hear of several single-screen cinemas shutting down. Bulk of BO revenues came from multiplexes. Even then, everyone spoke about how merely 10 per cent films worked in a year—that’s a bizarre rate of return for investors to stick around for long. 

Only by the end of the decade, the film sales/trade/industry folk figured that the ‘classes’ were probably seeking the same entertainment as the ‘masses’. Or at least there was economic sense in ideally placing all bets on one release, carpet-bombing prints into multiplexes, and single-screens, across—create enough hype, pack in people, and scoot. A lot of corporate firms (international, included) had entered film production. Global recession could’ve inspired that move. 

The star-actor was supposed to guarantee crowds on Day One. This is when BO of Bollywood films got counted basis opening week/weekend collections. Also the ‘100 crore’ club was born— Aamir Khan’s rapid actioner Ghajini (2008) was first. That’s effectively a crore people walking in for a movie, to hit the big benchmark. 

These records were getting broken, repeatedly. Also films that one didn’t classify as ‘100 crore’ type before (ones with much lower budgets) began to enter the big league, until 2019—when multiplexes were showing phenomenal profits. 

What changed? The 2020 pandemic. How did audiences react to it? By fully embracing content on OTT, which are essentially video libraries, plus TV, on one platform, that also directly creates software for it, given adequate revenues from minimal, monthly subscription fees. 

This is also the liberating ecosystem some of Bombay’s best filmmakers migrated to. Practically everyone (from the upper-middle class demographic) I meet tells me they’ll “catch it when it comes on OTT”, when I tell them about a film in a theatre I loved. It’s not about whether they’ll like the film equally. They’ve not seen it! No question of ‘word of mouth’ then. 

Cinema viewing is also a habit. Something was broken. How did the film trade/sales/industry/multiplex side react to a post-pandemic world? Continuing with the same model. Assuming nothing had happened—hiking up all prices even further, while people’s incomes have fallen. 

They gave reasons for why Bollywood films were bombing, in turn—star fees, films not rooted enough, mood of nation, return of ‘angry young man’, lack of spectacle, not enough mad action, etc, etc. 

Contrasting it was around three-four films from down South that did well nationally, regardless—which is actually a great thing; only not enough for cinemas to return as a consumption culture, or inspire bigger investments in Bombay. 

Are we back to the 1980s? The reverse, if not worse, actually. The middle ‘classes’ are now on subscription-based OTTs (even for films; it used to be mainly with series before)—this is, hopefully, a phase. The ‘masses’, on the other hand, are equally glued to cell phones, cheap data, and can’t afford multiplexes; which has turned the same volume-based movie industry into an ultra-luxury, five-star hotel product. So what’s the point then? 

Mayank Shekhar attempts to make sense of mass culture. He tweets @mayankw14

Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com

The views expressed in this column are the individual’s and don’t represent those of the paper