What he said is very close to the dictionary meaning which provides the following meaning: “Something that amuses, pleases, or diverts, especially a performance or show.”
My definition is somewhat different. Otherwise how could so many ridiculous movies become chart-toppers?
Many visit a cinema hall expecting something more. Some look for meaningful cinema, some look for sex, some look for humour, thrill, SFX and many more. Genres and niches get created on the way.
In India though, we would not be happy with just one of these. So since the least common factor would demand a mix of these, what you get is a hotchpotch of all these. One that we term as “Masala movies”.
One hypothesis for the masala mix could be that in India, the realities that we live with are often stark and you live with an unpleasant taste everyday. So movies are seen as an escape route…as long as it is amusing and causes at least a temporary disruption from these unpleasant realities that surround everyday life. Since the scale of unpleasantness of these sights is slightly high in India, movies also are equally bizarre and long enough to give that relief.
Some movies which strike a chord and that I can relate to, always seem to tank at the box office because they didn’t provide the masala. They are classified as “art-movies”, “parallalel movies”or “multiplex movies”. These are seemingly movies that are appreciated only by ‘educated’ class of people who stay in slightly better environs. They can also leave out a song or two…and would not mind a shorter film too (films from developed countries if you recount are shorter).
But this formula will not work for the masses. They need masala, right.
So despite having a good mix of a plot that engages, acting and direction, what determines its success is the ability of the cast to shed clothes (which you or me will never wear anyways), look good, run, fight and dance. If this mix is cracked, then other aspects for success fall in place like distribution (pan India and International), quality of theatres where it is released, hype and promotions.
Did someone mention acting, quality of script or direction? No. These are not for the masses. Remember, the definition does not say these.
To put it entirely on the film industry will be wrong.
Cinema’s are a direct reflection of the society that we live in. The better our quality of life and intellectual capabilities better will be the entertainment that we seek.
At times our fragmented society places great limitations in appreciating good cinema. This is true for regional films. Despite having some path-breaking movies from Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu or West Bengal they never get their due at the national level. The irony here is that while we lament the failure of the Western jury to understand Hindi films (called ‘Indian Cinema’) we truly fail to recognize gems from our own land.
The ones that will prove successful (interpreted as maximum people viewing it) will be determined by a function of money spent on good looking stars who shed expensive but strange looking costumes, say things that I would never say to anyone, run, sing and dance at the same time and some exaggerated pauses in between.
A quick glance through the IBOS site shows that the majority of the top grossing Hindi Movies of all time are backed by acclaimed actors, directors and production houses. Which means that those movies which go all out (spending money) are the ones who get maximum eyeballs. And the most striking fact is there are only 11 movies in the top 100 (after adjusting for inflation) that were released in the last 10 years (1997 – 2007). (there are some really good ones in the list...but very very few.)
I am sure this will probably keep coming down as years pass on. Mainly because movie entertainment is dictated by this masala mix and the need to generate business rather than for the intrinsic quality of cinema…which I go for. And which I am told, the masses don’t.
Comments