Indian film industry (Bollywood) – Perspectives and outlook| Bollywood Latest News
The Indian film industry or Bollywood is known as the mechanism for Indian film production, and has been an interesting case study not only for film lovers, but also for the business world. It has made a transition across cultures and countries and has reached almost all parts of the world with very little formal marketing (if any). Tejaswini Ganti, associate professor of anthropology at New York University, is an expert on the subject.
In this interview, Tejaswini shares information about Hindi filmmaking in India and why it is unique. He also has some suggestions on how Bollywood will meet some of the challenges it faces today.latest bollywood movies articles If you are interested in commercial, commercial and operational aspects of the Indian film industry, this is a required reading.
Indian Film Making - Interview with Tegaswini Ghanti (New York University)
MBA Crystal Ball: Tell us a bit about yourself and your interest in the Indian film industry.
Tejaswini: I am a cultural anthropologist and have conducted ethnographic research in the Indian film industry since 1996. I lived in Mumbai for a year in 1996 while researching my doctoral dissertation, and then did a field work later in 2000, 2005, Indian films in the United States over the last decade. In anthropology, our main method of research is what we call "participants' observation", which means that we derive our information about a society, community or group in particular, to immerse ourselves in this particular social world and observe and interact with people at home. from him. So, for my research, I devoted a lot of time to filming movies, filmmakers' offices, editing studios, dubbing studios, outdoor photography and other production sites; I also worked as an assistant in two different films. In recent years, formal, recorded and recorded interviews have been conducted with nearly 100 people in the industry, but conversations and daily interactions with industry members play a key role in the analysis of the film industry.
I study at New York University in the Department of Anthropology and its Culture and Information Program; some of the courses I study include Anthropology Anthropology in South Asia. And visual anthropology [among others].
Since I was a child, I was probably 3 or 4 years old. I was a passionate fan of Indian films. I grew up with them in my first years in India and then in my childhood and adolescence in Indian cinema in the United States. UU. It has always been a very important feature of my leisure / leisure / social life, and I am lucky to be able to transform my personal passion into professional research. This credit is for the consultants at the Graduate School who encouraged me to think about continuing to search for Indian cinema for my thesis project. In the early 1990s, there was growing interest within anthropology about mass media and culture, so it was in the right place at the right time.
MBA Crystal Ball: What Makes the Indian Film Industry (Bollywood) Unique?
Tegaswini: First, although filmmakers, government and the media speak of it as such, there is no "Indian film industry" in terms of funding, production, distribution and integrated exhibitions at the national level. Even if there is some overlap and turnover among the six major film industries in India. There are many Bollywood celebrity in India, including the Mumbai-based Indian film industry, now known as Bollywood, which is the most famous around the world; however, Indian films account for about 20% of the total number of films produced in India, With an equal number [and sometimes more] of films produced in Telugu and Tamil each year. When all films produced in all languages are counted, about 20 or less, this makes India the largest producer of films in the world; Bollywood does not produce 800-1000 films a year, about 200 or more a year ago.
Now to answer the question: I think what is striking is how, despite the years of hostile or indifferent government policies, high tax rates, the lack of full attention to much of the formal sector, the lack of capital and very decentralized structure, and the Indian film. The industry has managed to survive and continue making films that have been successful, conveying the hearts of people and seen by millions of people around the world. The example of Indian filmmaking contrasts with all those theories that neo-liberal economists and Republican politicians in the United States explain how excess taxes and regulations kill entrepreneurship, and certainly not for the Indian film industry! The filmmakers complained and still complain about the economic policies of the Indian government that affect them negatively, but did not prevent them from producing their films.
The second feature I find also unique is that Indian films have spread all over the world since the 1950s: Morocco, Egypt, Nigeria, Ghana, Israel, Tanzania, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Poland, Indonesia, USSR, Peru and China. , And many countries without any important Diaspora community, without any marketing effort by their producers. These films spread everywhere and planted a loyal audience and the producers who were in Bombay had no idea. It's a hobby for me to collect stories / stories about where Indian films appear. The most interesting example was when he mentioned a student in the anthropology class at Barnard College where he gave a guest lecture that he had seen a Hindi film on the video. Yanomami people in the Amazon! In this sense, these films have been able to reach all kinds of unexpected and unexpected audiences with their own power with promotion or marketing without any row. I often found myself telling filmmakers in Bombay stories about where all their films came from and they were very surprised!
Crystal Ball MBA: From a business perspective, what are the similarities and differences compared to Hollywood?
Tegaswini: Both are similar in that both are large, commercially oriented, and profit-oriented, and are traded globally in the major entertainment industries. However, this is where the similarities almost end. In contrast to Hollywood, the Indian film industry is largely decentralized, funded primarily by corporate capital, organized through social networks and kinship, and until the early decade of the 20th century was subject to verbal contracts rather than written contracts . The financial and distribution structures in Indian filmmaking, power sites, organization of work and the culture of work are generally different from Hollywood. It has been and remains an industry of independents who are challenging for a particular film project.
Until the emergence of so-called "collusion", which began to take shape in a very serious way about five years ago, there was no integration between production, distribution or exhibition, although that is now changing. Finally, a very important difference between these two sectors is that Hollywood has always been supported by the US government. Since the early twentieth century, to help expand its objectives, unlike the Indian industry, which was first taken under colonial authority. The British were trying to figure out how to promote their films in India and have no interest in promoting Indian cinema. After independence, the Indian government dealt with films similar to a deputy in terms of censorship and taxation policies.
Tegaswini: In fact, when it comes to media in general, specifically the Indian film industry, it is very difficult to predict trends. The kind of changes that have taken place in the Indian film industry from the state of the industry, the shift to multiple companies and the arrival of Indian cinema in the finest film festivals in the world, predicted by industry members. When I started my research, most filmmakers were absolutely certain that the central government would not give the filmmaking status, two years later.
However, if I have to predict, the growing integration between the production and distribution sectors and exhibitions I mentioned above will continue. However, even with large companies such as Reliance Big Entertainment and UTV, it seems that the producer and the independent distributor are still forced to do the actual work of producing and distributing the films. There will also be increased links between filmmakers in bollywood celebrity news Hollywood and Hindi; although I can not predict where he will take us.
Tegaswini: A number touches a variety of topics ranging from marketing to data collection. First of all, I think filmmakers, whom I use extensively to refer to producers, distributors, directors and others, should think outside the box about who their fans think and who they will be; they should not think that South Asians are the only audience for their films, In a mentality, white American audiences are a kind of Holy Grail, when the whole world has been watching Indian films for decades.
Secondly, in India, I think that filmmakers should not be happy to take all their money from a small segment of the audience, which has made multicast access to the high ticket prices for movie business. The industry should try to increase its audience, not reduce it.
Thirdly, the industry is experiencing significant capital injections by entering the corporate sector into cinema, but much of this capital is chasing stars themselves rather than trying to develop new talent. There is also a tendency to trade in the desire to gamble on the children of the stars and not to risk taking external roles to the main roles. I think the industry should try to expand its talent base and not just automatically trust children, grandchildren, sons, brothers, etc. Of industry members
Finally, as a result of the decentralized nature of industry, there is a real problem with collecting reliable income data: no one really knows how much money the film has won and the success and failure of the factors associated with the location where you occupy the chain.
Crystal Ball MBA: Do you see similarities with other popular genres that do not belong to Hollywood (for example, martial arts films have been madly dubbed a decade ago, but they are no longer)?
Tegaswini: Not really, because I do not think Indian films are a kind of fashion; they may be fad for some journalists or the media, but Indian films will be made and popular whether a small group in the US [in the media or film schools] find it strange or strange Firstly.
Crystal Ball MBA: In terms of market penetration, do you think the Indian film industry has more acceptance (beyond the Indian diaspora)? Does language, culture and flavor are very typical of forums as a deterrent in the process?
Tejaswini: I think Hindi movies have a global audience. Language, culture or songs have not been a problem in the past, but the challenge for filmmakers has always been to get those benefits. Part of the problem is that global data collection mechanisms, such as publications with a very European-American perspective, produce a very narrow picture that ignores and / or obliterates the global presence of Indian cinema.
In addition, there was nothing universal in substance or less privacy about Hollywood movies. Not content, but a series of historical factors that led to its global hegemony from the devastating impact of the Second World War on the European film industries to the colonial relations of the United States with Latin America and Japan. The United States is actually one of the most protected and closed film markets in the world, because the MPAA is a very powerful lobbying group.
As latest bollywood movies I mentioned, the United States Government. Since the first part of the twentieth century, he has seen the economic and ideological potential of film exports, and Hollywood is often referred to as the "small foreign ministry". In the 1920s, "every foot of the American film sold the goods manufactured in one place in the world for one dollar." Therefore, the problem of market expansion is related to political and economic factors rather than simple content.
Crystal Ball MBA: What skills do we need to develop to get there?
Tejaswini: India's government needs a better long-term view of how it wants to promote cinema in the global marketplace. Filmmakers should put their films in more languages to reach a new audience, because although most of the world is used to watching films that do not offer their people their nationality, they expect to hear their languages. There should be better interpretation of the markets where the translation of films is more favorable and the songs must certainly be translated and translated better!
Essentially, filmmakers can not be fools and idiots; all of these efforts will require substantial investment, but you can not expect to reach new markets without expenses. If Indian films in the past have reached many audiences without any effort from the creators, can you imagine what you can actually do?
In this interview, Tejaswini shares information about Hindi filmmaking in India and why it is unique. He also has some suggestions on how Bollywood will meet some of the challenges it faces today.latest bollywood movies articles If you are interested in commercial, commercial and operational aspects of the Indian film industry, this is a required reading.
Indian Film Making - Interview with Tegaswini Ghanti (New York University)
MBA Crystal Ball: Tell us a bit about yourself and your interest in the Indian film industry.
Tejaswini: I am a cultural anthropologist and have conducted ethnographic research in the Indian film industry since 1996. I lived in Mumbai for a year in 1996 while researching my doctoral dissertation, and then did a field work later in 2000, 2005, Indian films in the United States over the last decade. In anthropology, our main method of research is what we call "participants' observation", which means that we derive our information about a society, community or group in particular, to immerse ourselves in this particular social world and observe and interact with people at home. from him. So, for my research, I devoted a lot of time to filming movies, filmmakers' offices, editing studios, dubbing studios, outdoor photography and other production sites; I also worked as an assistant in two different films. In recent years, formal, recorded and recorded interviews have been conducted with nearly 100 people in the industry, but conversations and daily interactions with industry members play a key role in the analysis of the film industry.
I study at New York University in the Department of Anthropology and its Culture and Information Program; some of the courses I study include Anthropology Anthropology in South Asia. And visual anthropology [among others].
Since I was a child, I was probably 3 or 4 years old. I was a passionate fan of Indian films. I grew up with them in my first years in India and then in my childhood and adolescence in Indian cinema in the United States. UU. It has always been a very important feature of my leisure / leisure / social life, and I am lucky to be able to transform my personal passion into professional research. This credit is for the consultants at the Graduate School who encouraged me to think about continuing to search for Indian cinema for my thesis project. In the early 1990s, there was growing interest within anthropology about mass media and culture, so it was in the right place at the right time.
MBA Crystal Ball: What Makes the Indian Film Industry (Bollywood) Unique?
Tegaswini: First, although filmmakers, government and the media speak of it as such, there is no "Indian film industry" in terms of funding, production, distribution and integrated exhibitions at the national level. Even if there is some overlap and turnover among the six major film industries in India. There are many Bollywood celebrity in India, including the Mumbai-based Indian film industry, now known as Bollywood, which is the most famous around the world; however, Indian films account for about 20% of the total number of films produced in India, With an equal number [and sometimes more] of films produced in Telugu and Tamil each year. When all films produced in all languages are counted, about 20 or less, this makes India the largest producer of films in the world; Bollywood does not produce 800-1000 films a year, about 200 or more a year ago.
Now to answer the question: I think what is striking is how, despite the years of hostile or indifferent government policies, high tax rates, the lack of full attention to much of the formal sector, the lack of capital and very decentralized structure, and the Indian film. The industry has managed to survive and continue making films that have been successful, conveying the hearts of people and seen by millions of people around the world. The example of Indian filmmaking contrasts with all those theories that neo-liberal economists and Republican politicians in the United States explain how excess taxes and regulations kill entrepreneurship, and certainly not for the Indian film industry! The filmmakers complained and still complain about the economic policies of the Indian government that affect them negatively, but did not prevent them from producing their films.
The second feature I find also unique is that Indian films have spread all over the world since the 1950s: Morocco, Egypt, Nigeria, Ghana, Israel, Tanzania, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Poland, Indonesia, USSR, Peru and China. , And many countries without any important Diaspora community, without any marketing effort by their producers. These films spread everywhere and planted a loyal audience and the producers who were in Bombay had no idea. It's a hobby for me to collect stories / stories about where Indian films appear. The most interesting example was when he mentioned a student in the anthropology class at Barnard College where he gave a guest lecture that he had seen a Hindi film on the video. Yanomami people in the Amazon! In this sense, these films have been able to reach all kinds of unexpected and unexpected audiences with their own power with promotion or marketing without any row. I often found myself telling filmmakers in Bombay stories about where all their films came from and they were very surprised!
Crystal Ball MBA: From a business perspective, what are the similarities and differences compared to Hollywood?
Tegaswini: Both are similar in that both are large, commercially oriented, and profit-oriented, and are traded globally in the major entertainment industries. However, this is where the similarities almost end. In contrast to Hollywood, the Indian film industry is largely decentralized, funded primarily by corporate capital, organized through social networks and kinship, and until the early decade of the 20th century was subject to verbal contracts rather than written contracts . The financial and distribution structures in Indian filmmaking, power sites, organization of work and the culture of work are generally different from Hollywood. It has been and remains an industry of independents who are challenging for a particular film project.
Until the emergence of so-called "collusion", which began to take shape in a very serious way about five years ago, there was no integration between production, distribution or exhibition, although that is now changing. Finally, a very important difference between these two sectors is that Hollywood has always been supported by the US government. Since the early twentieth century, to help expand its objectives, unlike the Indian industry, which was first taken under colonial authority. The British were trying to figure out how to promote their films in India and have no interest in promoting Indian cinema. After independence, the Indian government dealt with films similar to a deputy in terms of censorship and taxation policies.
Tegaswini: In fact, when it comes to media in general, specifically the Indian film industry, it is very difficult to predict trends. The kind of changes that have taken place in the Indian film industry from the state of the industry, the shift to multiple companies and the arrival of Indian cinema in the finest film festivals in the world, predicted by industry members. When I started my research, most filmmakers were absolutely certain that the central government would not give the filmmaking status, two years later.
However, if I have to predict, the growing integration between the production and distribution sectors and exhibitions I mentioned above will continue. However, even with large companies such as Reliance Big Entertainment and UTV, it seems that the producer and the independent distributor are still forced to do the actual work of producing and distributing the films. There will also be increased links between filmmakers in bollywood celebrity news Hollywood and Hindi; although I can not predict where he will take us.
Tegaswini: A number touches a variety of topics ranging from marketing to data collection. First of all, I think filmmakers, whom I use extensively to refer to producers, distributors, directors and others, should think outside the box about who their fans think and who they will be; they should not think that South Asians are the only audience for their films, In a mentality, white American audiences are a kind of Holy Grail, when the whole world has been watching Indian films for decades.
Secondly, in India, I think that filmmakers should not be happy to take all their money from a small segment of the audience, which has made multicast access to the high ticket prices for movie business. The industry should try to increase its audience, not reduce it.
Thirdly, the industry is experiencing significant capital injections by entering the corporate sector into cinema, but much of this capital is chasing stars themselves rather than trying to develop new talent. There is also a tendency to trade in the desire to gamble on the children of the stars and not to risk taking external roles to the main roles. I think the industry should try to expand its talent base and not just automatically trust children, grandchildren, sons, brothers, etc. Of industry members
Finally, as a result of the decentralized nature of industry, there is a real problem with collecting reliable income data: no one really knows how much money the film has won and the success and failure of the factors associated with the location where you occupy the chain.
Crystal Ball MBA: Do you see similarities with other popular genres that do not belong to Hollywood (for example, martial arts films have been madly dubbed a decade ago, but they are no longer)?
Tegaswini: Not really, because I do not think Indian films are a kind of fashion; they may be fad for some journalists or the media, but Indian films will be made and popular whether a small group in the US [in the media or film schools] find it strange or strange Firstly.
Crystal Ball MBA: In terms of market penetration, do you think the Indian film industry has more acceptance (beyond the Indian diaspora)? Does language, culture and flavor are very typical of forums as a deterrent in the process?
Tejaswini: I think Hindi movies have a global audience. Language, culture or songs have not been a problem in the past, but the challenge for filmmakers has always been to get those benefits. Part of the problem is that global data collection mechanisms, such as publications with a very European-American perspective, produce a very narrow picture that ignores and / or obliterates the global presence of Indian cinema.
In addition, there was nothing universal in substance or less privacy about Hollywood movies. Not content, but a series of historical factors that led to its global hegemony from the devastating impact of the Second World War on the European film industries to the colonial relations of the United States with Latin America and Japan. The United States is actually one of the most protected and closed film markets in the world, because the MPAA is a very powerful lobbying group.
As latest bollywood movies I mentioned, the United States Government. Since the first part of the twentieth century, he has seen the economic and ideological potential of film exports, and Hollywood is often referred to as the "small foreign ministry". In the 1920s, "every foot of the American film sold the goods manufactured in one place in the world for one dollar." Therefore, the problem of market expansion is related to political and economic factors rather than simple content.
Crystal Ball MBA: What skills do we need to develop to get there?
Tejaswini: India's government needs a better long-term view of how it wants to promote cinema in the global marketplace. Filmmakers should put their films in more languages to reach a new audience, because although most of the world is used to watching films that do not offer their people their nationality, they expect to hear their languages. There should be better interpretation of the markets where the translation of films is more favorable and the songs must certainly be translated and translated better!
Essentially, filmmakers can not be fools and idiots; all of these efforts will require substantial investment, but you can not expect to reach new markets without expenses. If Indian films in the past have reached many audiences without any effort from the creators, can you imagine what you can actually do?
Comments
Post a Comment