Lessons From The Failure Of ‘Guzaarish’

All the aforementioned drawbacks (faulty casting, dull music) may have been overlooked had the film been made on a tight budget because recovery for a film made on a controlled budget is not an impossibility even if its opening is not upto the mark. But even that was not the case. Given the class-appealing subject of the film, ‘Guzaarish’ ought to have been made for not more than Rs. 25 crore. But the investment in the film is three times that amount. And where exactly did the money go, other than in the film’s making? Obviously, the director and the two lead stars of the film – Hrithik and Aishwarya Rai – took away a sizeable portion of that money home as their fees.

This brings us to the next point. The case of ‘Guzaarish’ underlines the fact that the corporate production houses seem to have no idea about budgeting. Obviously, the one who green-lighted ‘Guzaarish’ did not have the faintest idea that the budget at which it had been given the green signal was obscene. Unofficial comments from UTV might point out that the project was started at a time when the industry was experiencing a boom, before recession set in, and, therefore, the budget of the film was what it was. So what? The recession is long over, which means, the film has come out in normal times. So, why are the revenues in a post-recessionary 2010 not matching with the costs of the pre-recessionary era? In other words, the argument about pre-recession doesn’t hold water. Of course, UTV is not the first producer to have gone so horribly wrong. Most of the corporates, flush with funds but not sufficiently equipped with creative talent, have at some time or the other gone similarly wrong in green-lighting films at double or triple the budgets they deserved. Eros’ Drona and Aladin and Reliance Big’s Karzzzz are some films which instantly come to mind in this regard. As far as ‘Guzaarish’ is concerned, the main cast and crew ought to have taken a tenth of the remunerations they actually took. Sanjay Bhansali ought to have volunteered to make a big concession if he wanted to make a film with such restricted appeal as ‘Guzaarish’. His forgoing a major chunk of his fee would have served as a good example for Hrithik and Aishwarya to follow, especially because both were keen to work with Bhansali. But if the filmmaker himself charged a bomb as his fee, how could he expect his stars to agree to have their pay packets cut?

It is in the case of films like ‘Guzaarish’ that stars and top technicians should volunteer to take only token fees upfront and keep a share in the profit. For, such films, which cannot be expected to do well everywhere due to their sectional appeal, need to be made with limited budgets if they are to be successful at the turnstiles. Aamir Khan does it all the time – he charges a nominal fee and keeps a share in the profits. If the film does earn a profit, Aamir’s remuneration automatically goes up, otherwise not. And if Aamir can do it even for films with intrinsic mass appeal, like 3 Idiots, why can’t the other top stars do it, at least in the case of films which lack universal appeal? Stars and technicians, who make such films, often justify their efforts in these films with limited market appeal by saying that that is how cinema would evolve. But they need to be told that merely making such cinema is not enough. For such cinema to evolve, it is also necessary that it does well at the box-office. For, only if films in this category click will more producers feel inclined to make different or new cinema. And only if that happens will the participation of top stars and technicians be worthwhile.