And, frankly, to whom is someone supposed to be accountable? To the boss, the owner. To the producer in the case of a production house. In other words, the one who must make himself or his subordinates accountable has to be the one who is investing his money. Probably, because corporate houses are being run on public funds, the lack of accountability seems understandable even if not justifiable. Whose money, what goes?
Another reason why at least some corporate heads don’t make anyone accountable could be because they themselves aren’t equipped to assess film projects. And if the CEO or chairman is not able to understand what will and what won’t run at the ticket windows, how can he make his juniors accountable?
Those who are wonderstruck at the amount some of the corporates lose every year should understand that making money from hit films may be quite low down on their agenda list, so it may not really matter to them if their films (whether produced or distributed by them) don’t work at the turnstiles. On top of their priority list must probably be to make money from sources other than films. The ‘other sources’ could include their fat pay cheques, buying and selling their own company’s shares in the stock market, the manipulation of accounts and the like.
This, perhaps, may also be the reason why genuinely talented people in the film industry are often not welcome in some of the big corporate organisations in the film industry. People in the top-but-one-or-two rungs could get insecure of being overtaken in the race by knowledgeable persons if the latter get recruited in the organisations. As a result, such deserving candidates may never reach the head honcho of an organisation who might consider employing or retaining them – that is, if he himself is also not insecure!!