TWMR, Piku: Lessons For The Industry

So what if there has been no Khan film and nothing from Hrithik Roshan in either 2015? Akshay Kumar has had two releases: the terrorism drama Baby, and the spice-laden film Gabbar is Back.

Both have been commercially successful, but guess what? The Kangana Ranaut starrer Tanu Weds Manu Returns is the only film to have crossed the Rs 100 crore hurdle this year. Records have tumbled along the way, with TWMR becoming the highest grossing woman-centric film ever and its second weekend collections beating the personal record during the corresponding period of none other than Shah Rukh Khan.

Some facts and figures first. Akshay’s Baby and Gabbar is Back are at numbers two and three in the hit list of 2015, followed by Piku, which is anchored by Deepika Padukone in the character of a liberated Bengali girl in a story hinging on a father-daughter relationship. Piku is no TWMR; still, it should net around Rs 82 crore at the Indian box-office. TWMR, on the other hand, is experiencing a slowdown after earning close to Rs 120 crore in India alone.

Now, the big question. Is this story of two consecutive successes a misleading depiction of the way the audiences generally respond to women-centric films? It is not, and this is why.

Don’t forget that TWMR’s prequel Tanu Weds Manu was released in 2011 during the ICC Cricket World Cup, that scary phase after every four years when producers usually avoid releasing their films. The logic is simple. With the cricket fever spreading across the nation, why should they commit hara-kiri?

The release of TWM was, therefore, a gutsy act of defiance. What’s more, it even became a hit. In the four years thereafter, Kangana’s Tanu, a rebellious middle class girl who drank vodka and swallowed five sleeping pills before meeting her prospective groom, would have become even more popular by meeting new viewers through DVDs, VCDs and the satellite television.

Tanu’s return to the big screen with a sequel resulted in far better initials, because nobody needed to miss the film at the theatres because of cricket. Once inside, everybody smiled at Tanu, Manu (her doctor-hubby from TWM played by R Madhavan) and the third surprise who turned a certain hit into a record-breaking blockbuster: Datto, Kangana’s second character in her dual role.

An aspiring athlete with an interesting set of teeth and short hair who speaks with a Haryanvi accent, Datto’s character is the writer’s masterstroke. It defines the notion of an appropriate USP, a creative approach every maker must aspire for, instead of choosing to flaunt his extravagance with a gaudy marketing strategy, an exhibition of foreign locales in the film, and of course, recruitment of expensive stars for roles in a flogged-to-death story.

In spite of being a lesser success, Piku taught a lesson too. How Deepika and the supporting cast of Amitabh Bachchan and Irrfan Khan performed is a different story. What is significant is that, the presence of Deepika and Bachchan notwithstanding, Piku cost only Rs 35 crore to make.

This film’s potential viewers had been introduced to two reports a long time ago. One was that Bachchan was playing Deepika’s father, and the other, that the latter formed an unusual pairing with Irrfan. A Deepika-Irrfan romantic angle offered a guarantee of otherness. So, what was this story all about, people wondered.

Piku had some serious flaws. Bachchan, for instance, almost caricatured a Bengali. But Deepika, with significant assistance from Irrfan, transformed the film into a winner.

By the time Piku slowed down at the box-office, it had also reminded the industry that having a girl as the binding force in the film is a good idea: if you play your cards well. Unusual pairing helps, and so does the coming together of two big stars as parent and child. When a writer weaves such interesting strands into a screenplay and big stars – and an important actor like Irrfan – sign up for the project, the film has to be either hopelessly unlucky or mind-numbingly bad to collapse at the box-office.

More investment in a woman-centric film may be helpful. This is that important lesson makers must learn, particularly those who believe in making terrible films with huge stars and mammoth budgets while lying on the bed, sleepless, hoping that their new film releasing one day later won’t be slammed by the critics and ignored by the viewers. If such makers need to endure unbearable tension, why suggest an increase in expenditure for a woman-centric film?

There are two reasons. Firstly, makers approach female stars to play challenging leads with the hope that the actors will sign up after lowering their fees. Although the salaries of stars are wrapped in secrecy, it won’t be presumptuous to assume that Priyanka Chopra would have worked for a much lower fee than she usually does for Fashion and Mary Kom. Deepika wouldn’t have charged an identical amount for Happy New Year and Finding Fanny or Piku. Kangana, now a bona fide A-lister, would have worked for a much higher fee in Krrish 3 compared to Queen, Revolver Rani or TWMR.

The ideal situation ought to be different. The star a director wants for his/her film must like the story. If she does but asks for her usual fee, she must be paid that much. If that, plus higher expenses on promotion for better initials, implies the addition of a few more crores to the budget, so be it. As TWMR and even Piku have shown, a woman-centric film can return the money with huge interest.

With the final figures yet to come, which includes earnings from the overseas market where TWMR has been performing exceptionally well in particular, a new chapter in films led by women is beginning to write itself. The industry, which survives on optimism at a time when no star guarantees immunity from failure, must realise what is happening and dump that wretched bias for good.

Don’t make a woman-centric film like a big budget showpiece solely manufactured by male megastars. Even as they mint a fortune by contributing to the scenery of big budget films, some leading female stars work in much cheaper projects in which they rule. If an exciting idea comes their way, they often take the plunge because they don’t need to bury their acting skills in films monopolised by the male lead.That’s possibly why successful films steered by women (TWMR, Kahaani, The Dirty Picture, Piku, Queen) have been fortunate to have fine scripts.

Sunny Leone has delivered a couple of profitable ventures with her sheer presence, but no director has gifted her with the bonus of a magic formula which has resulted in returns that are comparable to that of the two recent releases. In any case, Leone can never become a Vidya Balan or a Kangana Ranaut, whose accomplished acting motivates writers to develop their offbeat thoughts into full-fledged scripts.

More importantly, while a big budget woman-centric film costing Rs 80 crore to make might hit paydirt, it will need compromises like item numbers, pointless romantic sequences, the odd sequence in which the star wears a swimsuit and tries to measure the length of the seashore with a five-minute jog show, and, perhaps, a lovemaking scene which is squeezed into the script for the heck of it.

What makers need to understand is, why even attempt to follow the formula when quality films with strong women made with less expenditure can make more-than-decent profits and take Hindi cinema forward at the same time?

Start producing more such films. Can this be done? Easily, as long as the story is a good one, and the main lead, a familiar star who can establish the difference between acting and modelling with her performance.

Operating in an atmosphere of encouraging reality, some makers, to start with, can initiate the process of change. What remains to be seen is whether they will choose to walk in a new direction without hoping to discover a goldmine at the end of the journey.