(by Sairam Yadavilli)
It was the summer of 2016 and Paul Pogba had just moved back to Manchester United for a then world record fee of just under 90 million pounds. And it was the just the beginning of skyrocketing prices for half decent players. Now considered a steal, it was looked at with much ridicule back then. Since that transfer, we have had some mind-numbing numbers, 96 million pounds for a 20-year-old Dembele, 105 million for a bench warming Coutinho, 160 million for a teenage Mbappe, and almost 200 million for the always injured Neymar, being the more significant among those.
During the same time, in a different part of the world, a different kind of industry was raking in the “moolah” – Bollywood. The only difference being, the former was based on talent, and the latter, not so much. Up until 2015, some of the highest grossing Indian films were 3 Idiots, EkTha Tiger, Chennai Express, Dhoom 3, Bang! Bang!, Happy New Year, Kick, PK, Bajirao Mastani, Dilwale, Prem Ratan DhanPayo, ,Baahubali: The Beginning, BhajrangiBhaijan and Sultan. The formula for a successful movie (equating success with money, resulting in profits, and therefore well-fed families) was simple – have a Khan star in them. Since then, however, we have seen movies like Dangal, Tiger Zinda Hain, Secret superstar, Baahubali: The Conclusion, Thugs of Hindustan, Simmba, Andhadhun, Padmaavat (Padmaavati – just to piss off some people), Sanju, 2.0 and Uri. While some of them still had the Khans, people were also open to watching other “stars”. However, people might argue that these movies also cost a bomb to make, and I fully agree with that argument. Therefore, even a look at the most profitable movies threw up either “stars” or “star-kids”. This should have actually sealed the argument. But nothing is ever so simple in a complex country such as India (now don’t call me anti-national).
I am not sure how many of you have heard of this company called “Reliance”. Now, when its Chairman Ambani Sr. passed away, Ambani Jr. was made the Chairman, and his brother the vice-chairman.
Let’s look at another company – the TATAs. First it was Tata super Sr., followed by Tata Sr., followed byTata’s nephew, followed by Tata Jr., and then the Tata that we all see today.
But this is not nepotism, is it?
These companies affect the lives of over a billion people, as they have their hands in everything from petroleum to powder, from shoes to steel, and from cricket to cinema. And yet, we are more interested in who is cast in “Housefull 567” or “Golmaal returns yet again for the thousand and twentieth time with the same old nonsense that is passed off as comedy”. And do not even get me started on politics.
There is this point of view that is very prevalent – “Cinema is Art”. Of course, it is. But as far as most production houses are concerned, cinema is business. And Business is as much art as cinema is. The bottom line is money, and of course profits. There are directors, producers, distributors, financers, cameramen, makeup artists, music, lightning and all the people associated with the 64 art forms, and their families to feed. And so, irrespective of how much someone loves cinema, no one is going to make movies if they see empty cinema halls.With the superstars’ ever-increasing remunerations, the increasing production costs, the need to shoot every song in a “new location in some corner of Europe”, film makers need a return of investment. And with the increase in content, people can now pick and choose what to see. So, the only ‘category of people’ that are not too ‘pricey’ and yet can realistically pull in some money are the “star-kids”. But wait, aren’t people going to come and see you and me running around a tree? Would they prefer to see SRK’s son over me? Really?
And then comes the biggest argument of all – Talent. Coincidentally, Sachin’s son is talented enough to castle English batsmen. Also, coincidentally, Arthur Waugh’s sons were talented enough to write “Island in the Sun” and “Brideshead Revisited”. While genetics has not been able to explain “talent” very convincingly, there is tons of evidence to it.
Also, the fact that a person growing up around people belonging to a certain art form or profession is bound to pick up a thing or two.
And finally, content is king, and audience – kingmakers. People always decide the “Superstar of the Friday”. While having influential families can give you a break or two, and sometimes twenty, there is only so many movies they can make if the audience is not accepting of them. No one has that much money to burn.
So, let the star-kids try their hand. And hope that the profits go into making “small” or “independent” films too. For, if the producers finally need to find a “Kangana”, they would need to humor a “Kapoor”.
And now, I will wait my turn and hope for a producer/director to give me a break.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Sakkaravarthi Kaliannan
July 14, 2019
You might wanto to check this out BR saar. Someone made an unofficial bio of you on letterboxd.
https://letterboxd.com/baradwaj_rangan/
LikeLike
vinjk
July 15, 2019
fully agree with you. cinema is art but it is also business. Also market will decide whether he/she is needed. This cry against nepotism in private business is kind of silly. If public goods were given based on family connection it is something to fight against.
LikeLike
Kallor
July 15, 2019
This incoherent post is probably the most asinine thing I’ve read on this blog inclusive of comments that I felt compelled to finally create an account just to bitch about it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RaviShankar
July 15, 2019
Without Government investment in movies,It becomes a necessity to at least come out as break even with some profit.One thing also to be noted is that we don’t have reputed prizes like Oscars and Golden Globe where producers or production houses will be satisfied with less or no money if they win these coveted prizes.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
July 15, 2019
I don’t disagree with the initial part of your post. But for Kangana – of all people! – to call out nepotism and pretend to have made it on her own is a bit much to stomach. Her beginnings were through contacts. Not nepotism, if you want to split hairs, since she wasn’t actually related. But if she hadn’t been in a relationship with Aditya Panscholi, a lot of the chances she actually got in the beginning wouldn’t have been hers.
Now, to be clear, yes, that was an inappropriate relationship given the power imbalance between the two; Kangana was barely 17 then. And I assume there’s no doubt that that was an abusive relationship as well, given AP’s anger issues.
But. The fact is she was introduced to the Bhatts by AP, and then the Bhatts took her under their wing. For her to now spew hatred at Alia and the Bhatts, and drag them through the mud, is unseemly at best, and total ingratitude at worst. Not to mention the irony of it all.
For self-made successes, there are plenty of them in B’town. Would there be more if star children didn’t get chances? For sure. (But honestly, if X’s father had the money and was making a movie for X, or if Y’s parents’ friends spotted Y and gave Y a chance, then why on earth should X or Y say ‘no’? Just to hold up the flag of anti-nepotism?)
But I don’t see others – who are slowly and surely making their way up the ladder of success – behave as badly as she does. And now her ire (or her sister’s – the twitterati seem conflicted about whether K is shooting from her sister’s shoulder as well), is directed at Taapsee, whom she derides as ‘Sasti Kangana’ and Anurag Kashyap, as well as the media – because one of them dared to write a critical review of Manikarnika.
And since this is the woman who says that if she doesn’t win a national award for Manikarnika, then people will lose faith in the awards, I’ve only a rather pithy Bambaiyya phrase: Baap ka maal samajhti hai, kya?’
LikeLike
Soren K
July 16, 2019
This has to be the worst post I’ve read here in ages. I mean, I thought some posts were bad, but I could at least disagree with it. But this is terrible.
The whole ‘they need ROI, it’s a business’ thing is a problem. I can see the argument of making ‘compromises’ as a pragmatic move (as annoying as that is), while I totally respect people who uncompromisingly make film for the sake of passion (and sometimes have contributed to huge paradigm shifts). However, borderline celebrating the whole thing? That’s nuts. The whole excuse of ‘let them make money and fund small films’ doesn’t work though – they mostly just make those ‘small films’ again for profits with less investment, like those belong to a small spectrum in relative terms (we might get a Super Deluxe now and then, but otherwise they’re all just experimenting within the narrow framework that’s still difficult to discard”. Still they get sunk wrt visibility amidst all the shitty films, which drag down the quality of the industry, and filmmakers actively have to compromise their vision, time and again even end up delivering sub par cinema. Imagine celebrating something like that.
“While genetics has not been able to explain “talent” very convincingly, there is tons of evidence to it.” – I don’t even know where to begin with stuff like this. And I don’t even know what the point was re: Reliance and Tata. Of course, most people are wealthy because they inherit a huge chunk of wealth – and that’s extremely shitty and has only dug us, other working class folks (some more than the other) into a grave with that increasing levels of inequality. And protests and resistance has only earned us small victories. Of course, OP is quick to jump on correlation re: genetics and “talent”, while just posts casually about the uber rich inheriting wealth. Bizzare.
I don’t know, are we really publishing just contrarian low-tier takes for the sake of it? I mean this doesn’t even have anything to add to any convo re: art, I’d rather watch those annoying “mutualfundssahihai.com” ads than read this.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Rahini David
July 16, 2019
I don’t quite understand this. If a producer found a very handsome and talented man through auditions and cast a very pretty title winner against him and cast them in a high-moderate budget movie with great characterizations, will the general public really say “Why would I have to see a movie that does not have a Kapoor or a Khan in it?”
That seems a bit implausible to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tommylad
July 17, 2019
This whole Nepotism debate has a caste angle to it. These Khans and Kapoors (Muslims and Punjabis) took up a profession that was derided by the UC and built a huge industry out of it. Now that it has become a lucrative profession respected by all, the UC’s want a part of it. This small-town boy/girl makes big against all odds in the nepotism infested Bollywood narrative is built around UC actors like Kangana Ranaut, Sushant Singh Rajput, Rajkumar Rao, Jim Sarbh, Pankaj Tripathi, et al. It will interesting to see if nepotism is discussed in this aspect as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chvs Chaitanya
July 17, 2019
@Rahini Dravid: What the author is trying to say is that the public will give more attention to a product in which a start kid is there compared to the one where a new comer(lets assume that both products has same quality)..which will help the initial business of the film..he is not saying that people wont see non Kapoor/khan film.
LikeLike
Rahini David
July 17, 2019
chvs Chaitanya: Roughly how huge a difference are we talking about here? And I am talking about a movie that is given huge promos, trailers, teasers et al. Very handsome man romances very pretty woman. He is completely new and extremely charming. She already looked effervescent in several commercials. Very huge sets. Very daring stunts. No Kapoors. No Khans. But contains all the masala ingredients that their movies supposedly have.
LikeLike
Isai
July 17, 2019
@tommylad
I think Khans and Kapoors are considered as upper caste (https://m.timesofindia.com/home/sunday-times/deep-focus/Being-Muslim-in-India-means-Syeds-spit-on-Julahas-in-an-egalitarian-community/articleshow/5935797.cms)
I don’t think cinema as a profession was derided by UC in entirety. I think as Therukoothu (Street play) evolved into Naadagam (stage play) where one acted on a stage that is placed ABOVE the seats of the audience, the UC did start gravitating towards it. And I think Nadagam/Cinema is sort of an amalgamation of Therukoothu and Kathaprasangam, so anyways UCs were not entirely away from it. Dadasaheb Phalke was a brahmin and UC kayasthas like Satyajit Ray, Amitabh Bachchan were quite successful much before the Khan/Kapoor domination. Cinema was always a lucrative profession, but I don’t think it is widely respected, even today. (Bala or Mahendran may be widely respected but the industry as a whole isn’t, IMO).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 17, 2019
@Rahini, it’s name recognition. There’s more interest in seeing Shah Rukh Khan’s son debut in a film such that you mention than there is in seeing ‘new-lad-from-nowhere’. There’s more attention focused on little Taimur Ali Khan than any average 2 or 3 year old. By the time he’s 16 or 17, producers and directors will be chomping at the bit to launch him. That’s something a newcomer can only dream of happening.
Once upon a time, producers were happy to launch new talent. Much was made of ‘seeking new talent’ – young boys and girls screen tested, and given those launches you speak of. How many of them survived? Off hand, I can think of Dharmendra, Rajesh Khanna and Jeetendra – all outsiders – who made their debuts through such nation-wide talent hunts.
New heroines were routinely launched through modelling and later, the Miss India pageants.
But I don’t blame only the film industry for this ‘nepotism’. The media and the viewers are also to blame. Why is there so much news coverage on what a toddler did or said? Because there is an avid market for it out there. Reams of print and much online coverage is expended on the young Pataudi scion. The number of fan pages that Aryan Khan has is beyond my comprehension. Sara Ali Khan was a social media star before she even stepped into films.
People are interested. People want to see them. Some of those people who fit both those parameters are also the ones who spout off about ‘nepotism’.
Fans of stars are interested in the people who revolve in their orbit as well. The loyalty to one is transposed to the other. I’ll be honest: I went to see Refugee because it starred Amitabh Bachchan’s (my hero) son and Raj Kapoor’s (my dad’s) granddaughter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apu
July 19, 2019
Rahini: To follow up on Anu’s thought here”There’s more interest in seeing Shah Rukh Khan’s son debut in a film such that you mention than there is in seeing ‘new-lad-from-nowhere’. ”
This also translates to a producer having to spend less money on promotions and so a comparatively low risk of ROI.
LikeLike
Apu
July 19, 2019
Oh and one more example:
I was living in India when Dhoom released. I went with very low expectations because none of the leads were “stars”, and I went because I wanted to spend a Saturday being entertained and this movie was playing in many halls.
When I later came to live in US, I heard that most folks did not watch Dhoom because (1) it was not so widely available (2) it did not have stars, so it did not look interesting. Dhoom 2 was much bigger and got the needed audience.
So, name matters. 🙂
LikeLike
vinjk
July 19, 2019
Look at the NDTV headline for The Lion King review…”The Lion King (Hindi) Movie Review: Shah Rukh Khan’s Son Aryan Does A Great Job As Simba”
😀 an animation movie…voice dubbed…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apu
July 19, 2019
“an animation movie…voice dubbed…”
Well, I am not sure, but I have always seen animation movies saying “starring”.
Consider this: Years later, people still cannot accept Will Smith as the Genie in Aladdin because they loved Robin Williams “as” a Genre – in an animation movie.
LikeLike
Jai
July 19, 2019
@ Apu, yes, animation movies do mention who’s voiced which character. However I guess Vineet’s point was, that even for a film where Aryan was giving the voice for the animated character of Simba, (as opposed to actually starring in a film), there were a number of fawning articles about how magnificent a job he’s done. This certainly seems an overkill and is directly attributable to the nepotism debate, as in, praise being earned by Aryan because of whose offspring he is. I mean, for God’s sake, there were articles going on about how people “got goosebumps” when they heard his voice, “because he sounds just like SRK”.
I doubt very much if, say, the same level of gushing articles would have been written had (for example), Ayushmann Khurrana or Rajkummar Rao been given the voiceover for Simba. Despite these two actors having proved their credentials and expertise in their vocation.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Rahul
July 19, 2019
I think the point of name recognition and the curiosity of media and viewers is valid for only a few people who enter the industry because of nepotism. For every Aryan Khan , Sara Ali Khan and Jahnavi Kapoor there are countless Suraj Pancholis and Sanjay Kapoors and Arman Kohlis and Kishan Kumars who keep making film after film . I am not necessarily saying that these people are bad , but they would not have got so many opportunities if not for nepotism AND I reiterate, I doubt if people are curious about more than a few of their ilk.
SRK and Sridevi are much loved stars. But what about offsprings of Shakti Kapoor, Sumit Saigal, Aditya Pancholi. Sunil Shetty and so on ?
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
July 19, 2019
Rahul, true. I’m in the least bit interested in the offspring of those you mention, or even most of them. But, if the actor is a much-loved one, then surely his/her offspring are going to be the subject of much curiosity.
As for the talentless lot getting countless offers, sure, they get them because of their connections. But I don’t see any of them acting in movies that are hits, or are worthy of being viewed even. And the type of movies they act in, for instance, wouldn’t do much for the careers of anyone – whether star kids OR outsiders.
I don’t know which side of this debate I fall on, considering, as I said, that I transferred my adoration of AB to a certain fondness for his son, but I really wonder that it is the most successful star kids who seem to get the most oppobrium. I mean, they have shown they have what it takes to rule the box-office, whether it is talent or star power or both and the fact is, it is the audience who has given it to them.
Otherwise, no matter how many films they get because of their parents’ clout, thye aren’t going to have a career. Case in point – Kumar Gaurav, s/o Jubilee Star Rajendra Kumar, the then-richest man in the industry. And funnily enough, he had a blockbuster debut, looked great, was a pretty competent actor (definitely better than good friend Sanjay Dutt, who debuted alongside him in Rocky), but he phased out because every film post his debut flopped.
I think it’s easy to blame ‘nepotism’ when your career isn’t going anywhere, and starkids seem to have it all. I also think Radhika Apte said it best when she said that where star kids score is knowing which doors to knock, while people like her don’t even know there is a door in the first place.
LikeLike
Rahul
July 19, 2019
Anu Warrier, I mostly agree with you. But here is a problem, it takes few films for the nepo kids to accept their failure and sometimes they never do (and keep getting films made for themselves) . There is limited space for commercial movies ( In terms of screens ) and if there are some films being made to service the vanity of some people, then it is taking that opportunity from other films.
Secondly, it also points towards a non professional attitude towards making films. Usually there is a casting director and even the nepo kids would go through screen tests. But if they do not , and have roles written for them, then it points towards a shoddy approach of film making.
My point is nepotism is costly not just for struggling artists but for the viewers too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 19, 2019
Rahul, absolutely. I agree completely.
My point is nepotism is costly not just for struggling artists but for the viewers too.
And here’s where it gets muddy. Because it’s also the viewers who put these star kids where they are. I mean, take Aryan Khan, for instance. Now, he might be SRK’s kid, but he’s gone through the grind abroad. I think he was learning film-making and theatre? The question on everyone’s lips is not whether he will make his debut as a film-maker or AD or screenwriter or whatever it is the kid wants to do, but when he will debut on screen as a full-fledged hero. And the question is not even if he will, but when.
If viewers don’t want to be shortchanged, and they really wish to see the end of nepotism, perhaps they should vote with the wallets. But that, too, is a complicated issue – what if you really like the actor, regardless of whether s/he’s from the industry?Is it fair to criticise a star kid just because of the circumstances of his birth?
The media – which seems to get off on the nepotism debate and keep it well and truly alive – also has an axe to grind. They use the star kids whom they profess to hate for eyeballs and clicks and TRPs. Then they turn around and ‘discuss’ nepotism. If the media weren’t playing this game, then perhaps Taimur Ali Khan may have a normal childhood. Want to bet that 16 years from now, they will be framing him as the ‘next big thing’ and in the same breath, castigating ‘nepotism’?
Which is why, while it’s easy to hyperventilate (generally – not you) about nepotism, there’s an ecosystem that we are all part of, and contribute to.
What I fail to comprehend is, some of the star kids are good, really good. But when so many of the talentless lot get at least two or three opportunities to make a screen appearance, what goes through the producers’ minds? Why do they keep throwing good money after bad? It’s baffling, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Madan
July 19, 2019
“Case in point – Kumar Gaurav, s/o Jubilee Star Rajendra Kumar, the then-richest man in the industry. And funnily enough, he had a blockbuster debut, looked great, was a pretty competent actor (definitely better than good friend Sanjay Dutt, who debuted alongside him in Rocky), but he phased out because every film post his debut flopped.” – Different time, different economics in the industry. This was when flops really hurt and a film had to really, really run in order to get back its money. There was also no real equivalent of today’s multiplex movie, so a Kumar Gaurav could not have taken shelter in an ensemble movie and deliver a mediocre performance without hurting the film (if suitably protected by the director). This is how the less successful star offspring survive today. Yes, it’s true that they will still EVENTUALLY fizzle out. But they can go on for a good half a dozen films before they do. In the meantime, filmmakers are much less interested in breaking new stars than before. There has been no REAL new star since Ranveer Singh and the last new lead actor capable of delivering at least multiplex hits is Ayushmann Khurana. He debuted seven years ago. In the Bollywood of yore, Sunil Shetty had attained his peak and commenced his downward slide in that much time. Nepotism actually fits today’s Bollywood like a glove. Comfortable, mediocre choices to go with comfortable and comforting movies that don’t dare break new ground.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Madan
July 19, 2019
“Years later, people still cannot accept Will Smith as the Genie in Aladdin because they loved Robin Williams “as” a Genre – in an animation movie” – I think this had more to do with how well Robin Williams voiced Genie. Actually, Williams was one of the few big name actors then doing voice over. Rowan Atkinson’s voice over for Zasu was also memorable. But the vast majority of them were not well known actors. But Phil Harris did a better job in the 1967 Jungle Book than Bill Murray in the 2016 live action remake.Sterling Holloway as Kaa was miles ahead of Scarlett Johansson and Walken as Louie was just a waste vis a vis Louis Prima in the original. Today, having big name actors to do voice over is nothing more than a strategy to create buzz about the amazingly creative endeavour of making live action remakes of animated classics in the hope that at least curiosity about how these stars voice-acted for these characters would drive box office collections. No such cynical moves were needed back when the original animated films were made because they were made when Disney still had a vision for what animated films should look and sound like and executed it with aplomb.
LikeLike
Rahul
July 19, 2019
“If viewers don’t want to be shortchanged, and they really wish to see the end of nepotism, perhaps they should vote with the wallets.”
I am not an expert in Bollynomics, but I think nepofilms recover their money for few reasons.
– sometimes they are used to launder black money.
– music , satellite other kinds of rights
– that category of viewers who see every single release regardless of the quality.
I am not judging them, they are the backbone on which the industry survives. For many viewers watching(and enjoying) the movie is only one part of the experience of going to the cinemas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
July 20, 2019
Is it not ironical that srk and bachchan who were outsiders once and hailed as such, becoming insiders once their kids started getting advantage of their fathers’s legacies and getting fawned by the media? The roles keep changing. Looking at the number of attractive and advantaged star kids who are about to jump into the fray, it looks like that outsiders have to struggle very hard and had to make do with small films while all big films will go to Alias and Varun Dhawans and the like. Media is the main culprit. And they also make amends by berating nepotism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
July 20, 2019
I honestly think AB Jr would have fared better had he NOT been Amitabh’s son. The comparisons to his legendary father made it hard for him to step out of his shadow. People could never accept that fwiw he was a decent actor, just not comparable to AB. Which should have been OK because most of Abhishek’s contemporaries weren’t either.
But for one Abhishek, you have many more Esha Deols. Seriously, what was Mani of all people thinking casting her in Ayutha Ezuthu? She was dreadful. I think Bobby himself benefited from the surname. His lispy dialogue delivery or his awkward mannerisms would have hurt the prospects of most outsiders. Although, at times, there is no accounting for our ability to tolerate crap. Just watch Sunil Shetty channeling Dilip Kumar in the climax of Dhadkan. One of my favourite so bad it’s good moments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 20, 2019
Madan, Rahul, I agree with all that you say. I just think that there’s a lot more to this issue than what’s on the surface. There definitely is privilege at play, and the more self-aware ones acknowledge that privilege. I think, in present circumstances, that’s a huge step forward.
And yes, as Rahul says, if they were to streamline the industry and make it more professional in terms of auditions and screen tests, and actually have casting directors play a more important part (they seem to be doing so more so now), we will have a more equitable playing ground. And who knows? Another star/actor might be born.
LikeLike
Madan
July 20, 2019
Speaking of screen tests, even in Hollywood, they waive that at the director’s whims. Maybe less so these days when directors have less power than before. But Michael Mann had cast Al Pacino in Insider before anybody else and it’s doubtful he would have made the film without him. Now, it worked out well in that case because Mann is a good director. But who knows what a screen test would have revealed; they may well have found somebody else more compelling than Al for that role. Mann wouldn’t take that chance. And while that’s not nepotism, that’s definitely favouritism. This isn’t even news per se. The arts have always been like this and behind the beautiful product they put together for us is a process that is chaotic at best and rotten at worst. It is only even a talking point now because Hollywood indulges in so much virtue signalling and pontificating (and Bollywood has started following that lead). If you get out there and make big social statements, then be prepared for people raising questions about what you do in your own industry.
LikeLiked by 2 people
vinjk
July 20, 2019
“behind the beautiful product they put together for us is a process that is chaotic at best and rotten at worst. ”
Watch the French series Call My Agent! on Netflix. It’s fun and also gives a great behind-the-scenes of this process.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
July 20, 2019
I have zero problems with nepotism in private enterprise. It is only natural that one would want to promote someone from “within the family”, and if that person fails (i.e. does not live up to his father or mother), then he will automatically end up being shunned — whether he is a lawyer or a CA or a doctor or an actor.
It is the father’s (or uncle’s or cousin’s) money. He can do whatever he wants. Ultimately, we have the power to accept or reject them.
I do, however, have a problem with nepotism in the public sphere — say, government.
Here, there is an actual issue of accountability and the “failure” of the son or daughter doesn’t always mean that they vanish. (We can’t vote them out.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 21, 2019
Madan, I don’t think the top stars really audition any more in Hollywood, either. And as much as I agree with the valid points that you and Rahul made, and I would like to see the industry more transparent in its casting process (thereby also knocking out the casting couch), I also agree with BR – films are a private enterprise. The money people put into films are for a variety of reasons – and if they want to put their hard-earned (or not) cash into propelling a star kid to stardom, then they have every right to do so.
Inasmuch as I fret over content, especially of the sexist, misogynistic kind, I still can’t do much about what is made other than vote with my wallet. And if I don’t want to see a star kid, I won’t. Just as I don’t want to watch a celebration of misogyny or toxic masculinity. We can call it out when we see it, provoke a discussion about it, and try to change minds and policy by those conversations.
LikeLike
Madan
July 21, 2019
@Anu Warrier : I think the point about criticizing nepotism is that while filmmakers or businessmen may not be directly accountable to us in the way govts are, they nevertheless are important to the overall health of a society. A businessman promoting his incompetent son to the top post can be extremely problematic if he is to preside over a large empire with thousands of staff. While push back by itself cannot overturn the status quo, we can be sure that without push back, nothing would change anyway. It is the same as how music aficionados criticise auto tune. It’s not that we think we can stop the music industry from using it. We just want to keep shaming them, so people know the industry is taking lazy shortcuts and compromising the integrity of the art form.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eswar
July 21, 2019
When it comes to public vs private enterprise the challenge is always in defining precisely and consistently what makes an enterprise public or private.
Cinema on its own is a private venture. But the platform on which it survives is not clearly definable as public or private, at least in Kollywood. To start with, Kollywood is a monopoly. Even if one has all the money to make a movie, to get it released, like a typical movie in theatres, would require the makers to be part of the industry. Given that this industry is a monopoly and a parallel cannot/doesn’t exist, then the maker has to compromise on the work. If this industry has individuals who are powerful, has a say on everything about the industry and exhibit nepotistic tendencies, then it seems to be a problem, even though from a capitalistic point of view that this industry appears to be purely private.
The first thing that bothered me when Petta was announced was its music director Anirudh. I do enjoy Anirudh’s songs. But if not for being Latha Rajinikanth’s nephew, I am not sure if he would have got this opportunity. Also I don’t know if Anirudh was Karthik Subbaraj’s choice. I have my doubts given Karthik Subbaraj’s long association with Santhosh Narayanan. Add to this, Anirudh’s entry into the industry itself was with Rajini’s daughter and son-in-law.
Another factor that dilutes public private separation is whether the industry receives tax payer’s money through the government. I don’t know if Kollywood receives any funding from government, if it is, then it wouldn’t exactly fall under private ownership.
But then, as mentioned by other commenters, the outsiders may not be able to do much apart from pointing it out. It’s the good people in the industry who should lead this by becoming transparent and open about the process.
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
July 23, 2019
“The debate on nepotism has gone on for so long because there is a dissonance between how we are as human beings and how we perceive ourselves to be.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
rnjbond
July 23, 2019
Reliance and Tata being run by family members is a problem and of course that’s nepotism. Public companies are not meant to be run like kingdoms. Microsoft is run by an Indian-American Satya Nadella (who has really turned the business around), not by Bill Gates’ son or daughter. When Larry Ellison stepped down as CEO of Oracle, he didn’t appoint Megan Ellison as his successor. Even Walmart, which is still majority-owned by the Walton family, has a four CEOs run the company since Sam Walton retired and none of them were named Walton.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
July 24, 2019
BR, thanks for that link. Interesting perspective. And brutally honest.
LikeLike
P
August 5, 2019
Nepotism in early years is human nature, and a necessity for a species with no survival skills, taking 20 years to grow fully, physically and emotionally. But beyond that to be reliant on a successful parent results in a partially realised life. The whole cycle of trying and failing, rejection and resurrection will be missed. A mature parent should not want that for his child.
A film is a collaborative process and only a bad director/writer depends on a caption like x person’s son y acting in it is the USP. In the age of social media, word of mouth, digital streaming you will find an audience for good content, period. Anyone who says otherwise may be promoting a vested interest or relying on old realities. Makers should just go out and recruit the best they can find without fear, to tell their stories.
Films and cricket are very popular fields everyone wants to be in it. So if you are not very good but you still hold up a spot and act in 18-19 odd movies because your father/uncle is a producer is neither good business or art its just a kind of corruption. Look at these random talent shows on TV sometimes, there are some mad talented kids out there.
In school if there is a contest like a 100 mt race and there are only 8 spots for the tracks and you say that only the children of teachers can run its very clearly a sham, is it not? No records will be achieved. This is the same. Cricket and Film are coveted jobs in India and to take away the dream of a talented person sitting in Ranchi or Mandi is short-sighted.
-Personally I think the growth of an individual with the courage to back their talent with no crutches is off the charts. That journey, that maturity, that professionalism is what India needs to become the best in the world in every field.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rahini David
August 6, 2019
In school if there is a contest like a 100 mt race and there are only 8 spots for the tracks and you say that only the children of teachers can run its very clearly a sham, is it not? No records will be achieved. This is the same.
This is very true. Here what seems to be happening is that 5 spots are given to the children of teachers and 3 is allowed for others, provided they are over-achievers.
People seem to have a sort of cousinship with the star-kids. It seems to be something like “Aww, I don’t know him in first name basis, But I have seen him grow and he is my uncle’s son” sort of thing.
If that slot is given only to 2 star kids, that is one thing. When pretty much all of the spots are given to them then people wonder why we don’t have vibrant talent all around. Vibrant talent comes and goes in the talent shows and then the vibrant talent is just going to be part of their memory in a “You know I even was a winner in a dance show in 2015, but now I am working in an insurance company” kind of way.
LikeLike