Most of us with even the slightest affinity for sense and sensibility would cringe after having a look at the 100-crore club, arguably the most elite club in Bollywood right now. For every 3 Idiots and Ghajini, there are Ready, Rowdy Rathore and Bodyguard. The common thread running through these films is obvious - the presence of a 'superstar' - the three Khans, Akshay Kumar or Hritik Roshan. What is it that a superstar brings to the film? Why is it so elusive for films without a superstar to make it to this club, and why is it so easy for otherwise pathetic films with a superstar to make it?
Is it good acting? We would all agree that there are films with better acting than the ones listed above. Is it a good script? Except for Aamir Khan's movies, it can hardly be said about the others. Moreover, there are films with far better scripts that do not even aspire being in the club. I believe that the reason might be signalling. A superstar signals to the audience several things, that I elucidate upon for the rest of this article.
The first problem is the problem of asymmetric information. To see the power of signalling, take a simple example. Would you rather buy a television from a rickety, old, desolate shop or a swanky, new, branded shop in a crowded mall? I believe most would choose the latter. The need for some kind of guarantee that the shop will be around tomorrow to fulfill its warrantee is pressing. There are two similarities between this example and our movies example. Firstly, a television is a durable good, which we use very often. Similarly, we watch movies very often and would prefer to watch good movies than bad movies. Secondly, even though we have no prior information about the quality of the television, we would place our bets depending on the decor of the shop that sells it. Similarly, in situations of asymmetric information, we would tend to choose our movies based on the star. There is a certain standardisation that superstars bring - lots of song and dance sequences, good cinematography and so on. As risk-averse consumers, we would prefer to compromise on the expected quality as long as the variability in quality is reduced.
Secondly, there is the question of correlates. Producers who can afford to have superstars in their films typically can also spend a lot more on marketing than smaller films can. They can bombard our senses with custom-made promos. They can afford the most prominent billboards. They can hire the best musicians, get the most popular actresses to do item numbers and so on. Five years down the line, would people remember Agneepath more or Chikni Chameli more? My guess is the latter. In this sense, I look at films with superstars as behemoths. Yes, they do fail very often too. However, as a percentage, I am sure the chances of success are greater. At the very least, the music stays. Sheila ki Jawani, anyone?
The third and last theme that I explore (or rather, leave as a puzzle) is why the allure of the superstar doesn't wade after delivering several crass films one after the other. On one hand, I can assert that even Shah Rukh Khan needs a Chak De India to make sure that his stock doesn't sink too fast. However, how does one then explain Salman Khan's unfettered run? Why people would subject themselves repeatedly to such films escapes me. Maybe for a large majority of the people, the theater is an escape from reality, and a laugh, no matter how silly, is still a laugh. That requires us to dig deeper, something that I do not do here.
No comments:
Post a Comment