Naseeruddin Shah’s comments about distributors and exhibitors being darinde, made on July 26 at the Film Heritage Foundation’s function to present lifetime achievement awards to three cinema projectionists, underlined three things:
(i) that in spite of being an important part of the film industry, he doesn’t understand how the business of cinema and trade works;
(ii) that he clearly thinks, he understands everything, and is an authority to comment on serious topics like the earnings of distributors and exhibitors;
(iii) that although his heart bleeds for the lowly paid workers of the film industry, he doesn’t even know that most of the cine workers are part of the production sector rather than the distribution and exhibition sectors, and that if those cine workers are not being paid enough, the blame lies more on the production sector, of which he is a part, than the distribution and exhibition sectors, of which he seems to know precious little.
First things first. The Film Heritage Foundation honoured the unsung heroes of the film industry by presenting awards to Mohammed Aslam Fakih, P.A. Salam and Lakhan Lal Yadav, each of who has served as a projectionist for over 50 years! The first-of-its-kind function was held at Regal Cinema of Bombay. The awards were presented by Naseeruddin Shah in the presence of the founder and director of the Foundation, Shivendra Singh Dungarpur.
While speaking at the event, Naseer exploded that the remuneration of those who worked the hardest while making a film was the lowest, that their payment was one-thousandth of those who sat on chairs under the fan while having sherbet and showing attitude. He elaborated by adding that they stood in waist-deep water and checked the faulty electric wires, carried the heavy reflectors and bags on their shoulders while climbing to the top, remaining there throughout the shooting day, that nobody even asked them for water or tea. It doesn’t require great intelligence to infer that he was referring to cine workers involved in shootings of films, and that while talking about people who “sat on chairs…”, he was talking about the highly-paid actors. He soon switched lanes and added that the saga didn’t end with the completion of the film, that if a film became successful, “iski asli malaai distributors aur exhibitors naam ke darinde kha jaate hain” (“a large share of the profits are taken away by demons whom we refer to as distributors and exhibitors”).
If the veteran actor could vent out his anger on distributors and exhibitors by calling them darinde, it baffles common sense that he didn’t refer to artistes as jallads! For, everyone knows that actors take away a big portion of the film’s production budget. If cine workers in the production sector are underpaid, it has nothing — repeat, nothing — to do with how much distributors and exhibitors earn, but it has a lot to do with how much the stars and technicians charge as their fees and how much profit the producers make, leaving only what is left, for the workers to be paid. So, was Naseeruddin Shah just paying lip sympathy to the workers and accusing distributors and exhibitors while very conveniently leaving out producers and, more importantly, actors like himself?
If Naseer was referring to what he may think is a lopsided revenue-sharing arrangement between producers and distributors on the one hand and exhibitors on the other, well, that’s an industry norm, discussion about which should never have found a place at such an event. And even if it did, clubbing distributors with the exhibitors rather than with the producers was not the right thing to do. Clearly, he didn’t know what he was talking. One has heard of half knowledge being dangerous but in this case, Naseer’s half knowledge was outright insulting and, what’s more, it was exposed on a platform where it should never have been.
A lot of people think that to speak something in praise of someone, they have to run down someone else. Like Naseer must’ve felt that to underline the contribution of projectionists (because the function was in their honour), he must run down their employers (exhibitors). It doesn’t work like that. You can laud the genuine efforts of someone without insulting or mocking at the efforts/earnings of others.
Naseeruddin Shah may, in all likelihood, not be aware that barely 12-15% of the films make profits, all the others being loss-making enterprises. So what malai was he referring to? He may also be oblivious to the fact that if there is one community which makes money irrespective of whether the film clicks or turns out to be a debacle, it is the community of actors. And if he is resentful of exhibitors keeping their part of the revenue generated at the box-office, does he bark the same way on owners of houses and offices given on rent? If he thinks, exhibitors should screen films for free, here’s one question for him: Will he put up his property on rent and announce that he will charge zero rent if his tenant can’t afford to pay?
Making preposterous comments and running down people is very easy… far easier than doing something constructive to improve the lot of, say, cine workers. Only cine workers working in the production sector, that too, employed only in the films he is a part of… as someone sitting on a chair under the fan while having sherbat and showing attitude!
Naseer should’ve added that some of such persons who sit on chairs while sipping sherbat, show attitude even at events where they are invited to hand out the trophies!!