A fundamental part of the paradigm change in Hindi cinema over the last few years has been, obviously, in the script, the edifice around which every film is built. From stories to themes to the format of the screenplay and the dialogues — much seems to have changed substantially in the last few years.
The winds of change blew in from multiple facilitating windows that opened — multiplexes for one, exposure to all kinds of cinema for another, and also factors like a changed generation involved in filmmaking and their sensibilities and issues.

But is all this change healthy — for the industry’s economics, for Indian masses and for India Inc.? How does it all reconcile with the facts that in the so-called changed environs the biggest hits are still No Entry, Krrish and Partner, whether in metros, interiors or overseas? Why is the success quotient as low as 10 per cent except for the aberrational boom in 2006, as against 50 per cent plus in the days of formula entertainment?

Says Tushar Hiranandani, (co-writer of the first A-grade adult comedy Masti among others), “The change began slowly — Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (1995) was a gigantic move away from the times when lovers eloped if they faced parental opposition. The youth form the major part of the audience and they constantly want to be surprised by the content because they are better-read and inherently fun-loving, as depicted in Dil Chahta Hai.”
The ‘newness’ was what Tushar tried out in the Western adventure-meets-Indian mythology tale in Naksha. “I did a lot of research, but it did not work. When you attempt something new, you have to be prepared for audience rejection too, but there are luckier films like Dil Chahta Hai, Rang de Basanti and Bheja Fry. Today realistic cinema has become commercially viable.”

Milap Zaveri, who was Tushar’s partner and dialogue writer in Masti, agrees that the first beginnings of the changes came a decade or so ago. Says the Jhankaar Beats writer, “Watching Hindi films was infra-dig when I was in college, but today’s youth consider them as hip as Hollywood. And the reason is that we are now tackling real issues. Even a Karan Johar who made outstanding potboilers took up a close-to-life saga in Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna.”

Agreeing with Tushar that multiple factors have exposed the audience to a higher level of programming (he rates satellite TV high here), Milap feels that such revolutions happen step by step. “That’s because films are not just about creativity but also commerce, but today Rang de Basanti and the two Munnabhai films managed to satiate both critics and audiences.”

Milap, however, adds a valid point: “A writer also writes for appreciation of his work by the audience, not just to make money. And so he must ensure that his films are not boring or preachy, which is where these films scored and Gandhi – My Father or Swades failed. I respect every cinema that works – whether it is Chak De! India or Partner.”

But isn’t a lot of this new-age focussing too much on ideas rather than the execution — that is the actual script — like a Yun Hota Toh Kya Hota…What If? Or a Ek Chalis Ki Last Local? Counters Milap, “What is important is that ideas are being thought of now! It’s no longer just about proposals. We now have bound scripts and storyboards. The precision is paying off.”

Manoj Tyagi (Page 3, Apaharan, Corporate) accepts that so much alternative entertainment at home and outside has led to the audience turning choosy. But he has made his own analysis of what he terms Entertainment Quotient, Emotional Quotient and Intelligence Quotient.

“In a case like Page 3 or the Munnabhai films, all three are in perfect balance,” he points out. “But in a Partner, the first (entertainment quotient) is so strong that it makes the other two relatively unimportant. The audiences laughed and laughed, and therefore so did the producers all the way to the bank!” A Chak De! India scores on the other two (emotional quotient and intelligence quotient) and automatically acquires the first as well, along with its branding of a Yash Raj film. Without brands like YRF and Shah Rukh Khan, it would never have worked.”
Manoj is gung-ho about niche films if well made. “Luckily today, returns from films can come in from many revenue streams like various rights and in-film advertisements. Iqbal, Dor and Khosla Ka Ghosla cannot expect recovery from theatres alone.”

Suresh Nair, journalist and film critic-turned-scriptwriter, whose work includes Jhankaar Beats, Namastey London (a major hit) and Shootout At Lokhandwala has a view with a difference. “People are trying out new stuff,” he concedes. “But it is usually within certain tried-and-tested parameters. The vital point is to grip and satiate the audience, which is smart enough to know that Shootout…, Namastey London, Chak De! India, Bheja Fry and Dhoom:2 are offering different fare. They have different expectations that must be fulfiled by each.”

Suresh is frank enough to admit that he was an ivory-tower critic before turning scriptwriter. “A writer or anyone cannot work in isolation. A hundred constraining factors influence the final outcome, which can be poor despite a great director and a good writer. It’s not easy to write cinema, because no one sets out to make a bad film.”
Jaideep Sahni (Chak De! India, Khosla Ka Ghosla, Company) feels that a really good writer (and filmmaker) cannot afford to ignore “being one with the audience. Our generation has never been influenced by old Hindi cinema,” he says. “So we have a freshness in approach and work-ethic that comes from our own varied set of influences. We cannot behave like clerks. We take responsibility for our work and I will get a heart-attack if my film goes on floors without a bound script. But we cannot ignore the great works in Hindi cinema that came from a different kind of writing. There is craft and manipulation in every script even today, which is very important for a payoff. But even more important is the empathy that I must generate in my storytelling, and it should be balanced with entertainment.”

Writer-director Rajkumar Hirani (Munnabhai MBBS and Lage Raho Munnabhai) says, “Some people influenced by art cinema have a strange idealism and think that such cinema is the best. Personally, I think that we are doing better work here than in most other countries. My ideals are Manmohan Desai, Hrishikesh Mukherjee, Vijay Anand and Guru Dutt.”

Endorses Vijay Krishna Acharya (Dhoom, Dhoom:2, Guru), “Regardless of the genre, the bottom-line is entertainment, but we have to be new too – the Dhoom brief was to do a modern Manmohan Desai brand of frenetic caper. But we are pushing the envelope too. Entertainment quality has to keep pace with India’s spiralling economy. The change is notional, but it’s there. We no longer want the ‘complete Hindi film’ with all masala in every film.”

But it is the year’s most successful writer, Sanjay Chhel (who did Rangeela, Yes Boss et al in the past) who gives a completely anti-view. “What change are you talking about?” he asks laughingly. “It’s all so much blah-blah by the impressionable media being taken in by the English-speaking advocates of such cinema.”
With complete conviction and intensity he adds, “What has changed? The so-called corporates who are supposed to encourage this kind of cinema keep countless bound scripts in lockers for years, signing saleable stars and directors at inflated prices that affect industry economics and then hunting for saleable stories to get back returns!”

He goes on, “Bheja Fry is a frame-to-frame copy of The Dinner Game, a French film. I took just a basic idea and two or three scenes from Hitch in Partner — and they called my film a copy! The bound-script concept sounds great, but unfortunately films click or become great only because of content, not by whether the script is bound or unbound! So why are people getting so confused between fundamentals like working styles and actual work? And to be honest, don’t Rang de Basanti, Lagaan, the Munnabhai films and Chak De! India — where losers turn into winners — also play to the gallery?”

Concludes Chhel, “I am not being cynical, but there is no real change. We had an equally greater mix of mainstream, and different films even earlier, and far greater variety that has made those films live on today without the hype of a hyperactive media. Cinema has to change in form with the times, but in every era, it is still honest, passionate cinema in any genre that pays off and is cherished, and solid content that remains king.”