Amit Khanna: Bollywood's camps

FREEZE FRAME/ Bollywood's groupism leads to predictability and sameness in films and TV shows

One peculiarity of Bollywood, which has seeped into television too, is the whole notion of 'camps.' So you have a Yash Chopra-Yash Johar camp, a Subhash Ghai camp, a Boney Kapoor camp, a Mahesh-Mukesh Bhatt camp, an Ekta Kapoor camp, an Adhikari brothers camp and so on.

This basically means that the same set of actors, writers, directors and technicians feature in the productions of these people. There's nothing wrong per se with this. After all, we do seek our own comfort zones in life and, if given an option, would like to work with people we like.

The problem is that these associations tend to actually bring a sense of déjà vu to creativity and eventually lead to a certain predictability and sameness in films and TV shows. It also divides the larger fraternity, making it more combative than collaborative.

The entertainment business breeds insecurity. Stardom is ephemeral. Applause and acclaim wax and wane with lunar regularity and, as the adage goes, you are as good as your last movie. Every Friday fortunes are made and lost at the box office. Even in TV the weekly ratings chart determines the success of programmes.

In search of that elusive triumph, showbiz folks resort to all kind of hocus pocus "� from absurd numerological mis-spellings to poojas and incantations. I have often seen the most rational of people succumb to the fecundity of a soothsayer's mind.

This proclivity cuts across geographies and professions but is perhaps more pronounced in showbiz and politics. It is insecurity which makes people lean towards superstition and form groups.

Anthropologists would call it a primordial herd instinct. To keep off predators and ward off fear, people hunt in groups. Yet in India the alacrity with which artistes and creative professionals latch on to stars (including film makers, actors and production houses) in their chase of glory is ludicrous.

It is not that there cannot be long and satisfying symbiotic artistic relationships. In fact, there are several instances both in India and elsewhere of hugely successful collaborative enterprises among actors, directors, writers, even studios.

However, the overarching reason in most such cases has been professional or intellectual rapport rather than a fear of failure. In Bollywood, the comfort factor is often generated from sycophancy or, strangely, the parasitic malevolence of other successful people.

If I am talking about this phenomenon of camps, it is because these incestuous and in-bred relationships are amongst the triggers of creative atrophy. If you have some of our most accomplished film makers churning out similar looking films with the same set of stars, it is an endorsement of the herd mentality.

The same goes for TV soaps or for that matter TV channels themselves. They churn out stereotypical stories to hackneyed performances, all in the comforting confines of familiarity. Whenever a genuinely talented artist breaks away from a camp rut, the chances of something exceptional emerging are much greater.

Without taking names one can vouchsafe that several artistic and commercial triumphs have been possible only because of fresh and new affiliations. There is always a greater challenge when two talented people get together for the first time than when they are trying for an encore. Sparks fly when a knife is honed on the whetstone!

There are several apocryphal stories of how antagonistic campwallas have over the years sabotaged competitive creations. From awards to co-artistes, from distributors to channels "� everything can and is often manipulated to keep the camp's banner flying. Nothing wrong with that, one would say, in a market economy "� except that this is just not about market share but also about creative excellence.

Back biting, skullduggery and other insidious goings-on are often a result of such camps. There is fierce battle to keep one's territory and the accoutrements that go with it. This is usually counter-productive and invariably obstructive to newer talent.

In an increasingly competitive world it is natural that success is difficult to attain and even more difficult to retain. Yet this should not be the basis of exclusive creative relationships. There is an inherent danger of such affiliations turning tepid over time.

As long as this appositeness results in good work, it is fine. But the moment there is a mundane monotony in the outcome, it is better to desert the camp and move on.

However, at a time when entertainment is not just about artistic self-expression but also a big business, any inter-dependence, which leads to success, cannot be just wished away. What has to be avoided is the crab mentality of pulling others down when you can't go up.

In the past and in recent times too commercial considerations have over-ridden personal friendships and loyalty. The best way out is to not to divide the larger creative fraternity into small camps. This way there is a constant cross nurturing of talent as well a testing of new highs for individual merit. Let's not celebrate others' failures and deride their success.

A true artiste belongs to the world at large. The philosopher John Stuart Mill once said that when nature fashions a genius it breaks the mould. Let us not try to put the geniuses back into moulds. The very word 'camp' connotes a temporary habitat. Talent and fame need an everlasting abode. Just quit the camp and keep marching on.

Amit Khanna is chairman of Reliance Entertainment. The views expressed here are his own.