Pray, what is the market reality of Murder?

Before I explain why Murder has done roaring business, let me tell you about an observation I made the other day. I was participating in a heated television debate on the reconstruction of the Ayodha temple, an issue that has once again crept into the BJP agenda and has also been very cleverly endorsed by the NDA. I said that we entertainers realise that society only rewards people who endorse, perpetuate and defend the value system of the majority. The BJP and the Sangh parivar pursue the core temple issue because it translates into votes. Likewise a film only finds rewards if it talks about family values.

And Murder does that?

Of course. Murder?s boldness is all at the surface. It is actually a very regressive film. It is wedded to the institution of marriage. That is why it has found acceptance and is making money. The sex and the sleaze that some conservatives are sniggering at is just the surface dazzle. In the climax, the heroine declares that her body belongs to her husband and goes back to the traditional values that she has apparently moved away from. Her act endorses the institution of marriage. That was also the case in Raaz, which talked of a family that goes through upheaval because of an extra-marital affair.

So you are saying Murder is a hit because it propagates marriage and not because it peddles sex?

All the popular TV soaps are successful only because they endorse the fact that you can eat your cake and have it too. People only want to have the feeling that they have questioned the value system. After they admit they are wrong, society magnanimously accepts them back into the fold.

According to me, my earlier film Arth was a truly subversive film. It had a dissenting view at its core ? it questioned the very unit of the family. But the market reality is that Murder, in half a week?s run, has done the business that Arth did in its entire first run. So there you go.

Do you agree that Mallika Sherawat was the asset of Murder?

Mallika Sherawat, my alleged girlfriend! It is said she is the one who bailed us Bhatts out. I publicly acknowledge this. We were reeling under flops like Gunaah, Footpath, Saaya and Inteha. Had it not been for this girl from Rohtak, we couldn?t have possibly generated this sort of excitement. I like Mallika?s spirit. She?s no giggly airhead but a girl who works damn hard on her films. And she deserves her success.

Your detractors say that once you made sensitive films, now you peddle with soft porn.

You must understand that movies are made for two reasons: self-fulfilment or money. I made movies like Zakhm, Janam, Saaransh, Daddy and Tamana for the first reason. But films like Murder are made purely to generate revenue or give you a certain amount of clout to be able to sing your song on your terms. I have done that for the last 30 years.

I have no problems if people say Mahesh Bhatt has climbed down and is peddling sex. I am not ducking the accusation that I use sex to sell my product. I?m not going to be so naïve as to defend it. Because it is only this that will get me bums on the seat. At the end of it all, cinema is a bums-on-the-seat business.

How much further can we push the envelope?

I will push it as far as I can. I would want it to be at par with the world. The New York Times critic called Meg Ryan?s love-making scene in Jane Campion?s In the Cut ?high art?. So what are all our critics pontificating about Hindi cinema.

I want to turn the clock to the great pleasure-worshipping Indian culture. India is not anti-pleasure. She has never been that way. I refuse to be strait-jacketed by the mindsets of the 19th century, who have a view on everything but do not contribute to my life. They do not see my films and hence they don?t matter.

So who matters to you?

I have no problems listening to the views of my consumer. Because in him lies my survival. He pays me money and if he comes out of the theatre unhappy, he can spit on my face.

Believe me, the real India has no problem with Murder. Today?s consumer wants the pleasure avenue at his doorstep. But there are those serious, anti-pleasure, sombre people who say sex should come in a serious form. How can sex be serious?

Okay, can?t sex be used more aesthetically?

Do you want me to give you sex in a temple with the woman worshipping a shivling? Do you want me to give you sex through the back door on the pretext of a woman feeding her baby, with a fleeting glimpse of her breasts? So that you feel you are not watching anything lustful but something very pure?

Society lustfully pursues pleasure in every area of life, whether it is a religious celebration or a fitness pursuit or mind-numbing escape parlours like the discos. And at the same time, people also have a very austere side to them. The side that wants to practise yoga in the mornings and go into introspection.

I can talk to you about J Krishnamurthy and Jean Paul Sartre and also talk to you about the life of the street prostitute. But in reality an entertainer is closer to a snake charmer, a trapeze artiste, a circus clown, a street-side broad. My business is to gratify, not edify.

Source : Filmfare-India

by Meena Iyer