Nikhil Dwivedi On The Hindi Film Industry’s Business Reset: ‘Back Then, There Were No Entourages, No 20 Vanity Vans’ (EXCLUSIVE)

Producer Nikhil Dwivedi, who most recently backed Anurag Kashyap’s “Bandar,” believes Hindi cinema is in urgent need of a course correction. Dwivedi argues that the industry’s business model has drifted from the fundamentals that once made the Hindi film industry a mass medium, citing spiraling budgets, unaffordable ticket prices, inflated star salaries and unchecked production costs.

According to him, cinema has become too expensive for the very audience it was built for. “It was a product of mass entertainment. Somewhere we have lost sight of that. It is not a product of mass entertainment anymore. The masses are consuming it on television.” Dwivedi says the economics of going to the movies no longer make sense for the average family. “It’s a very expensive proposition to go to the theatres and to watch a film.”

Related Stories

Nikhil Dwivedi On ‘Bandar’ Getting An ‘A’ Certificate From CBFC: ‘I Expected A Nightmare, But It Wasn’t’ (EXCLUSIVE)

He believes exhibitors have become inflexible on pricing, while producers have little leverage to negotiate. “Theatre exhibitors are very clear that this is the pricing they need to make money. I think they’re not being very pragmatic about it. Producers are succumbing to it because they may not have the unified clout to fight this out with programmers and the exhibitors.”

The result, he says, is an experience that has become financially inaccessible. “I feel that you can’t be spending ₹400 on a ticket for a person. And any theatre-going experience for a family makes them poorer by about ₹2,000 to ₹4,000 rupees. That’s not okay.”

For Dwivedi, the problem extends beyond ticket prices. He believes the industry’s ballooning budgets are a consequence of how filmmaking changed after the arrival of corporate studios. “I think the budgets that we are making the films in – and everybody involved needs to understand  this – happened because of the studio system. They were flush with funds. When they came in, they just wanted it because they needed to have a certain amount of films in the kitty per year. And they were ready to pay top dollar. Not understanding that doling out that top dollar will also result in recovering that money from the theatres.”

Unlike traditional producers, large studios can afford to absorb failures. “They are okay with making losses on certain films because they had deep pockets,” says Dwivedi, contrasting that approach with the older generation of independent producers, many of whom risked their savings and even their personal assets to make films. “Earlier, individual producers didn’t have a choice. They put it in the capital with a lot of difficulty. Either they borrowed money at exorbitant rates of interest or took it from financiers who had already bought the territory out. In some cases, even mortgaged his own property to invest in a film.” Because the investment was deeply personal, every effort went into making the best possible film. He adds, “The producer ensured that the quality of the film was really good because they strived to the point that they felt they couldn’t do any better. Great scripts, great music. Right casting. Trying to get a saleable director.”

That financial discipline also shaped the star system itself. He adds that producers were once far more careful about expenses that never appeared on screen. Shares Nikhil, “The star system exists because you had to get an artist who could fetch a certain recovery at the box-office. Because it was your own hard-earned money you were putting in to make a film. That was a traditional producer for you. He obviously curtailed the cost. He wasn’t as flamboyant. He was trying to find things that didn’t appear on screen. There were no private aircrafts flying around. There was no entourage. No 20 vanity vans. It was all a little simpler regarding these things because it was your own individual money that was going in.”

While Dwivedi acknowledges that corporate financing has professionalized filmmaking in many ways, it has also encouraged excess. “With corporate money, there are advantages, but also certain disadvantages.” One area where he feels the industry needs greater accountability is star remuneration. Dwivedi questions whether actors genuinely consider whether their fees are justified by the audiences they attract. “Artists are not ready to understand that. Are they asking for a price because they know the producer and director don't have a choice? Are they even cognizant of the fact that whatever money they are asking for, if the producer will make that money from the opening they fetched at the box-office? 'Will I be able to sell that many tickets?' 'Will I be commanding that many people and the footfalls into theatres?'”

He believes stars should feel responsible for delivering opening-day audiences that justify their pay. “I don’t think they have any empathy for that fact. I think they should. I would like to believe that any self-respecting so-called star would say that if that’s the money I’m asking for, then that’s the number of people I’ll ensure will come to watch my film on Friday.”

At the same time, Dwivedi recognizes that an actor cannot control every aspect of a film’s success. “The film’s quality is not in their hands alone. They’re also the first to take the blame, They are just expressing what has been told to them.”  However, he insists that drawing audiences into cinemas on opening day remains a star’s primary responsibility. “They can’t absolve themselves of that responsibility. And their paycheck has to reflect that.”

For Dwivedi, Bollywood’s path forward lies in restoring financial discipline across the ecosystem: realistic budgets, affordable ticket prices  and a stronger link between star salaries and box-office pull. He believes the industry must return to treating cinema as a product built for the widest possible audience, not an increasingly expensive luxury.