The actor-turned-producer-turned-director feels he could have been a good teacher and then explains what will make corporatisation of films fail or succeed.

It can’t be easy waiting for the release of a film in which you’re making your debut as a director. Especially when you’ve also co-produced the film and played the lead. But Aamir Khan, whose Taare Zameen Par will be screened in theatres this Friday, is taking it in his stride. The versatile actor, who’s known to speak his mind even it isn’t always politically correct or convenient to do so, is reading Agatha Christie to fight the stress. Busy with the release, he can’t spare time for a ‘Lunch with BS’. But in a conversation over tea and biscuits, Khan, a voracious reader, tells Shobhana Subramanian that unless corporatisation of the film industry comes along with some sensitivity to the way the business works, creativity will get stifled.

Khan says he would have liked to have become a teacher if he hadn’t decided on a career in films. “I think I’m good at explaining things and I feel I do it in an engaging way,” he says. Interestingly, he plays the role of an art teacher in Taare Zameen Par. It’s a pleasant December evening and we’re in his house in Union Park in Mumbai.

How would you assess yourself as a director, I ask? “One of my concerns when I took on the film was that I should be able to bring to the screen what was there in the script, because it’s one of the best scripts I’ve come across. And I think I’ve managed that, so I’m happy,” he says. Khan is known to be a ‘director’s actor’ and one who is very particular about who he works with. He says he would have loved to worked in a Mother India or a Teesri Manzil. Among the directors he’s been inspired by are Frank Capra, Billy Wilder and Guru Dutt. Pyaasa, he says, is one of the best Hindi films ever made.

So, isn’t it difficult to be both acting and directing? “Yes it is, though it’s not as though it hasn’t been done before because both Raj Kapoor and Guru Dutt did it. But, yes, it comes with its own challenges. The challenges are not so much in the mind, because I know clearly what I want both as an actor and director, but it’s there in execution. I had always decided that I wouldn’t act when I directed a film, but this one was somewhat unexpected. Ideally, I wouldn’t do it again,” he says.

In an industry that works in cliques and where sycophancy rules, the 42-year-old Khan stays away from award ceremonies. He refused to apologise to the Gujarat government which banned his film Fanaa because he had asked for the rehabilitation of farmers who would have been affected by the construction of the Narmada dam. “I’m an entertainer at heart, but along with that, if I can convey a few things, I’d like to do it,” he says, clear that he will never join politics.

Khan claims he’s a reluctant producer. “I understand business but it’s not something I enjoy doing; I’m not the typical producer running a production house. But, I produced Lagaan because I believed in it. The script was somewhat unusual so I didn’t feel confident any other producer would do justice to it. Also, here was a director with two unsuccessful films and I knew that any producer who said yes would have done so because I was to be in the film. And that’s not the right reason for producing a film.” Khan, of course, didn’t fund Lagaan himself; he roped in a financier, earning through sweat equity, much the way it is with Taare Zameen Par, where PVR has funded the Rs 15 crore budget. While producing Lagaan, Khan confesses, he realised that his strength lay in making a film and promoting it. “I’m not able to deal with distributors or recover money from them, which is why I wanted to partner with an exhibitor and distributor.”

Isn’t it a pity, I ask, that 15 per cent or more of a film’s budget is spent on promotions and so smaller filmmakers lose out because even if they make a good film they can’t market it? Like Iqbal, for instance? Khan feels the hype’s needed: “The business is changing. Take Hum Aapke Hain Kaun. It’s probably done the biggest business ever but only 36 prints were released in all and only one in Mumbai. Which means they needed to fill just 1,000 seats in one hall for which one ad in the paper is enough. Today, we’re releasing over 300 prints.” But isn’t the hype overdone, I persist. “Perhaps, but one needs to cut through the clutter,” he argues.

I suggest that perhaps filmmakers can afford to spend so much because it has become relatively safer to produce a film today. No, says Khan, explaining that even in the seventies, it wasn’t difficult if the filmmaker was successful. “Manmohan Desai, for instance, could sell a film even before he started shooting. But, even now, banks don’t want to back films.”

Khan agrees though there are many more avenues of financing. “More people want to do business in this industry, so probably less successful filmmakers have a better chance today.” However, he feels some of the numbers being talked about don’t add up. “I don’t understand someone paying Rs 70-80 crore for film when, on paper, we understand that the business of the biggest hit will not be able to match that. What matters is the net distributor’s share, that’s the money which comes to the film. And a very successful film today would do a distributor’s share of about Rs 40 crore. Add to that the other rights like music, home video and satellite, it would work out to about Rs 70 crore. So, if the film is a big success you can make Rs 70 crore. I’m told companies are doing this to improve their share market values. Apparently, you buy the film in 2007 and then stretch the cost over 20 years so as to show higher profits initially. I don’t understand this. I want my film to be successful here and now, not after 20 years.”

Khan, who enjoys watching unusual films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and books such as When Nietzsche Wept, will soon be co-producing another film with a budget of about Rs 10-12 crore. “Unlike in the eighties when you couldn’t release a film without any action in it, there is more variety today. Even Rang De Basanti was an offbeat film which, on paper, seemed totally impractical. There are young directors who are experimenting and I see the change. Munnabhai is like a Frank Capra film and it’s successful,” he says.

What does he feel about the increasing corporatisation of the film industry? “I think time will tell. While this is a business where corporations can come in, the people in those companies will really make the big difference; they need to be people with a creative bent of mind and have the courage to back creative projects. They also have to be able to deal with people who can be moody, so you can’t have a cut-and-dried approach. My understanding of their functioning is that they follow a certain system of reporting; but if I have to explain something every five minutes, I can’t make a film.”

At the same time, Khan is emphatic that the audience too has a role to play in the quality of content, be it in film or television: “If you don’t like a show, reject it. Obviously the audiences enjoy what they’re watching, how else do you explain the high TRPs? I don’t think directors intentionally want to make trash, that’s not how it works. Sure, they want their money back, but they also want to try out new ideas.”

I’m happy to leave it at that, coming away impressed with the combination of creativity and common sense that Aamir Khan is.