Trashed but rich, 2012’s secret recipe

What makes a film hit? Is it the story, the script, the techniques or the acting? Or nothing but a clear knowledge of which gallery you are making it for and what exactly they love to watch?

Yash Chopra seemed to have an answer in his heyday, but not anymore. Subhash Ghai was just about to know the secret, but he eventually missed it, as did Rajkumar Santoshi. Karan Johar had a grip on the essentials of a transitioning phase that saw the journey of the Bollywood hero from machismo to mousse, but it looks to be of no use now.

None of the Bolly-big-budgets did very well at the box-office in 2009. Moviewallahs yearned for a sure-thing to ring the cash register, but were eventually salvaged by record number of prints and right sales. Well, almost all of them; you can forget the trade magazines and their reviews.

So, it’s a surprise to watch a firang flick on its way to the desi-blockbuster glory. And that too the one rubbished by the whole gamut of critics, a film decked up with laurels like Disaster-porn. But the director of 2012, Roland Emmerich has his way with the audience. I mean, not only did he survive as a director after his outrageously stupid trip to 10,000 B.C., but he also has his audience and the box-office roar in his latest. Here’s one man in a reciprocal relationship with the critics—critics trash him and he trashes them in turn by his collections. He should, emblematically, be the motivator of desi-makers who never get critics’ favour. So many are around, including those who are pooh-poohed by the audience as well.

Here’s why I feel 2012 worked on Indian screen. The film is a storehouse of high-quality CGI – many called it superb but I wouldn’t till I watch James Cameron’s Avatar. But I’m sure either of the films will win the Special Effects Oscar in 2010. It has a hint of melodrama, such as a sappy jostle between the ex and current reel-husbands of Amanda Peet. There are some more elements that are trademarks of the run-of-the-mill Bollywood produce; you need to watch the film to know what they are. On the top of it all, there is this heavy-hanging scare of unequivocal and all-embracing hyper-disaster. 2012’s is the big-daddy of all disasters watched on screen, giving the audience ample scope to chew on popcorn — branded and unbranded.

Indian theatres, popcorn and Emmerich-style disasters make a good combination. People keep munching on popcorn at theatres, often regardless of the quality, because their mouths need to sync with the song-and-dance sequences. And Emmerich’s disasters just don’t seem to end; they pop out of all expected and unexpected corners. I’m keen to know his next film’s subject. He has, apparently, run through his stock of disasters in 2012. Probably he will import something new from other galaxies.