Consider this. A movie uses the sensitive episode of a Kashmiri civilian tied to an army jeep as a means to announce its hero’s ‘entry’. It is is downright dumb in the best case and dangerously jingoistic in the worst case. Result? Rs 85 crore in 4 days. On the other hand, a struggling actor puts all his life experiences into one script and then spends close to two years transforming into a (almost) pro boxer. Result? Rs 12.75 crore at the end of 4th week. Obviously, there are many intangible reasons that differentiate Baaghi 2 and Mukkabaaz, in the jungle that is Bollywood. It would be unfair to expect them to make similar amount of money, but something that I find disturbing is the… gap.
Let’s take a look at some of the reviews Baaghi 2 got –
via Indian Express
via HT Media
On the other Mukkabaaz, in spite of glowing reviews like these, didn’t really have many footfalls inside theatres, as it graced theatres for close to 4 weeks in January this year.
via NDTV
via HT Media
via Indian Express
It’s pointless to talk about which film ‘deserves it more’ in a country with varied tastes of more than a billion people. Some people could enjoy Baaghi 2, some could enjoy Mukkabaaz – it’s a free country. But something we, the audience, forget about films like Mukkabaaz is that they ‘need’ the extra push. When we pay for a ticket to watch Tiger Shroff and wait for Mukkabaaz to arrive on a streaming platform – we’re sending a loud and clear message to the producers that we only want films like Baaghi 2 and not a Mukkabaaz. Do we, the audience, understand this responsibility that Bollywood vests in us?
ALSO READ: ‘Mukkabaaz’ composer Rachita Arora is the shot in the arm that Bollywood music needed
ALSO READ: Anurag Kashyap pulls no punches in ‘Mukkabaaz’
‘Artists’ in Bollywood cannot survive on air. They need money to afford film-making and to keep the kitchen running. So, when you’re standing in a corner at your next social gathering and grumbling about the ‘low standards’ of Bollywood, ask yourself – do you consistently support small films by watching them in a theatre? If you do, then well done you. If you don’t then what right do you have to complain?
There’s almost this automatic rejection for anything slightly topical as ‘message-driven’ or something not preposterous as ‘realistic’. As if they were bad things? When did we begin belittling social consciousness or restraint?
All films have a right to be made, and it is our responsibility to give (as many of) them a chance to surprise us. A Baaghi 2 will result in Baaghi 18 in a few years, while Mukkabaaz remains a ‘cult film’ that will force conversation (in a decade or two) of how the audience rejected the film at the time of its release. Tiger Shroff will go on to star in as many remakes like Rambo, while more capable actors like Vineet Kumar Singh get lost into oblivion. Because he’s the kind of actor who we love admiring in our living rooms, but refuse to pay money for. We’ll write glowing obituaries about them, but never honour their hardwork by purchasing a ticket of their film. And that’s what angers me.
In an ideal world I would want both a Baaghi 2 (in spite of its success which I find overwhelming and senseless) and a Mukkabaaz to co-exist. I watched both the movies ins a theatre, and formed an opinion on them. But it’s fine if the Anurag Kashyaps, Vineet Kumar Singhs and films like Mukkabaaz starve for an audience (to help them break-even) and eventually give up. While Tiger Shroff sports a different hairstyle in different films, in the name of ‘transforming’ for a role. That’s the only thing we tend to pay for, after all.
