Cinema thrives on diversity, and the contrasting journeys of Bethlehem Kudumba Yogam, Daayra, Hanuman Ansh, and Gondhal illustrate how success depends not on a single formula but on what resonates with audiences at a given moment.
Bethlehem Kudumba Yogam became a cultural phenomenon in Malayalam cinema. Its slice‑of‑life humor, relatable family dynamics, and festive release timing worked in its favor. The music by Vishnu Vijay added warmth, and the modest budget was amplified by repeat viewings and word‑of‑mouth. Yet, some found its pacing slow or sentimental especially in the second half. Also on the very logic of young girl marrying older neighbour and the impact it would have on society and parents role; proving that even hits can divide opinion.
In contrast, Meghna Gulzar’s Daayra struggled commercially despite critical praise. With a larger budget (₹50–55 crore), it aimed for investigative intensity and moral complexity. Every supporting characters including the leads Kareena Kapoor Khan and Prithviraj Sukumaran’s performances were lauded, but the film’s slower rhythm and niche appeal limited its reach. Here, strong craft did not translate into box office success, reminding us that timing and audience mood matter as much as artistry.
Hanuman Ansh took a devotional route, dramatizing Neem Karoli Baba’s life. Its Hindi base was enriched with Sanskrit chants and Tamil references, making the music feel pan‑Indian. The film’s relatively moderate budget was offset by its spiritual appeal, and it became one of the most profitable Hindi films of 2026. What worked was its authenticity and inclusivity; what did not work for some was the heavy devotional tone, which may feel inaccessible to viewers seeking lighter entertainment.
Finally, Gondhal leaned into Marathi cultural traditions, blending folk music and ritualistic energy. Its success lay in celebrating local identity, though its regional focus limited nationwide traction. The music was vibrant, but the film’s reach depended on cultural familiarity. The oscar nomination hopefully will boost its reach.
Together, these films show that what works for one may not work for another. A family comedy, a serious investigation, a devotional biography, and a cultural folk drama each speak to different needs. In times of real‑life violence and unrest, audiences may gravitate toward light‑hearted cinema, but others may seek depth or spirituality. Also when there is age restriction on a movie the reach would be limited and the scope of rewatching minimised though not eliminated. The key is to voice opinions respectfully: “It did not work for me, and here’s why.” Such differences prevent echo chambers and ensure cinema evolves with society’s changing pulse.
I recently came across an interview with Manoj Bajpayee where he said something intriguing: for him, Shah Rukh Khan’s character Veer is the villain in Veer-Zaara. At first, this sounds almost absurd. How can Veer, the film’s great romantic hero, be the villain? But Bajpayee’s statement becomes fascinating when viewed through the lens of perspective.
Bajpayee played Raza, Zaara’s fiancé. Most of us watch the film through Veer and Zaara’s eyes. We see two people falling deeply in love, separated by circumstances and borders. Raza, therefore, becomes the obstacle—the villain standing between the lovers.
But what if the story were told from Raza’s point of view?
He is engaged to Zaara and believes they are going to build a life together. Then another man enters her life, wins her love and threatens the future he thought was his. From Raza’s perspective, Veer is not a romantic hero. He is the man who has disrupted his life and taken away the woman he was supposed to marry.
This does not necessarily make Raza right, nor does it make Veer wrong. It simply reminds us that understanding someone's perspective is not the same as agreeing with it.
Perhaps this is what Bajpayee was trying to convey as an actor. He cannot play Raza by thinking, “I am the villain.” He has to enter the character’s mind and understand why he believes his actions are justified.
And that is the larger lesson: every story changes when the camera moves.
The hero of one person's story can become the villain in another person's story.Maybe, then, the most interesting question is not Who is the villain? but Whose story are we watching? More on it next...
-------
One interesting thing about films that succeed is something we often overlook: the team behind the film matters as much as the person in front of the camera.
Take Bethlehem Kudumba Unit. It is not a one-man show.
There is director Girish A.D., co-writer Kiran Josey, and behind them the three people of Bhavana Studios — Fahadh Faasil, Dileesh Pothan and Syam Pushkaran. Director of Photography (DOP) / cinematographer of Bethlehem Kudumba Unit is Ajmal Sabu.
What makes this interesting is that these are not conventional financiers who simply put money into a project and wait for the returns. They are filmmakers themselves — an actor, a director and a writer — bringing different creative perspectives to the table.
That creates something a one-person operation may find difficult to create: a room full of people who can question an idea, challenge a decision, improve a scene and see possibilities that one person may miss.
And there is another, less tangible advantage.
When a film has many respected people genuinely invested in it, it naturally creates a larger circle of well-wishers — people who talk about it, recommend it, defend it when necessary and bring others into the conversation.
That doesn't guarantee a hit. But in an industry where word-of-mouth can determine whether people decide to watch a film, having a strong network of people who believe in the work can certainly help it find an audience. It can also create a buffer against the negativity that often surrounds a new release.
Perhaps this is the lesson worth noticing.
Cinema may have a hero on screen, but there need not be a hero behind the screen.
Sometimes, the film succeeds precisely because nobody is trying to be the only hero.
What is cringe to one may be charm to another. And perhaps that is the secret of popular cinema: it doesn't have to work for everyone; it only has to work for enough people. No formula will work everytime or for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment