Creativity, passion, and community: The rise of India’s transnational producers
by Neha Bhatia
I produced many independent films, and it was challenging. The films went to incredible film festivals, but they were not getting released in India. This left me emotionally shattered, and I questioned my decisions. – Guneet Monga, personal interview, 14 June 2021
Historically, film studies has paid more attention to audience reception and consumption than the production practices and labour of creatives making and producing films. However, recent media industry scholarship is increasingly exploring the industry experiences and world of media professionals, including labour practices, work culture, and the emotional aspects of their work. This article contributes to media industry studies beyond its traditional US contexts and examines the important yet little-researched role and working world of emerging Indian creative producers producing Indian independent cinema transnationally. The epigraph of this article opens the central discussion in the Indian creative producer’s work: passion, community, and precarity.
This article borrows insights from production studies – an interdisciplinary field of research wherein scholars particularly draw on the ‘lived realities of people involved in production’.[1] The scholars put particular emphasis on the struggles, experiences, and perspectives of film professionals involved in the making of the industry. Production studies view producers as ‘distinct interpretative communities’, acknowledging that film and media producers work within specific organisational structures, engage in professional practices, and navigate power dynamics on a day-to-day basis.[2] By viewing film and media producers as distinct communities, production studies scholars aim to better understand the complexities of their work and the challenges they face in the industry.
In Production Culture, John Caldwell analyses the Los Angeles film industry from a cultural perspective and sheds light on how participants in that culture understand and articulate (even theorise) the work that they do.[3] Caldwell uses a hybrid ‘cultural-industrial’ approach to situating the cultural narratives, labour, practices, and ‘work worlds’ of workers within the larger industry contexts and production conditions.[4] I deploy a similar interpretative approach to studying the transnational turn in India’s independent film production culture and the ‘work-world’ of creative producers, i.e. the codes of their culture, practices, social behaviour, and rituals, and then examine these values in relation to the transnational industrial structures.
Further, media industry scholars also examine the precarious and emotional labour of workers in creative industries. Mark Deuze explores how media makers manage the uncertain, competitive, and risky nature of their business.[5] Zelmarie Cantillon and Sarah Baker describe the emotional and affective qualities of working in film and media industries as ‘pleasures and pressures’, because of low pay, long hours, insecurity, and irregularity.[6] Thus, this research draws from media industry scholars’ research on precarity and affective qualities of creative work, as well as Hardt and Negri’s extensive work on affect theory, invoking the notion of affective labour in the social sense, i.e. the type of labour that is closely tied to human emotions, contact, and construction of communities.[7] I deploy this notion to examine producers’ labour because their work involves extensive human interactions, community-building, and even manipulation of ‘affects’ to make it in the industry. This article employs qualitative methodologies in film and media industry studies, which aim to acquire a deeper understanding of the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of industry professionals. This comprises bottom-up methods such as interviewing producers, attending industry panels, and participant observation at international film festivals including the Indian Film Bazaar, Toronto International Film Festival, Banff Media Festival, and Calgary International Film Festival from 2019-2021.
In 2021, I additionally worked as a junior producer to produce a local docu-series in Calgary, which provided me with important production experience and knowledge about the film and media industry culture. Further, I conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with seven creative producers, including two French producers who worked on Indian independent films transnationally. I conducted the interviews virtually due to the pandemic, which lasted between one and a half to two hours. The producers discussed their career paths, creative contributions, industrial changes, challenges, and work culture. Caldwell observes that ‘media realities are always constructed’ and thus the ‘self talk’ or narratives of media workers are ‘rich, coded, self-portraits’.[8] Therefore, the interviews of media practitioners, while valuable, are managed and ‘spin-driven’ sources that should be approached critically. Deploying Caldwell’s interpretive framework, I transcribed the interviews, discerned recurring themes, and interpreted them in the larger industrial and cultural contexts. Indian producers have traditionally been largely associated with funding a project; therefore, their role and creative labour remained underdeveloped.
In India, the role of a producer is frequently associated with a financier, but ‘producers globally are creatively charged individuals who find a project, put it together, find money, market and distribute it’.[9] In an earlier article, I observed that a new type of transnational creative producer has emerged in India, playing a key role in exploring international training and funding alternatives to build a creative team (e.g. finding a director, writer, sales agent, and distributor) and produce alternative stories or independent films that deviate from the mainstream conventions of Bollywood. In doing so, I examined the transnational tales of an Indian creative producer Guneet Monga – widely known for her internationally co-produced film The Lunchbox (2013).[10] This article expands the argument by exploring the creative and collaborative culture of several Indian creative producers and, additionally, it discusses their emotional labour and work culture.
I begin by contextualising the labour and challenges of Indian creative producers who are involved in making independent films transnationally. The defining traits of the Indian film industry include dominance of big-budgeted popular Bollywood films, song/dance musicals, and star-driven cinematic narratives. This industry is primarily dominated by the private sector: established production houses and media corporations that contribute to the commercialisation of the industry. While the state provides little public support or funding, it shapes and controls the industry through various policies and media regulations, including censorship guidelines. These factors contribute to a high-risk production environment for independent cinema in the Indian film industry. Ashvin Devasundaram discussed the diverse production practices of independent filmmakers, with some working in proximity to Bollywood and private studios, and others exploring crowdfunding, international co-production markets, and film festival circuits.[11] Indian independent filmmakers and producers who choose a less-travelled path of international festivals and co-production funding frequently combine support through the state, private studios, media corporations, and/or investors. Their collaborations have led to an increased engagement with global film festivals and markets. This article particularly examines the working world of some of the emerging Indian creative producers who are supporting India’s alternative or independent cinema by collaborating and co-producing transnationally.
The term ‘transnational’ is preferred over ‘global’ because the global, a ‘decentred’ concept, suggests a faceless ‘totality’ in a way that erases the value of nations in being ‘post-national’.[12] However, the term transnational is more helpful in indicating the continuing role of national governments in constructing borderless film culture and structures and contributing to late capitalism, hegemonic structures, and precarious work culture.
In the 21st century, media production is increasingly interconnected, transnational, and capitalist. William Robinson notes that production is no more national, rather it is dispersed and decentralised across the world, driven by technological developments.[13] Lee Artz also writes:
The production and distribution of global media entertainment conforms to transnational capitalist social relations of production. Capitalism has grown and re-formed as transnational.[14]
In India, there has been a recent surge in international co-productions, which can be attributed to the efforts of the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC) – the central institution that has supported and implemented state film policies in India since 1975. NFDC confronted several challenges in the 1990s after the government adopted neoliberal policies and art-house cinema confronted a crisis in India. In 2007, NFDC restructured itself and established the Film Bazaar, which bridges the gap between the South Asian film community and international film festival professionals. Sudha Tiwari observes that the international market-oriented policies were renewed in the restructuring of the company in the mid-2000s and led to the construction of the Bazaar.[15] NFDC Bazaar facilitates international mentorship training, script programs, and a co-production market, which contribute to facilitating collaborations and co-productions for the Indian independent film community. The producers of Indian independent international co-productions, who were interviewed for this study, actively participated in the programs of NFDC Bazaar. These producers are driven by passion, creativity, and community-building, but they commonly find themselves in precarious working conditions, as they participate and ultimately contribute to the advancement of transnational media capital through their labour practices.
Creative and collaborative ‘Self Portraits’ of producers
Up until the 1990s, the Indian film industry witnessed a continuous influx of new producers who lacked experience and training in film production and distribution. The rise in black money and corruption also made film production an attractive option for independent producers and investors seeking to launder their illegal money. This era was marked by disparate development, disorganisation, fragmented production conditions, and the excessive publicity of stars and their lavish lives.[16] In her research about Bollywood, Tejaswini Ganti discovered that the industry suffers from looming anxieties against untrained independent producers. Oblivious to the filmmaking process, they are described to be merely searching for ‘easy money and fame’.[17] As a result, the new Indian creative producer confronts the burden of misrepresentation. Indian producer Aditi Anand, in our personal interview, responds to the question of creativity in her job in the following manner:
I don’t think I like the term ‘creative producer’. The use of the word creative implies that producers are not inherently creative, which is not the case. Everybody’s job contains both technical and creative elements. It is unjust to imply that a producer has the option of being uncreative.[18]
Anand shows contempt for the inquiry of whether her work is creative or not. Throughout the interviews, several other producers seem to justify the value of their role and re-construct an image or identity through creative and narrative tactics. As a result, knowledge of creative producers, by producers and about producers, is actively constructed, managed, and performed in media to revamp the pre-existing identity, raise funds, and ultimately sell films. As Caldwell argues, media workers engage in self-talk and self-reflection; therefore, ‘industrial lore’ and critical practices primarily are ‘self-portraits’ in the form of ‘cultural performances’.[19] In what follows, I critically examine the creative and collaborative ‘self-portraits’ of Indian producers to understand their role, labour, and work culture.
Creativity remained a central theme of discussions with producers interviewed in this study. Several producers emphasise that creativity is an essential part of their jobs, which manifests in many forms of participation at every level of filmmaking. In our interview, Guneet Monga, a well-known Indian producer, describes her creative and collaborative approach to filmmaking:
As a creative producer, I read scripts and develop them, offering notes and feedback, asking questions, and engaging in healthy debate at all stages of production. I think giving feedback to a writer-director is an art form. The role of the creative producer is to add equal and more value to a vision and uplift it.[20]
As a creative collaborator, Monga describes the process of working on an indie film and participating in virtually every stage of production. Monga’s creative and collaborative approach toward filmmaking stems from her experiences of working on international co-productions through the film festival circuit. She continued exploring the path of international collaborations by participating in major international film festivals for a long period.[21] This phenomenon is similar to what the Belgian sociologist Giselinde Kuipers calls a ‘transnational professional class’ of cultural producers. This class of individuals acquires and transfers knowledge between each other through international networks, by attending international industry events.[22] This new breed of Indian creative producers is also a product of the global network of international film festivals, funds, and industry events in the post-globalised era. Therefore, these massive changes in production culture also illuminate the shifts in the globalisation of media economies. Both Monga and Batra, the director of the film, navigated the international film festival circuit together; the script was part of several talent development programs such as Cinemart at the Rotterdam International Film Festival, Torino Film Lab, and Talent Project Market at the Berlin International Film Festival.[23] The ‘performance’ of an Indian independent producer as a creative and collaborative individual stems from international professional training and funding, which they sought for themselves and their films through script labs, co-production markets, public subsidies, and development funds offered by the Global North.
Mathivanan Rajendran followed a similar path and emerged as a creative producer of independent films.[24] Rajendran produces independent films through his studio, Stray Factory (2010). In our interview, Rajendran emphasises that a producer is not just a financier, but a creative and collaborative individual.[25] Therefore, Rajendran externalises risk by primarily focusing on international co-productions, raising funds through international grants, and participating in film festivals and markets internationally. Rajendran worked on the first Indo-Dutch co-production in the Tamil language, Nasir (2020). The film focuses on the challenges of a Muslim man in contemporary India. The transnational journey of the film began at the Indian Film Bazaar’s co-production market in 2017 and 2019, and the film was also part of the Open Pitch program in 2019.[26] The film received the Netherlands Film Fund, Hubert Bals script and development funds, and a Hubert Bals co-production grant in 2018.[27] The film went on to win the Network for the Promotion of Asian Cinema award at the International Film Festival Rotterdam in 2020.[28] However, Rajendran revealed that the streaming platform Netflix declined to release Nasir on their platform due to the film’s ideological content and its failure to get a censorship certificate from the Indian government.[29] The controlled film and media industry creates additional struggles for creative producers-storytellers. Rajendran emerged as a creative and collaborative storyteller/seller during the interview. He emphasises a producer pitches films at various film festivals and often re-tells the ‘story of the story’ creatively for marketing and distribution purposes:
The producer’s job is also to tell the story of the story, i.e. the filmmaker has a story, but the producer must tell the story of that story to everybody else for the marketing of the film, for instance. This telling of the story must be creative.[30]
For this, Rajendran narrates the story of the filmmaker (including other creative artists involved) and his journey to connect it to the story of the film itself. Rajendran also informs himself of screenwriting by learning and exploring, which helps in having productive discussions with writers and filmmakers. At first, the creative tactics of Rajendran reflect the way business and creativity are embedded tightly in the producer’s work. They also echo what Caldwell calls the self-promotional ability of media producers. In the same vein, Christopher Meir observes that ‘salesmanship’ is one of the central traits of the British producer.[31] However, Rajendran’s primary motivation includes seeking creative stimulation and collaborative partnerships. Rajendran adds his producer career is driven by a passion for storytelling.[32] Therefore, Rajendran emerges as a creative and collaborative storyteller as much as a seller. Further, Rajendran emphasised that internationally co-produced films continue the tradition of auteur cinema, which places the director at the centre of filmmaking. However, Rajendran firmly believes in the active role of the producer as a creative collaborator in virtually every aspect of filmmaking.[33]
The producer-collaborator ‘self-portraits’ are common among other interviewed producers who embarked on a similar transnational journey. For example, Indian creative producer Kabir (pseudonym) collaborates on exploring the characters with the director:
As a producer, I take a hands-on approach to every aspect of the creative process such as building a team, scouting locations, casting decisions, editing, and sound design. While I do not take the approach of telling the director whether their decisions are right or wrong, I prefer to engage in discussions and debates that encourage them to consider different perspectives and add depth to their work.[34]
Kabir here asserts his involvement in virtually every aspect of filmmaking. To demonstrate his role as a collaborative producer, Kabir further cites an example in which he brought to a female director’s attention that, in her female character-driven film, women appear to be confused while male characters seem assertive and more certain of their choices.[35] In the same vein, Rajendran collaborates on exploring the characters with the director/writer:
It is often necessary to remind other filmmakers of important considerations, such as the social context of the film. For example, the audience may assume that a character comes from a particular background, class, or caste based on their portrayal, behavior or appearance. It is important to be aware of these potential assumptions and to provide creative input that avoids perpetuating harmful stereotypes or giving the wrong impression.[36]
As discussed earlier, the producer works closely with the director to bring the director’s vision to the screen, as well as to shape and develop it further. The producer’s input and collaboration are integral to the creative process and the success of the completed film. Rajendran further notes that ‘for a long time we have largely had director-led films, of course, but collaboration with producers has always been important’.[37] Rajendran’s remarks echo the concerns of production studies scholars: ‘Even when media makers clearly state that they work with a team, the process of celebrating the individual regularly masks production labour as well as the exercise of asymmetric forms of power and control.’[38] The producers portrayed themselves as collaborative and their interventions as supportive.
While most producers describe their interactions as ‘healthy conversation’ and respect the director’s vision, interpersonal conflicts, power struggles, and control remain part of the collaborative process. The power dynamics between a director and producer of an independent film also depend on the accumulated social, cultural, and symbolic capital. During an interview, Harsh Aggarwal, who was involved in the Indo-Dutch co-production Nasir, notes that in collaborations between directors and producers, new producers may find it challenging to influence the production process and directors tend to have greater control. The collaborations often have moments of disagreement. Interviewed producers unanimously agree that they ask questions and push directors to re-think certain situations in scripts. In our interview, Kabir discusses the production of a film in the following manner:
In one instance, I had carefully planned for a shooting location at a bus stop, but the crew disregarded my instructions, and the result was chaos. I took charge and reorganised the shoot, even taking on the role of assistant director at times. So, I view myself as a directorial producer rather than simply a producer.[39]
Kabir emphasises that the intention is to be supportive of the director, but his comments also show a sense of superiority and an attempt to control. As aforementioned, Caldwell also remarks that media knowledge is managed; therefore, it must be studied carefully. Contrary to Aggarwal, Kabir has been in this business for over a decade and has relatively more production experience. Kabir has developed an identity for himself, which is that of a ‘directorial producer’, which puts him on par with the director. Further, Kabir frequently prefers to work with first-time filmmakers, which potentially helps reinforce his position on a film project. The director/producer relationship and power dynamics, therefore, can vary from project to project; they depend on a variety of factors, such as age, gender, economic contributions to the film, and earned social and symbolic capital, which is accumulated over the years. The management of human relationships forms a crucial part of the ‘performance’ of a producer in the production world, as developed in the next section.
‘People over projects’: Emotional labour of producers
Why am I struggling to secure grants, do all this work, and try to make a film? We do it because of our creative interests. We don’t always make a lot of money. Therefore, it is important to form partnerships with compatible individuals. It is about good vibes. You can go have a drink with them or have dinner later. – Mathivanan Rajendran, personal interview, 28 May 2021
Producers are frequently associated with managing finances and budgets, but the work of a producer primarily involves managing emotions. The producers invest ‘immaterial labour’ in the process of making internationally co-produced films, and it is a largely neglected, invisible, and unseen part of their job. The notion of immaterial labour first appeared in a series of papers in the journal Futur Anterieur by Michael Hardt, Maurizio Lazzarato, Antonio Negri, and Paolo Virno in the 1990s. Immaterial labor was defined as ‘the labour that produces the information and cultural content of the commodity’.[40] Later, Hardt and Negri published one of their most influential books, Empire, in which they developed a wider definition of the concept: ‘labour that produces an immaterial good, such as a service, a cultural product, knowledge, or communication’.[41] This alludes to the notion of labor, which is closely tied to the involvement of human interaction and contact, as well as based primarily on the use of soft skills such as creativity, communication, and social relationships in the knowledge economy. In this context, the ‘new worker’ is seen as an active ‘subject’ who is a ‘problem-solver, communicator, creative solution-finder – than physical laborer’.[42] These elements – especially on a transnational film project – are integral components of a producer’s life. Examples of this labor thus would include, but are not limited to, the producer’s creative contributions in scriptwriting, project management (e.g. extensive administrative work in international co-productions), emotional management (i.e. managing personal emotions and those of others, particularly within a multicultural crew), and interpersonal communication (e.g. active participation at networking events in international film festivals and industry panels).
For multiple interviewed producers, the criteria for choosing projects begin by carefully selecting the people they would prefer to work with. Poisson, the French co-producer of the film Sir (2019), explains that the working relationship with people becomes more important than the film:
While I am willing to work on films that may not be noteworthy, if the team is pleasant to work with and the risk is minimal, I see no reason not to proceed. My future goal is to produce, sell, and be able to make money in between projects. Therefore, when considering potential projects, the most important factor for me is the kind of people involved.[43]
In a similar vein, Monga describes that it is the ‘vibe’ of the director, Ritesh Batra, at a networking event during Film Bazaar, which led to the collaboration on The Lunchbox.[44] Similar comments were made by Kabir, who privileges the relationship with the director and a certain liking of his personality over everything else: ‘If the director is someone you trust and if you have a good relationship with the director, then everything else can be worked upon.’[45] Poisson further asserts that ‘you do not want to set yourself up for a conflict’.[46] Both Poisson and Kabir compare the director-producer relationship to marriage. Poisson believes that ‘one should not marry someone they wouldn’t want to be divorced from’.[47] In the same vein, Kabir emphasises that
regardless of my admiration for an individual’s professional achievements, if we cannot coexist peacefully in the same household, it is not a viable partnership. Constant conflict is not something I want.[48]
This suggests that interpersonal relationships in film and media are highly personal and informal. Not only managing one’s own emotions but managing the emotions of the director and everyone on the crew is also part of the producer’s job. According to Monga, it is the producer’s role to support and encourage the director. As a producer, ‘your job is to make things happen and ensure that everyone is inspired’.[49] Affective labour, therefore, is defined as the creation and manipulation of affects for a particular purpose, i.e. to get the film made. Monga further describes herself as largely informed and prepared for human interactions when going to a film festival:
A creative producer’s job begins with having a vision. Then nurture the vision. Protect it every day. It is important to understand the ambitions of those you are working with and align your goals with them. I need to do this for my film. So, you need to read the room. It is important to have some knowledge about the individual’s present and past work, and any relevant information listed in a catalogue or festival program. This research will help identify potential contacts and understand how they may be able to provide valuable perspectives on your film or introduce you to other individuals who could potentially help the project..[50]
Monga’s use of the words ‘read the room’ to influence the decisions of others alludes to the affective dimension of her job. Monga imagines a range of possibilities to ‘nurture’ the projects and compares production to nurturing – an essential aspect of ‘affective’ labour. Monga’s ‘performance’ begins when she enters the festival space. Monga constructs the act and yet imagines it to be authentic. This is because Monga works with intuition and combines it with a certain amount of research about the people she interacts with during the festival. Most producers interviewed for the research study agree that they use some sort of ‘intuition’, ‘vibes’, and ‘energy’ in selecting people for transnational co-productions and film collaborations. The use of words such as ‘intuition’ or ‘gut feeling’ creates an impression that producers do not possess knowledge of filmmaking; however, producers emerge as researchers and even ‘theorists’, to borrow Caldwell’s term. In response to a question about understanding transnational co-productions, Indian producer Rajendran asserts:
I have a theory about this. First, the filmmaker should have a voice that is potentially internationally recognised. Second, the story should be interesting. Third, it is crucial for the executive producer and director to be able to provide documentation, especially in European co-productions.[51]
Similarly, in our interview, Indian producer Anand describes that Indian-European co-productions are like a puzzle, and one needs to put all the pieces together.[52] In this remark, Anand understands her work as that of a creative problem-solver, and the international co-production becomes a challenge to put together ‘all the pieces’, i.e. documents, collaborators, and funding to produce the film. As Caldwell also puts it: ‘Filmmaking art is essentially a process of physical problem solving based on the obligatory need to overcome production obstacles.’[53] Moreover, the interviewed producers referred to ‘intuition’ as one criterion for starting a collaboration with a director in their production stories. However, they do not come across as lacking knowledge of filmmaking as art and creativity.
This type of work produces and is produced by social networks and communities which are formed over the years. Producers need to manage these emotions to ultimately get a film made; they also need to continue to find and maintain healthy relationships to continue producing and surviving in the long run. In this sense, the affective labour of the producer constitutes a form of labour that ‘mobilizes emotions towards a specific end’.[54] In his article on affective labour, Hardt also argues that ‘the entertainment industry and the various cultural industries are likewise focused on the creation and manipulation of affects’.[55] But there is also a potential for community-building in immaterial labour because it provides ‘a sense of connected-ness or community’.[56] Eventually, the products of this immaterial labour are social networks and communities which are formed over the years. Producers privilege building a network or community to continue to work in the industry, and this becomes one of the major reasons that producers tend to prioritise ‘people over projects’.
According to Hardt, the products of this labour include immaterial products such as excitement, satisfaction, and passion; this echoes the narrative of interviewed producers. The co-productions are not purely driven by finance; producers are primarily driven by curiosity or a passion for storytelling. In a promotional video, Monga begins by saying, ‘I am a born storyteller. I always wanted to tell stories.’[57] Monga affirms that the goal includes ‘servicing a story, and that is very important in its any form and format’.[58] In the same vein, Rajendran in our interview asserts that a
producer’s passion is not about money. It is around stories. It is about telling a certain kind of story. What stories need to be told more? Which stories need to be amplified?
These remarks may also allude to the gate-keeping function of a producer in controlling the kind of stories the audiences would or would not watch in the future. Additionally, the producer with relatively larger symbolic capital (i.e. experience, resources, and networks, etc.) might have greater power to influence the production and reach of certain stories over others. Thus, producers have the power to create ‘collective, subjectivities, sociality and society itself’.[59] But at what cost do they create these ‘imagined communities’ of creative storytellers?
Gratification and non-material rewards often outweigh the perils of precarity in the film industry, and this section focuses on the challenges associated with producing in precarious environments. Media industry scholars have previously argued that artistic gratification (e.g. creativity, love of art, and pursuit of passion) potentially becomes a reward or ‘compensation’ for the insecurities and lower wages of the job in media industry workers.[60] The producers view emotional labour as gratifying and rewarding. For instance, Monga often employs the term ‘nurturing’ for producing a film in a positive manner. The products of producers’ labour include building community and social networks. In their role as creative and collaborative storytellers, producers often express emotional satisfaction. Anand derives emotional satisfaction from her work:
This job can be extremely satisfying and gratifying on an emotional level. When one is content in this role, the job satisfaction is very high.[61]
The producers express that these creative collaborations to produce transnational independent co-productions are a highly gratifying process. According to Rajendran, the primary reason for pursuing co-production is the intellectual and creative stimulation of being in such an exciting environment.[62] Similarly, Kabir admits to working with highly talented and artistic individuals from around the world.[63] Rajendran confesses to working 24 hours a day because ‘it does not feel like work’.[64] The interviewed producers spend a considerable amount of time on creative satisfaction, despite the lack of financial security. However, the rewards of creative labour in this industry entail a high cost, both emotionally and materially. The producers unanimously believe that their work is greatly undervalued and does not provide financial support to sustain. Most Indian creative producers interviewed for the study have other means (e.g. an alternative business, consulting jobs, etc.) to generate income and survive in the industry. Monga confesses to living a very simple life and regularly depends on consulting to earn a livelihood.[65] In our interview, Kabir discloses he has another business because otherwise, he could have never survived by producing these films.[66] During our interview, Poisson disclosed that his co-produced film Sir earned many awards and was distributed on streaming platforms; however, despite its critical acclaim and recognition, Poisson did not manage to recoup the financial investment, and it resulted in debt.[67] In our interview, Monga also reveals that she had to sell her house when she was co-producing Monsoon Shootout (2013). However, sometimes the cost is not just economic but also emotional. Monga adds that she contemplated leaving the industry after the massive success of the film The Lunchbox in 2013 because she was unable to distribute her films in India and she felt emotionally exhausted.[68] In this way, the production stories take a cautionary turn. Monga further advises to not pursue a transnational co-production model for small-budgeted films.[69] Kabir similarly underscores that an international co-production model increases budgets for independent films, which could have been made on a relatively smaller budget.[70] Anand notes that a co-production model is a great way to kick off one’s career in independent filmmaking in India. But Kabir remarks that it is uncommon for a first-time filmmaker to receive international grants and funding.[71] The careers built on the transnational filmmaking model stretch timelines and budgets. According to Kabir, the unrecognised labour that a producer invests in applying for international grants and waiting for funding is also unpaid labour.[72]
While Europe thinks of filmmaking as part of the culture and therefore spends a considerable amount of public money, filmmaking in India has been mostly privatised since its inception. Europe recognises and supports its film, media, and audiovisual sectors and actively encourages a co-production system for their industries. For example, France views its cinema as not just industry and business but also as a ‘cultural force’. Therefore, it has a strong support system for its cinema, and in 2005 half of the 240 films produced in France were international co-productions.[73] Co-productions emerged in Europe before becoming popular around the world. Jimmyn Parc notes that co-productions emerged as a strategy of defence against the hegemonic structures of Hollywood. After the Second World War, European film industries faced many challenges, and co-production offered several advantages such as sharing of finances and risks, expanding market size, fostering cultural exchange, technological and skill development, as well as driving innovation in film style and culture.[74] Parc further emphasises the need to conceptualise European co-productions and divide them into two categories: ‘corporation-led’ and ‘state-led’ co-productions. The corporate-led co-productions are driven by finances and focus on optimising production factors. The state-led co-productions receive government incentives and may also serve as vehicles for national branding.
In contrast, India experiences limited government financial support for its film industry, which results in limited co-productions, particularly state-led co-productions. The Indian producers of transnational independent films combine partial state support, international funds, and grants with equity money from Indian financiers, whom some producers, in personal interviews, refer to as ‘angel investors’. Creative producers emerge as non-financiers, as most of them do not have money to invest in their films. Being a producer of alternative stories requires passion, creativity, and resilience due to the lack of resources and government support, unlike the European ecosystem with state-sponsored funds, grants, territory-based distribution, and sales agents. This shows that the film industry structure is significantly different between India and Europe, which becomes one of the reasons for a relatively lower number of co-productions. Anand notes that the main challenge in co-producing with Europe is the mismatch between their different funding and distribution structures.[75] Anand explains:
We raise money to make films, so we also need to sell them quickly to fulfill the financial needs of our investors. In Europe, it is possible to exploit sales companies and festivals to achieve global exposure over a period of two years. However, this approach is not always feasible in the Indian market.[76]
Poisson, Monga, and Anand express that work culture differences between India and Europe created several difficulties during the production phase. During our interview, Anand observes that ‘Indians work 24 hours a day, but often with less efficiency, while those in France and Europe work fewer hours but with greater efficiency’.[77] Anand discloses an anecdote to discuss the difference between the film cultures:
I recall an incident in Europe involving Dhanush [a popular film star in Tamil cinema], where the driver informed him that their shift was over, and they were leaving. This would never happen in India. There are significant cultural differences between the two countries.[78]
In this remark, Anand is referring to the star culture of the Indian film industry. Dhanush is the lead cast of the co-produced film and a popular film star in South India, and Anand explains that the Indian working class would not ‘leave’ him on the film set because their ‘shift is over’. In the same vein, Poisson discusses cultural differences through an example of an editing room. During his time on set, Poisson observed a marked difference in the crew sizes and punctuality between Indian and French film productions. The French crews were smaller and more time-conscious, while the Indian crews were larger and less stringent about time.[79]
The gratifying production tales of producers allude to the opportunities for collaboration and creative stimulation of the transnational filmmaking world and the cautionary production tales point toward the challenges of working on a transnational project. These tales thus provide insights into the complexities of producing independent Indian-European co-productions including the opportunities (i.e. soft money, structured production, professional training, networking, and linked symbolic capital) and challenges (e.g. increased budgets and timeline, work-culture differences, and human relationship or team management issues). Moreover, creative producer Monga invested physical, creative, and emotional labour into the international co-production models for The Lunchbox. However, Poisson, the French co-producer of Sir, reveals that Karan Johar, who is the CEO of Dharma Productions – Bollywood’s largest film production and distribution company – reaped financial rewards from the success of the film, rather than Monga.[80] Poisson himself was in debt and made no profits; however, his film Sir was sold to streaming platforms. Likewise, creative producers interviewed for this study, such as Monga, Rajendran, and Agarwal, as well as Anand among others, follow similar paths in the industry. In the book The Managed Heart, Arlie Russell Hochschild perceives the emotional labour of flight attendants as a burden and critiques capitalism. Hochschild asserts:
It does not take capitalism to turn feeling into a commodity or to turn our capacity for managing feeling into an instrument. But capitalism has found a use for emotion management, and so it has organized it more efficiently and pushed it further.[81]
Creative producers are caught in the relentless cycle of advanced capitalism, investing physical, creative, and emotional labour every day in exchange for little to no return, while the major corporations, production houses, and streaming services reap the rewards. This echoes Artz’s argument that media entertainment ‘represents the temporary triumph of transnational capitalism, produced and distributed through joint ventures with local and national firms’.[82] The personal and professional selves of a creative producer’s life merge and the distinction between formal and informal activity becomes blurred in this transnational working world, as also noted by Robinson.[83] Precarity in the producer’s job thus originates in both forms, i.e. personal and structural. The creative producers-storytellers derive gratification from their creative work, but practicing affective labour becomes an integral part of their everyday lives.
Author
Neha Bhatia holds a Ph.D. from the University of Calgary. Bhatia specialises in India’s independent film production culture and its transnational developments. Her research received funding support through the 2021 Alberta Graduate Excellence Scholarship (International).
References
Altomonte, G. ‘Affective Labor in the Post-Fordist Transformation’, Public Seminar, 8 May 2015: https://publicseminar.org/2015/05/affective-labor-in-the-post-fordist-transformation/.
Artz, L. Global entertainment media: A critical introduction, 1st ed. New York: WILEY, 2015.
Bhatia, N. ‘The Transnational Tales of an Indian Creative Producer’, Transnational Screens, 13, no. 3, August 2022: 234-248.
BKD. ‘NFDC Film Bazaar Brings 14 Films in This Year’s Open Pitch’, National Herald, 31 October 2019: https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/cafe/nfdc-film-bazaar-brings-14-films-in-this years-open-pitch.
Caldwell, J. Production culture: Industrial reflexivity and critical practice in film and television. Durham: Duke University Press, 2008.
Cantillon, Z. and Baker, S. ‘Affective Qualities of Creative Labour’ in Making media: Production, practices, and professions, edited by M. Deuze and M. Prenger. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2019.
Deuze, M. Media work, 1st ed. Cambridge: Polity, 2007.
Devasundaram, A. India’s new independent cinema: Rise of the hybrid. London: Routledge, 2016.
‘Following “Nasir”’, The Hindu, 21 May 2018, sec. Movies: https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/following-nasir/article23947401.ece.
Ganti, T. Bollywood: A guidebook to popular Hindi cinema, 2nd ed. Abingdon-Oxon: Routledge, 2013.
Hardt, M. and Negri, A. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Hardt, M. ‘Affective Labor’, Boundary, 2, 26, no. 2, 1999: 89-100; http://www.jstor.org/stable/303793.
Hesmondhalgh, D. and Baker, S. Creative labor: Media work in three cultural industries. London: Routledge, 2011.
Jackel, A. ‘The Inter/Nationalism of French Film Policy’, Modern & Contemporary France, 15, no. 1, 2007: 21-36.
Kiran, S. ‘Guneet Monga Module – Mumbai Academy of Moving Image’: https://www.mumbaifilmfestival.com/blogs/guneet-monga-module/ (accessed on 13 June 2021).
Kuipers, G. ‘Cultural Globalization as the Emergence of a Transnational Cultural Field: Transnational Television and National Media Landscapes in Four European Countries’, American Behavioral Scientist, 55, no. 5, 1 May 2011: 552; https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211398078.
Lazzarato, M. ‘Immaterial Labor’ in Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics, edited by P. Virno and M. Hardt. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996: 142.
Mayer, V., Conor, B., and Banks, M. Production studies, the sequel: Cultural studies of global media industries. London: Taylor and Francis, 2015: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315736471.
Mayer, V., Caldwell, J., and Banks, M. Production studies: Cultural studies of media industries. London: Taylor & Francis Group / Routledge, 2009: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203879597.
Meir, C. ‘The Producer as Salesman: Jeremy Thomas, Film Promotion and Contemporary Transnational Independent Cinema’, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 29, no. 4, December 2009: 467-481; https://doi.org/10.1080/01439680903180873.
‘NETPAC Award | IFFR’: https://iffr.com/en/awards/netpac-award (accessed on 10 July 2023).
Newman, K. ‘Notes on Transnational Film Theory: Decentered Capitalism, Decentered Subjectivity’ in World cinemas, transnational perspectives, edited by N. Durovicová and K. Newman. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009.
Parc, J. ‘Between State-Led and Corporation-Led Co-Productions: How Has Film Co-Production Been Exploited by States in Europe’, Innovation, 33, no. 4, 2020: 442-458.
Pendakur, M. ‘India’s National Film Policy: Shifting Currents in the 1990s’ in Film policy: International, national, and regional perspectives, edited by A. Moran. London: Routledge, 1996: 148.
Robinson, W. ‘Remapping Development in Light of Globalization: From a Territorial to a Social Cartography’, Third World Quarterly, 23, no. 6, 2002: 1047-1071.
Tiwari, S. ‘From New Cinema to New Indie Cinema: The Story of NFDC and Film Bazaar’ in Indian cinema beyond Bollywood: The new independent cinema revolution, edited by A. Devasundaram. London: Routledge, 2018.
‘The Lunchbox (The Lunchbox (Dabba))’, Cineuropa: https://cineuropa.org/en/film/237132/ (accessed on 3 August 2022).
[1] Mayer & Caldwell & Banks 2009, p. 4.
[2] Mayer & Conor & Banks 2015, p. X.
[3] Caldwell 2008.
[4] Ibid., p. 345.
[5] Deuze 2007.
[6] Cantillon & Baker 2019, pp. 287-296.
[7] Hardt 1999, pp. 89-100.
[8] Caldwell 2008, pp. 8-14.
[9] Guneet Monga, personal interview, 14 June 2021.
[10] Bhatia 2022, pp. 234-248.
[11] Devasundaram 2016, pp. 80-108.
[12] Newman 2009, pp. 3-11.
[13] Robinson 2002, p. 1063.
[14] Artz 2015, p. 72.
[15] Tiwari 2018, p. 31.
[16] Pendakur 1996, p. 148.
[17] Ganti 2012, p. 185.
[18] Aditi Anand, personal interview, 21 July 2021.
[19] Caldwell 2008, p. 18.
[20] Guneet Monga, personal interview, 14 June 2021.
[21] Monga, personal interview, 14 June 2021.
[22] Kuipers 2011, p. 552.
[23]‘The Lunchbox (The Lunchbox (Dabba)),’ Cineuropa.
[24]Mathivanan Rajendran, personal interview, 28 May 2021. Rajendran completed his education in engineering at Virginia Tech in the US, but he also had a passion for theatre and the arts.
[25]Mathivanan Rajendran, personal interview, 28 May 2021.
[26]BKD 2019.
[27] ‘Following “Nasir”’, The Hindu, 21 May 2018.
[28] NETPAC Award | IFFR’: https://iffr.com/en/awards/netpac-award.
[29] Mathivanan Rajendran, personal interview, 28 May 2021.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Meir 2009, pp. 467-481.
[32] Mathivanan Rajendran, personal interview, 28 May 2021.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Kabir (pseudonym), personal interview, 1 August 2021.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Mathivanan Rajendran, personal interview, 28 May 2021.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Mayer et al. 2015.
[39]Kabir, personal interview, 1 August 2021.
[40] Lazaarato 1996, p. 142.
[41] Hardt & Negri 2000, p. 290.
[42] Rhodes 2018, pp. 96-116.
[43] Brice Poisson, personal interview, 19 August 2021.
[44] Guneet Monga, personal interview, 14 June 2021.
[45] Kabir, personal interview, 1 August 2021.
[46] Brice Poisson, personal interview, 19 August 2021.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Kabir, personal interview, 1 August 2021.
[49] Guneet Monga, personal interview, 14 June 2021.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Mathivanan Rajendran, personal interview, 28 May 2021.
[52] Aditi Anand, personal interview, 21 July 2021.
[53] Caldwell 2008, p. 21.
[54] Altomonte 2015.
[55] Hardt 1999, p. 95.
[56] Ibid., p. 96.
[57] Guneet Monga, personal interview, 14 June 2021.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Hardt 1999, p. 98.
[60] Hesmondhalgh & Baker 2011, p. 127.
[61] Aditi Anand, personal interview, 21 July 2021.
[62] Mathivanan Rajendran, personal interview, 28 May 2021.
[63] Kabir, personal interview, 1 August 2021.
[64] Mathivanan Rajendran, personal interview, 28 May 2021.
[65] Smriti Kiran, ‘Guneet Monga Module – Mumbai Academy of Moving Image.
[66] Kabir, personal interview, 1 August 2021.
[67] Brice Poisson, personal interview, 19 August 2021.
[68] Guneet, Monga, personal interview, 14 June 2021.
[69] Ibid.
[70] Kabir, personal interview, 1 August 2021.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Ibid.
[73] Jackel 2007, pp. 21-36.
[74] Parc 2020, pp. 442-458.
[75] Aditi Anand, personal interview, 21 July 2021.
[76] Ibid.
[77] Ibid.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Brice Poisson, personal interview, 19 August 2021.
[80] Ibid.
[81] Hochschild 2012, p. 53.
[82] Artz 2015, p. 10.
[83] Robinson 2002, p. 1064.