The Maharashtra government is planning an increase in shooting rates at various locales across Mumbai from the next financial year. The cost is expected to go up by anywhere between 10% to 40%. Some say this will take shooting away from the city and that a revenue-generating industry for the government is being impeded. Others feel that while this is a good move, the government needs to look at other issues.
Sanjay Virmani, MD, Multimedia Communication, and the name behind non-fiction television programmes such as Khoobsurat, Chicks on Flicks and MTV Style Check, says every time there has been any escalation of costs, be it manpower, studio or even petrol prices, productions take a hit. ?Clients/channels might not always comply with providing extra money. Sometimes budgets have been frozen in advance and in a watertight contract there is no room for escalations. A hike in cost in shooting in Mumbai will have a direct impact on production costs. High-end ad films and feature films are already being shot out of the city and even the country, which is not a good indication.?
Colston Julian, a commercial photographer with saltmanagement.com, counters that, ?The ?white? costs of shooting in Mumbai are not often much. Trouble walks through the door when ?underhand? costs come into play. Say you have to shoot something requiring a French or British setting, you would go to Ballard Estate. While one might pay Rs 25,000 officially, when one goes to shoot there, you might land up also paying the local goon, havildar, police station and paanwalla.?
Daniel Varghese, producer and director of Film Farm India, agrees with Julian on the unofficial payments that need to be made. He mentions that, ?Locations make a big difference. There is no blanket permission or cost to shoot in the city. When you take permission to shoot at Ballard Pier, you have to mention which and how many lanes you are going to shoot in. Any extra lane or moving even close to the Asiatic Library becomes a new location and a new cost.?
Virmani believes that other factors playing an influential role in shooting moving away from Mumbai include ?not so beautiful locations, problems in getting the right backdrop to your story, crowd management, no single window system to get permissions from authorities, harsh light and uncertain weather conditions?.
Attaining the paperwork for permission is another lengthy obstacle-ridden procedure. ?To shoot outdoors, official permission takes long. Secondly, you sometimes land up paying Rs 75,000 just like that, non-officially, to do a job that should be easy, considering the fact that promoting the city is part of the government?s agenda,? comments Julian. ?It is infinitely easier to catch a late night flight to Paris, land at 8.30 in the morning and shoot there. The only hard and fast rule they have is not to put up a tripod on the street or block traffic. No one troubles you there, crowds don?t gather,? he says.
Real deal
It is common knowledge that Mumbai is the most expensive city to shoot in India and cost differences are vast. Shooting costs at private properties such as malls are at the discretion of the mall owners and there are no fixed costs. They could vary from Rs 2-5 lakh per shift. Studios may start at Rs 20,000 and go up to Rs 1.5 lakh per shift. Every location has individual costs besides added costs.
Ad film director Atul Manjrekar believes that the costs are justified because Mumbai is the main base of Bollywood, television (fiction) and advertising. ?Shooting here is anywhere between 30%-50% more expensive than any other city and it is on a par with most international cities for film shoots.? He also points out that an increase in costs is fair. ?Film shoots are a good revenue-generating industry for the government. Since film budgets are increasing, stars have hiked their fees. So why shouldn?t other costs go up too??
Julian finds it criminal that so much money has to be paid in black. ?The proposed cost hike will not affect us as much if the government were to support the industry more. It?s a strange vicious circle that we have to give a deposit to shoot in a place and then cough up a bribe to get the deposit back.?
Leaving home shores
One big advantage that shooting abroad has is that in a long, 30-45 day schedule, one can finish a lot of work. This is not possible in India, as stars divide themselves between many projects, points out Virmani. He also mentions that, ?Shooting in a lot of countries has hidden expenses such as location insurances and approvals from film boards. Unless the country invites you, puts everything on a platter and you become a guest rather than crew, it isn?t always feasible. It is true that today a lot of countries want Indian film crews to come and shoot in their countries, as not only does this increase their revenue earnings, it also works as a tourism tool.?
Varghese explains that shooting within Mumbai or elsewhere often presents a tricky situation. ?If I have to show Mumbai, I will shoot in Mumbai. If the script asks for a city location, which is not specific to the city, I can shoot anywhere. Shooting in Mumbai has a big advantage, as all production facilities are available. But if you shoot in Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Kolkata or Delhi, where the cost can be balanced, you end up paying a lot on travel and lodging.? South-east Asia is the cheapest compared to any other part of the world, feels Varghese. ?Then again, shooting abroad means costs increase due to travel, boarding and hiring of local crew.?
Industry repercussions
Will the proposed hike really affect the industry or the city at large? Manjrekar reiterates that if a film?s story is based in Mumbai, one will shoot here. ?We shoot abroad and have no qualms in paying whatever the fees are there. We never question why shooting at the Eiffel Tower is so expensive. If one has to shoot somewhere, then one will do what is possible in the given budget.? Virmani deems that if shooting costs in the city increase, ?It will not have any serious impact, as things will continue happening as they already are. After a bit of revolt, things will settle down and people will accept the cost escalation.?
Danny is sure that shooting will never move away from the city. ?This is Bollywood. It?s like saying you cannot shoot in Hollywood as the California government increased taxes. The hike in shooting costs will be a burden on production houses though more than anyone else.?
The industry vehemently believes that before the government takes the step to hike shooting costs, they need to address the real issue on the ground. India has a thoroughly professional industry here, be it advertising, film-making or photo shoots, and this industry needs that same level of respect from the government that is afforded to any other revenue-raking industry in India. Manjrekar points out that the government needs to get its act right, by setting up one department dedicated to film permissions. ?We have to go to a minimum of four different departments for one single permission,? he says.
?If the government plans to increase the cost of shooting, they will have to provide more facilities to the industry by making the city more shooting friendly. Dealings will have to be made transparent, more locations given out and individual costs will also have to be controlled,? comments Danny. Virmani reasons that, ?Due to the unsystematic way of functioning and no standard rules and policies about shooting and lack of infrastructure, producers are being pushed to foreign locations. The government should give some serious thoughts on how to structure policies to encourage shooting here.?
?If we do get our system in order and the film and photography industry get the support and facilities to shoot properly in Mumbai, we could well be an international hub, given our status in the world market currently. We should look to South Africa, where the government has successfully made the film and production industry a success and today everyone in the world swears by the efficiency in Cape Town or Johannesburg,? concludes Julian.