<b>Ashok Amritraj</b>, Chairman and CEO, Hyde Park Entertainment

“On a major film, India accounts for less than 1 per cent of the world market. The same goes for China. The reasons include: one, that there is rampant video piracy in both the countries. Secondly, the price of tickets is too low. Lastly, audiences for an Indian movie are too less. The average production costs are in the region of $60-65 million. The marketing cost is $30-35 million. Neither India nor China gives back even a million.”

Ashok Amritraj has a ‘booming’ personality. And it’s not just his voice that stands out; so does he, like he did on the tennis court decades ago. And world over, so do his films.

Next year will mark his 25th year in Hollywood. And his 90 films have grossed in excess of $1 billion. The Indian ambassador to Hollywood is unarguably the most successful Indian there. Very recently, Ashok Amritraj's Hyde Park Entertainment signed a five-year, first-look production and distribution deal with Hollywood’s 20th Century Fox to produce 15-20 titles for the studio over the next five years with aggregate budgets in excess of $400 million.

A string of deals with top Hollywood studios and numerous global hits have only fuelled his passion to do more. Gokul Krishnamurthy of exchange4media caught up with the Indian ace in Hollywood, when he was on a visit to his hometown Chennai recently. Excerpts from the interview:

Q. Why haven’t you ventured into Hindi /Tamil cinema in a big way?

I did do one movie, 10 years ago – Jeans. What became clear was that when I was around, things were in control. I have been incredibly successful over the last 15 years or so. The numbers are so much larger in Hollywood. Both on the creative side and the rewards side, it is larger.

At this point, it’s not all about money. So I’d like to do something different. I will be interested in doing something here, but don’t see that happening immediately given the commitments Hyde Park has already.

Film and major corporations need to join hands in as many things as possible. That will improve the quality of filmmaking. The television market is very corporatised, but the film market is not. Foreign investment will help but everyone is afraid because it’s still a family business – a mom and pop show.

From a marketing standpoint, I’d like to see Indian movies marketed and distributed well globally. I’d want to change the whole marketing and distribution. I’d probably make it in Hindi and maybe distribute it through a major studio. Perhaps even worldwide, we need to tie in the distributor and figure out how to do some ground-breaking stuff.

One of the few areas where Indian cinema is lacking is perhaps the lack of originality in screenplay. In terms of photography and other technical details, Indian cinema is terrific.

‘Crossover’ is a bad word. Because I don’t think there has been a cross over film till date. Ninety per cent of them have never been released in the US. Bend it like Beckham is not an Indian movie. Monsoon Wedding is the closest thing. To be a truly ‘Cross Over’, it should gross $25-30 million. Monsoon Wedding grossed $13 million. It primarily attracted an Indian audience, which means it wasn’t ‘Cross Over’. There are Cross Over films like Emily, which grossed $70 million. Many of these films are for young directors who are trying to make it.

Today my movies, whether it’s Helen or Walking Tall or anything else, go to theatres and have a 3,000-screen release. Then the DVD, pay per view, pay cable and basic networks follow. And then they reach free terrestrial television. Each one has its own window, and Hyde Park Entertainment sells to 175 countries. No one has any problems with the windows.

If I ever did an Indian movie, I’d want to distribute it to all major countries through a studio. The only person who comes close to successful marketing of his movies here is perhaps Yash Chopra.

I am right now taking a good look at what there is to do in India. There is no dream project right now. There is an international film, 50 per cent of which we plan to shoot in India. It will have an Indian female lead and an Amercian male lead. It’s called The Other End of the Line and will be an Indian version of Pretty Woman.

In entertainment, there are very few around. I’d probably be the only guy around. If you take all the Indians, around 2 million I think, out of the US, America would come to a standstill. From the Silicon Valley to NASA to doctors and lawyers, we are everywhere. India has been successful in every other field, and I think now people are trying to find a way to crack Hollywood too.

Censorship within reason is important for the film industry. One should make every effort to figure out what is right. Things like banning smoking on screen, for example, are kind of stupid – creative aspects should not come under censorship. But in the case of classic sex and violence, you have to draw the line.

I went to the US originally to play tennis. Everyone wanted to play tennis with me, but no one wanted to see my scripts. I made the transition in 1980-81. In five to six years, I started making my own films, theatrical, primarily for cable and video. In 1984, Jean Claude, an out of work actor, met with me, an out of work producer. The film based on the Corsican brothers, Double Impact, was released in 1991. It was produced at a cost of $11 million and helped get in $100 million. Today, we have deals with the top studios, Disney, Sony being among them.

Thus far, it is not a very important audience. On a major film, India accounts for less than 1 per cent of the world market. The same goes for China. The reasons include: one, that there is rampant video piracy in both the countries. Secondly, the price of tickets is too low. Lastly, audiences for an Indian movie are too less.

The average production costs are in the region of $60-65 million. The marketing cost is $30-35 million. Neither India nor China gives back even a million.

Unless there is a significant change with respect to piracy, I don’t see significant growth in India or China. Hyde Park is one of the top five companies in terms of spends on fighting piracy around the world.

The US, Canada and North American markets are the largest. Next is the group of Germany, Japan, UK, France and Italy. Ninety per cent of our revenues come from eight or nine countries.

There is a process of retro-fitting of theatres which is going on right now. It will head in the direction. I think it is three to five years away. One of the key elements is avoiding piracy. The encryption codes have to be absolutely unbreakable. D Cinema is the way distribution will happen in the next three to five years.

At the Toronto Film Festival, we have two productions opening on the same day – October 21. One of these is a co-production with Spielberg’s Dreamworks, titled Dreamer, which is based on a true story. The other will be with Disney, called Sharp Girl, with Steve Martin in the lead. In January, we’ll see a film with Sandra Bullock with Sony from Hyde Park. I am hoping to own the first weekend of the Toronto Film Festival this year.

Indian films are terrific in what they are for the Indian audience. There is a tremendous amount of talent. The movies do extremely well with the NRI audience. In some cases, the NRI audience has shown that they are more loyal than Indian audience. That audience, as the number of Indians who emigrate grows, will grow.

Indian cinema and the way it is made and a comparison to western cinema is like comparing apples and oranges. They are not comparable. As I said, there has never been an Indian film that has crossed over to the western audience. I don’t see this changing in a big way because here a film is made for the Indian audience.