‘History is always fascinating’

Of the many historicals that were made,some like Jodhaa Akbar did well,others didn’t. Strangely,there is a perception that Mangal Pandey didn’t do well,but let me tell you that the film had recovered its cost even before its release. However,whether a film does well or not has nothing do with it being a historical. It depends entirely on the way the film is made. Even a historical has to be entertaining,it cannot be a dry piece. Films like Sardar or Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were not made for the masses or the commercial audience. There are different reasons behind the making of a historical. Some are made for archival purposes and some for cultural purposes more than anything else.

Yes,Gandhi,was both critically-acclaimed and did well. But you have to understand that it was made by a European filmmaker for an international audience and had a huge budget. Even if you put together the budgets of Sardar,Bose and Babasaheb Ambedkar,it will still only be a fraction of what was spent on Gandhi. Also,as far as marketing a film goes,India can never do it the way it is done internationally. In short,historicals end up costing much more than other films,because they requrie a great amount of research and detailing to recreate that era. I have made two historicals,Sardar and Mangal Pandey,and I want to make more.

India has great historical stories waiting to be told. As a genre,they are extremely dynamic. I am fascinated by Indian history,be it the Mughal era,the British rule or even the ancient period. I am looking forward to watching Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Sey because I am curious about anything that Ashu (Ashutosh Gowariker) makes.

As told by Ketan Mehta