Mimicking Bollywood in Slumdog Millionaire : Global Hollywood’s Newest Co-Optation of Culture

Political Economy of Film

In critical media research, political economy of communication examines who controls the media, how that control is exercised, and how media industries operate with respect to political, economic, and social institutions (Mosco, 2009). Concerned with media’s conglomerated structure, political economy of communication—as both theory and method—studies, “the social relations, particularly the power relations, that mutually constitute the production, distribution, and consumption of resources” (Mosco, 2009, p. 24, emphasis in original). Political economy explores how these aspects affect—and are affected by—cultural and social processes, and moves beyond economic determinism to unveil the complex relationships that bind these facets of society and culture together.

While media transcend geographic barriers and players increase market power by expanding into new territories, the Hollywood majors continue to dominate commercial media on a global scale (e.g., McChesney, 2008). In light of Hollywood’s ascendancy over the film industry (e.g., McChesney, 1999; Wasko, 2003), political economy offers a means to understand why U.S. majors sought to capitalize on a distinctly cultural form that was imitative of Bollywood film. And while the global expansion of Western media has been anything but uniform, such expansion has historically been affected by regulation, taxation, government policy, local/national cultures, globalization, and a range of other sociocultural factors (e.g., Curtin, 2007, 2009; Govil, 2009). Yet, it is the Hollywood majors’ continued market dominance that prompts us to question their motives behind SDM. According to Wasko (2003), political economy explores the production, distribution, and exhibition of films both locally and globally, examining how motion pictures are produced as commodities, and how “market structure and performance” guide industry practice (pp. 9–10). While employing political economy, we thus call attention to the ways in which SDM illustrated the low-risk and high-profit corporate logic that guides global film industries. Addressing issues of power and profit, political economy helps elucidate the majors’ reasons for involvement in this Bollywood-esque production—reasons that were seemingly less apparent in the days and months following SDM’s success. As Bettig and Hall (2003) suggest, because the Hollywood majors continue to dominate the film industry, “their profit-maximizing and risk-minimizing strategies ultimately govern the majority of what gets produced and sold in the so-called media marketplace” (p. 45).

Bollywood: The Global Media Phenomenon

By definition, Bollywood is a widely contested term. While Prasad (2008) suggests that Bollywood was originally coined by English-language media, as a genre it lacks any singular definition. In fact, it is often argued that Bollywood cannot be conceptually contained because of its complex history related to Hindi and Indian cinema (e.g., A. Athique & Hill, 2010; Prasad, 2008; Vasudevan, 2008).

Originally, Bollywood was believed to have entered the industry lexicon in the 1930s when Tollygunge (a suburb containing multiple film studios) was renamed Tollywood by American film engineers (Govil, 2008; Prasad, 2008). From this, Bollywood was likely to have emerged (Prasad, 2008). While Bombay (Mumbai) is perceived as the epicenter of Bollywood productions, the genre has also been influenced by other Indian cinemas such as Tamil, Telugu, and Malayalam (Vasudevan, 2008). Although commonly perceived as a product of India’s Bombay industries, Bollywood has been affected by film studios outside of Bombay as well. By the late 1990s, regular use of Bollywood emerged (Govil, 2008; Prasad, 2008; Vasudevan, 2008) following popular Hindi movies such as “Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (1995), Pardes (1997), Dil to Pagal Hai (1997), and Kuch Kuch Hota Hai (1998)” (Govil, 2008, p. 201). In outlining the term’s evolution, it must be understood that Bollywood as a genre comes not from a single source, culture, or society, but from an amalgamation of influences within the Asian continent and beyond. At present, Bollywood refers to a wide range of Indian-centered media including—but not limited to—film (Govil, 2008). Thus, SDM was created as a product imitative of a genre that has been complicated since its establishment.

Beyond terminology, Bollywood as an industry was also influenced by sociocultural factors that contributed to the growth of Hindi and Indian cinema. While much too complex to explore in one article, these factors included the economic liberalization of India, the nation’s shift toward consumer capitalism and free-market neoliberalism (A. Athique & Hill, 2010; Govil, 2008; Prasad, 2008; Vasudevan, 2008), and the Indian government’s conferring of “‘industry status’ to its domestic film trade” (Govil, 2008, p. 204). Deregulation of India’s communication industries increased opportunities for financial backing from government and private entities, further contributing to cinema’s growth (A. Athique & Hill, 2010; Govil, 2008; Thussu, 2008; Vasudevan, 2008). The rise in multiplexes also commercialized cinema and increased opportunities for exhibition of local/national films and Hollywood productions (e.g., A. Athique & Hill, 2010). Amidst the industry’s growth, Bollywood became a formidable force on the global film front.

As Punathambekar and Kavoori (2008) note, though the film business was given industry status in 1998 and several advantageous regulations such as tax incentives and direct foreign investment were facilitated, it was the Industrial Development Bank Act of 2000 that ushered in the corporatization of the Indian film industry. Rather than rely on personal and, at times, questionable or even illegal funds, the Act made filmmakers and companies eligible for legitimate bank loans. Beginning with Sony’s Saawariya in 2007, Hollywood has since invested in Bollywood production companies in numerous coproductions (e.g., Rasul & Proffitt, 2012). But Bollywood has been investing in Hollywood as well; in 2009, Reliance Entertainment, owned by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, invested $825 million in DreamWorks (Basu, 2010), illustrating the symbiotic, economic relationship between Hollywood and Bollywood.

Bollywood’s form as a film genre was also influenced by global growth and relocation involving nonresident Indians (NRIs)—people of Indian origin who migrate to countries outside of India and reside there permanently. Prasad (2008) argues that Hindi and Indian films increasingly positioned NRIs as the intended audience for Indian and Bollywood productions. NRI filmmakers “played a significant role in commodifying Bollywood for the international market and for introducing to Indian audiences their own cinema in new packaging” (Prasad, 2008, p. 49). This strengthened Bollywood’s appeal as a product for global audiences. And herein lies the significance of SDM: as the markets for global film audiences continue to expand, the audience for Bollywood productions is no longer restricted to those residing in India but focuses on those outside of India and Asia, too.

As a global style, the textual changes inherent to Bollywood film involve a long history of Hollywood influence. As many “standard features of Indian popular cinema derive from Hollywood films” (Prasad, 2008, p. 42), contemporary Bollywood films contain a greater reliance on “Hollywood-style, English-dependent discourse of love” and have traditionally depended on the Hindustan/Urdu language (p. 47). This hybridization has resulted, in part, from Indian cinema’s desire to “maximize the global audience” (Thussu, 2008, p. 107). Conversely, Hindi cinema has also influenced Western films such as Moulin Rouge, although the film “deviated little from the familiar Hollywood musical style” and merely incorporated Hindi-inspired songs (Prasad, 2008, p. 48). Similar to SDM’s characterization as a crossover film (e.g., Reuters, 2009), NRI filmmakers have also played a role in creating crossover films such as Bend It Like Beckham and Bride and Prejudice. These filmmakers “acted as a bridge between Western and Indian popular cinema,” as their films were often intended for Western audiences (Thussu, 2008, p. 106). In these ways, SDM can be traced to a long line of experimentation between Hollywood and Indian fare. Bollywood—and products such as SDM—reconfigure popular Indian cinema for global audiences no longer bound by geography.

Related to Bollywood’s global style, the very nature of Bollywood has also been debated for its ties to Hollywood (e.g., Desai, 2005; Karim, 2003). Desai (2005) contends that “Bollywood is a global cinema that positions itself against the hegemony of Hollywood” (p. 55), while others suggest that Bollywood has increasingly mimicked Hollywood (Karim, 2003; Rampal, 2007). Somewhere between opposition and imitation, Bollywood infuses the popular appeal of Hollywood glamour with Indian traditions found in Hindi film, creating a strategy for success among audiences worldwide. Thus while sweeping generalizations regarding Bollywood are untenable (e.g., Prasad, 2008; Vasudevan, 2008), SDM relies on characteristics foundational to Hindi and Indian cinema and cultural understandings of Bollywood as it relates to India and Indian culture.

But the success of Bollywood has not gone unnoticed. The recent popularity of Bollywood has been likened to a “global media phenomenon” (Ram, 2008, p. 138), with revenue from Indian exports increasing from $10 million to more than $250 million between 1980 and 2000 (S. Kumar, 2008). Bollywood is distributed in Africa, Australia, Canada, East and Southeast Asia, the Middle East, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Desai, 2005; Karim, 2003; Larkin, 2003; Punathambekar, 2005; Rao, 2007). Rivaling Hollywood in number of films and ticket sales (Leonard, 2009), Bollywood is one of the largest film industries worldwide (Thussu, 2008). The United Kingdom has experienced more Bollywood ticket sales than English-language films (Punathambekar & Kavoori, 2008), with worldwide sales reaching more than four billion annually (Thussu, 2008). And while ticket sales continue to decline in U.S. markets, Hollywood majors are increasingly looking elsewhere to capture markets where revenues are climbing (Chatterjee, 2010). This is a profitable market that Hollywood has attempted to reach for years (e.g., Prasad, 2008).

Aside from Hollywood, audiences within the Indian market(s) still “prefer local product to Hollywood blockbusters” (Corliss, Adams, Singh, & Snyder, 2009, para. 14), although declining attendance in Indian theaters has prompted Bollywood to turn to Hollywood narrative and style for content (Rampal, 2007). Critics’ concern for Hollywood’s intermingling with Bollywood is based on the possibility that Hollywood’s involvement may make Bollywood “more vulnerable to outside competition, which in turn may damage Bollywood beyond repair” (Rampal, 2005, para. 31). Curtin (2009) argues against such homogenizing effects and cultural imperialism, however, as it is largely industry logic that motivates Hollywood’s co-optation of Bollywood.

Imitating Bollywood: A Look at SDM

Although SDM is not a product of Mumbai, the film contains traditional characteristics of Hindi and Indian film. These characteristics help illuminate the ways in which Hollywood majors sought to co-opt Bollywood in appearance and content. What distinguishes SDM from Hollywood’s earlier attempts at Bollywood, however, is the industry’s propensity to capitalize off of the popularity of Bollywood while marketing it to foreign audiences that have little or no understanding of Indian cinema. As Shah Rukh Khan states, Bollywood is “a term that only foreigners who don’t know our films use” (as cited in Vasudevan, 2008, para. 23). It was these audiences that SDM sought to attract. Though Prasad (2008) suggests that NRI filmmakers commodified Indian cinema for Indian audiences, Hollywood sought to commodify Indian culture for Western audiences through SDM. And while SDM is imitative of Bollywood in a number of ways, Bollywood has also been influenced by a long history of Western interventions (e.g., Curtin, 2007; Karim, 2003). These interventions affect the form and function of Bollywood films.

Coined by Time as an “Anglo-Indian movie” (Corliss et al., 2009) and an “Indian drama” by Reuters (2009), SDM possesses characteristics indicative of a new-age Bollywood film. This form incorporates Hollywood and Western film styles with traditional Bollywood fare. While at its peak, U.S. and British mainstream press discursively linked SDM to Bollywood, emphasizing its Bollywood and Indian roots. As many Bollywood films originate in Indian literature, SDM was adapted from Vikas Swarup’s Indian novel, Q&A (Corliss et al., 2009; Leonard, 2009). The film featured Bollywood actors such as Anil Kapoor and was filmed in Mumbai (Sengupta, 2008). Vanity Fair labeled Bollywood films such as Black Friday and Satya as “Slumdog Millionaire’s Bollywood Ancestors” (A. Kumar, 2008).

SDM had an Indian codirector, Loveleen Tandan, who translated one third of the film into Hindi (Jurgensen, 2009). The language chosen for SDM provides a snapshot into its market goals, as it was tailored for global audiences who consume cultural difference and NRIs who take pleasure in nostalgia (e.g., Kaur, 2005; Punathambekar, 2005). Industry insiders such as Shekhar Kapur argue that despite its European ties, SDM was an Indian film (“Slumdog Draws Crowds,” 2009). SDM’s original music was written by Bollywood composer A. R. Rahman, who has contributed to more than 100 other Indian and Bollywood productions (Roston, 2008; Sisario, 2008). These links were highlighted by mainstream press as evidence of SDM’s Bollywood-ness.

SDM also has multiple narrative components that conform to Bollywood’s formula. By articulating SDM’s plot and characteristics, we are able to see how commercial motives directly influenced the filmic content that was imitative of Bollywood film. According to Nayar (2004), Bollywood films often include “the flowering of a romantic love, followed by a romantic crisis most likely spurred by a villain,” and the romantic couple reunites in the end (p. 18). SDM encapsulates the love, crises, and triumph found in Bollywood film, as it focuses on the struggles of the main character, Jamal, growing up in Mumbai. Faced with a brother who is seemingly an arch rival, the story begins with Jamal set to win a fortune on the Indian version of the game show, Who Wants to be a Millionaire? The show, which features a contestant answering questions for a monetary prize, was originally produced by Celador productions (Clark, 2010), which also happened to be one of the original production companies to spearhead SDM (Fox Searchlight, 2008; Roston, 2008). Jamal’s story unfolds through a series of traumatic events, the most prominent of which includes his endless pursuit to find his childhood love, Latika. As is characteristic of Bollywood film, Jamal triumphs—winning fortune and love—by the movie’s end.

In terms of romance, Pendakur (2003) argues that Indian films include a romantic hero and heroine relationship, while “‘society’ in some villainous way intervenes to prevent them from consummating their love” (p. 149). In SDM, “society” takes various forms, although all are conquered and Jamal and Latika are ultimately reunited. Hindi film also “involves a love triangle” in which “two male friends (often brothers) will fall in love with the same woman, pitching the friends (or brothers) into an agonizing social or familial dilemma” (Nayar, 1997, p. 83). In SDM, the brothers pitted against each other over Latika, and that pursuit creates a permanent rift in their relationship. Not until the movie’s end is their relationship repaired, albeit too late.

SDM also contains elements that incorporate traditional Indian values alongside Western ideals. SDM’s version of Western culture provides modernity, accompanied by traditional gender roles. Seemingly at odds with traditional India, this new Bollywood is Westernized and hinges on a sense of ubiquitous wealth (Malhotra & Algah, 2004; Rao, 2007) alongside proficient use of the English language (Rao, 2007). SDM features Mercedes Benz and designer clothing, and the majority of the script is in English. Yet despite the integration of Westernized life, components of traditional Indian film remain intact. Thematically, Indian cinema’s popular masala film—a format incorporating song and dance sequences (Bhaumik, 2004)—includes comedy, melodrama, action, romance, and music (Desai, 2005; S. Kumar, 2008). All of these are present in SDM. Flashbacks are another characteristic of Hindi film (Nayar, 2004) emulated in SDM. In fact, flashbacks are the crux of SDM, as the viewer is taken back through Jamal’s childhood to understand his answers and present-day crises.

Cinematic elements must also be considered when paralleling SDM to Bollywood film. As Ganti (2004) argues, traditional Hindi cinema has a history of departing from Hollywood aesthetics, namely in its divergence from “continuity editing, natural lighting, and realistic mise-en-scene conventions” (p. 141). In SDM, the film steps away from continuity editing and varies the angles from which the on-screen action is viewed. Viewers also witness interruptions in narrative action through the film’s frequent flashbacks. Such temporal discontinuities are often featured in Hindi films (Goplan, 2002, as cited in Ganti, 2004), alongside the “bright lighting and richly saturated colors” (Ganti, 2004, p. 143) also found in SDM. And while describing all of SDM’s attributes is beyond the scope of one article, these aesthetics help illustrate the Bollywood-ness of this Hollywood film.

Yet despite these parallels, SDM is not a Bollywood film because it is not a product of the Indian film industry. Additionally, one would be remiss to discuss SDM as Bollywood-esque without acknowledging that SDM’s overt focus on the slums also distinguishes it from Bollywood proper, as traditional Hindi and Indian cinema shy away from such realities (e.g., Vasudevan, 2008). Many Bollywood films proffer a form of escapism (Rampal, 2005; Vasudevan, 2008), yet SDM proffers Hollywood realism (e.g., Ramesh, 2009).

Although SDM departs from Bollywood in subtle ways, the film followed Bollywood’s lead as it attempted to appeal to international audiences and aimed to market Indian culture as exotic—a familiar trope in the film industry (Dissanayake, 1986). This is not to say that Danny Boyle—or others involved—lacked creative autonomy, but that corporate involvement in the film adhered to business logic. To avoid reductionist understandings, however, we must understand why such content was produced, as discussed next.

The So-Called Media Marketplace

As the Bollywood blueprint trumps Hollywood’s modus operandi, the vital question is why did Hollywood majors that export (rather than import) more films overseas distribute a film mimicking Bollywood? Simply put: SDM presented less economic risk. Because SDM cost little to produce, Hollywood majors were likely to recoup the film’s costs and then some. The appeal enmeshed in the production, distribution, and exhibition of a non-Bollywood, although seeming-Bollywood film, stems from growing global interest in the Bollywood genre. Bollywood reaches a wide range of viewers, including Western and diasporic audiences (Desai, 2006), with approximately 3.8 billion fans (Khan, 2008). According to A. M. Athique (2008), while many of these audiences are comprised of “non-Indians with little detailed understanding of Indian society” (p. 299), they nonetheless have enjoyed and sought out Bollywood productions. The success of Bollywood and Indian cinema in places such as the United Kingdom has prompted regions to stage “events designed to promote Indian films amongst a more ‘mainstream’ audience” (p. 301). For example, Star TV organized an event where the British Academy of Film and Television premiered the Bollywood film, Yaadein. In 2002, the British Film Institute held ImagineAsia—a celebration of Indian film and culture (Thussu, 2008). In 2010, U.K. libraries hosted a series of Bollywood-centered events to promote Bollywood films (Hayes, 2010). Thus, one integral part of SDM’s creation was timing. Following a surge of Bollywood events and a number of prestigious awards (e.g., Thussu, 2008), SDM stood to benefit from growing international interest. As a possible indicator of success, SDM emerged at a time when the global popularity of Bollywood was increasingly gaining mainstream media accolades.

Following the success of Moulin Rouge, Monsoon Wedding, and Ghost World (Corliss, 2002), the success of Bollywood and Hindi popular culture within the United States also percolated in the years leading up to SDM. Not only were Bollywood rental sites and movie houses popping up, but the audience following and influence of Bollywood on Hollywood was also apparent (Morton, 2002). By 2002, NRIs “made [Bollywood] a $100 million industry in the U.S., from dvd sales and rentals, pay TV, live shows like the Bollywood Awards, and big-screen exhibition” (Corliss, 2002, para. 4). By 2008, one Indian-based media conglomerate, Reliance, had “acquired more than 200 movie screens across the U.S.” (Khalid, 2008, para. 7)—an investment made, according to Khalid (2008), in response to the growing popularity of Bollywood film. Beyond film, U.S. outlets such as Viacom’s MTV also recognized the growing interest in South Asian fare, as evidenced by its 2005 launch of MTV Desi in the United States (Belaji, 2008). As Belaji (2008) contends, “MTV’s decision to start Desi followed an ‘Indian invasion’ in the United States in the early 2000s … Indian pop culture emerged as a valuable commodity in American media, and conglomerates were eager to package and sell it to Western audiences” (p. 26). With the proliferation of Bollywood-centered fare, Hollywood recognized an opportunity to tap into a growing market of global audiences interested in Indian culture.

Thus, Time Warner and News Corp.’s investment in SDM was logical, as they could reach audiences that enjoyed Bollywood films as well as audiences familiar with Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. As global interest in Bollywood continued to grow (A. M. Athique, 2008), the likely success of SDM seemingly warranted the majors’ attention and backing. While Boyle acknowledged that there was a highly visible, already-existing Indian audience in the United Kingdom, SDM also stood to benefit from Dev Patel’s (SDM’s lead character) audience following from his role in BBC’s television program, Skins (Burrows, 2008).

More than audiences, however, political economy necessitates interrogation into production, distribution, and exhibition, for which SDM has a complicated story. While Fox Searchlight acquired U.S. distribution rights to SDM (Corliss et al., 2009), international distribution rights were held by the British company Pathé (Reuters, 2009). Although Warner Bros. and Fox Searchlight shared a stake in the profits, Fox Searchlight agreed to handle SDM’s marketing and distribution (Roston, 2008). This allowed Fox Searchlight to split the costs and revenues with Warner Bros., after claiming its 12.5% distribution fee (Horn, 2009b). Thus, SDM was relatively low risk when compared with other Fox Searchlight productions, as it had initial funders who shared the risks. As transnational media corporations have multiple advantages—including access to capital—over those operating at the margins (Wasko, 2003), one of these advantages rests in the power and resources that Hollywood majors can lay claim to. Klein (2003) contends, “only Hollywood can afford to spend $200 million on a single film; only Hollywood has the global distribution network and publicity machinery that can get its movies into theaters worldwide … and only Hollywood has the US government behind it pushing to open foreign markets even further” (para. 5). While such advantages often result in barriers to entry across global markets and protection from possible challengers, these billion-dollar-a-year Hollywood corporations cannot be rivaled by smaller corporations. They have a clear advantage in the global film industry.

Interrogating the politics of film, the distribution agreement between Boyle and Fox Searchlight was also seemingly influenced by previous arrangements. SDM’s distribution deal between Boyle and Fox was not the first, as Fox Searchlight had contractual agreements with Boyle’s last five films (Roston, 2008)—including 28 Days Later, Millions, and Sunshine (Horn, 2009a). In a commercial media system in which potential benefits must outweigh risks, Boyle’s previous success signaled a safe(r) investment, while imposing creative limitations as only those professionals with prior success are considered worthy of investment. SDM becomes even more appealing when approached as a film adapted from an already-existing, successful piece of work. In this case, that work was the Indian novel, Q&A. According to Wasko (2003), while roughly half of all Hollywood films are adaptations of preexisting works, “there are economic factors that contribute to this ongoing reliance on recycled ideas, already-proven stories and movie remakes and sequels” (p. 16). Q&A was recognized as “The Most Influential Book of the Year 2008” by Taiwan’s largest book chain, Kingstone Bookstore (Swarup, n.d.), and won the Drama Award in Gold for the U.K.’s Sony Radio Academy Awards. Prior to that, Q&A was launched as a BBC radio play and was translated in 42 different languages for worldwide distribution (Swarup, n.d.). Q&A also landed at number 55 among the “101 books to read before you die” (Swarup, 2010, para. 44). SDM likely benefitted from the novel’s prior success and aided in carrying the novel’s preconstituted audiences to theaters.

Further, while many films position themselves as independents, the reality is that many independent producers are contracted with major corporations, largely for financial benefit (Scott, 2002). Because of the concentrated media market and high barriers to entry, if an independent seeks to have a film distributed both domestically and globally, it often must go through the major production or distribution corporations (Wasko, 2003). Here, independents play an integral role in the majors’ power as they provide a source of low-risk, low(er) cost labor for the media giants (McChesney, 1999).

In this regard, SDM’s distributor, Fox Searchlight, is not an independent but an auxiliary of New Corp.’s 20th Century Fox (Scott, 2002). SDM, however, was seemingly marketed as an independent film directed by Danny Boyle, who also directed other critically acclaimed films such as Trainspotting. SDM was based on a screenplay written by Simon Beaufoy, who is best known for his screenplay, The Full Monty. Such ties played into SDM’s success, as it was perceived as an independent film with big-name talent, produced at the peripheries. In recent years, the artistic value, creativity, and hip perception of independent films have sparked an audience interest unlike years before (e.g., Levy, 2001). According to Mosco (2009), one difficulty in applying political economy is the assumption that the various actors in the film industry are easily recognizable. In reality, this is far from true. While major corporations are central to film success (Mosco, 2009), corporate actors are often reticent to make their formal ties known (e.g., Bettig & Hall, 2003). SDM was touted as “a film by Danny Boyle” (The Internet Movie Database, 2009), often with little reference to Warner Bros. or Fox Searchlight. In 2008, SDM was awarded Best British Independent Film (Brown, 2008) and has been featured on the cover of magazines such as Film Independent (Munoz, 2008), discursively suggesting that SDM was an independent film. When coupled with the cultural connotation and appeal of independent films, the tacit suggestion that SDM was also independent likely enhanced its performance at the box office.

In terms of the independents’ connection to conglomerates, this is where Danny Boyle enters the picture. British production companies Celador Films and Film4 asked Boyle in 2006 to direct an adaptation of Q&A, with the screenplay written by Beaufoy (Fox Searchlight, 2008; Roston, 2008). SDM was completed for roughly $15 million and grossed approximately $267 million worldwide (McClintock, 2009; Reuters, 2009), despite failing in India (Singh, 2009). By 2009—the year after SDM’s U.S. release—20th Century Fox grossed $1.4 billion in domestic sales (13.2% of the market) and $2.4 billion in foreign sales (23% of the market), ranking first among the six major Hollywood studios in foreign sales (Dietz, 2010). Additionally, SDM capitalized on the lower cost of Mumbai labor, including the now-famous child actors who were paid for 30 days of work, according to the U.K.’s Telegraph. And while some of Hollwood’s major actors and actresses can earn upwards of $20 million for one film alone (Mandell, 2012), “a child booking a handful of movie roles and TV spots every year, along with a voice-over spot every month, might make $50,000–$60,000 a year” (Longwell, 2010, para. 12). In SDM, young Latika was rumored to earn around $1,000 total, while Jamal earned $2,400 (Horn, 2009c). Both reportedly receive around $120 a month in stipends and received college trust funds—although the payouts are contingent upon their attending school regularly (Kinetz, 2009). SDM thus defined a low-risk, profit-making product, especially considering that the average cost of a Hollywood film in 2007 was roughly $106 million, a number that has likely increased but is no longer disclosed by the Motion Picture Association of America (Verrier, 2009).

SDM was also introduced at a time when economic uncertainty clouded U.S. and global economies. In the context with which SDM emerged, the U.S. film industry was surrounded by economic recession, a collapsed housing market, bank bailouts, and rising unemployment; global economies experienced decelerating stock prices, rising oil prices, and bankruptcy. Amidst economic insecurity, SDM appeared relatively secure.

Ultimately, the possible gains from SDM far outweighed the risks, particularly since those risks were shared with coproducers and codistributers. Because marketing and distribution require millions of dollars (Scott, 2002), few films see such success without the majors’ financial backing. Independent distributors have a box-office average of $2.3 million, while films distributed by the majors average $46.1 million (Scott, 2002). By investing in SDM, the majors likely recognized a unique cultural and economic opportunity to insert themselves into global productions centered around Bollywood. It was this financial backing by Pathé, Fox, and Warner Bros. that made SDM a global success.

Conclusions and Implications

This analysis of SDM illustrates that the low-risk and high-profit corporate logic in film production, distribution, and exhibition continue to influence the majors’ business practices on a global scale. Such prevailing business logic seemingly led News Corp. and Time Warner to participate in a mimetic production of Bollywood film.

The Hollywood majors’ influence over global media products presents three possible implications for the film industry. First, Hollywood’s involvement in Bollywood presents an opportunity for the majors to expand their global reach and dominance. While Hollywood’s involvement in Indian cinema is nothing new, the majors’ participation in Bollywood may mean that the films exported worldwide will be increasingly produced, distributed, and exhibited by even fewer players in an already-concentrated industry. While each country presents different barriers to entry (e.g., Curtin, 2009), SDM illustrates that the Hollywood majors have tapped into yet another market for capital accumulation. The majors’ appeal to preconstituted Bollywood fans and new audiences abroad only further expand their piece of the proverbial profit pie.

This lack of players in the global film industry presents a second possible implication: Through production, distribution, and exhibition of seemingly-Bollywood films, Hollywood ventures to co-opt an industry that threatens its global dominance and reach. Hollywood is attempting to reappropriate the counterflow of cultural products coming from the Indian film industry. In this way, SDM illustrates the growth and appeal of Bollywood and Bollywood-esque films worldwide. For example, in China, where it is “hard for many Hollywood movies to break into the Chinese market,” SDM was one of 20 foreign movies permitted in Chinese theaters (CBC News, 2009, para. 6). SDM presented new markets in which the Hollywood majors could participate and profit.

Possibly most important, however, is that while scholars have noted the growing trend of Bollywood mimicking Hollywood (e.g., Karim, 2003; Rampal, 2007; Rao, 2007), SDM illustrates the opposite, as Hollywood majors mimic Bollywood. The globalization of the film industry, profit-maximizing logic, and an increasing appreciation for the profitability and reach of Bollywood cinema could create a trend in the other direction: with Hollywood taking its cues from Bollywood in an attempt to make inroads in a country that, historically, has not been receptive to Hollywood (Corliss et al., 2009). While SDM was not well liked in India (Magnier, 2009), the number of global Bollywood fans and the popularity of Indian cinema are too large for Hollywood to ignore. It is possible that such productions could be indicative of future Hollywood films attempting to capitalize on the popularity of Bollywood.