In one of the many memorable lines in Wall Street , stock market shark Gordon Gekko warns his protégé, Bud Fox: “If you're not inside, you're outside.”

That is a truism which applies to anything from snooty clubs to the underworld, from politics to cricket, but seems exceptionally apt for the Hindi film industry.

All industries have their insiders, but B-town (like politics) has two sets of them. One lot comprises all those who work in Bollywood, speak its patois and live by its rules. The other, more exclusive one consists of those who have inherited a place in the industry or were eased into it by relatives.

These are the much-envied, much-derided star kids. They come in all ages, from producer-director Yash Chopra to actor Rishi Kapoor to actor-producer-director Aamir Khan to one-film-old actress Sonakshi Sinha. The net result: insiders rule the industry at many levels.

The impact of the insider struck me yet again last week as I watched award ceremonies in which star kid after star kid trekked up onstage. There were Ranbir Kapoor, Shahid Kapoor, Ekta Kapoor, Farhan Akhtar, Zoya Akhtar… luckily there were Vidya Balan and Priyanka Chopra to offset them to some degree.

That was for last year's efforts. Forward to 2012 and the inside circle has got off to a good start, claiming the only two hits so far. First, Hrithik Roshan blitzed his way through the box office with Agneepath , carrying along with him co-stars Sanjay Dutt and Rishi Kapoor and producer Karan Johar.

Then, a fortnight ago, Kareena Kapoor and Imran Khan romped home in a movie that, in a pleasant surprise, the critics and the audience approved of, while producer Karan Johar took a second bow.

And a second thought struck me: it's been a long time now since we've heard some serious bashing of star children, how they have such an unfair advantage, how that all-important first chance is handed out lovingly for them while others have to crawl for it, how Bollywood's mom ‘n' pop store is stifling talent and so on.

All of this is as valid today as it was, say, two or five or ten years ago, when many aspirants made their resentment vocal. So I wondered: has the bitterness faded, has the bashing brigade become more circumspect or simply wearied of throwing pins at an elephant?

Perhaps some of the angst has faded with the success outsiders have wrested over the last few years, with a few new faces cropping up as actors, but many more as directors and technicians.

However, I noticed, a majority of those who went home with trophies at the award ceremonies were insiders. Aha, there you are, one more instance of film nepotism; even the awards go to the insiders, the cynical might snarl.

So, I thought, let me take a look at the track record of both sides over the 107 Hindi films released in 2011. (Many C-grade and soft-porn movies released too, but we can do without them in this particular exercise.) As I trawled through the stats, they turned out to be a revelation; the dice seemed loaded even more in favour of the insider than I had imagined. (Note: all statistics sourced from Wikipedia, many figures approximate, as this is Bollywood. I've omitted the details for lack of space, but am happy to share them with anyone who's interested.)

Here are some of my findings:

Of the 31 major or much-publicised films, just 13 had no insider in the hero's role (which pretty much sells a movie, except for the odd exception such as The Dirty Picture ). Some star kids featured as heroines or supporting roles in those 13 films, though.

Of these 31 films, 20 were hits or are considered to have at least recovered their money. Of these, fully 15 were ‘insider' hero films; just five were powered by outsiders. Of these five, two ( Ra.One and Don 2 ) belonged to Shah Rukh Khan, which makes it even worse for the rest.

However, it was outsider directors who scored far better than insider directors in those 31 films; they had 14 films out of those 20 hits.

When it came to the 12 flops, however, the tables were turned; here, eight films, or three-fourths of them, belonged to outsider heroes; just four to the insiders.

A different story altogether emerged when I counted the critical successes. Of the 15 or so films that were received reasonably well by the critics (an estimate even dangerous than that of commercial success!) outsider directors outnumbered the insiders 11 to 4, with small-budget, indie films like Shor In The City , Ragini MMS , Pyaar Ka Punchnama , Shaitan , and Stanley Ka Dabba making their presence felt.

In short, what these stats told me, broadly speaking, was that, last year, insider heroes delivered more hits than outsiders and star kids got more of the big-budget hero roles. Outsider directors, on the other hand, seemed to deliver more hits as well as films that critics liked.

Of course, these are quick simplifications. And they don't take into account the fact that heroines and directors have a healthier insider: outsider ratio than the heroes. But who can deny that these stats confirm one's worst suspicions or privileges, depending on your viewpoint?

The question is: Are these patterns reflective of the lack of big opportunities for outsiders, who fall back on making smaller, less commercially successful films? Or do star kids, who grow up learning about films and film craft, and are mentored by those who have obviously been successful in this sphere, simply have better film-savvy? Is the combination of genes-plus-environment unbeatable?

The standard argument about star kids is that their debuts might come easy, but little can help them after that if the audience doesn't like them. In that case, do these stats mean they have what it takes to stay in the battlefield? Or that, with doting fathers mounting mega-budget films for them, they simply have more resources at their disposal?

The very biggest of the heroes over the decades — Dilip Kumar, Rajesh Khanna, Amitabh Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan — have been outsiders.

However, can anyone argue that Ranbir Kapoor, Hrithik Roshan or Kareena Kapoor wouldn't have made it big if they weren't star kids? That they are not only incredibly good-looking but immensely talented as well? Is there anyone who will not agree that Aamir Khan has the best brain in the business? That as producer he has done more than anyone in recent times to redefine the boundaries of commercial cinema?

Every argument produces a counter-argument. There are no easy answers to this perennial question. But it would be interesting to see what results are thrown up by a similar but more detailed analysis of the last few decades. I'm working on it; you'll hear about it when I'm through. Who knows what surprises await us?

>shashibaliga@gmail.com

Related Topics