Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap’s film Bandar reportedly failed to make a strong box office impact after its release, in a situation where post-Covid film reception has become unpredictable with no clear formula for success. The discussion around its performance intensified when Kashyap attributed the film’s weak reach to fewer theatre screens, claiming that an American short film, Obsession, was allotted more shows. He argued that if domestic films are not given priority in screening, it becomes difficult for them to grow, which shifted the debate from commercial failure to a broader “local versus foreign cinema” framing.
The reaction, however, also revived scrutiny of Kashyap’s long-standing public stance toward the Hindi film industry, which he has often criticised in the past for being profit-driven and creatively stagnant, even stating at different times that he felt distanced from Mumbai’s film ecosystem. Critics of his statement pointed out what they saw as a contrast between those earlier criticisms and his present appeal for greater exhibition support for his own film, suggesting a shift in position when faced with a personal setback.
The broader argument being discussed in response is that audience choice ultimately drives theatrical distribution, where exhibitors allocate screens based on demand rather than origin of content. From this perspective, viewers are not obligated to choose a film based on where it is made, and commercial cinema operates on audience preference rather than cultural preference or protection. The situation is thus being framed as a case of market response, where one film drawing more viewers naturally receives more screens, while another receives less interest, leading to its reduced presence in theatres.
