“Cinema has always been at its most powerful when it asks questions rather than provides convenient answers.
As a producer, I have often been asked what draws me to a particular story. Is it the scale? The commercial potential? The stars attached to it? While all of those factors play a role in the practical realities of filmmaking, the truth is that I have always been drawn to stories that leave me unsettled, curious, and compelled to engage with them long after I have finished reading them. That was my experience when I first encountered Bandar.
From the outset, I was aware that this was not a conventional film. It dealt with a subject that many would consider uncomfortable. It explored questions that do not lend themselves to easy answers. More importantly, it refused to divide the world neatly into heroes and villains. In an age where public discourse often demands certainty and instant judgement, the film chose nuance. That, ironically, is what made it both risky and necessary.
We are living in a time when conversations are increasingly polarised. Complex issues are often reduced to competing slogans. The space for uncertainty, debate, and reflection appears to be shrinking. Yet it is precisely within that space that meaningful storytelling can thrive.
When I decided to back Bandar, it was not because I believed everyone would agree with its perspective. Nor was it because I expected the film to avoid criticism. In fact, I anticipated strong reactions. Any story that engages with difficult social realities is bound to invite differing opinions. But disagreement is not something art should fear.
Some of the most important films ever made were initially met with resistance, skepticism, or discomfort. Their value lay not in providing solutions but in encouraging audiences to think, question, and discuss. For me, the role of a producer extends beyond financing a project. It is about creating space for stories that deserve to exist. Not every film needs to be comfortable. Not every film needs to follow established formulas. If cinema is to remain relevant, it must continue to engage with the complexities of the world around us.
The easier path is often to choose familiarity. Sequels, franchises, and proven formulas exist for a reason. They provide a degree of certainty in an increasingly unpredictable business. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But if every decision is driven solely by safety, we risk losing the very thing that makes cinema exciting: the possibility of discovering something new. Original stories carry risk. They always have. Yet they are also responsible for moving the medium forward.
Whether audiences ultimately agree or disagree with Bandar is entirely their prerogative. What matters to me is that the film encourages conversation. That it invites people to engage with ideas rather than look away from them. That it treats viewers as thinking individuals capable of arriving at their own conclusions.
As filmmakers, we cannot control how a story will be received. We can only control whether we approach it with honesty and conviction. That is what attracted me to Bandar. Not certainty, but courage. The courage to engage with a difficult subject. The courage to embrace nuance. And the courage to trust audiences with complexity.
In the end, I believe cinema should do more than entertain. It should challenge us, provoke us, and occasionally make us uncomfortable. Because sometimes the stories that generate the most debate are also the ones that stay with us the longest.
In the end I will sign off with two thoughts : “Art must comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.””
Also Read: Disha Patani photographed in Juhu at Nikhil Dwivedi’s office
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: filmfare.com
