What’s in a title?
I have always been fascinated with movie titles. The first one I remember consciously is that of a western called Bad Day at Black Rock. It promises a highly emotional action flick shot at an exotic location. I say ‘emotional’ because we associated ‘bad day’ with what happens to a good guy whom we empathise with immediately. As for ‘Black Rock’, the location sounds dark and forbidding.
Then take Steven Spielberg’s Raiders of the Lost Ark. The title transports the viewer to a bygone era when attempts were on to steal the Ark. Also a title can play up a certain element or a person’s character in a film. So when I titled my horror film as Bhoot, I was told that it sounded funny. But I was convinced that along with the visuals and the font designs on its poster, it would look far from funny. Similarly, a powerful title like Sarkar psyched the audience into feeling the power of Amitabh Bachchan’s character months before the film was released.
I just couldn’t think of a striking title for Rangeela. Then one day, Aamir Khan and I were walking in the lobby of Hyderabad’s Holiday Inn. I mentioned the word Rangeela and Aamir reacted, “That’s it. No more thinking.” Incidentally, of all the films in the world, Rangeela was registered for a Mithun Chakraborty action flick. I had to use some influence to get it.
What exactly triggers a title? Frequently, I just like its sound. I was on the treadmill, chatting with my writer about black magic rituals when he mentioned the word Phoonk. I didn’t know what it meant exactly but it sounded perfect. However a bizarre a title, it is hammered through creative designs. People get hooked on to it.
Most of my titles evoked a negative response initially but went on to be quoted as catchy. Some of my favourites from my own films are: Rangeela, Bhoot, Company, Jungle, Sarkar, Phoonk, Nishabd and Rann. Shiva and Satya became likeable by association with the film rather than any inherent creativity in them. Also a title can be a turn-off. Example: my masterpiece RGV Ki Aag. It’s another story that the title had to be used because of legal reasons. I have no qualms in admitting that the title is tacky, cheesy and arrogant.
Clearly, a title can enhance or reduce a film’s prospects. I had intended to make a film on the police world again and had called it Company 2. Then someone called Suman sent me a mail suggesting that I should title the film Department. I did a double take, it was brilliant, I thanked Suman immediately. If an underworld mafia is run by a don, I really believe that the police world’s don is its officers, the department itself.
The moment I talked to my investors, actors and technicians about the subject matter and why I was calling it Department, they were all raring to go. Moral of the story: Let’s never ask the question, “What’s in a title?” because everything is indeed in a title.
Post new comment