Veteran actor and filmmaker Anant Mahadevan recently opened up about the evolving landscape of Indian cinema in an insightful interview, offering a nostalgic and critical take on how both technology and audience sensibilities have shifted over the decades. With a career spanning several generations of filmmaking, Mahadevan’s words serve as a bridge between the golden age of Hindi cinema and the multiplex-driven era of today.
“Technology has changed,” Mahadevan began, taking a walk down memory lane. “That was the time when we were kids, and we used to watch Manmohan Desai's films, Prakash Mehra’s, Bappi Soni’s, Brahmachari, Dev Anand, Raj Kapoor, Guru Dutt — all these are Indian films.” For Mahadevan, the beauty of that era was the diversity of cinema and the audience’s readiness to embrace it all. “Whether it was a Prakash Mehra film, a Manmohan Desai film, Rishikesh Mukherjee, Gulzar sahab, or Basu Chatterjee — the audience was there for every kind of cinema. If they went and watched Guddi, they would also enjoy Amar Akbar Anthony. And they knew the difference.”
He stressed that back then, the audience had a respect for different kinds of cinema — a respect that meant thinking, understanding, and appreciating a film on its own terms. “The respect that one had to give to films like Guddi, Anand, Bawarchi — the respect that one had to watch with thought, with understanding — the audience did that. And at the same time, they went to Manmohan Desai’s films and had a lot of fun. They were aware of the difference.”
Comparing it to the current scenario, Mahadevan observed a significant change. “Today, the audience doesn’t have that much. No, they don’t have that patience. At that time, there weren’t that many mediums. Now people have a choice. The tolerance level has gone down.” With content being consumed at breakneck speed across platforms, the attention span and willingness to engage deeply with a film, he believes, have diminished.
Reflecting on the craft, he pointed out that earlier films like Deewaar and Trishul might not have been technically sophisticated, but audiences never judged them on that basis. “They were simple filmmaking. But people didn’t watch the filmmaking — they watched what the substance was. I tell you, they used to look at the motive of the character.” He lamented the decline in “taste, cerebral intellect, film education, or literacy,” which he says has “reduced a lot.”
Mahadevan also noted how the arrival of multiplexes brought about a shift in viewing dynamics. “Now multiplex has come, we were expecting six-six screens. There is an audience for a small auditorium where the ticket price is low.” But even with more screens and more content, the hunger for truly meaningful cinema remains confined to rare spaces. “Why don’t you get a seat in film festivals? Because they are hungry for good cinema. And they have only one chance to enter the film festival and watch this film, because this film is not going to release later.”
In an era defined by choice and speed, Mahadevan’s reflections serve as a timely reminder: cinema is not just content — it’s an experience, a language, and a form of expression that deserves time, attention, and respect.