A Quote by Kunal Khemu

Success of a film is not only based on the film being good or bad. A lot of other factors are involved as well. — © Kunal Khemu
Success of a film is not only based on the film being good or bad. A lot of other factors are involved as well.
I'd never read 'Prince Caspian'. I watched it and loved that film. Everybody was talking about its lack of success; its relative success in comparison to the other film. It's a great film. It deserved to do a lot better than it did. It's very difficult to make a film that will match up to the first.
There was no studio involved when we made 'Stargate.' It was financed through Le Studio Canal+ in France and, after the film was finished, it was sold to MGM. When the film was a success, MGM decided to do a television series based on the movie.
I was really involved with other people's opinions of me, and it got heightened during my film career. I don't have any opinion, good or bad about it, it just was. It's not the way I feel now, and I think yoga has a lot to do with that.
I want to be involved in things I can be really proud of. There's a lot of bad films being made and I don't understand how they got the money for it. That said, there's a lot of bad telly, but there's also a lot of very high quality that is something I'd be much more proud of than a mediocre film.
Eventually, the most important thing is success. I want to achieve a lot of success. It doesn't feel good when your film doesn't do well, and yet you are appreciated... everybody should succeed.
For me, when I choose a script, I put my heart and soul into it, and that is exactly what I look for in a film. A good film is a good film. And if it's a bad film, irrespective of whether it's made 300 crores or 200 crores or any amount of money, it doesn't matter to me.
My last experience of film-making was Tickets, a three-episode film in Italy, the third of which is directed by myself. It's not for me to judge whether it's a good film or a bad film, but what I could say is that nobody had a cultural or linguistic issue with what was produced.
I think 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' is a good example of a film where you have to juggle a whole lot of information to follow that story, and even if you haven't read the book, it seems to go pretty well. And that is a film where the characters didn't meet until 74 minutes into the film, not on page 17.
I have no issues if audiences don't like a film or a performance, and the film doesn't do well. My problem is when they say that the film was good and performances were excellent, but the film didn't run. I have a problem when that happens.
I think a director is hugely responsible for the fate of a film, so if it does well, he should be appreciated. As an actor, I can only perform well or choose to work with a good director in a good film.
I've made the film 'The Good, the Bad, the Weird,' which was an Eastern Western film. Obviously, the Western film is American and American only; there's really no Western genre over in Asia.
Stars have no say in the release of a film. There are too many factors involved.
When you start out as an actor, you read a script thinking of it at its best. But that's not usually the case in general, and usually what you have to do is you have to read a script and think of it at its worst. You read it going, "OK, how bad could this be?" first and foremost. You cannot make a good film out of a bad script. You can make a bad film out of a good script, but you can't make a good film out of a bad script.
There is something that might be called cinematic beauty. It can only be expressed in a film, and it must be present for that film to be a moving work. When it is very well expressed, one experiences a particularly deep emotion while watching that film. I believe that it is this quality that draws people to come and see a film, and that it is the hope of attaining this quality that inspires the filmmaker to make his film in the first place.
I'd say the film to avoid is a director's second film, particularly if his first film was a big success. The second film is where you've really needed to have learned something.
With a live performance, you feel nervous because there's a sense it could do well or badly based on how well you are performing, whereas the only variable with a film premiere is technical, which invariably you have very little control over, whether the sound is good, whether the acoustics of the room are good.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!