Latest news with #LeoTolstoy
New Indian Express
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- New Indian Express
How much money does a superstar need?
Remember Leo Tolstoy's famous short story where a greedy peasant could claim all the land he could walk in a day? Spoiler alert: his ambition wrote checks his body couldn't cash, and he collapsed at sunset—leaving him with just enough earth for his grave. If Tolstoy were alive today and writing about Indian cinema, his fable might ask: how much money does a superstar need? And it might go something like this: Once upon a time in Bollywood, a talented, struggling actor finally hits the jackpot. After years of eating instant noodles and taking the bus to auditions, he becomes box office gold. Suddenly, producers are throwing money at him, and as if to make up for all the struggles, he starts demanding more and more, sometimes accounting for even 80% of the film budget. "But I'm worth it!" he insists. "People come to see ME!" The desperate producer, seeing visions of houseful boards across theatres in the country, reluctantly agrees. What choice does he have, he thinks: in a star-obsessed industry, you need them to guarantee screen numbers and opening weekend earnings. But what happens next would make even Tolstoy rub his pearly white beard in thought. When Stars Eat The Sky: The remaining 20% of the budget now has to become elastic and stretch to cover everything else: the supporting cast (told to think of the "exposure"), the crew (promised future projects), action sequences (downgraded now), and visual effects meant to transport audiences to another world now looking worse than an audition reel. And I almost forgot: this 20% also has to budget for a star's vanity… I mean, vanity van, or vans, and the entourage that comes with the man, which can be a dozen or more people. The film releases. The audience, who apparently didn't get the WhatsApp forward that they should be amazed by star power alone regardless of film quality, collectively shrugs. "Meh," says social media. The producer loses his shirt, his pants, and possibly his beach house in Alibaug. Meanwhile, our star has already moved on to his next victim—I mean, project—leaving behind a path of cinematic destruction Godzilla could take notes from. The Steering Wheel Syndrome: Let's get real for a minute. A star claiming sole credit for a film's success is like a steering wheel, thinking it's the entire car. "Look at me, turning left and right! I am THE vehicle!" Sorry, dude, but without the engine, tyres, chassis, and thousands of nuts and bolts holding everything together, you're just a circular ornament. For proof, conduct this thought experiment: imagine your favourite megastar, leave them alone in a room with an iPhone and let them act their heart out for two hours. Release this 'masterpiece' in theatres nationwide. Would you pay 300 rupees to watch that? Would anyone? If your answer is "no," then perhaps we need to reconsider the notion that stars single-handedly "carry" films, that often by their stubborn insistence on more everything, they bury the films prospect. So what does a fair system of compensation look like? Hollywood's Money Math: Hollywood has figured out a more equitable formula. A-list Hollywood actors typically receive a base salary of 10-20% of a film's budget. For a $100 million blockbuster, that comes to $10-20 million—enough to buy a few islands, yet have change enough for a Ferrari ki sawari. But here's where Hollywood scores an ace: they've created a concept called "gross points," which is the percentage of a film's total revenue paid to participants, such as a star, director, or producer, from the very first dollar earned. In contrast, there is the concept of 'net points,' which is prevalent in Bollywood, where one waits for the film to reach profitability before doling out cash. Stars typically negotiate between 5-15% of the gross points on top of their fee, which can be substantial earnings if the film performs well. This creates what business types call "alignment of interests", which mere mortals like us call win-win. When a film succeeds, the producers pop champagne, the studio executives buy another flat, and the star buys another farmhouse in Beverly Hills. The Bigger Pie Philosophy: Think about it this way: should a star rather have 80% of a small, sad, underfunded pie or 20% of a spectacular, crowd-pleasing, critics-adoring, award-winning pie that keeps growing bigger with every box office record it smashes? Some stars have done the math and, guess what, have chosen Door Number Two. Take Aamir Khan, for instance—Bollywood's very own Professor of Economics. He says he doesn't charge upfront fees for his films. Instead, he takes a percentage of the gross revenue. When "Dangal" conquered China faster than the Brits could, Khan's bank account experienced escape velocity. He made significantly more than any fixed fee he'd have taken–by some estimates close to ₹300 crores–while ensuring the production itself had enough resources to tell its story properly. Marvel initially doubted casting Robert Downey Jr. Naturally, they were unwilling to pay him a substantial upfront fee. Instead, they spent time creating quality films in which stories became the main draw. Yet, by the time "Avengers: Endgame" finally rolled around, Downey Jr.–who dies in the film–reportedly made up to $600 million for his roles in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) movies. His 'gross points' compensation didn't prevent the movie from having spectacular effects, an ensemble cast, and enough marketing to make sure even a Rohtak grandmother knew who Thanos was. Beyond Megastars–The Forgotten Film Family: There's a cinematic family tree that gets overshadowed when just one branch takes all the sunlight. There's the screenwriter fighting monsters in her head to craft the story that'll become the blockbuster; a salt and pepper, bearded director who keeps the vision together; a sunburnt director of photography turning ordinary locations into visual poetry; a costume designer with the magic to turn dull cloth into fairy tales; music composers blessed by the muse to create tunes that'll stay stuck in peoples whistles for decades; the stuntmen and stuntwomen who literally break their back so the stars don't have to; and let's not forget the humble spot boys running around in the scorching heat to make sure everyone stays hydrated. These aren't just "film crew"—they're artists, craftspeople, who've spent years and decades honing their craft and how to keep the beating heart of cinema alive. When a star's paycheck devours a film's budget, these essential contributors get the financial equivalent of table scraps. Over my 15 years of active work in the industry, I've seen many talented professionals leave the industry altogether, frustrated, because, you know, they have this weird desire to pay rent and feed their families. The irony in all this? When stars insist on astronomical fees that handicap the production quality of their own films, they're ultimately shooting themselves right in their foot under the expensive sneaker. A string of mediocre films damages their brand. Audiences naturally wise up, eventually, and the very stardom they're cashing in on begins to fade. Finding the Sweet Spot: No one's suggesting stars should work for peanuts, even if their acting chops remind us of monkeys. If you can command audiences, create cultural moments, and make people forget their troubles even for a few hours in a dark theatre, you deserve substantial rewards. But perhaps there's a sweeter spot: a system where the star shines brightly without eclipsing everyone else. Where the grip, the gaffer, the costume designer, and the composer can all earn dignified livings. Where there is enough budget to actually realise the filmmaker's vision. In Tolstoy's tale, the greedy peasant ends up with just six feet of earth—exactly what we all ultimately need, regardless of our Instagram follower count or how many times our face has appeared on a movie poster. However, the question of "How much money does a superstar need?" is one each performer must answer personally. But perhaps the wisest stars understand that their legacy will be measured by the quality of stories they help tell, not by what they leave behind for their children. And if they want to leave something for their children, they must remember that every paisa wrongfully earned will be squandered by their children or grandchildren. There is no other way. It is the Circe of life. Yes, Circe, not circle, the sorceress from Greek mythology who turns men into swine. Six feet; that's how much land a man needs. How much money does a superstar need? Perhaps this nursery rhyme can answer. Twinkle Twinkle Greedy Star, Bleeding budgets near and far, Up above Tinsel Town, so bright, Dimming others' creative light.
Hans India
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
The cost of modern warfare goes beyond bullets
War seems to have been an inevitable companion throughout the journey of the human race since evolution. War is normally viewed as a conflict between political groups or countries and is treated as an institution recognised as a law-unto-itself. War has been an important topic for analysts across centuries. Over a period of time it has evolved in many forms – from arrows and spears to bullets, to missiles, to chemical, biological, technological and economic. Whatever is the form, it directly or indirectly results in loss of lives, physical destruction, fall in economic activity and long-term social and economic ramifications. Multiple perspectives on war: Theories of war indicate varying focuses of interests like philosophical, political, economic, sociological and psychological. However, war is an extremely complex phenomenon that can be triggered from any sort of emotional outburst or such factors and not necessarily from any single approach. In the middle of the 17th century, wars were fought to spread religious interests across sovereigns. The French Revolution brought about fundamental changes by broadening the objectives that saw an increase in sizes from small forces to large armed armies. It is apt to recall Leo Tolstoy's 1859 magnum opus 'War and Peace'. It depicts a broad panoramic view of the Russian society during the Napoleonic wars. He is said to have meticulously researched these wars by visiting the battlefields to portray a lucid depiction of human experience and suffering by the society and the people irrespective of their wealth, rank and profile. He is quite articulate while describing the military strategies and the impact of warfare on soldiers, peasants, and the common people as also the elite class. World War I resulted in a massive devastation of people and economies that lasted pretty long to eventually pave the way for a school of thought that equated war as a horrific social disaster that adversely impacted humanity as a whole. By World War II (1939-45) and the subsequent evolution of mass destructive weapons, war became a social phenomenon where the protagonists and all those involved in the conflict had to come clear on what led to the conflict, which were in varying types. There are many schools of thought that tried to analyze the causes for going to war and zeroed in on two broad drivers- innate aggressive behaviour that is caused due to rivalry or intrusion or frustration caused by an activity, and psychological, which makes it difficult to explain the actual cause as people behave differently vis-à-vis social contexts. Price of war: The Kiel Institute for the world Economy- a research institute in Germany for globalization issues investigated the cost of more than 150 wars since 1870. They used historical data to calculate the expected economic damage caused by the Ukraine war, which is estimated to touch a cumulative GDP loss of around $120 billion by 2026. The capital stock of Ukraine would fall by more than $950 billion. For countries that are not directly involved in the war the costs are $250 billion of which $20 billion are attributable to Germany alone and $70 billion to the European Union. Weaponisation in modern era: As Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said this is not the era of war. Modern day wars are fought not just with weapons but with the wallets of economies. For instance, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has created a significant energy crisis, disrupted supply chains leading to inflation and exacerbated economic slowdown. It also increased uncertainty in the global trade and financial markets leading to financial instability. As for Gaza, according to a World Bank report, 35 per cent decline in the real GDP was reported in the first quarter of 2024 for Palestinian territories marking the largest economic contraction and its gap was projected to reach $1.86 billion in 2024 posing risks of systemic failure. The US is waging trade wars with tariff strikes across countries. Although no one has a clue as to what President Donald Trump has gained by striking the tariffs first and pausing them, almost all countries are enormously relieved by this rethink. A good aspect about these trade wars is that not a single life was lost and there were no destructions, whatsoever. It gave a chance to correct the mistakes by reversing decisions. Prices were brought back to stability as both the US and China mellowed from their earlier postures. However, this reversal provides only a temporary relief to markets and consumers. It is not tariffs per se, the actual problem is uncertainty. Businesses need a stable environment to be assured of a steady inflow of investments. However, they caused huge turmoil in the international world economies with supersonic speed. With surging oil prices and soaring food costs, many countries are struggling to contain inflation and protect their broken supply chains. The fact is that these have far-reaching consequences compared to fiercest of wars. Modern warfare is predominantly using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to detect the target and destroy. It looks like we are in the saga of unending conflicts where, 'War is a place where young people who don't know each other and don't hate each other but kill each other, based on decision made by people who know each other and hate each other but don't kill each other' – Paul Valery In these wars nobody actually wins, the losers are the common people and soldiers on both sides. The AI-driven wars and conflicts benefit none other than the defence industry at the cost of finances and loss of human lives. According to sources, the costs in the India-Pakistan conflict translated approximately to Rs. 15, 000 crore for India, while it cost Pakistan around $249.6 million. The modern times have witnessed a shift from conventional physical combat in the battlefield to airspace, cyberspace, financial markets and psychological operations. Today's battlefield is more complex and invisible and can target enemy bases with a surgical precision by the click of a mouse. Nevertheless, it leaves deep scars and cause ecological damage while generations to come will carry psychological trauma of violence, loss and financial instability. Today, the challenge is not just about deliberating how to end wars but understanding their new faces and anticipating its deep destructive effects. Policymakers must not only redefine what victory means in this interconnected world and also remain vigilant and strategically invested in peace. (The writer is Associate Professor in Finance at Christ University)
USA Today
24-05-2025
- General
- USA Today
The truth about people who grew up in families who never apologized
Leo Tolstoy said it best with the opening of "Anna Karenina." "Each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." But what about families who never apologize? A therapist's recent TikTok, with 1.3 million views, asserted "people who grew up in families where no one apologized after disagreements and would just let time pass instead of resolving things, often become anxious adults who over-explain, over-communicate and feel uneasy until things are settled." This theory may not be true for everyone, mental health professionals say, but it's a potential consequence worth unpacking. "When families don't apologize, it often means that there's an environment of emotional invalidation, and ingrained beliefs about perfection," says Regine Galanti, a clinical psychologist. "Apologies are viewed as a negative thing because they admit that you might have made a mistake, which is uncomfortable for most people. When you take apologies off the table, though, you teach family members that it's not OK to acknowledge mistakes, which often makes people think that it's not OK to make mistakes." 'Relationships go through a cycle of rupture and repair' Maybe your parents argued over someone forgetting an anniversary. Or your siblings squabbled about whose turn it was to empty the dishwasher. Whatever the case, arguments silly and serious affect families of all kinds. But "growing up in a home where no one ever apologizes may take an emotional toll," says Amy Morin, psychotherapist, author of " 13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do" and the host of a podcast. This will look different for different families. But "when people minimize, dismiss or deny someone's experience, they inevitably create feelings of hurt, anger and a sense of invisibility in others," says Cecille Ahrens, a licensed clinical social worker. "People will then cope with these emotions in all sorts of ways, depending on how conflict was modeled to them, their personal histories, their temperament to name a few factors. These experiences often create insecure and anxious attachment styles which then impact all of their future relationships until they get the support they deserve." So, if your home included atypical communication patterns, expect it to potentially affect how you apologize (or don't) as an adult. "Often, relationships go through a cycle of rupture and repair," Morin says. "That means, speaking up for yourself or creating a boundary to rupture the status quo that isn't working. Then, as part of the repair, apologies are often necessary." No apology, little opportunity for repair. Never apologizing may even lead to mental health issues. "If you've internalized the belief that your emotions aren't important, or that mistakes are signs of weakness or that conflict is to be avoided at all cost, those are unhealthy thinking patterns that can keep you trapped in anxiety or depression," Galanti says. 'Heal from the trauma of being ignored' You should look inward and consider whether you grew up in a family who never apologized, and how that affects your life today. Seek support from people you trust, Ahrens says. Therapy, in turn, can help you untangle the past to better connect to your present and future and prioritize healthy communication. And you should consider avoiding triggers as you can, including spending time with certain family members that hurt you. Or at least have a self-care plan in place, like taking deep breaths or stepping away from a conversation if it spirals into a hurricane-level storm. Overall, focus on your own feelings and seek support as you need, especially if feelings grow untenable and, as Ahrens says, "are having a significant impact on your functioning and quality of life."
USA Today
24-05-2025
- General
- USA Today
The truth about people who grew up in families who never apologized
The truth about people who grew up in families who never apologized Show Caption Hide Caption Dating expert reveals signs a relationship is toxic Dr. Ramani explains how certain behaviors and conversations can indicate that your relationship is becoming toxic. Leo Tolstoy said it best with the opening of "Anna Karenina." "Each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." But what about families who never apologize? A therapist's recent TikTok, with 1.3 million views, asserted "people who grew up in families where no one apologized after disagreements and would just let time pass instead of resolving things, often become anxious adults who over-explain, over-communicate and feel uneasy until things are settled." This theory may not be true for everyone, mental health professionals say, but it's a potential consequence worth unpacking. "When families don't apologize, it often means that there's an environment of emotional invalidation, and ingrained beliefs about perfection," says Regine Galanti, a clinical psychologist. "Apologies are viewed as a negative thing because they admit that you might have made a mistake, which is uncomfortable for most people. When you take apologies off the table, though, you teach family members that it's not OK to acknowledge mistakes, which often makes people think that it's not OK to make mistakes." 'Relationships go through a cycle of rupture and repair' Maybe your parents argued over someone forgetting an anniversary. Or your siblings squabbled about whose turn it was to empty the dishwasher. Whatever the case, arguments silly and serious affect families of all kinds. But "growing up in a home where no one ever apologizes may take an emotional toll," says Amy Morin, psychotherapist, author of "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do" and the host of a podcast. This will look different for different families. But "when people minimize, dismiss or deny someone's experience, they inevitably create feelings of hurt, anger and a sense of invisibility in others," says Cecille Ahrens, a licensed clinical social worker. "People will then cope with these emotions in all sorts of ways, depending on how conflict was modeled to them, their personal histories, their temperament to name a few factors. These experiences often create insecure and anxious attachment styles which then impact all of their future relationships until they get the support they deserve." So, if your home included atypical communication patterns, expect it to potentially affect how you apologize (or don't) as an adult. "Often, relationships go through a cycle of rupture and repair," Morin says. "That means, speaking up for yourself or creating a boundary to rupture the status quo that isn't working. Then, as part of the repair, apologies are often necessary." No apology, little opportunity for repair. Never apologizing may even lead to mental health issues. "If you've internalized the belief that your emotions aren't important, or that mistakes are signs of weakness or that conflict is to be avoided at all cost, those are unhealthy thinking patterns that can keep you trapped in anxiety or depression," Galanti says. 'Heal from the trauma of being ignored' You should look inward and consider whether you grew up in a family who never apologized, and how that affects your life today. Seek support from people you trust, Ahrens says. Therapy, in turn, can help you untangle the past to better connect to your present and future and prioritize healthy communication. And you should consider avoiding triggers as you can, including spending time with certain family members that hurt you. Or at least have a self-care plan in place, like taking deep breaths or stepping away from a conversation if it spirals into a hurricane-level storm. Overall, focus on your own feelings and seek support as you need, especially if feelings grow untenable and, as Ahrens says, "are having a significant impact on your functioning and quality of life."
Indian Express
22-05-2025
- General
- Indian Express
World is moving on from the semicolon. That may be a good thing
By Bishan Samaddar The semicolon, once the mark of poised prose, appears to be headed for the grammatical graveyard. Last week, The Guardian reported that a study commissioned by the language-learning software Babbel found that over the past two decades, English books have seen a precipitous decline in the use of the semicolon. It teeters on the verge of becoming the next Javan rhinoceros or Hawksbill sea turtle. The semicolon, though, has had its moment in the sun. Many great writers of the 20th century embraced it and used it to craft perfect sentences. One may only look at the opening line of Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina (in Constance Garnett's English translation) — 'Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.' Or the one from V S Naipaul's A Bend in the River — 'The world is what it is; men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it.' There are many ways of stating profound truths, but the semicolon reveals their logic with elegance — a little flourish that coalesces the pleasure of refined thought. Neither the full stop nor a dash can replicate this nuance. The intellectual joy derived from a judiciously placed semicolon is irreplaceable. But you and I are not great writers; nor are we in the 20th century. The correct use of the semicolon demands a grasp of grammar that fewer and fewer of us can boast of. Language is not adequately taught in our schools — punctuation least of all. Even those who study literature in colleges and universities dive deep into complex theories. The art of writing a clear, concise, comprehensible — and properly punctuated — sentence is not a priority. So only natural-born language geeks like me end up teaching ourselves the finer points of punctuation marks like semicolons and em dashes. When I discuss English grammar at the Seagull School of Publishing, I notice a clear gap among students: Some have barely an idea of how to handle the semicolon; others, especially those already working as editors, have learned its usage on their own. In India, even established authors struggle with the use of something as basic as a comma. But since a comma is small and familiar, the everyday reader can overlook its wrong use. The semicolon, on the other hand, is a heavy-looking punctuation mark; it has a weightier presence. It jars if you use it incorrectly. I advise my students to avoid using the semicolon. Contemporary thought processes — expressed in WhatsApp messages, social media, and casual emails — probably do not need much poise. Dashes, ellipses or simple full stops can help arrange thoughts into lucid, powerful sentences. Such sentences may even appear less affected. While writers like Herman Melville and Virginia Woolf took the semicolon to great heights of sophistication, others like P G Wodehouse, Ernest Hemingway and Raymond Chandler barely used it. They still got their job done — and marvellously so. Language, like everything around us, evolves continuously. Last year, as I began teaching the distinction between 'who' and 'whom' in one of my classes, a student asked, 'But isn't the word whom sort of extinct?' I was taken aback. In my protected editorial world, fortified by the armour of grammar, I'd never bothered to keep track of such a shift. For weeks afterwards, I keenly surveyed the columns of The New York Times, whose commitment to style and grammar I admire, and I was startled to find how many times the grammatical 'whom' had quietly given way to the colloquial 'who'. Words and punctuation marks outlive their utility just like we do in the world; their fond memory lingers among those who once cared for them. Given the demands it makes on our already frazzled minds, it'll come as no surprise if the once-hallowed semicolon soon fades into redundancy. If we lose nuance and poise, perhaps we gain simplicity and clarity. Nuance may reward sensibility, but clarity builds sense. And these days, we all know we could use a bit more of the latter. I confess I'll wistfully mourn the semicolon if it were to become extinct. But there are more pressing extinctions on this earth to worry about. Samaddar is an editor at Seagull Books, Kolkata
