PVR Inox's case against Bhool Chuk Maaf by Maddock Films is not aggressive but rather regressive

PVR Inox's firm action against a studio known to have always stood for the big screen could very well alienate the very people it is supposed to guard. Bhool Chuk Maaf is now to hit the theaters on May 23.

Theatrical releases are becoming more and more rare. Maddock Films has perhaps been one of those rare few still championing the big screen. So, with PVR Inox going after this production house legally concerning the release of Bhool Chuk Maaf, it felt less like a stand for exhibitors rights and more like a regressive move that could hurt that very ecosystem it depends on. Instead of backing a studio that still brings films to theaters, this action threatens to alienate the audience.

Taking Maddock Films to court for their recent release *Bhool Chuk Maaf* was never an aggressive move, since studio has always stood for theatrical releases. In the last two years, Maddock Films has generated revenue of over ₹2,500 crore with productions like Stree 2, Chhaava, Teri Baaton Mein Aisa Uljha Jiya, and Munjya. Even after the pandemic, the studio stood behind theatres with the release of Zara Hatke Zara Bachke, a small-town film that surprised everyone with great box office success. Maddock Films has been among the few production houses that really champion theatrical cinema and thus deserved partnership, not confrontation and blame.

Delaying the release of a film will have the narrative that Maddock Films is willing to make compromises on commercial viability for the present circumstance. A mature and responsible decision at a time when the nation has graver issues to concern itself with.

The primary concern for PVR Inox was that Maddock Films breached the conventional *8-week window rule*, which requires a film to run exclusively in theatres for a minimum period of eight weeks before it can be released on OTT. Such regulations, in former times, may have been justified when digital and other such forms of access were limited, and theatrical viewing was considered standard. Today, much of the audience behavior has changed. During such times of uncertainty between India and Pakistan, preferred audiences primarily go for watching movies from the comfort of their homes.

The move thus does not look at all like moving with the times but rather appears like trying to protect one's own business interests over those of the production houses, who are trying to choose more agile and audience-oriented decisions.

In this regard, the stand taken by PVR Inox concerning the outdated windowing model does seem to be more of a contradiction in terms than a matter of business. After all, windowing timelines have been flexibly adjusted in the past by the theater chains themselves every now and then when it washed for him. Holding on to these rigid codes in this juncture, especially with a studio that has been a steady box-office contributor, simply doesn't look like a fight for industry standards but rather a battle of pride.

The actions of PVR Inox suggest a stubborn defence of old ways that could well stymie the progress of the whole industry instead of bringing everyone together for a collaborative and forward-looking solving.