Creativity has become creativity by committee and consensus.

It's not a fact that many ad folk are fully aware of, but filmmaker Shantanu Sheorey returned to ad filmmaking almost three years ago, and has since directed films for Coke, Samsung, Surf Excel and Toyota, among others. After a brief association with MAD Films, Sheorey has now joined forces with Far Productions, and is in the thick of things. He is also partnering Australia-based production house Renegade in setting up Renegade East. In the interview with N. Shatrujeet of agencyfaqs!, Sheorey talks about his return to ad filmmaking, his association with Far and about his plans for Renegade East...

Edited Excerpts

No, I am not out of ad filmmaking. Yes, there was a point when I had taken a break, because I had started experiencing a burnout. Things like what direction to take now and all that. So I thought let me sit down and take stock.

Around that time, a couple of feature films had come my way - one (Chachi 420) that unfortunately never happened because I didn't see eye-to-eye with Kamal (Hasan) on creative. But it gave me a lot of grounding. For my next film (Jadh), I had tried to fund myself, but that kind of stalled for some time - though now it is happening again. All this gave me a larger perspective of life.

I was out of advertising for four years, from '95 to '99 or so. I came back thinking I'd start again. However, at that point, what I realized is that I hated production work. I loved the creative side of the business - make no mistake about that. So I had to take a call on whether I wanted to own a production house, or become a freelance director.

That's when the offer from MAD Films came. Anita Anand (Mukul Anand's wife) is a good friend, so we kind of got chatting on this. She told me that Sunil (Manchanda) was a partner and was running the show, so they would like me to work with them. I told them that I would be talking to two or three production houses - Jeet (Surendranath) was one of them, and I was thinking of Mahesh's (Mathai) company too. MAD, however, insisted on exclusivity. They assured me that I could get as many jobs a month as I wanted.

We started out, and we started out well. But finally, I realized that MAD had turned into a bit of a factory. MAD works on a different scale and level. They work on minimal profits and no passion, whereas I wanted to work with a production house that was more passionate. I tried it for some time, but I figured this is not for me. So I broke away from MAD.

After MAD, I briefly ventured into production, and did one commercial for Coke with Aamir (Khan) and Aishwarya (Rai). But I quickly realized this really wasn't what I wanted to do. That's when I got into serious conversation with Jeet. And for the past year-and-a-half we have been together.

I wanted a production house that is passionate, and understands and is devoted to the process of filmmaking. A place that would take the burden of production off my back. I am a little hotheaded as a producer. If things don't go my way, I would get at somebody's throat, be it the agency or my own team. Through Far, I didn't have to be the front-end, and Jeet is a perfect foil. He is cool, calm and perfectly mature. While Rohini (Pinto) in finance is the backbone of the company, so I don't have to discuss money, which is wonderful for me. This became a good team. And now, all of a sudden, we are very much in demand. In the last 60 days, we've packed about 11 big commercials, which included big clients like Limca, Coke, Reliance and Samsung.

The synergies are in place, so I think this was a good marriage. And the best part is that Rohini and Jeet are not possessive - they have given me the freedom to work with any production house I choose, but I don't feel comfortable with too many. Except for one, which Nima Cherian, who once trained under me, is just setting up. The company is called Nimax. She is good at her work, and has vast experience in still productions, so when she said that she wanted to get in films, I told her she has my support. So I am not available to anyone apart from Far, and now, Nimax.

Not really. I think what had happened was that at that time, I felt I could not give anything more to ad films. I had to be honest to myself. I would have hated to be told that it was time I got out of the business because I was screwing things up. Yes, there was a time when everyone said, 'This guy has brought ad films up to a level in terms of quality.' I brought in a look, a style, all of which was good. What beyond? And I didn't have an answer then. I realized that I had exploring to do.

To begin with, I believe that the quality of scripts have changed - for the better. We have ideas that are coming out of advertising that were not purely execution based. Ad filmmaking is going through an interesting era. Also, a lot of creative directors whom one had worked with had become filmmakers, and I said, 'Wow, they're doing some good work.' So that gave me an indication that good ideas are happening. Also, I felt that I could bring some of my feature film experience into ad films and try something new.

To be honest, I also saw that advertising was going into new areas in terms of techniques, and I did not want to be left behind or left out of the excitement. After all, at one point I was seen as the guy who brought new things into ad filmmaking. And I believe that what I learn from the new aspects of ad films will aid me in features too. I think the advertising discipline in wonderful. You have to say a lot of things in a very short duration, and it is a good discipline to keep. In fact, a lot of the western world sticks to keeping things short, in features. And in India too, features is slowly getting into that kind of filmmaking mode.

There was also a new challenge. The MTV genre has come into filmmaking, and it has screwed up the film grammar completely. What I mean is that the challenge of storytelling under this genre is new.

Take my old Thums Up films or my old Raymond films. There was logic to the story and we followed a pattern. Garden, on the other hand, was more MTV-ish. Lots of pretty shots put together to tell a story. There is no logical flow in terms of a storyline, yet the story was that a pretty woman looks even more beautiful in Garden. The basic thing is that the MTV genre was all about using the medium differently. However, it's not about just cutting to pretty or interesting images. The issue is, can you tell a story in this format.

Not really. What I am saying is that the classical grammar of filmmaking was being lost. The challenge is to rediscover that - within the new framework. You want to tell a story more interestingly than in the classical style - though, at times, the classical film works better. I believe that when you have a good story to tell, say it simply. When you think your story is weak, you have to start inventing techniques. If you take feature films… take The Godfather. It is in the most classical mould because it has a strong story. However, Oliver Stone, in JFK, for instance, is more 'MTV generation', which is also interesting. Or take (Quentin) Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, which is all about cutting back and forth. So as you can see there are merits in both.

The problem I was facing was that there was this whole thing of discovery, but I was not sure of who would pay me for this experimentation. Features was too risky a business. So I wondered, can I do it in the 30-second format.

To an extent, you can, but only to an extent. You have to, after all, get down to basics of giving product information and all that. However, I have tried experimenting. The Surf Excel film ('picnic') is a good example. If you notice, in that ad, the product demo happens within the framework of the story. We just ducked the camera down into the river water to show the shirt being washed. We didn't cut blatantly to a bucket in a bathroom, an indoor shot. That would have made it absurd, because we would have told the viewer that now the story or entertainment is over and now we are going to give you the information. We wove it smoothly into the story. We have done some interesting films with Coke that will go on air soon, where we have tried to do different things. The point is to tell stories that entertain.

What I find interesting is that barring cola advertising - because the category is anyway about entertainment - the entertainment quotient has taken a backseat while the information quotient has gone up. Except, of course, during the World Cup, when everyone wants to entertain. Otherwise, I think we are 'informing' people too much. The audience, to my mind, is cynical about this. I think the cola ads are up in the front simply because they are more entertaining. I think brands have to tell the brand story while entertaining people.

I think the youth forums that you see on MTV are damn good pointers. Today's youth - which is basically tomorrow's market - does not want to be told thing. They want only that much information that helps them choose. They don't want you to say this is what you must eat or drive or wear.

See ever since this Hinglish thing has begun, scripts have become better. It is perhaps just the fact that the language in which ideas and scripts are thought out has become more natural, resulting in better ideas and scripts. I remember a time when Hindi meant shuddh Hindi and English meant English with clipped off words. Here too, I think that MTV has contributed hugely. Things like 'Fully Faltoo' and Filmi Fundas… This is the language people speak in. And today advertising has caught on to this. Scripts are being generated with imagery that is not bound by purity of language. Even clients like Levers, who always want to get it right, are speaking in that lingo. Also, previously, you rarely had films with spoken dialogues. Today you have more of them - because storytelling has increased. I think we have come of age. Our ideas are better, and are true to us Indians. Here, I must add that we owe it to MTV for bringing Indian humour into the open and into advertising. Before MTV, we were fairly dead when it came to humour in advertising.

I also think a lot of this depends on the selling skills at the agency end. Why is O&M - especially the Pandey brothers (Piyush and Prasoon) - doing such great work? Because one Pandey sells the other Pandey's work better to the client and makes the client understand it and buy it. Now I don't for a moment believe that nobody else can sell that way. And I can tell you one thing: some of the young creative writers that I am meeting have got some brilliant ideas. Some the ideas could compare to what the Pandey brothers create. But there is nobody to support them and sell these big ideas.

To some of these guys, I have recommended the DV (digital video) format. It's a sketchbook kind of format, where you experiment with the medium. I have been trying to tell them that if they have a great idea, they can come to me. We'll sit and experiment it on a laptop and have fun. If somebody comes out with a great idea, I would be glad to shoot it on DV for him tomorrow.

See, the problem is that these creative guys write out their great ideas on paper. Being a filmmaker, I see the potential, so I might react positively to what I see on paper. But for all you know, they might have something even more interesting in their minds - something that I have missed completely. But that thing that they have in their minds can go forward only if they have visual support. Only if it is translate visually can the client servicing guy go and sell it. Ideas on paper cannot move too many clients.

I have also been telling many agencies that they should buy a DV setup, and put the whole thing on a laptop. It doesn't cost more than Rs 5-6 lakh, and I am sure most of them can afford it. It will help sell your ideas better, as the servicing guys will have something tangible to sell.

I am, to an extent. But I must add that in advertising, the communication needs are very specific. And in this point in time, clients are not in experimental mode. They want it direct. But I believe that at times, subtleness works. But most will not dare. Some do...

Take the example of the Coke ad with Aishwarya where she is opening Coke bottles as she watches the cricket match on TV. Now, if you have noticed American magazines that have girls on their covers, you will see that the girls are always looking straight at you. That is because establishing eye contact with the prospective reader is important. Now in the Coke ad, the last shot has Aishwarya opening a bottle, looking straight into the camera. In that one fleeting moment, Aishwarya is looking at you. And every viewer thinks she is looking at him. That is both a subtle and direct way of glamourizing the interaction the viewer has with Coke. And the client liked the idea. So I do experiment wherever possible.

In fact, I remember that during that shoot, opinion was divided over whether we should have that shot. Some people said yeh fit nahin hoga. I knew how I would stitch it into the commercial. Finally, I put my foot down, and we went ahead and shot it. But I could have said let's drop it, and it would never have happened. That is one of the problems that I have today - creativity has become creativity by committee and consensus. Ek shot uske naam se lagaa de. Okay, then that other chap now wanted that shot from here, toh uske liye ek shot. Sometimes you just throw up your hands and sigh. Kya karein…?

Renegade is a big production house, one of the top four in Australia. In 2001, they had won the Gold Pencil at the One Show for their Philips commercial that they had done for D'Arcy, Hong Kong. They shoot a lot of McDonald's commercials in the Far East region. They have five or six leading directors, five or six top class DOPs (directors of photography), a couple of them Oscar nominees.

These guys had visited me in Mumbai years ago. So when I was in Australia for personal reasons, I called on them. I met up with them, and they asked me whether they'd like me to join hands with them, as they'd seen my work. They told me that they wouldn't mind putting up Renegade East with me. I asked them what it would involve and they told me that they would offer support for both features and ads in Australia.

See, what happens is that people land up in Australia for shoots and then realize that they don't have the right information, the right equipment, the right support. And that send their costs spiraling and all that. Being an Indian, I know exactly what filmmakers here want, so I could be the interface for filmmakers who want to shoot in Australia. So we set up the company. What Renegade will do is that it will organize anything for you. Most importantly, we will tell you things that will keep you out of trouble in Australia, because that is one place where everything has to be legal. A filmmaker gets into trouble there, and his visa is stamped out and he can never set foot in that country in this lifetime. Renegade East stands for giving you advise and setting up the whole thing. This applies to other Indian production houses as well.

What we are doing is let Far represent this part too. Far has all the stills, some of the DOPs reels etc. So if someone wants to work out there, but does not want Shantanu as the director, it's okay by us. If they want me, I am available. So Far becomes the single-window for all your Australia-based needs. Far will do all your back-end stuff in terms of RBI clearances and all that. I think the good thing is that I am there. If I tell them that yahaan aisa hota hai so follow the guidelines, they'll believe me. They won't think koi gora ulta topi pehnaa raha hai. The point is, if you want to do it systematically, come to Renegade.