When Actors become producers: Taking back control of the movies

Bollywood, Tamil, Telegu, Kannada, Malayalam: Industries see change 

By TN Ashok

There was a time when an actor’s job ended at the studio gate. The producer raised the money; the director controlled the set and the actor waited for the next script. 

That division of labour is steadily disappearing. 

Across Bollywood and the four major South Indian industries, actors are becoming producers, establishing banners, financing films, backing new directors and, increasingly, deciding what kind of cinema they themselves want to make. The phenomenon is not entirely new. But what was once the preserve of a handful of superstars has become almost an alternative career strategy. 

And the important question is: are actors turning producers because their market as actors is weakening—or because producing gives them something acting for somebody else never can: control? The answer is both. 

The producer’s chair is a seat of power. An actor working for another producer can have enormous star power and still have surprisingly little control over the film. 

The producer controls the budget. The director controls the screenplay and interpretation. The distributor determines the release strategy. The studio may have a say in casting, marketing and even the length of the film. 

A production company changes that equation. An actor-producer can commission the script, select the director, choose the co-stars, decide the budget, control the music and marketing and, crucially, kill an idea before it becomes an expensive disaster. 

That desire for creative control was explicitly behind the move of several Indian actors. In 2014, when Priyanka Chopra, Anushka Sharma and Sonakshi Sinha were among the younger stars entering production, the stated motivations included telling stories in their own way and promoting new talent. 

The South has gone further. Rakshit Shetty established Paramvah Studios after experiencing producer interference and said he wanted the freedom to make films “exactly the way we think”, without compromises. That is perhaps the real story. 

Actors are not merely becoming producers. They are becoming their own studios. 

The South is perhaps even more interesting; The phenomenon is older and deeper in South Indian cinema because actors have traditionally enjoyed closer relationships with producers, writers and directors. 

Telugu 

The Telugu industry has a long list of actor-linked production companies. 

Chiranjeevi — Anjana Productions, Nagarjuna Akkineni — Annapurna Studios, Mahesh Babu — G. Mahesh Babu Entertainment, Ram Charan — Konidela Production Company, Pawan Kalyan — Pawan Kalyan Creative Works, Kalyan Ram — NTR Arts, Nani — Wall Poster Cinema, Vijay Deverakonda — King of the Hill Entertainment. 

The list also includes Ravi Teja and Nithiin among actors associated with production banners. Here production often serves a dual purpose: financing the star’s own ambitions while creating a pipeline of films around the family or banner. 

Malayalam cinema arguably offers the most sophisticated example. Mohanlal is associated with Aashirvad Cinemas. Mammootty created Mammootty Kampany, which backed Lijo Jose Pellissery’s Nanpakal Nerathu Mayakkam. 

Prithviraj Sukumaran runs Prithviraj Productions with Supriya Menon. Fahadh Faasil is associated with Fahadh Faasil and Friends and Bhavana Studios. Dulquer Salmaan runs Wayfarer Films, which produced Varane Avashyamund, Kurup and other films.  

This is not simply star vanity. Malayalam stars have used production companies to finance films that conventional commercial producers might have considered too risky. 

That makes the actor-producer a venture capitalist for cinema. 

Tamil cinema: the actor-producer is almost an institution, with perhaps the richest tradition of actors producing their own and other people’s films. 

Kamal Haasan began producing as far back as 1981 with Raaja Paarvai. His Raj Kamal Films International subsequently produced numerous films across Tamil, Hindi and Telugu.  

Dhanush established Wunderbar Films, producing films such as Kaaka Muttai, Visaranai, Vada Chennai, VIP, Naanum Rowdy Dhaan and Pa Paandi. Visaranai became India’s Oscar entry and won National Awards, while Kaaka Muttai became an internationally acclaimed success.  

Suriya created 2D Entertainment. It initially backed films involving his family—Jyothika and Karthi—but subsequently expanded into films such as Uriyadi 2 and Oh My Dog.  

Vijay Sethupathi established Vijay Sethupathi Productions. Vishal created Vishal Film Factory, producing Pandiya Naadu, Naan Sigappu Manithan, Poojai and Thupparivaalan.  

And there are others: Sivakarthikeyan, Arya, Prakash Raj, Vijay and several established actors have participated in production or banner-led filmmaking. 

The Tamil experience shows that producing can actually prolong an actor’s career. Instead of waiting for someone to write a suitable film, the actor can create one. 

Kannada: where creative control became the business model. 

Kannada cinema provides one of the clearest arguments that actors aren’t necessarily producing because they are losing their market. Rakshit Shetty and Rishab Shetty’s production model is almost a manifesto for creative independence. 

Rakshit established Paramvah Studios to encourage new filmmakers and writers. Its films include Kirik Party, Avane Srimannarayana, 777 Charlie and Sapta Sagaradaache Ello. The company’s own website describes its mission as creating films and characters through new technology and creative talent.  

Kirik Party was a smash hit. 777 Charlie became Rakshit’s biggest commercial success. Rishab Shetty, meanwhile, turned Kantara into a pan-Indian phenomenon after producing, writing, directing and starring in it.  

This is the extreme form of the actor-producer revolution: 

Actor + writer + director + producer = complete creative ownership. 

But Hollywood started it more than a century ago 

The Indian phenomenon has an extraordinarily old Hollywood precedent. 

In 1919, four of the biggest names in silent cinema—Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and D.W. Griffith—created United Artists. They were rebelling against the studio system’s control over salaries, production and creative decisions. They wanted the stars, rather than the studios, to control their films and profits.  

Chaplin produced The Kid and The Gold Rush. Fairbanks produced and starred in films such as The Mark of Zorro and Robin Hood. Pickford became a major producer and businesswoman. 

The lesson is strikingly contemporary. The first great actor-producers were not trying to escape a declining market. They were trying to escape somebody else’s control. 

The tradition later produced actor-producers such as Humphrey Bogart, Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and Leonardo DiCaprio.  

DiCaprio’s Appian Way, Pitt’s Plan B, Clooney’s Smokehouse and Redford’s Sundance model demonstrate the modern Hollywood version: stars use their celebrity to obtain financing and talent, but the production company gives them influence over the stories they want to tell. 

So, are Indian actors losing their market? Not necessarily. 

In fact, some of the most successful actor-producers became producers when their market was at its strongest. Aamir did it with Lagaan. Suriya did it after becoming a major Tamil star. Dhanush did it while building his reputation as an actor. Rakshit Shetty created Paramvah not because audiences had rejected him but because conventional producers rejected his ideas. 

There are nevertheless three powerful economic reasons for the current acceleration. 

First, acting income is precarious. A star can command ₹20 crore for one film and then have two theatrical failures. Production creates another revenue stream. 

Second, theatrical cinema has become riskier. Streaming has changed the economics. A production house can sell rights across theatrical, satellite, streaming, music and overseas markets. 

Third—and perhaps most important—is control. 

The actor no longer has to say: I like this script, but the producer won’t finance it. 

He can finance it. He no longer has to say: I want this newcomer opposite me. He can cast the newcomer. He no longer has to say: The director is being forced to change the climax. He can protect the director. And he no longer has to accept that his stardom belongs entirely to somebody else’s balance sheet. 

That is why the actor-producer phenomenon is unlikely to disappear. The future Indian superstar may not simply ask, “What film am I acting in?” He or she may ask the more powerful question: “What film am I making?” 

And that is a fundamental shift—from being the most valuable employee on a film set to becoming its owner. (IPA Service)