The look of ‘Devdas’ suited the story. I agree that film will not look as good if it was made on a smaller budget.

Likewise, the look of ’28 Days’ suited its story. That movie simply cannot have the grandeur of ‘Devdas’ because that would have killed the effect the director hoped to achieve. I always believe that the story determines the budget.

All of us seem to be emphasizing on the ‘look’ of the film instead of the overall movie. The way the story is told is just as important as the visuals. I hope Bobby Bedi spends more effort on the script instead of just worrying about the look of the film. No point making a ‘pretty’ film that’s devoid of any soul.

Nasir, I completely agree you can make a scene look grande even with a limited budget. But, there is only so far you can go. Santosh Sivan tried his best to impart an epic look to his Asoka, but it never quite achieved that epic look. It always looked lacking of its budget. It cannot be denied, that generally bigger budget films look more grande than lower budget films.

What bigger budget does is afford you bigger talent, bigger equipment, bigger technology and bigger sets and bigger cinematography. I thinkt the ratio is 30:70(look: budget) LOTR, Titanic and Troy look spectacular and it would be impossible to recreate that look and scale on a lower budget.

28 Days and Blair Witch project may be suitably grainy, dull and jerky for their story, but they do not have the grandeur and the scale of a production like Devdas.

Big budget films tend to be epics, historical and action movies. If you want a thrilling and spectacular car chase sequence for example, you need more money than talent. I mean how much talent doe the makers of films like XXX, Charlies Angels and Fast and the Furious have? You still cannot deny how stunning the action is.

You can appreciate the camera work in a low budget black and white film by Guru Dutt or Bimal Roy, but you relish the visual dazzle in a big budget film like XXX.

To say Devdas has lesser production value than a low budget DV film just doesn’t sound right.

Even if you compare Crouching Tiger, to the nearly three times as expensive Hero, you notice just how much difference the budget has made to the look and feel of the movie. Hero is STUNNING to look at. Croching Tiger pales in comparison.

Budget buys you production values – most of the time.

I believe stars are essential for this film as India is more star driven than other countries. But the stars must suit their roles. I’m sure the last thing we all want to see is an actor acting more like a clown than a warrior.

Just a note about the movie 28 days. The nature of the film required it to have the grainy look. It was a film about a harmful virus. A very serious subject mattar. Thus it needed the dull and grainy look. There was nothing wrong with the cinematographer. That look was purposely intended. Having the ‘Devdas’ look will would have turned ’28 Days’ into a comedy.