South Indian filmmakers have consistently catered to the audience of single-screen cinemas. They have a strong understanding of the typical single-screen cinema-goer, who visits the theater once a month or more, seeking an escape from the routine of daily life, as explained by Ambi Parameswaran, the noted author, brand coach, and founder of Brand-Building.com.
A recent article titled “South Emerges as the New Hero in India’s Cinema Landscape” delved into box office trends for movies after the pandemic. It also highlighted intriguing statistics regarding the number of cinema screens across India.
This raises a pertinent question: how significant is cinema attendance in the life of an average Indian?
When I began my career in advertising in 1979, I was a client servicing executive involved in media planning. Back then, we relied heavily on calculators and extensive print editions of the National Readership Surveys. I was struck by the noticeable differences in the movie-going habits of South and North Indian audiences.
Nearly 50% of urban adults in South India frequented cinema halls monthly, while in North India, the figure was under 15%. At that time, single-screen theaters dominated, and cinema advertising was largely controlled by a company called Blaze Advertising. Reviewing Blaze’s list of movie theaters revealed that South India boasted significantly more and higher-quality cinemas compared to the North.
As a bit of trivia, the first multi-screen cinema complex was located on what was then known as Mount Road in Madras (now Chennai). The Safire complex featured four screens but is no longer in operation.
Regarding the differences in viewing habits, we must ask: was it merely supply creating its own demand? Did the greater number of cinema halls lead to more patrons, or was there something deeper at play?
The previously mentioned article also addressed the disparity in cinema hall numbers between North and South India. For example, Uttar Pradesh has only 601 cinema screens (according to the EY-Ficci Report, 2025), while Tamil Nadu has 1,158 and Andhra Pradesh and Telangana combined feature 1,771 screens.
The emergence of multiplexes has not alleviated the gap in screen availability between South and North India. Out of a total of 9,927 screens in the country, multiplexes make up just 40%, even though they account for a larger share of revenue. Single-screen theaters still hold considerable prominence in South India, which may be a contributing factor to the region’s resilient cinema industry.
The cinema sector faced severe challenges during the Covid pandemic, with a general sense of despair. During this time, OTT platforms flourished, prompting the question: why would a consumer choose to watch a movie in a theater when they could easily enjoy it at home? The recovery process for theaters was anticipated to be protracted.
Interestingly, to date, the global film industry has not returned to pre-Covid revenue levels. However, cinemas in South India rebounded quickly, producing several national hits consecutively.
In 2018, Hindi films comprised 45% of the national box office, but this dropped to 40% by 2024; conversely, Malayalam cinema’s share increased from 5% to 10% in the same timeframe. This raises two critical questions: what strategies did South Indian filmmakers implement that their Hindi counterparts overlooked? And why is there such a stark contrast in per capita screen availability between the South and the North?
Experts have noted that South Indian filmmakers have concentrated on the single-screen cinema audience, remaining attuned to the preferences of those who frequent theaters to briefly escape from their daily responsibilities. In turn, cinema enthusiasts have reciprocated by supporting these filmmakers financially. Meanwhile, Northern producers have become enamored with the allure of multiplexes and have failed to adjust their content accordingly. The multiplex audience has found themselves torn between the extensive offerings of OTT platforms and theatrical releases.
It is essential to acknowledge that Hindi cinema did experience a revival in 2023, with major successes like Jawan and Pathaan. However, will Hindi filmmakers rediscover their unique appeal by 2025? As of April 2025, they had yet to regain their momentum.
Returning to the second question of the significant disparity in per capita screen availability: it is said that a governor of the Madras Presidency encouraged the construction of cinema halls as a government propaganda tool, resulting in a surge of cinema establishments in the old Madras Presidency. This positive trend spurred increased cinema attendance, leading to the proliferation of additional theaters, creating a self-sustaining cycle. It is likely that the growth of cinemas in the Madras Presidency had beneficial ramifications for nearby regions, such as Malabar and Mysore. After Independence, the political landscape in Tamil Nadu and the former Andhra Pradesh was cinema-friendly, which further supported this growth.
In contrast, the North lacked such a positive cycle, and even with the rise of multiplexes, the gap in screen availability remains intact. However, all hope is not lost. Two decades ago, China had fewer cinema screens than India; amazingly, it surged from just 4,400 screens in 2005 to over 90,000 by 2024.
Will India experience a similar transformation? Is there a need for more affordable multiplex options? Do we require innovative ticketing solutions?
Many questions linger. Until we find answers, let’s celebrate the films, the excitement, and the charm of South Indian cinema.
And let’s hope that Bollywood also will learn its lessons quickly to regain its lost glory.
Compiled with inputs from Ambi Parameswaran
Source: Business Standard
