January 19, 2007
Indian Enough For You? Bollywood and the OscarsFilm
Following on Siddhartha’s discussion of the “Desi Angle” question, there’s an insightful piece in the Indian Express by Shubhra Gupta (thanks, SP) on a related question: is it possible that the only foreign films that have a chance at getting nominated for the Oscars are those that register as completely “other” to the West? This year, India’s official choice, Rang de Basanti, didn’t make the top 10, while the Canadian-financed Deepa Mehta film Water, did. (The final nominees will be announced next week.)
But Paint It Yellow/Saffron (thats what its English-subtitled version [of Rang de Basanti] is called … didnt travel too far down the road to the Oscars for that exact same reason: confused, contemporary youth exist all over the world. To a foreign viewer, the film is not Indian enough, not in the same way as, say, a Water is: it is also, and this is not a well-known fact, very strongly reminiscent of Canadian film Jesus Of Montreal, in which a group of actors lives change drastically as they put on a passion play.
Incarcerated widows in a pre-Independence Indian ashram. Oooh, thats Indian. Where else would you find little girls and beautiful young women and old crones with tragic backstories and cruelly shaven heads? Its another matter that even today, Vrindavans widows lead lives of quiet desperation. Its also another matter that major portions of the film had to be shot in Sri Lanka, which masquerades as Varanasi. But Water has the backdrop of the British raj, the horror of child marriage and sati, and brutal oppression. Cant get better, can it? (link)
Gupta is right on many counts here. Rang de Basanti does have urban, middle-class kids speaking liberal amounts of English (as well as a white girl, speaking Hindi). What she’s overlooking, of course, is that while Rang de Basanti is a lot of fun, it just isn’t that serious a film. It doesn’t have the sense of gravity or “prestige” that makes a film a plausible Oscar contender. A much better choice, by far, would have been Omkara — which has the three A’s: it’s Arty, “Authentic” (though still legible to western audiences, via Othello), and most importantly, Adult. (I often feel that NRIs or ABDs should pick India’s official Oscar selections, since the Board that currently makes this selection clearly has no idea what it’s doing. Paheli?)
Still, I fear that the three Indian films that have reached the nomination phase over the years — Mother India, Salaam, Bombay, and Lagaan — do all fit a pattern: they focus on desperate poverty. While this is undeniably an important (and continuing) part of Indian society, it’s sad that only the exotic, impoverished India of street urchins or rural desperation is likely to make an Oscar-worthy film.
Someone might object: why should Indians care about the Oscars? No Satyajit Ray film was ever nominated (though I must admit I don’t know how many of his films were officially submitted). And isn’t this is the same Academy that gave Best Picture to A Terrible Bore A Beautiful Mind? But, whether or not it’s justified, there always seems to be a great deal of interest in the Indian media about the Oscars — despite rampant evidence that Americans simply don’t get Indian cinema.
Perhaps we should start our own awards? The Mutinies?
amardeep on January 19, 2007 09:35 AM in Film · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Actually Satyajit Ray was awarded an honorary Oscar in 1992, the year of his death.
Psshh! next amardeep will want to dissect rocky's win in '76.
east or west pop is the best art because it is the most accessible. the proof is in the blog. ;-)
no, but they gave him the lifetime achievement award back in '90 or '91.
it is also true that westerners have an idea of india that is quite different from the reality. so many times i have had conversations with europeans and they love the romanticized, poverty-stricken idea of india that is in their heads. and it is very hard to convince them that india is otherwise. not unlike some americans who seem to believe that we are all endowed with some sort of "greater spirituality."
since confucius said that when rape is inevitable, we should relax and enjoy it, i think we should all become godmen and make the big buck$$...
just fyi'ing y'all. back to your regular programming.
The failures of commercial hindi cinema are obvious. The so-called art films are no less annoying. Especially the poverty porn made for the enjoyment of western juries.
The great Naseeruddin Shah speaks.
Right on the money. The poverty gives the "Arty" people one more issue to be "concerned" about. Jay Leno said on his monologue, "This year in Oscars, they are just going to give a third world baby instead of the statue" :-)
I should not have said "Arty" people. I meant "Hollywood" people, meaning the Madonnas and the Angelina Jolies, of the world!!
Guys, I'm well aware of Ray's lifetime achievement award (I phrased it that way -- "no film was ever nominated" -- on purpose).
A Lifetime Achievement award is always a bit of "too little too late," though, especially when the director never won a best picture or a best director when he was in the active part of his career. I felt sad when the Academy finally gave an "Honorary" award to Robert Altman, after rejecting him five times -- including for "The Player"!
India's tiny indy cinema has a better chance to win than a Bollywood film, which is usually derided as frivolous. Why no nominations for Aparna Sen? The more serious side of Indian commercial cinema doesn't get that much play--"Swades" would have been a good contender, as would anything by Mani Ratnam ("Bombay" and "Dil Se" especially). I don't think the Indian film board does a good job of leveraging the nation's best cinematic assets. Its sole aim seems to be to gain international critical recognition for Bollywood, which might never happen in the cynical west.
It's simple. When you say India the Hollywood bunch wants to see poverty, weird idol worshipping religions, exotic animals and opression of women and lower classes. Not saying these things don't happen in India but this is the only image Hollywood wants India to potray.
I second hairy_d in recommending 'Jesus of Montreal'.
But for those who've seen both: Do you think that 'Water' is "very strongly reminiscent" of 'JoM'? I'm not seeing the connection(s). I don't mean to threadjack, but all I'm coming up with is that they're both . . . Canadian?
Omkara's also hindered by it's horrible, horrible, horrible English subtitling. It's a shame because the Hindi is in such a strong dialect; it'd be interesting to have it translated well.
Yeah, Rang de Basanti is a very unusual and timely film for Indians, but probably not universal in its appeal (I thought the best part was Amir Khan's Panju-boy character, which even non northies wouldn't quite get!). It is more a product of contemporary Indian than, say, Water (which, even though it was nominated from Canada, is being pitted as the film that took RDB's place as the Indian nominee). Both weren't really good enough to be nominated, so I don't quite agree with the IE writer. She's also unfair to Salaam Bombay, which was just an excellent film no matter what, and which everyone I know loved, Indians included.
Would definitely have nominated Omkara, or even Hazaron Khwahishen Aisi from a couple of years ago. Water was really tired, rehashed, insipid stuff, and its framing by the opening and closing bookends of the Manu quote and "there are still so many million widows in India" was a bit of playing to the poor-exotic-land stereotype. It probably got picked because it had beautiful people and scenery in it (and admittedly the story was very compelling, and there were inspired moments of acting). Those sorts of films become "lyrical" rather than "cliche" for reviewers.
The obsession of the media with "what does it take for India to get noticed at the Oscars" is amusing, though, it's almost seen as on par with getting that Security Council seat, to Show the World We Have Arrived.
Lizzie, I think it's "Rang de Basanti" that is supposed to be similar to "Jesus of Montreal."
Bollywood, sorry Indian Film Industry, thinks of Oscar as the ultimate glory..why???? I think its because all the desi award shows are flawed in their picking. There are about 10-15 annual award shows mostly sponsored by bollywood magazines or TV channels. They accomodate all the stars by coming up with ways to award for ex: 'Power award', 'face of the year award' etc. And whats with the category 'actor in a negative role'? Shouldnt it be 'best actor' no matter what the moral of the character is
RDB was a really good movie with a tight script and some really good actors so it WAS a worthy choice. Omkara was a bore and just too lenthy, altho its a worth a watch just for Saif's brilliant acting.
If you're interested in exploring alt-desi movies.
Some hidden gems there.
lizzie - the wording in the article could have been better. the writer was pointing to parallels between rdb and jom. i havent seen rdb so cant comment - but i believe the story follows the path of a filmmaker who is making a film about indian freedomfighters/terrorists using talent recruited from the local uni. some events come to pass so that the actors take up violence to protest the corruption in contemporary india. thus the actors start living the lives of those they are trying to portray. to the best extent that i can judge, the parallels are in that the line between life and drama gets blurred when the actors start living out the scripts in their real lives.
whew! that's a long wordy one. i was recording not composing. hope it wasnt too windy.
eep! Thanks for the correction, Amardeep and hairy_d. Now I have nothing to add. :)
thus spake hairy_d. thar he blows.
St
Poverty and rural desperation aren't just "an important (and continuing) part of Indian society", they are the MAJOR part of Indian society. Hence, they are NOT exotic, but the norm.
one of the reasons india has difficulties submitting worthy films for oscars (which would probably be ignored anyways if they didn't fit in with whatever sterotype the awards committee has of india - but Salaam Bombay is a good film) is the regionalism that unfortunately comes into play. inevitably there are always discussions on language and it does seem that hindi/bollywood films feel entitled over other language films to be nominated. (i didn't think paheli was that bad a film, if you had to nominate a bollywood film for the oscars that year, but clearly there are other films from throughout india that don't get the same consideration even if they are much better). india's national film awards, though not without controversy and accusations of bias, are perhaps a much better guide to which films should be nominated, than bollywood award shows. getting abds and nris to nominate the films wouldn't solve the problem because they are mostly exposed to mainstream bollywood films.
as for the oscars, they are as much an insider's club as any other awards show (the documentary category used to be the stranglehold of any film dealing with the Holocaust and it aftermath - an important topic but one that was overrepresented in the awards to the exclusion of many other worthy documentaries. in recent years this has improved). and this trend has become worse in the last decade in some categories. many truly deserving people have never won an oscar outright - cary grant, charlie chaplin, peter o'toole - so its value is sometimes overrated.
While I share your sentiment I dont think the case of movies from India that made it to the Oscar nominations is any different from the case of all other entries and winners over the years. The winners were for the most part all stories of triumph over adversities or deep cultural roots about the particular country that the film was about. My favorites that I can think of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, War & Peace, Tsotsi, No Mans Land, The Sea Inside, Life is Beautiful etc.
FFS PG.
In either case, I think Pan's Labyrinth has this award in the bag. But I'd love nothing more than seeing Mehta on that stage, statue in hand. And Pedro, you're my boy but you still have Penelope..
Some people decry India's interest in the Oscars as a sort of need-for-approval-by-west. However, it's absurd not to recognize the exposure and the financial rewards that Oscar name brings you. Once a foreign-language film is selected or nominated for an Oscar, you start seeing it in the theaters and in Blockblusters. The actors and filmmakers gain personal recognition.
I thought "Omkara" could be Oscar-worthy (if Bipasha's sleazy songs had been omitted).
I don't think the movies have to be 'representative' of the western's concept of a country. Are movies from other countries selected b/c they represent the US's stereotype of that country. Not really - it's got to have universal appeal.
BTW, what about the "Born Into Brothels" documentary? I thought it was a beautiful and uplifting story. Obviously it's about poverty in India, but there is the universal appeal of children.
only foreign movies are expected to serious? obviously, not Hollywood, or else "Gladiator" (a perfect vehicle for Dharmendra - that probably dates me ;-)) would have never won all those oscars...
A little about the selection process for Indian entry.
I just saw Rang De Basanti this past weekend with a non Indian friend and was extremely aggravated at the poor quality of translation which has been my gripe since the beginning of time. If with my Mumbai knowledge of Hindi I can find clearer translation why the hell can't the producers who want to open their film up to other audiences find someone to translate better? It was so frustrating for me to read "I will take care of you" when it really should have read "I'm am with you". Hindi is such a complex language (perhaps there was urdu in there too) and to watch it watered down and butchered is annoying.
brown sez
good find, brown. the reference to the haathgaadi's selling choolle made me chuckle - a good think (sic).
Even if I'm not Indian, I have watched more than a hundred of hindi movies, and I often have to recommend and lend DVDs to some of my friends who'd like to know more about indian cinema... I don't know yet what is the good approach to introduce western viewers to indian cinema. The reason why most westerners want to see indian movies is that they actively expect/seek the indian elements. It's almost like they already have a definition/model of what an indian film should look like, and reject any film that doesn't match this. For instance, I have some friends who absolutely loved awful movies like KKKG, or empty costume/interior decor shows like Devdas or Umrao Jaan... just because it was, you know... "so indian". They also enjoy all the "exportable" movies like Deepa Mehta/Mira Nair stuff, condescendingly commenting about arranged marriages, poverty or the condition of women. On the other end, they quickly get bored in front of light/entertaining movies set in a modern, urban setting (recently i've shown them mixed doubles, Taxi N.9211...) - as soon as it looks too close to hollywood stuff, they start commenting on the product values, plot holes, and it ends up in "I don't see the point of watching such movies, they are american, british, german or french movies with similar plots and situations, the fact that it is shot in india doesn't bring anything new to the genre, etc". If the "foreign" element doesn't bring new situations, genres, storylines, what's the point of watching foreign movies? And that's probably the kind of "otherness" or novelty that Oscars' committee is looking after... What's the point of showing the same thing done in ten different languages?
What kind of novelty can indian movies offer? Historical and war movies range from "not very nuanced" to "utter patriotic propaganda" - it wouldn't be easy to show them without raising political/historical debates... Are there any "genres" or "styles" specific to india, besides the "joint-family-gets-together-and-dances"? The decisions made by the Oscars' committee over the past few years are not so surprising...
Now, as far as RDB is concerned, I don't think that it was rejected on the sole reason that it was not indian enough. The historical background (freedom fighters) and the context (a young generation with much more freedom at hand than before, and who lacks directions) seems specific enough to me (I'd like to see Jesus of Montreal, though). The problem is probably that this movie looks "immature" - all those silly and useless disco/drinking/dancing scenes in the first part, the unreasonable use of special effects, too many melodramatic elements. No surprise that this movie was a hit among the younger generation... It is obviously a step towards more clever, original movies (considering the rubbish usually made for teenagers) - but it will take a few more iterations before things get balanced right.
As the original post suggest, Omkara would have been a much better choice - excellent production value, good acting, and, in spite of its being a Shakespeare adaptation, a storyline/context different enough to make you think "it couldn't have happened anywhere else". If there is anything to regret about this Oscars' selection, it is not the failure of RDB, but the fact that Omkara was ignored... This movie should be a classic, if just for the dam scene (I hope you see which one I'm talking about). But maybe was it consider too "difficult" to get. I mean, this movie requires you to pay a lot of attention to details, several viewings, and a hindi speaker near you to give you hints about some subtleties in the language (even if these subtleties are sis***f*****)...
Anyway, don't think that this kind of things happen only to indian movies. I am french, and some of the french movies selected for the Oscar over the past few years (like "Les choristes", "Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie") are as much exoticizing and annoying to the "native" audience as Lagaan or Water can be...
Omkara seriously rocked. But I thought Water was very good too: my only complaint is Lisa Ray, who was too pretty for the role. The amazing Nandita Das would have demolished the part.
Les Choristes was generic, but Amelie did have an undeniably quirky charm.
I loved your comment, Pichenettes.
Yo Kobayashi
I thought she was banned..? What's up with that? New ISP, new handle? I hadn't figured it out until I almost took the bait on the ascention thread.
I know Crash didn't really rock a lot of people's worlds, but any thoughts on it's win? Hmmm, maybe I should check the archives...
On a completely different note: A French/Georgian collabo but isn't there some way France could have sent 13 Tazameti into the ring? How I crave dark films in French.
I don't think foreign Oscar noms are always serious...Amelie, Elling, Hero and Crouching Tiger come to mind. However, at the risk of being hated by the legions of Indian movie fans out there, I think part of the reasons for India's Oscar snub is that there just aren't that many good Indian flicks. I'm someone who watches about 100 movies a year, many of which are foreign but the good Indian ones seem few and far between (I'm not a Bollywood fan nor do I watch the equivalent in American fare). So perhaps the "mystery" as to why Indian films get snubbed for the Oscars is as simple as the "mystery" why movie ticket sales have been falling in the US...uninspired moviemaking.
I don't really think commercial Indian cinema will be "serious" enough for the Oscars (a very GOOD thing, I might add). RDB was an example of a movie which was entertaining, very smart and well-made (could be edited a bit, I'll wait for the half-hour shorter version to be released in March) carried a serious social message and had a WHOLE lot of impact on its target audience.
You are right about the JoM parallel, hadn't occured to me earlier.
RDB deserves to be seen.
And I will be totally upset if 'Volver' gets any awards. That movie is nowhere as good compared to Almodovar's previous stuff. Just coz it's an Almodovar does not mean everyone has to bend over.
In any case, money talks. Once Bollywood gets a somewhat bigger share of the entertainment pie (already happening, according to SM's report on the "Guru" premiere), the Hollywood studios will take attention and the awards will come.
Re: joint-family-gets-together-and-dances
How dare the Japanese steal our formula? Effigy burning to commene shortly.
RDB was nominated for BAFTA (England's Oscars) [link]
Sounds like several of the commenters have settled on a solution: An film about Holocaust surviving expatriates to India who triumph over adversities and deep cultural biases while showing the adjustments their children have to make in the new environment!
I don't think RDB was accessible enough to the Western psyche. Americans haven't been frustrated enough with government to condone wholesale violence since the Revolutionary War.
*ducks for cover*
(As for Paheli--loved it! I liked the mixture of elements. Whether or not it was the appropriate representation of Indian film for that year is a seperate discussion.)
I think the author of the article is right "The Oscar gatekeepers are looking for material which is, clearly, foreign" while at the same time, it still seems like stories that could just as easily have been rewritten in an American setting are the ones that take the prize.
Neha, 13 Tzameti should get a special Oscar for best trailer. The film was OK, but the trailer's a killer. Literally. I'd call it one of the best 2 minute films out there, certainly rivaling any of David Lynch's shorts.
Now we play this game at my house every weekend.
"I don't think foreign Oscar noms are always serious...Amelie, Elling, Hero and Crouching Tiger come to mind."
i think this is a good thing. not every movie, "foreign" or hollywood, should be serious and deal with dark or dreary (depressing to the soul) topics, although those are important and have their place. the problem is will a lighthearted movie from india be accepted or is it more acceptable from france or spain? movies still have a role to fulfill as escapism and entertainment (and there are good examples of this and bad examples), but these types of movies seem to be increasingly undervalued, especially at awards festivals and shows. instead you have some serious movies that seem contrived, pretentious and forced fit to some sort of pre-conceived "oscar-worthy" mold.
It's strange that this particular ideal is still pervasive today, but it is. I was talking to a co-worker recently and I was telling her that I have a strong desire to visit India because I want to see one of my aunties and a cousin, I want to see where my dad went to college and I want to visit some of the great sites now that I'm old enough to appreciate beautiful architecture, scenery, etc (not to mention, I want to SHOP). She replied that she too was drawn to India because its spirituality was calling to her. While it's probably very significant to her, it seemed like an outdated idea and resulted in marginalizing all of the other cool things about Indian culture. I mean, the U.S. is a fairly religious place but I don't think that's why tourists come here.
When I was younger, I had another fairly strange encounter with the "Indians are so spiritual" concept. When another girl found out that my dad is Indian, she asked me if he was a guru and could he levitate. At the time, I was rendered speechless, but if I were asked the same thing today, I would probably reply (with scathing wit), "but of course, he's an engineer."
Mr Kobayashi: I was specifically asked not to watch the trailer or read anything about it before watching the film and I think that made it much better. The build up to the game was fantastic! When I finally saw what was going on I was quite shocked and impressed. And then I had to go get my nails did because they did not survive, poor things.
Yeah, but it's the trailer that'll get people to move their butts and go watch the film. But yes, folks, don't read anything about 13 Tzameti before watching it (except these words of mine, which you can hardly unread at this point).
Oh yeah, the Mutiny should most definitely start its own awards...
I thought RDB was pretty good, and it was Indian enough, I think---maybe it's time for people to realize that India's becoming more westernized than people realize?
Water was fantastic, too.
Crouching Tiger was roundly dissed in of Asia (HK,China, Singapore). Didnt care for it myself. Asian critics mostly left it alone out of sense of solidarity but privately admitted to its suckiness.
I agree that the Indian film board doesn't know how to pick films to nominate...it nominates many horrid films like "Paheli"....but I have another beef now with Bollywood films...why are all the Indian background dancers replaced with goras???? Its sad that Indian people can't even get extra parts in Indian movies! All the song sequences now have next to no Indian women in the background. Its great that its becoming more international...well i should say Eurpoean, because most of the background singers are European models who couldn't find work elsewhere...
what with the french and number 13. There was another movie that came out in 2004 District 13. If you loved the free running scene in casino royale, there's more of that stuff in this movie.
My, my what an interesting thread.
To pick up on the what-Indian-stuff-do-phoreners-expect-in-Indian-movies question, I just interviewed several non-Indians (based in the US and Europe) for an article about their interest in Bollywood movies and one interesting element that I hadn't expected was to hear several people say that what appealed to them was the absence of all the nudity and explicit hooking up that takes place in so many Hollywood movies nowadays.
Added to the netflix queue. The dvd doesn't come out until Feb 13th
Like Vi, I too liked RDB and Water. Both were much closer to reality than Omkara (OK, subtract the songs etc and other elements of the rather stylized medium). Omkara was terribly pointless despite fantastic work by almost everyone in it (except Kareena Ka-bore). I had a lot of trouble staying awake. The language was fun. Elements of the story were really incongruous culturally, though. In other words, a perfect ten on form, a 4 on content.
Hey, Shodan, Amelie got snubbed by Cannes as well.
Interesting pattern...
District B13 also had the end credits done by this guy: http://www.last.fm/music/Iron+Sy/_/Resistant, a french rapper.
Amardeep,
You seriously need to do a post on your personal favorite Indian movies of all time. I would totally love a guide so I don't end up wasting money on renting/buying the ones that suck.
~SDM
Yo, no arguments here, Kurma. She's one of my favorite actresses for every conceivable reason.
I meant Lisa Ray was too "pretty pretty," like a L'Oreal ad or something. It was just incongruous given the setting. John Abraham was arguably too pretty for his role, too. Seema Biswas was a genius piece of casting; Deepa Mehta could hardly have done better in the regrettable absence of Shabana Azmi.
The film, having already attracted a lot of controversy, could only have been funded with Azmi or Mehta involved, not both. Two lightning rods for fundamentalists would have killed the film. Nandita Das was originally cast in the younger widow's role, but was replaced for artistic reasons--something for which I question Mehta's judgement.
Despite having the biggest film industry in the world in terms of number of movies produced and consumed, Indian cinema has only barely started (post-Dil Chahta Hai), if at all, to come of age.
The big problem is the immaturity and downright inanity of the themes in Bollywood movies. Sadly, that's also where most of the money is in Indian cinema. With the recent advances in media distribution methods, the dominance of Bollywood over regional Indian cinema is only getting worse.
The only way to get Indian cinema to really arrive on the world stage is to have Bollywood learn a thing or two from South Indian and other regional cinema. I wrote a blog post a while back about what Bollywood can learn from South Indian cinema.
Bore, bore, bore ..just like Vishal's previous movie Maqbool, all the actors were fantastic esp. Pankaj Kapur as Abbaji.
being classist hampers your ability to make movies that don't suck?
Snort - totally.
Someone mentioned RBD was more realistic than Omkara - I have to disagree. I mean, they used the Habitat Centre in Delhi as a "campus dorm," and the violence toward the end was very melodramatic.
Thinking about it, though, there have been some good desi films in the last few years that could have been nominated - I loved Pinjar, then Hazaron Khwahishen Aisi, also Mr. and Mrs. Iyer, Khamosh Paani (Indo-Pak collaboration, extra points), and of course Omkara.
One film that everyone liked that I really didn't was Chandni Bar - it was almost...dare I say, exploitative? Couldn't sit through more than ten minutes of it, even though I had heard such good things about it.
How about instead of worrying about the next big crossover film that everyone including the artists are waiting for (its not going to be me, so I might as well not try and pass the buck), how about making a really damn good film and then worry about a nomination?
I hit enter too soon.
This is like Salman Rushdie or VS Naipaul sitting around talking to the Indian press and bitching about how they couldn't get into the gora awards without having written any of the books that made them famous around the world.
...except there are no directors of that calibre in India, and they still love to whine to the press about how they deserve to be in the all exclusive club.
I'd rather have the parkour and the banlieue separately...
How long before the hindi movies "catch up" (as if it was a good thing...) in terms of nudity and explicit scenes? It seems to me that directors are getting bolder and bolder. But I agree with this, the lack of nudity is definitely a factor. Here in France, hindi movies are particularly popular among immigrants from north africa, who are looking for movies more compatible with their values - and it helped spread the interest to other populations!
I also wondered why all those "gorettes" in the background... I always thought that they were tourist happening to visit the studios (or who knew the right people) and who were ready to dance for nothing except for the fun of it. Some of them couldn't possibly be models...
Anyway I mentioned Amelie and Les Choristes because these are two perfect examples of movies that look absolutely innocuous to foreign viewers, but who are typical of a questionable nostalgia for the "happier old days" and a disdain for social/technological progress. These could almost be the equivalent of Hindi movies deliberately taking place in an idealized India where all traditions and values are happily respected by everybody (think "Vivah").
Now back to indian cinema please, I promise I won't go OT again - if i wanted to read about french movies I wouldn't be reading this blog :)
" I hadn't expected was to hear several people say that what appealed to them was the absence of all the nudity and explicit hooking up that takes place in so many Hollywood movies nowadays."
at the risk of sounding like an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy, i agree. there is little charm and romance left in movies today and why bollywood wants to ape this is beyond me. nudity and sex have their place in movies, but so much of it seems gratuitous and leaves you unmoved. there was more realistic sexual tension and romance in many older hollywood movies than there is today's show-all, tell-all.
I gather from the granddaughter of a man who once bought one for his GF that Oscars are often bought.
Of course! Water is proscriptive, and maintains the position that there things wrong with India that are just begging to be fixed by foreigners. It ends with an announcement about about widows in India, as if there aren't any poor ones plus divorcees living under bridges here and perhaps elsewhere in the Western world. I do think the treatment of poor widows is a serious problem, but it's not unique to India-- I've been waiting for a cue to blog about this, now I have one. I did think Water was very pretty, if completely implausible. It's main virtue, AFAIK, was that it ran for so long and twice at the Paris Cinema in NYC.
Janeofalltrades, we are certainly taught in writing classes in America that overcoming difficulties is the theme that must underlie all stories (which I don't think is quite correct but never mind that for now), so yes indeed, it's not surprising that this could be a requirement for an Oscar, but here's the qualifier-- so long as the difficulties aren't British! --what you're calling "deep cultural roots" is also an opportunity to mark people as Other.
Hollywood is not altogether as Left as it seems when Barbra Streisand puts in a plug for a Clinton or Sean Penn delivers an anti-Iraq War speech. I'm reading a book called Mothers on Trial by Phyllis Chesler, in which she points out that Rhett Butler kidnapped his child, attempted to alienate her from her mother and caused the child to die in an attempt to impress him, and we still think he's a hero. There's more in the book that brings it up to date, which I can't duplicate here...
Indian resistance to British rule is fashionable now for movies made in India , whether it's cute like Lagaan or forceful like The Rising, or more nuanced like RDB. It's not the stuff of Oscars though(as oppposed to one made by Richard Attenborough)-- my guess is that that committee would sooner give a prize to colonio-porn like Zoolry in the Crown if it were a movie. There is some limited, quasi-political obligation to Britain, although you could see Helen Mirren's disappointment at getting the Golden Globe instead, and Jude Law has never won anything, nanny or no nanny. I think India should stop putting up movies.
When I was very small I was taken back from England to Desh in a Lloyd-Trestino ship. My mother was summoned to the children's playroom because there was a little girl who was petrified of me and refusing to stay there. Apparently she had asked me if my father was very black (possibly, in hindsight, because I'm darker than my mother and grandmother and her elders were gossiping about that). Well! I gather I had told her, yes, he was very big and very black and when we docked in Bombay, he was gong to come on board and eat her up.....
I often feel that NRIs or ABDs should pick Indias official Oscar selections, since the Board that currently makes this selection clearly has no idea what its doing. Paheli?"
I found this bit highly patronizing and offensive in an otherwise thought-provoking blog post. Obviously the Board that picks the Oscar nominations represents the entire spectrum of Indian film criticism whereas anyone who grew up in the U.S. by virtue of this accident of birth is a better film critic or better-positioned to understand the politics of Oscar nominations.
Rang De basanti was not worthy of an Oscar nomination. I don't know if Water was either, but it was thought-provoking and dramatic.
ANd if you think Hollywood is only interested in steroetypical and ultimately negative films about India, which I agree they are, they seem to apply this standard toward their own film as well. Watch Children of Men or V for Vendetta . . . westerners have a subconscious fantasy about Western countries turning into dictatorships, but are largely uninterested in combatting the exact sort of governments that exist well . . . everyone else in the world, more exactly, the Middle East.
Yes, that is what amardeep is saying. The oscars are all about politics, or did you think Shakespeare in Love won on its merits? That major league a-hole (don't hate the playa hate the game) started the whole "for your consideration" thing, whored out his film to everyone in the right places, and robbed Spielberg of Best Picture.
If you want your shitty "Epic (now in vibrant color) India" film to be nominated, your best chance would be NRIs or ABCDs. That or hire the right people in LA.
I don't want Indian movies to "catch up" to anything. I'd rather the sex and nudity be relevant to the plot and to the film, and not because there's a market for it or because you're trying to impress some non-existent arthouse crowd. I don't want to see pseudo-literary softcore "Oh..apparently Indian people have sex and not just with their spouses" Jhumpa Lahiri type films.
Oscar ki maa ki aankh!! Aesthetics, art ko maaro pattar!! We only like to see Madhuri Dixit shaking her gaand!!
The Indian imagination lives in another dimension. I don't see the need to castrate this imagination to suit some nitwit's idea of an "oscar worthy" movie ( leave that to folks like dee-pah mehta). Besides, the oscars are little more than public masturbation of an incestuous movie industry. oscar ki kaali aankh.
Bharathiya Bhai log should get over this morbid fascination for the oscars. This sahib veneration syndrome and the need for recognition is a sign of enslaved minds. Sab saale dakkan ....
I must have smoked some bad patchouli, I keep messing up my diction.
By major league a-hole I meant of course Harvey "Suge Knight" Weinstein.
Preston, I beg to differ on this:
You call Mani Ratnam's films "serious"!?! Mani Ratnam is a hack. Several of my friends from Kashmir were quite discomfitted by Roja. I thought they were being oversensitive, until I watched Dil Se. I am Assamese and I must say that, this time, I was offended. The "Assam" portrayed in Dil Se must have existed solely in Mani Ratnam's imagination! The Assamese characters did not behave like the Assamese and, what's worse, the analysis of the unrest in Assam was almost offensively simplistic.
These kinds of problems, by the way, plague almost all of Indian commercial cinema. Exoticization or not, I could at least watch Water till the end (although it's not a great film). In contrast, I got sick of the prolonged suspension of disbelief that Rang de Basanti required. I am moved, thus, to second the comment of Mistress of Spices @ #20.
Coach asked:
I loved "Crash". It was better than most recent movies that won best picture.
We do and the list of winners is not too shabby either.
Amardeep, i am not sure if you are the author of this statement. No, really what are you even implying by this. And please, don't label A Beautiful Mind as a terrible bore! RDB was crap, but i don't rate Water any better, what with non-actors like Lisa Ray filling the frames. I haven't watched Paheli, but have read the book by Vijay Dandetha, and the book is very good.
Bollywood's best years are yet to come and the reasons have less to do with the improved technical virtuosity of Indian filmmakers and more to do with the changing distribution and consumption patterns of entertainment products in India.
As the number of TV channels in India mutiply, the increased disposable income makes travel, eating out and other forms of entertainment more available, movies will no longer be the mass staple. There will be different types of movies for different target groups, as there are here. The multiplexes in India are the market's response to the niches forming in the Indian market. As an analogy, imagine an America without multiplexes. Instead there are still those huge movie palaces, and very few of them. Will that distribution model support a genius like Woody Allen?
Do the Oscar judges favor international films that fit their preconceived notions of the country? I am sure they do. I can name 10 other Naseeruddin Shah movies far superior to Salaam Bombay, but the problem is that they could pass for good movies made anywhere. They are about human beings, not the slums of Mumbai, even though many of them might use poverty as a backdrop.
Sahej:
Not sure exactly what you mean. My point is that the escapist, extended wedding video meme that has flowed through Indian cinema since Hum Aapke Hai through Vivaah (with a few father-is-always-right movies like DDLJ and K3G along the way) hardly casts any light on the human condition or social issues in India. Thankfully, recent movies like Dor are changing that, but even Dor was inspired by a Malayalam movie.
"The oscars are all about politics, or did you think Shakespeare in Love won on its merits? That major league a-hole (don't hate the playa hate the game) started the whole "for your consideration" thing, whored out his film to everyone in the right places, and robbed Spielberg of Best Picture. "
Shakespeare in Love may have taken it to new heights, but that sort of thing has always gone on in hollywood at every level. (and i maybe the only one, but i thought Saving Private Ryan was hugely overrated. yes it had realistic blood and gore scenes, but its plotline was weak and i can barely remember the movie. Schindler's List, now that was a far superior Spielberg film - one for which i thought ralph fiennes unfortunately lost a well-deserved Oscar to Tommy Lee Jones for The Fugitive).
there's the story of anne baxter refusing to be nominated for the best supporting actress category (and she probably had every right to do so) for "all about eve" and lobbying the studio to get her into the best actress category with bette davis (for the same movie). many think this split the vote and caused davis to lose out on an oscar. so this sort of politicking and lobbying has probably existed from day one of these awards. and the word "incestuous" is a good one for any film industry, especially hollywood and bollywood.
Yes I mean this, the expectation that the characters be rich, and the celebration of being rich makes it hard to realistically allow us insight into the human condition. One can rarely serve two masters?
I liked the post...except
Didn't make any sense to me.
How about India's ambassador to the US...NRIs or ABDs could do a good job in choosing him too !
forgot to add that Miss India should be chosen by people of Indian origin (not living in India)...'cos she has to represent the country to the outside world.
Indeed, and this is really symptomatic of the extent to which the Indian middle class has effectively seceded from India's institutions. It has become a de facto plutocracy that has a proclivity for self-congratulation because it has seen marginal improvements in its condition over the last 15 years. That institutions fundamental to a sustainable, economically mobile society are in decay (education chiefly comes to mind) doesn't bode too well for its future, the frequent 'India Shining' news items notwithstanding.
"My point is that the escapist, extended wedding video meme that has flowed through Indian cinema since Hum Aapke Hai through Vivaah (with a few father-is-always-right movies like DDLJ and K3G along the way) hardly casts any light on the human condition or social issues in India."
Shri Bholaram-ji Bhai-ji,
Escapism is the root of Imagination. And, As you sure well know, Imagination is the foundation of all genius.
Imagination cannot be critiqued for it stands on it's own. What can be guaged is it's appeal. My fellow villagers love DDLJ and K3G. To them it represents the pinnacle of quality. They don't give a rat's gaand for the light strewn on the "social" and "human" condition in the movie. They might seem a lesser lot to you. But hey, to each his own. Bottom line: There is not a need for Indian movies to be serious, artsy or even to contain social messages.
Jai Ramji ki,
Gaunwallah
You guys ever check out IFFLA in LA? They have some great films.
Brown fob, see Anangbhai's comment #72 for a good explanation of what I meant by that -- it's not that I think that NRIs have better taste or something. I just think that people situated in the U.S. have better access to what floats & sinks in Hollywood. And being totally removed from Bollywood power players & loyalties could also help get more user-friendly art movies (i.e., Aparna Sen) through. The article that was linked to in Comment #28 is also worth keeping in mind.
I think Anangbhai's point about marketing and promotion is also important. If they want to have a chance, they need to appoint some people to push these films in the right channels.
Gaunwallah,
The views you express seem as much a caricature as anything, and as such, they appear to contain trollish tendencies
#1. Winning an oscar is very important --> So the FFI must nominate films.
#2. Films that the academy considers good win the prize --> the FFI must consider the tastes of the academy.
#3. Films that are marketed well and lobbied among the academy win the prize --> the FFI must lobby and invest in marketing.
In words, if winning an oscar is important then not only does the FFI have to be attuned to the academy's tastes but also have to aggressively market to them.
Now, in context of the link posted by brown in #28...
... Amardeeps comment doesnt seem that far a reach now, does it.
GaunWallah:
I couldn't agree more, GaunWallah. I am merely calling for more balance. While I do think of purely escapist cinema as belonging to a lesser lot, I am a stronger believer in the to-each-his-own principle. A lot of Hollywood cinema is also not serious or artsy, but for every few movies like What Women Want, you still see one Forrest Gump. In any case, good ones pop up a lot more often than in Bollywood cinema, which appears to me to be more homogenously escapist, jhinchak and flashy (think D2, Salaam Namaste -- pure masala, the cinema equivalent of empty calories) in its themes.
Hey, GB. If you watch "Dil Se" again, you'll notice that no specific states are mentioned. "Assam" really does exist in MR's imagination. It's not a movie set against a real (but fictionalized) backdrop, like the Kashmir of "Roja." There's no analysis of the unrest in Assam. "Dil Se" is just about unnamed separatists.
Ratnam is an astounding visual storyteller--such is the birthright, it seems, of Indian directors, who have three hours of celluloid to work with and an audience that a western director would consider unsophisticated. Many of Ratnam's song-and-dance bits are integrated into the plot and are not just flights of fancy (yes, there are those, too, like the "Chaaiya Chaaiya" number). In "Dil Se," the title number with SRK and Manisha dodging explosions in a burned-out village is breathtaking. In "Bombay," Ratnam turns some of the mob violence at the end into its own song-and-dance number. Parts of the melee are acted out in slow motion, choreographed and stylized like a dance. You'll see a guy taking a mallet to car, slowly, over and over, always hitting the same place with out damaging it. It's as if he is a dancer in the background.
To the larger point of this thread, I don't think the uber-sophisticated film-consuming crowd in the US has any appreciation of the visual aspects of Indian cinema. We just don't see them or we don't value them. American movies that make more of the visual over the verbal tend to do so in exactly the same ways. In "Traffic," "Crash," "Babel," "Pulp Fiction," "Syriana," and many others, the narrative is just chopped up and reassembled, and sometimes there is a visual clue to tell you where you are (the sepia shots in "Traffic"). We Westerners like linear time and imagine great significance when that time is disrupted. (Ratnam chopped up and reassembled linear time in "Alay Payuthey.") We like aesthetically dazzling shots (Spielberg) or hand-held realism (Ridley Scott) or no self-conscious use of the camera at all (Ron Howard). Indian cinema's visual vocabulary is different.
The first 2/3 of "Rang de Basanti" are dazzling cinema, for Indian and American eyes--plots within plots, nearly every visual effect you can think of, smart acting. Then the whole thing just collapses with the assassination plot. "Water" is a pretty western movie; it's just not very good despite the sympathy it elicits for the widows. John Abraham's father, whom he idolizes for having instilled in him the great values that, writ large, define India's freedom struggle, is revealed to be a whoremonger??? That's just inane. Mehta's movies are just too eager to launch themselves into the great sweep of Indian history. She should just tell her characters' stories.
India's recent Oscar candidates have been very strange choices. The film board needs to hire better marketing and industry consultants, since the Oscars are just a beauty contest anyway. India just hasn't learned to play this game.
my point being that if the FFI is really serious about winning an oscar (personally, i dont think they should care two flying mango pits for it) it should invite someone with an understanding of the Academy as well as desi movies into its board - a POI type is a logical selection.
QED.
phew! heavy lifting yaar. my mind is on the blink. i wish i should get up and fix myself a lassi.
Aren't we missing something? Haven't we got the hang of this? Take Shashi Tharoor-- the candidate that serves local political purpose wins.
"And being totally removed from Bollywood power players & loyalties could also help get more user-friendly art movies (i.e., Aparna Sen) through. The article that was linked to in Comment #28 is also worth keeping in mind."
but how much access do abds and u.s.-based nris really have to non-bollywood movies? even commercial regional cinema is seen less in the u.s., much less more obscure art cinema, be it in hindi or other languages. even the artsy ones that make it to the u.s. tend to be of the more known people who have media attention and other biases working in their favor - aparna sen, nandita das, shabana azmi, rahul bose, naseerudin shah - good as they are, there are other great actors/directors in indian(not bollywood or hindi cinema) cinema who may make often times better movies who never get the same attention at foreign film festivals etc. i think the arthouse cinema circuit is also plagued with some of the same nepotism and incestuousness of the commercial circuit. this whole discussion seems to be (unintentionally) centering around which bollywood movies deserved to be nominated for the oscars, not which Indian movie, deserves to be nominated for the oscars, perpetuating to the outside world that bollywood movies (much as i enjoy watching a lot of them) equals indian movies/culture.
SahejRam bhai,
My comments are made with the utmost seriousness, brevity, sincerity, et alia.
I do not think that films are a medium for any "light". For "light" to be dispersed, the viewer should have time to absorb and chew some gaass. Visual imagery (still) might be good as in the case of photographs, But in a continuous medium like film, there is not enough time to think. Films are meant to titillate the senses,period.
Jai Hind
GaunWallah
eh, "et alia", da kee mathlab bhai?
et al meets et cetera meets inter alia
Thats preety close to how I reviewed "Rang De Basanti". I felt the funeral scene in the movie and followed by the song "Lupa chhupi" was very powerful and very emotional without melodrama.
As far as "Water" goes, one couldnt pay me enough to watch that crap. (figuratively, speaking)
acha, eh lafaz menu pathai nai see, pur hun samaj agai
Exotic Kitsch.
Reference; http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20010326/cinema.shtml
"my point being that if the FFI is really serious about winning an oscar (personally, i dont think they should care two flying mango pits for it) it should invite someone with an understanding of the Academy as well as desi movies into its board - a POI type is a logical selection."
exactly. good cinema is good cinema. the instinct of shiromanee is actually a good one - it reflects that the indian commercial/cultural sensibility is a unique one and that it is a genre in and of itself that deserves respect when it meets the highest standards (and i agree these are few and far between). why should india go out of its way to seek out films that ignore the indian commercial/cultural aesthetic and cater to hollywood's cultural aesthetic just to win an award? submit a good commercial song-and-dance film (hindi or otherwise) if it meets the standard, or submit an "art" film or "non-commercial" film if that meets a certain standard. it's not as if flights-of-fancy song-and-dance movies have not won oscars before. india should focus on improving her own aesthetic instead of seeking to please others. if others don't get it, so wha