No Tears For Oscar

http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20071015/controversy.html&SET=T

No Tears For Oscar

Quibbling over which film India sends to the Academy Awards is not as important as getting the film nominated over stiff competition from 50 other nations. And then winning.
By Kaveree Bamzai

The sheer entertainment generated by the controversy surrounding India’s official entry to the Oscars in the foreign language film category has far outstripped that provided either by Eklavya: The Royal Guard or by the film that has challenged it, Dharm. The name-calling between the two filmmakers, Vidhu Vinod Chopra and Bhavna Talwar, and even third parties unconnected to the whole drama, can only be described as delicious. While Chopra has declared that the controversy is “spoiling” India’s image internationally, first-time filmmaker Talwar has pronounced that her film Dharm went to the Cannes Film Festival in the Cinema of the World section. She omits to mention it was accompanied by six other Indian films, among them Mani Ratnam’s Guru and Rituparno Ghosh’s Dosar, while director Sajid Khan has said the entire box office collection of Chopra’s oeuvre could fit into the pocket of his debut film, Heyy Babyy.

PICTURE SPEAK

“Nadeem Khan is a member of the jury and one of my oldest friends. He voted for Bhawna Talwar’s film.”

VIDHU VINOD CHOPRA
Director, Eklavyaa

ROYAL CHALLENGE: A still from Eklavya

“It’s all about personal agenda. If we send Eklavya, the Academy will say we don’t know how to make films.”

BHAVNA TALWAR
Director, Dharm

THE WINNING FORMULA
Make a film that transcends words and tells an emotional story about people.
Find a foreign distributor from the specialty divisions of big studios such as Sony Pictures Classics or Fox Searchlight, and release the film outside the 80-odd NRI-strong theatres.
Spend at least six months promoting the film in the US and get Academy members to watch the film in an Academy-approved theatre.
The courts have stepped in and prevented some more verbal fireworks—a division bench of the Bombay High Court has prima facie found a case for bias and will hear the matter on October 10—but the larger question remains. Given that India has been nominated in the foreign film category only thrice (for Mother India in 1957, Salaam Bombay in 1988 and Lagaan in 2001), does it really matter? The short answer is yes. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), an organisation comprising 6,000 motion picture craftsmen, still hands out the most respected and coveted film award in the world. The long answer is that India doesn’t know the first thing of how to go about winning it. Most choices happen by chance. The film is selected by a jury appointed by the Film Federation of India (FFI), which is meant to represent all the organisations connected with the industry across all regions. It isn’t completely representative (for instance, the powerful Film and Television Producers’ Guild of India, among whose members are Yash Chopra, Ashutosh Gowariker and Sanjay Leela Bhansali, quit FFI), but it is the organisation chosen by the Government and recognised by AMPAS. FFI’s choices invariably attract criticism. In 2005, when Paheli was nominated, there were accusations of favouritism because Black, Parineeta and Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi had been rejected. In 2006, when Rang De Basanti was nominated, Chopra sent Lage Raho Munnabhai as an independent entry.

Is the FFI jury the most qualified to select India’s entry? Director Vinod Pande, the chairman of this year’s jury, thinks so, though he feels the members could be “more evolved in their understanding of international cinema trends”. He admits the jury often has to withstand pressures—invitations to lunch and incessant phone calls are par for the course—and sometimes members are not even allowed to go in for extensive deliberations. But by and large, conflicts of interest are avoided. This time, when Madhur Bhandarkar’s Traffic Signal was likely to be a last-minute addition to the shortlist, Sudhir Mishra wanted to be excused from jury duty because he has acted in it. Pande says that when he found jury member Ranjit Bahadur had edited The Making of Eklavya, he demanded an explanation—only this was after the selection.
HIT AND MISS
India’s entries in the foreign language film category in the past 10 years

1997 GURU
Director: Rajiv Anchal
The Malayalam film, starring Mohanlal (left), addressed the issue of communalism.
1998 JEANS
Director: Shankar
Ashok Amritraj, who produced the Aishwarya Rai-starrer, says he would market it differently now.
1999 EARTH
Director: Deepa Mehta
Mehta’s very Indian Water was nominated in 2005, but as Canada’s official entry.
2000 HEY RAM
Director: Kamal Haasan
The Indian audience found the film too political, violent and sexually explicit. Ditto, Academy?
2001 LAGAAN
Director: Ashutosh Gowariker
It was the third nomination from India, after Mother India and Salaam Bombay.
2002 DEVDAS
Director: Sanjay Leela Bhansali
The remake based on the classic aimed at riding high on its lush production values.
2004 SHWAAS
Director: Sandeep Sawant
A small Marathi film with a human story about an old man and his ailing grandson.
2005 PAHELI
Director: Amol Palekar
FFI chose it over Black and Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi, which were predominantly in English.
2006 RANG DE BASANTI
Director: Rakeysh Mehra
UTV mounted a campaign with backing from foreign studios, but didn’t make it.
2007 EKLAVYA: THE ROYAL GUARD
Director: Vidhu Vinod Chopra
The choice has generated controversy in film circles, with Dharm vying to be India’s entry.
*There was no entry for 2003

But beyond this controversy of whether the best Indian film was sent to the Oscars lies the bigger issue. What’s the best way to win it? Hollywood producer Ashok Amritraj believes Indian filmmakers have to understand that it’s not a question of big budgets or stars. The Academy looks for an “emotional people’s story that almost does not need words”, he says. Indian studios need to start a fund for making films targeted towards such an audience. They then need to find a specialty distributor to screen the film beyond 80-odd American theatres in NRI pockets.

Foreign entries are divided into three groups of 300-500 each. Each foreign-category voter has to see 80 per cent of the films in his or her group. After the field is reduced to five nominees, any of the Academy members may vote, provided they see all five on the big screen, which invariably means a much older group of people ends up choosing the films, points out The New York Times. “Till 15 years ago, embassies could hold parties before screening their entries, but now external influences have been cut off,” says Amritraj.

It’s an uphill battle for mindspace and attention. A filmmaker has to want it badly enough to spend a considerable amount of time and money on raising awareness. Mehboob Khan had to write to Jawaharlal Nehru for foreign exchange worth Rs 50,000 to promote Mother India. While Aamir Khan spent $50,000 (Rs 20 lakh) on the publicity before the nomination, his distributors had a budget of $2 million (Rs 8 crore) for its post-nomination publicity, Shah Rukh Khan remembers travelling constantly between Los Angeles and New York to promote Paheli (he was shooting in New York for Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna). As he puts it: “I don’t remember the amount of money involved, but I spent about two months working for the film.” While Chopra, who has had experience of the Academy (his documentary An Encounter with Faces was nominated in 1978 and Parinda was India’s entry in 1988), would know the ins and outs of Oscar, Talwar too seems to know her way around international film festivals, be it Venice or Palm Springs.

Media analyst Amit Khanna says Indian filmmakers should look beyond the foreign language film category: “Why should we compete with Botswana and Burkina Faso? This category is meant for nations which make a handful of films.” Indeed, with the Academy increasingly rewarding independent cinema, whether it was Crash last year or Little Miss Sunshine this year, it is entirely possible. After all, this time, Penelope Cruz was a best actress nominee for a Spanish movie. And Mexico’s Pan’s Labyrinth won three Oscars though it lost in the foreign language film category. India may think an Oscar needs a lot of money. Perhaps all it needs is a small little story.