The Hindu Business Line : The Oscar fever

That Paheli didn't make it to the last five in the foreign film category wasn't a huge surprise. Other than perhaps to producer Shah Rukh Khan, who did what promoters have to do, to make their film visible in the US, where despite the Lagaan nomination, doesn't know too much about Bollywood.

So we are out of the reckoning, yet again. The evening of the final nominations, when it was abundantly clear that Paheli wasn't going to figure in the last count, TV channels did what TV channels do... amassing sound bytes and conjecture as to the reason. There was no conspiracy against either India or Shah Rukh, this writer told a breathless anchor. Just the way there wasn't any when Devdas wasn't chosen last year.

To even get an Oscar nomination, a film has to be not only good, but has to also represent a facet of its country, (be a brand ambassador, as it were) which can appeal to an audience which knows nothing or very little about it. Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Devdas may have made its money, but it drew jeers from connoisseurs — it was a star vehicle, heavy on costumery and grand gestures, which didn't even travel within the country.

Paheli, on the other hand, has a universal story. But the combination of the art-house sensibility of director Amol Palekar and the commercial sense of lead actor Shah Rukh, made it an uneasy marriage. Despite the latter's dimpled sexiness and the former's interestingly quirky, if erratic, control over his material, Paheli didn't quite blow anyone away.

Every time we get knocked out of the opening round, there is much analysing and chest-beating. Why is it that a nation that churns out more than a thousand films annually, has never really made a splash at the Oscars? The answer is simple. Despite the occasional Lagaan or Monsoon Wedding, the world still thinks of Indian movies as Bollywood tamashas, which translate into song and dance and melodrama. This is a genre, which global audiences have not been exposed to, unlike the musicals of Hollywood, and as far as good non-stream cinema goes, most of it gets confined to non-mainstream theatres in limited shows. Pretty much like it is here, in India.

Gloss and value

When will we begin sending movies that may actually stand a chance at the Oscars? Critics lambast the awards as too US-centric (they are), too Hollywood (they are). But no one can deny that the awards, watched live by millions around the world, can add both gloss and value to a film. Bhansali's evocative Black may have been too European in sensibility, but what about something like Sudhir Mishra's Hazaaron Khwahishein Aisi, a film which was about a turbulent period of our history, and which still resonates strongly?

A film at a prestigious festival or awards has to stand on its own, and also beat out competition from other countries which have been routinely winning the Oscar sweepstakes. Films like Devdas and Paheli can be seen at best as curios, not as serious contenders. If that's all we can come up in the name of excellence and representation, we might as well stop. No amount of expensive publicity, or friendly write-ups in Variety, Hollywood's most read trade journal, can guarantee us a nomination, let alone an award.

Meanwhile, get set for a bonanza. Several `heavily nominated' films are out at the multiplexes, starting with last week's Pride and Prejudice (Keira Knightley is in the fray for Best Actress). This year, according to industry watchers, is heavy on non-studio, independent ventures, with out-of-the-box subjects such as race relations, and gay relationships.

Says PVR Ltd's Executive Director Sanjiv Bijli, whose chain of theatres is showcasing the films right through this month and into the next, "What does well in the US generally does well in our multiplexes, too. Showing Oscar hopefuls and winners fits in with our aim of getting in great cinema for our viewers at the right time. It is not just about monetary benefits, it is also about prestige."

It is also the year when one film is in the race for a rare double whammy, the Best Picture and the Best Director (Brokeback Mountain, helmed by Ang Lee). Lee's movie on a couple of homosexual cowboys has been breaking box-office records as well as the bar on what is called the `audience demographic'. Fears that the movie would offend people in the heavily conservative regions of the US have been unfounded.

This is one film, which has done well not just with viewers but with critics as well. It's earned three other major nominations, one each in the Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actor, for Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Michelle Williams. Judging by how it's done at other awards, as well as the tremendous goodwill it has earned, it looks as if it will make a clean sweep.

Talking point

It's not as if gay persons haven't been celebrated at the Oscars before (Tom Hanks got one for his portrayal as a gay victim in Philadelphia), but Brokeback Mountain seems to have gone beyond. It's got people talking and introspecting about what life can be for people who are gay and who haven't been able to go public.

A couple of biographical films, Capote (on the life of writer Truman Capote; Phillip Seymour Hoffman is up for Best Actor), and Walk The Line (on the life of country music legend Johnny Cash; Joaquin Phoenix gets his first nomination for Best Actor) fills up the Oscar fondness for famous people's lives; the more troubled and more twisted, the better.

Old hand Spielberg is vying for a Best Director with his controversial Munich, set in the aftermath of the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Second-time director George Clooney is in there too, with Good Night and Good Luck, about American TV journalist Ed Morrow and his fight against Joseph McCarthy's infamous Commie hunting era. So is first-timer Paul Haggis with Crash, a film where individuals of different races and persuasions collide, in the melting pot that is Los Angeles.

Good pickings.