Oscar season has come and gone, and Indian film came nowhere close to being honored with Rang de Basanti failing to even make the foreign films shortlist and Water getting passed over. Reacting to RDB’s poor showing in the BAFTAs (the British Oscars), actor Naseeruddin Shah had this to say:
“We just don’t make films of an international standard… I really don’t think we make films that can match those from other parts of the world. And I am not referring to Hollywood – we make copies of Hollywood,” [Link]
Criticisms of Bollywood’s lack of originality and quality are nothing new, but coming from Shah they carry more weight. When I make similar statements, my Bollydefending friends justly point out that as an ABD I just don’t get the genre-specific joys, but it’s harder to rebut somebody who has acted in both mainstream Bollywood film and alternative cinema in India, appearing in over 130 films with 3 Filmfare magazine awards to his name. Furthermore, his statements appear to be more than an indictment against Bollywood; as quoted they are a criticism of the entire Indian film industry.
This is not to hold Hollywood up as an exemplar of good taste and originality. M.Night won worst director at this year’s Razzies and this year’s Best Film, The Departed, is a less exciting copy of Hong Kong’s Infernal Affairs. [Granted it really won as a deferred reward for Scorcese, but still …]
What makes Shah’s criticism interesting is that he’s not saying India should be like Hollywood, instead he’s comparing India to other third world countries, saying that they produce better movies:
“We can’t match the types of films made in Iran for example, Poland, Japan, Mexico or Brazil, Vietnam or Korea… These countries are producing the most incredible movies and we are still plodding on with our boy-meets-girl safe, old formula. That is the reason I think our films aren’t taken seriously”. [Link]
Others point not to quality but to the lack of an adequate marketing budget (thanks Anil). The producer of The Departed had this advice:
… the financers who fund Bollywood movies must spend double or triple of the production costs they are currently spending just in marketing efforts and use it to promote the beauty of Indian cinema to a mainstream audience. As far as ‘The Departed’ is concerned, the promotion budget exceeded the costs of the production of the movie [Link]
<
p> And unnamed “Hollywood Executives” in the same article pointed to market structure as an additional problem:
According to Hollywood executives, another problem is that Indian filmmakers don’t distribute their movies in mainstream theatres in key US markets. Instead, these are distributed among independent theatres in South Asian areas.
‘Hollywood is a business. Once Hollywood understands the business and the huge fan base of the Indian film industry and how much money can be made, the Indian film industry will definitely be taken more seriously in Hollywood,’ said one studio executive. [Link]
<
p>Lastly, as a counterpoint to this gnashing of teeth and rending of hair, Manish argues that this was no great loss for India:
The Oscars were a joke this year… Who in their right minds wants an Oscar when these are the films they anoint? It’s a race to the bland bottom… And Bolly denizens are sitting here crying into their chai when a Canadian flick loses the affirmative action Oscar. Bollyflicks are about as foreign to most of the world as the World Series are international. It would’ve tarnished their reputation to have won in a year that’s a monument to flavorless parochialism. [Link]
Maybe the problem isn’t India’s film industry, or meager production budgets, it’s the Oscars themselves. What do you think? Should India stop looking to the golden statue for validation and do its own thing? Or was this year’s loss another “learning experience” for Indian cinema.
The quote from the unnamed H’wood executives is interesting. I interviewed Karan Johar one week ago when he was in NY and he lamented the issue of distribution in mainstream theaters too, but as he spoke about it, it was something he did want but that the big multiplexes were playing coy.
On the marketing side, I don’t have the exact quote handy right now, but I interviewed someone at UTV this weekend who talked about how expensive it is to get the the words on films out there where non-Indian audiences will be aware of them too (e.g. full page ad in the NY Times).
On the Oscar question, leaving aside whether it matters as some sort of stamp of approval from white America or not, I guess the initial economic bounce and caché associated with the awards is still something desireable.
Funny thing, you know how the ads here trumpet “winner of 4 Academy Awards” for X or Y film as soon as the Oscars are over (and even the nominations before the event takes place)? I don’t think you ever see mention in Indian media of “Rang De Basanti” winner of _____ Filmfare Awards…
Interesting questions Ennis. The real measure of Oscar (or of the Nobel, or Booker) is not the reaction of those who lose. It’s the reaction of those who win. And those who win exult.
Let’s say Vishal Bharadwaj had carted off best director last night (and, given what else was on offer, I don’t see why he shouldn’t have), and Seema Biswas had gotten best supporting actress for her role in “Water,” the conversation we would be having right now would be different. We would be talking about the excellence of Indian film, not the flaws of Oscar. Heck, some would be talking about the innate superiority of Indian film or some such nonsense.
The psychology of big prizes is interesting. Sure, they’re tainted, not only by their parochial origins (Oscar is American, the Nobel is Swedish), but also by the accusations (whether true or false) made by those who are not given the prize: the voting is rigged, the standards are low, the politics are wrong, blah blah blah.
But, at the end of the day, those who win are honored to win, and those who don’t (no matter what they say) want to be similarly honored. Because, for good or ill, regardless of their origins, indeed regardless of certain still-parochial tendencies, those prizes belong to the world now. This is the West’s real genius. An inclusiveness that serves to, predictably, shore up their dominance.
This inclusiveness, this assumption that the world should be part of the whole thing, is precisely what’s lacking in those who would try to storm the center of empire or alter the balance of power. (A very simple example of this is the fact that “Water” could be a Canadian film, but “The Barbarian Invasions” could conceivably not be an Indian one). Power is inclusive.
I wouldn’t take Naseeruddin Shah seriously, after he made this crap, full of plot holes and weak script.
How is it that Iran, South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan and Mexico can all make brilliant movies and India, with a mass cinematic culture and strong technical infrastructure just produces so much…..blegh? Could Oldboy, Amores Peros, Infernal Affairs, Taste of Cherry come out of India? Enough ass shaking. Death to Bollywood!
Western Hegemony Alert!
I’m with Naseeruddin Shah — not because I think present-day Bollywood needs to change, but because a strong enough alternative doesn’t exist alongside it. When I speak of strength, I mean alternative cinema whose essence is a raw and bold and challenging artistry (and I think that’s what Shah means when he refers to the more “serious” films from other countries). Strength also means the consistency in production that would encourage the growth of a formidable [counter]culture, and that will require a major shift in the way that films are marketed in India and overseas. If all of the above comes together, then the international recognition will come (and I’m not talking about the Oscars, per se).
Well said, Kobayashi-san. Bravo.
Snapper, while it’s hard to imagine either a Pan’s Labyrinth or an Y Tu Mama coming out of India, I’ll bet we’ll see bollycopies at some point in the future …
Indianoguy,
I was just gonna comment about his directorial debut, Yun hota to kya hota, utter crap with a mishmash of everything ‘masala’. He acted in another one-of-a-kind movie Krrish. He sounds arrogant and bitter in every interview
Oh God…..Pan’s Labyrinth starring Sunny Deol….
Ennis #8
Although I agree with you in principle about blatant plagiarism in Indian Cinema, I don’t think there will be copies of Pan’s and Y tu mama, if you said Internal Affairs, that would be another discussion.
Red Snapper,
Once again, it would be Sunjay Dutt, Sunil Shetty, Amitabh Bachchan starring in the remake of Internal Affairs
Can’t think of a single Korean film that’s equal to Mr and Mrs Iyer. Innaritu’s Amores Perros was excellent, but it was no City of God. Hong Kong films lack the subtlety of their Taiwanese counterparts. Iranian films are either works of genius or soporific allegories. Sometimes both at once. It’s very much a mixed bag.
For places with a good money-making mechanism in place, there is a higher chance that the films will be technically impressive (good production values a la Kabhi Kushi Kabhi Gham) and artistically crap. When that much money is involved, there are certain artistic risks you can’t take, e.g., leaving out the song and dance sequences.
In places where film isn’t the way to make a killing, far fewer films get made, but what does get made can be remarkable. Bollywood, in other words, is the victim of its own success. For every critical winner like Dil Chahta Hai, there are dozens of other big-budget snoozers which rake in the rupees.
There’s something special about a flick that a director struggles for years to make–a story that matures over the years, a budget that compels true creativity, actors who aren’t sleepwalking through the role, a production that isn’t keeping one eye firmly on the box office. Something that is close to lived experience. Pather Panchali is the classic example. The kind of film that might be beautiful but isn’t so much fun to watch. Yet it leaves you feeling humbled, feeling human, and with the desire to live your life more nobly. With luck, such work might even command the world’s respect.
I would love to see a copy of Crash in Indian context
Ennis, a Hindi “Y Tu Mamá Tambien”….. oh, that’s a good one!
In “Aur Tumhari Mummy Bhi“, the leading lady would have to be punished for her illicit behavior with the boys and be killed off.
Oh, wait, that was in the original too…
Btw, did anyone else think Gael Garcia Bernal looked, hmmm, not great? I think it was the hair (too much forehead) and the quasi-YSL specs…
You want to see Indian diversity in a patronizing light?
Bottom line: Rang de Basanti was a terrible movie. India’s film board, who nominates ONE movie every year as the country’s entry into the Oscars, usually manages to choose a Bollywood movie that leans toward seriousness, instead of frivolity. The subtext is that Bollywood itself needs to be validated. The film board doesn’t bother with the art-house or indie stuff. Partly as a result of the general lack of support, there isn’t very much art-house stuff. Where is India’s “City of God”? Maybe India will get lucky and something like Lagaan (nominated) or Swades (not nominated) will win–a thinking person’s Bollywood movie. But in the meantime, how many serious Indian (non-diaspora) directors can you name, who are not part of Bollywood? The center of gravity of India’s independent film industry is in Britain, Canada, and the US, which is fine, but Mira Nair, Deepa Mehta, and Gurinder Chadha aren’t going to be India’s entrants.
Why is that even a question?
So you haven’t heard Naseer’s quip in the days gone by, Parallel cinema mareez nahin hai, murda hai!. He was then sick of working with mediocre film-makers whose cinematic caliber was measured by the length of their beards and the griminess of their clothes! And that too for a pittance. Around then he quit the farce alternative cinema had become, jumped headlong into mainstream cinema with Jalwa, showed off his physique, and athelticism, and arguably made fitness for male leads and not just the villains and extras. Naseer had a particularly miserable time working with that hyped up hack Mrinal Sen on the poseur’s Genesis that Naseer colourfully described as a sort of refuse common on India’s streets. Sure “3rd world countries” make some ‘great’ movies unlike the wretched Bollywood. But the problem is these movies aren’t terribly popular in their homelands and run a poor second at the box office to the glitzy kitsch from Hollywood and Bollywood.
Seriously? You want to watch movies that make you want to live nobly? That’s the last thing I want in art.
Anyway….my point about Iran, South Korea, Mexico etc is that each of these countries has had something of a creative flowering over the last 15 years and produced a series of significant, original, exciting movies by talented directors often under conditions even more censorious than India (eg Iran) —- and yet with all that cinematic culture, tradition (not just Satyajit Ray but the grammar of popular Hindi cinema), technical infrastructure, blah blah blah, India hasnt seemed to punch at her true cinematic weight artistically since whenever.
Rituparno Ghosh.
But your point’s well taken, Preston.
Last year an Indian guy got nominated in the short category for his movie “Little Terrorist.” Its a cute film, now available for $1.99 on Itunes. Check it!
Oh God….that just makes it seem even more dire….
That difference, O Snapper, is why you’re the man you are and I’m the man I am. 🙂
But then again, you have no idea how I define nobility.
Around then he quit the farce alternative cinema had become, jumped headlong into mainstream cinema with Jalwa, showed off his physique, and athelticism, and arguably made fitness for male leads and not just the villains and extras.
Jalwa is an excellent movie.
That is true, even though Nasser sahib has worked with excellent directors, and owns a theater company, he at one point was sick and tired of parallel cinema.
All of them – Smita, Shahbana started doing mix. But then Sharmilla, Aparna Sen have always done that – between Ray films and Bollywood masala movies.
Preston, India board has its own politics, and sometimes they nominate regional movies too for Oscars. It depends on the make up of the Indian Board committee members at that particular year, and their internal politics.
Am I the only one who didn’t like Y Tu Mama? The rich kid characters were so stereotypical I couldn’t tell them apart from one another, and the poor woman to be sympathetic did not only have to be cheated by her husband, but dying of cancer to boot. And I found the commentary trying to lend a third-world perspective to their story extremely patronizing. I honestly learnt more about Mexico from Man on Fire than Y Tu Mama.
A very ignoble man indeed — I feel ashamed.
OK someone reccommend me a movie that I can get on DVD tommorow something that will slap me out of my cinematic stupor and depression over the whackness of everything at the moment. And nothing that will make me feel noble!
There is also every reason to assume that the film board is as rife with corruption, patronage, and mob money as everything else in Bollywood. How could it not be? Why also are independent directors unable to work easily in India? Deepa Mehta’s struggles will dissuade any sane director from trying to shoot in India. What’s the overhead added to a film budget in terms of bribes and other payouts just to get the basic work done on the set? Why bother with India at that point?
The center of gravity of India’s independent film industry is in Britain, Canada, and the US, which is fine, but Mira Nair, Deepa Mehta, and Gurinder Chadha aren’t going to be India’s entrants.
What happened to Aparna Sen, Shyam Benegal, Govind Nihilani, Ketan Mehta, Mrinal Sen – They all predate Deepa Mehtas, and make much more powerful fare.
Aparna Sen is orders of magnitude more sophisticated than Mira Nair, Deepa Mehta, Gurinder Chadha combined.
slightly old but interesting story on foreign films
“Am I the only one who didn’t like Y Tu Mama? “
no. i didn’t like it.
Sen, I think, is indeed the best of the bunch. They’re all very good though.
But why is Chadha even in this list? She’s not in the same league with these other filmmakers.
She was on Sreenivasan Jain’s show on NDTV Saturday and told him that back when trying to film, one of the local politicos in Varanasi approached her about the rights to the film for UP and she rebuffed him.
But why is Chadha even in this list? She’s not in the same league with these other filmmakers.
Preston put her in the list, not me. I would not do that.
I just wanted to make a point independent cinema in India is well and alive, has always been. Satyajit Ray used to fund his own movies, sometimes.
Three words : Bride and Prejudice
It was reported that Orson Welles’ bones were heard rattling from their coffin when that movie was released with fear that Citizen Kane had at last been eclipsed.
I think the Mani Ratnam films could possibly be more compelling choices for India’s future submissions. The new wave of art cinema that is coming from South Asia could also be excellent choices. The Patwardhan documentary films are incredibly thought-provoking and should be submitted for that category. However, Hollywood is still very polarized and it will take some time before the Academy recognizes and accepts film styles from South Asia.
As for actors and actresses, I hope they can branch out and include other races sometime soon in the actual ‘have won an oscar’ category…
did anyone see the striking LACK of ANY type of asians in the montage of America through film that ended with the flag? ugh.
It is all Shakespeare’s fault. Show me one indian movie, not based on the bard’s tales and I will show you an oscar winner…..
Why kill the golden goose with art? Yesterdays L.A. times did an interesting piece on popular hits v/s critical darlings. It compared how the Grammys usually go with popular music. But, I must confess i was thoroughly entertained by “The Departed” or “Dil Chata Hai”…On the other hand i went into “Babel”, ‘Children of Men’, “Omkara” with heightened expectations and was not completely satisfied.
Like the S.O. said, what if all of India had voted for Sanjaya via Skype? It is possible, no?
“did anyone see the striking LACK of ANY type of asians in the montage of America through film that ended with the flag? ugh.”
to be honest i don’t think michael mann was celebrating american film so much as providing a tongue-in-cheek montage of what he thinks some of the essences of america are (dominated by race and religion basically)
Not a big Bollywood fan, but as for “good”, alternative cinema in the last year, or so: “Dor”, “Eklavya”, “Omakara”, “Main, meri Patni aur Woh”, “Lage Raho Munnabhai”…the news about the death of a quality Hindi movie industry are greatly exaggerated!
Really ? Here are some of the serious independent film makers just from south India… Girish Kasaravalli Shaji N. Karun Adoor Gopalakrishnan Govind Nihalani
Some of the mainstream serious film makers from south India K Viswanath K. Balachander Mani Ratnam Ram Gopal Varma
Sorry, Govind Nihalani is not from South
That such statements are accepted at face value just goes on to show how much out of touch with India the diaspora is.
Except when you go to Iran, South Korea, Benin, South Africa, Russia, etc., Indian films are significantly more popular with the people than any of the local product.
That’s because you probably don’t live in India and are probably exposed to a purely diasporic perspective that accepts mediocrity in the name of cultural authenticity. Mira Nair, Deepa Mehta and Gurinder Chadha (particularly Chadha) are weaklings relative to Shyam Benegal, Jabbar Patel, Dev Benegal, Shekhar Kapur, etc.
Jeet #9, i completely agree with you.
Am i supposed to take his views seriously when his directorial debut was a painful, terrible movie. It dealt with the most sensitive things in the utmost casual fashion possible! i really wish he would just stick to acting.
He is a very good actor, agreed-but i guess he’s too bitter about not having been able to do what he really intended to, and the demise of so called parallel cinema in India. One never notices such bitterness when Shabana Azmi, Om Puri, Raj Babbar, Aparna Sen et al. talk…..
To notice film directors you have to be embedded in the local culture. Not many directors know the nuts and bolts of the movie business like the diaspora. I remember seeing posters of La Boda del Monzón all over Barcelona. Well, I may be expecting too much from a movie, but Mira Nair is only average – gives instant gratification though.
Ray is the best, but Ghatak comes close, followed by Mrinal Sen, Aparna Sen, Gautam Ghosh, Rituparno Ghosh, Buddhadeb Dasgupta. Sadly, many of the talented directors do not know marketing, and how to create the hype. Nair, Mehta and Chadha are panderers of the diasporic experience. That’s the truth. While that experience is a reality, the portrayal of it has the benefit of dollars. So, no, you are plain wrong.
Look outside your coterie, and you will discover diamonds in the rough. A lot goes on that’s not beamed into the living room. Also, know about Adoor Gopalakrishnan, and the darling of Indian middle class – Hrishikesh Mukherjee. Bollywood badshah Amitabh Bachchan has made a substantial number of third grade movies. It was for a reason Hitchcock had said: Actors are cattle. The Oscars are not the gold standard (did Truffaut win any Oscar? or The Cranes are flying? Or Ridicule?), they never were, and never will be.
Deepa Mehta’s struggles are hers. When an outsider (yessir, when you come in from a distant land to shoot distress and pain, and runaway with the booty, that’s how you are seen) eavesdropped on the natives’ exploits, they got a bit angry. And the natives didn’t have any training of political correctness and the luxury of positive reinforcement. But if you see closely, both the RSS agitators and the suffering widows are fools. Cunningness lies elsewhere. Methinks, that’s not art at all. I know I am not alone. The paradox is exotica peddlers think others cannot see through the motivation of it all. Although, I must confess that the scenery of Ceylon and Rahman’s music can cloak the underlying mediocrity of the movie. That again is the beauty of teamwork.
I think Bollywood films should be nominated for the Tony Awards.
South Korea? Are you sure? I don’t think Bollywood’s that popular over there. It is definitely famous in places like Benin, but that doesnt really change the point.
Ah yes The panderers. The dread ‘P’ word appears at last.
Please explain. I hold no brief for any of those film makers (especially not Chadha), but this accusation of ‘pandering’ needs to be understood. So what do you mean by it? Because the way I see it, coming out with that line about any artist should automatically set off alarm bells because it is thrown about so lazily and without explanation to stigmatise without thought these days.
Lack of budget is the main reason why Indian films don’t get nominated? Bollywood films have budgets that are as large or usually larger than most indie international films..
If indie films from Palestine and Bosnia can get nominated for an oscar, I doubt the problem has little to do with the ‘lack of budget’.
“Bottom line: Rang de Basanti was a terrible movie. India’s film board, who nominates ONE movie every year as the country’s entry into the Oscars, usually manages to choose a Bollywood movie that leans toward seriousness, instead of frivolity. The subtext is that Bollywood itself needs to be validated. The film board doesn’t bother with the art-house or indie stuff. Partly as a result of the general lack of support, there isn’t very much art-house stuff. Where is India’s “City of God”? Maybe India will get lucky and something like Lagaan (nominated) or Swades (not nominated) will win–a thinking person’s Bollywood movie. But in the meantime, how many serious Indian (non-diaspora) directors can you name, who are not part of Bollywood? The center of gravity of India’s independent film industry is in Britain, Canada, and the US, which is fine, but Mira Nair, Deepa Mehta, and Gurinder Chadha aren’t going to be India’s entrants.”
Why do they have to be Bollywood films? Bollywood is not synonymous to Indian cinema and there’s a whole lot of non-hindi cinema out there. Most of the better indian films I’ve seen have not been in Hindi. If India’s film board is limiting it’s candidates to Bollywood, maybe that’s one of the reasons?
Korea dominates the Far East media market–especially in terms of TV shows and popular music. I’m not certain about film. Chinese and Japanese people are more likely to be watching Korean soap operas than any other kind.
Naiverealist, you make many good points. I do think it’s unkind and inaccurate to describe Nair and Mehta as panderers. It’s not as if they get up in the morning and say, “Alright, I’m going to pander today.” They tell the stories that matter to them, from where they are, with the resources they have. And, on average, the result is more interesting and watchable than your average Bollywood noisemaker.
It’s possible to celebrate good indie work in the Desh without denigrating good indie work in the diaspora.