Films, Awards, Reality, Politics

There is a furore created by the article by Arindam Chaudhuri, about a film made in India about India that has gone to Oscars. Media has been euphoric and the article has gone counter to the general celebration about India at the Oscars. Mostly the point about this film not being an Indian film is being ignored, or glossed over. Any criticism of the film is being beaten at with a "this is reality, and we should care, and if they show it we should not be hypocritical" sort of noises. Again, this glosses over many, many other films (of India) that were realistic, or those that did get oscars and were not so, or the many films of India that have been very worthy.

One ought to see the fury of some commentators hounding anyone concurring with Arindam Chaudhuri on his blog in a comment, the accusations of payment, the assumption that unless you are paid you have to like the film (shouldn't the opposite equation be obvious, since a good many people stand to lose money if the film does not make huge profits?) and the hounding of anyone making such comments in agreement with the main post. As if it is a dracula deal, and taking a bite out of a commentator is guaranteed to turn another one into submission or agreement with opposition of the main post.

Mr. Chaudhuri certainly has maddened a bunch who would rather celebrate any attention from the rich of the west, even at the cost of showing their own worst parts for photography exhibitions back where "they" came from, just for the sheer pleasure of attention from the said rich west. The sheer anger coming at him says he has touched a nerve, or else the article would have been ignored.

This film is being touted by that bunch, as bringing oscars to India, but why is it so important to have oscars at any cost one has to wonder. And there are some trolls too, hounding everyone who posts in concurring with your views and abusing them as well, one has to wonder who pays those, and why they are not happy to have said their piece once, if it is really only about a film!

Anyhow, the article of yours is on the dot, Arindam Chaudhuri.

For those that are criticising Arindam about not being realistic and forgetting what wrongs happen in India and Mumbai, I don't know if they saw or celebrated Traffic Signal or even Awara for that matter, or any other excellent films made in India in between or before. Do Bigha Zameen has not received oscars. Did it lack reality? On the contrary it was so real that the then relatively well to do main actor almost got arrested when he gave a

And someone informed me that the beautiful and subtle Last Lear was made by Arindam Chaudhuri, in which case his critics are seriously wrong.

Yes, there are negatives in every part of the world - when Arindam's critics bunch go to US I doubt they go hunting for the victims of racism such as Rodney King and ask if he hurts now; or even took a walk in Harlem (before it was gentrified that is) much less photograph it exclusively.
One hint - German tourists did just that to the exclusion of other usual photography, as a means of a subtle retaliation at US tourists going around concentration camp sites. I doubt Arindam's critics would dare the latter either for that matter.

Have they heard of five year olds getting ready to perform in US for a bridal inspection, so they could be picked for marriage at eight; or under-teens being forced into marriage in communities where any outsider stepping across the town boundary would risk being shot dead by the sheriff? Or other - far worse - stuff that is routine?

And if one wishes to make films about even topics covered on television shows in US about US one could make some very shocking ones, just by following one show. A popular and sympathetic mainstream one at that, and not one of the merely sensational ones. I shall withhold the name in case the bunch of trolls here jumps at them.

Anyhow, anyone with some realistic vision can see about the truth of what Arindam has pointed out about the motivation for the awards and the sensation this film has received. Lagaan was not about false or rich, nor is for that matter the stupendously excellent recent historical, Jodhaa Akbar, less than deserving of recognition far higher than all accolades, but these films would certainly not get mentioned at the awards in a society that is smarting from the outsourcing of jobs perceived as intelligent work to a country which is perceived forever as begging bowl pretenders (there was no outcry about outsourcing of manufacturing to rest of Asia to the east and southeast of India, since that is not intelligence but merely cheap labour, so it is ok to outsource those) - and this film is as comforting as some of the shows on television channels supposed to be informative in some of those nations.

In one place in Europe we were asked about Indians "begging" in front of rats while other Indians hunt and kill them to eat. We had to explain that the first was due to the very living concept of seeing Divine in all that prevails in India, and it was praying to that Divine in an act recognising the Divine in that action, not begging; while the second we were unaware of but in a huge nation of over a billion and well over several times the size of that nation (where the conversation took place) a variety of things happen in various corners that are not ubiquitous much less universal responsibility.

Later we were shown an article about a group of musicians from that same country that came to India supposedly to play and to learn Indian traditional music, to interact with the traditional classical music players in India in an exchange program in all likelihood, and while they were given royal treatment in Kolkata, they subsequently went back to write (quite a bit more than slightly) disdainfully, about India and about the musicians they met in India (classical ones) and the whole music tradition, and their summing up of the whole experience was "something oily and dirty sticking to the soles of feet" repeated from what their literal experience was at the Kaalie Ghaat where they were shown around, being "guests" of the nation and European ones at that.

Few of the commentators on the Arindam blog have understood the reality of the main post. The rest are happy at any notice taken of India at the awards celebrating excellence of cinema and not bothered about what goes into this particular one being chosen over all the other excellent films made in India, and it is pathetically akin to not knowing the difference between baring yourself (in relative privacy) for washing and cleansing or for a medical examination, vs doing so for giving a shot of "realistic" sort to the rich west so "they" over "there" are again reassured that you of India are just as disgusting as they always thought, and then some.

Some of those trolls should have seen the furious debate on the internet when a Russian survey said India was third with respect to personal washing and bathing, and the comments that poured forth about how dirty it was and without clean water and without bathrooms so how could anyone wash, while they couldn't believe Europe was behind India in this respect. (US forgets reality of Europe, of cold and poverty and risks involved with baring oneself in winter and cost of bathing and so forth, historically; or that habits formed for millenia are difficult to overcome.)

The bunch of critics of Arindam - or really rather trolls - have failed to notice, moreover, that the millionaire show in India was far tougher and difficult to get past the elementary questions to the higher levels, while that in the US is ridiculously easy as most shows there are; and this film shows a poor illiterate young person win by fluke, a reassuring picture for them of India doing well by fluke at IT or by magic rather than the tremendous wealth of intelligence of people, of India's aspiration for knowledge, of the huge tradition and respect for learning and the strong number of educated and scientists India does have.

No, if India - which is not even a proxy "white" nation, like some colonial remnant ones that are not even recognised as such - does well at IT or space or any other scientific achievement, or if Indian films have been overtaking others recently in world wide popularity in sheer number of countries and people who are viewers, it must be due to either fluke or low taste of the world.
That is the general perception in west. Different in Russia of course - they can sing Awara Hoon as a roaring crowd, which speaks of real popularity rather than a whipped sullen crowd forced to attend. Same about Nigeria and Albela of Bhagwan, or Japan and Rajanikant and HDDCS, and more.

As for the trolls and critics bunch - do try seeing reality before embracing others' views - no, ridicule and disdain - of India as pride of India. As for Rehman or any other excellent artist they could in a more fair world win awards for their better works, too.

And for a reality check, stop calling it Indian film, it is about India. By others.
.....................................................................................

Just saw a naive comment by someone on the Arindam blog, to the effect that oscars do not play politics and reward quality.

On the contrary, fact is oscars does very much play politics.

In a year when Colour Purple was a contender, Out Of Africa was given the awards that were majorly deserved by the Colour Purple, due to political reasons. Not difficult to figure out what those reasons were, on either side. And while Out of Africa was very good, Colour Purple had a completely another level, is the point; not meaning to imply OoA was undeserving in any other year. But CP was far far more deserving.

That is one glaring example. I have not researched into this and perhaps there are many more. A few are obvious even recently, about the films that were ignored.

Someone has pointed out, and it is obvious to anyone with a little reflection, why Lagaan was ignored at the finals, while it was good enough to get that far to get nominations. But what about Provoked?

Provoked had a film showing not only realistic but very recent history, a story that was of a person very much living. She endorsed it too. The film dealt with an important subject, of universal concern and timeless reality. Why was Provoked not a winner at the oscars?

That is obvious too.

Provoked was not, is not, only about India or people from India. And that is why it was unlikely to win.

Women being abused, severely so, whether married or not, pregnant or not, mothers of young or whatever, is a reality in every country and every culture, irrespective of east or west, rich or poor. This much would be obvious to every viewer. The accusations would not be conveniently against a nation seen as that of poor beggars and pretenders, but against the whole humanity, every society and culture and nation. Every heart would know this.

And furthermore, while most men who murder their wives often escape with little or no punishment, a story like Provoked inspires terror in most men and indignation in more than a few women. Terror, because what if all victim women decided to strike back? Indignation, because the women who take it silently for whatever reason, some truly helpless and unable to escape while others who would rather not fight and lose benefits, find it difficult to see the film with detachment. The former see it as a vindication of their own torture, and silently applaud one who could escape. The latter must join rank with the master gender, as once slaves in houses did against those in fields.

So the last thing anyone would ever allow would be a recognition of the reality - the universal, ubiquitous reality - of abused women, wives, mothers of young. This reality by the way belongs to human species alone, while no other species ever turns against its own females. So admitting it points at human species sticking at a very basic and fundamental level to that below all other species, and it could not be admitted with an award.

Provoked was not praised by media for all its reality, or award functions around the world for all its worth as a film. It was ignored silently and allowed to die.

Another film, historical and very real too, was the recent Gandhi My Father; this one comes to mind as an excellent film about another facet of history long ignored, about how great men can be guilty of neglect of their responsibilities to their own children, and worse. It had to be killed with studied ignoring in spite of an excellent quality overall far beyond most films that were awarded in India that year, and really it deserved a nomination at the very least for film and acting as well for the young Akshaye Khanna even at the oscars and other prestigious world events about cinema. But political considerations won. An excellent film was studiedly ignored by most, with a stray award or so for Shefali Shah, and very little more. There were a few events - not in India - where it was appreciated as a film. Few. Political consideration caught up with that possible trend. The most powerful portrayal of the central character, by the young, capable - formidable - talent never had a chance, even of a shared award.

And now there is the beautiful Jodhaa Akbar with no hope, since great people and uplifting themes do not win at oscars if they are about India, unless they are made by producers and directors not of India. Besides it shows beauty in so many ways, with every frame evoking a painting of classical Indian style, every emotional note taking one upwards. So it is sidelined in favour of another in name of reality - but then wasn't the same "reality" shown in Traffic Signal? When will India see the politics of lights green or red at the oscars?