I am attaching some of the buzz in the India media about this.

The basic conflict is probably a deeper one in the (one of the many) dynamics of the East/West cultural swing: what Indians will do to appease the west.

In this case, it's in the form of a shiny Oscar. The better film was not picked this year - there were many, more deserving films denied - because it isn't "Indian" (you know they didn't have the colors, songs and cute favor) enough.

Is it fair? Hell no!

But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

The more "ethnic" the better! Oh the charm it must have to virgin eyes...the kind who only watch one Indian film a year, if that.

And more importantly, its works! Mother India, Salaam Bombay (although it want a pure Indian production) and, most recently, Lagaan, all went on to compete in best foreign film catagory.

And, of course, all three lost.

Rohit

-

We're sure Paheli is the right choice

Subhash K Jha

Vinod PandeAmol Palekar's Paheli has been chosen as India's entry to the Oscars this year. The film, starring Shah Rukh Khan and Rani Mukerji, has beaten the likes of Mangal Pandey, Veer-Zaara, Iqbal, Swades, Parineeta, Page 3, Black, Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi, Sachein (Tamil), Anniyan (Tamil), Uttarayan (Marathi), Achuvante Anna (Malayalam), Graham (Telugu), and Kadal (Tamil).

Vinod Pande, acting chairperson of the Film Federation of India, defends his choice.

Your Say: Is Paheli the right choice?

How could Paheli be nominated over more deserving films like Black?

The choice for the jury was extremely difficult. The films were of really high calibre. We had resolved that we would have discussions only after all the screenings. We had bargained for an hour's discussion but we discussed for an hour-and-a-half. We took into consideration every aspect (of the films).

All of us in the jury wrote down our recommendation. We were unanimous in the selection of Paheli.

A still from PaheliThe decision to elect Paheli was unanimous?

Yes, absolutely. We feel this film is very high on cinematic excellence and directorial competence. It is deeply seeped in the Indian ethos and true to the Indian concept of fine arts, costumes and art designing. The performances were also outstanding.

I cannot tell you why Black was not elected. But let me tell you, it was a tough competitor. It was rejected outright by some jury members for being a copy of a foreign source. But I vehemently defended it. If a film is inspired by a true event, it doesn't mean there cannot be two versions of it. The jury understood my point of view. Then some jury members argued that Black was rejected by Cannes. I convinced them that our decision shouldn't be governed by any international competition.

Was language the clinching factor against Black?

I wouldn't like to comment on that.

Was Paheli selected because it panders to the foreigner's view of Indian ethnicity?

Akeli Indian culture hi sab kuch nahin hoti [Indian culture is not the sole factor]. There was another beautiful film in the running called Uttarayan. You have to have a very composite look while selecting. We saw all the films.

But Paheli was neither a critical nor commercial success in India.

We weren't perturbed by that. We have seen some fine films in the past not getting their dues. When we did our job, we did it with a clean conscience. We had our own judgement and creative faculties to rely on. We are as capable of assessing as any member of the press.

I insisted on a press conference because an afternoon paper carried a malicious article on the Oscar nominations hours before our decision was taken. How dare they talk like this? Three members of this year's jury, including me, were part of the jury that had elected Lagaan. The press owes us an apology.

But someone like Harmesh Malhotra [chairperson, FFI, whose indisposition made Pande take up the job] hardly seems qualified to decide what goes to the Oscars.

Have you spoken to him ever? He is such a cogent, coherent speaker. When you have chosen someone, you have to look at his over-all competence.

But where does a man who made Nagina, Pathar Aur Payal and Ankhiyon Se Goli Mare show any aesthetic sense?

Bhaiya, ek business hoti hai, ek aesthetics hoti hai (Business is one thing, aesthetics is another). When he was in the jury, we should respect that. We should discuss films, not jury members.

Harmeshji wasn't there during the final decision. He fell ill. We were keen to have him but he requested me to assume the position of the acting chairperson. We were collectively and absolutely sure Paheli was the right decision.

How could Paheli compare with Black on any level? Look at Mr [Amitabh] Bachchan's performance in Black.

He's outstanding even in Paheli. He was assuming a completely new character. Let me repeat, it was a very tough competition. We had to exercise caution about our judgement. We could not select a film that could be rejected later on at the Oscars.

When we send a film, we did not want it to be rejected on account of some legalese or loophole.
ROHIT: There you go, folks. That is the reason why BLACK wasn't selected. Jha pulled it out of him!

Black is not a copy of The Miracle Worker.

These are lobbies working. Finally, it's every individual jury member's subjective decision that determines the final decision.

Link

We will not lobby for Paheli

Amol Palekar is very excited about his film Paheli being selected as India's official entry for the 2006 Oscars.

"This film is inherently Indian, linked to the soil of the country. I am sure it will change the views of the people abroad about India," the director says.

"Everything, from its story -- based on Duvidha, written by Vijaydan Deta -- to its screenplay and designing -- by Sandhya Gokhale -- is truly Indian. The film's music can be traced to Indian folk and has been backed by excellent performances by Shah Rukh Khan, Rani Mukerji... (right down) to the smallest actor."

Palekar says he is content with the Film Federation of India's citation for Paheli, which says 'the film is truly Indian and extremely original.'

A still from Paheli"This is something which makes me feel very, very proud," Palekar says. "This has made me happy because it was a unanimous choice (by FFI) based on merit. Neither Shah Rukh (the film's producer, who is currently in the US shooting for Karan Johar's Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna) nor me were in Mumbai to lobby for its selection."

About the lobbying neccessary at the Oscars, Palekar says, "Whatever is required, minus lobbying, will be done to see that the movie catches the attention of those who matter. To say, we need to lobby to get an award at the Oscars means people don't understand the process. There are strict rules to follow which stipulate that anyone found lobbying for his/her film would be disqualified. Therefore, we will not lobby but will ensure that whosoever matters must watch Paheli."

The actor-turned-filmmaker has made nine films so far. All of them have been critically well-received. "My film Aakrit was the first Marathi film to receive an international award. That was very satisfying for me," Palekar says. "Dadasaheb Phalke was the father of the Indian cinema. Therefore, as a fellow Maharashtrian, it is gratifying to see that I am following his footsteps in a way, by making meaningful cinema."

Link

Why Paheli's better than Black

Raja Sen

PaheliEver since it has been announced that Paheli has been selected by the Film Federation of India as India's submission for the 2006 Academy Awards, all hell has broken loose.

The film opened to mostly poor reviews across the country, and protesters are voicing dissent in all directions -- Shah Rukh Khan's acting ability, the tragic omission of critically loved films like Hazaaron Khwaaishein Aisi and Iqbal, and even raising the possibility of lobbying done by Rajasthan Tourism!

And an entire nation of critics, armchair and otherwise, seem incensed by the fact that Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Black has been passed over for this relatively smaller commercial success.

In this article, we choose to argue the merits of the FFI's arguably gutsy selection. Here we defend our Oscar entry, especially over what can now be called its archrival, Black. Here's to the riddle:

First things first, the two films being debated upon have quite a bit in common: Both feature the masterful cinematography of Ravi K Chandran; both highlight their sensational leading lady, Rani Mukerji; and both are undeniably works of extreme directorial self-indulgence.

But the difference lies in that very fact. Amol Palekar's bright abandon in Paheli leads to a languorously unhurried fairytale, a unique love story told without fuss. On the other hand, Sanjay Leela Bhansali trips the light narcissistic with his mega-budget Black to emerge with a half-baked, often derivative and crucially flawed film.

The story: Palekar adapted a folktale written by playwright Vijay Dandetha. Trusting in the script to do the talking, he peopled this setting with a fine ensemble cast and a magnificent Rajasthani setting. The story remains a familiar one as a ghost falls madly in love with a human, and dresses up as her husband. Even as the ghost is enjoying this life, the husband returns, providing the film with its simplistic point of conflict.

Meanwhile, Bhansali, goaded to heights of cinematic decadence after the inexplicable success of his most grotesque and overblown film, Devdas, puts together a dodgy tribute to Helen Keller that aims far too manipulatively for the heartstrings. Black slashes melodramatically across them, instead of tugging lightly, which is why kerchiefs stay largely in pockets; emotion cannot be this calculated.

The setting: It's easy to fall into the rut of using Rajasthan as a clichéd backdrop, but Palekar avoids this pitfall by sheer excellence. The colours of the film make you reel, and its fairytale content is aptly framed by the bright magnificence of the desert state. Cinematographer Chandran hits peak with the film, wrapping Rajasthan in appropriate dream garb.

Black is a beautifully shot film, but amounting to vacant ambiguity. The setting is peculiarly English, the characters speak with a light (at the best times) accent, and everything aims to be perfect. But the candles and the bathtubs, the vastness and the artworks on the wall, all reek of trying-too-hard, of slathering on excess upon excess so you don't notice the emotion. As a friend said to me, if Black was set in the local marketplace, and you'd have seen Rani stumbling around in Lokhandwala (a northwest Mumbai area), it would have been a lot more effective. Indeed.

PaheliThe acting: Shah Rukh Khan, despite whatever misgivings you might have about his thespian abilities, woos women on screen with superb panache. The actor also has splendid comic timing, and the film sees him in a dual role, utilising both of his strengths and adding miraculous layers of restraint. The film's producer isn't the 'he-he-hey Anjali' actor of yore, and this is a breakout role.

Rani Mukerji seems to be incapable of putting a foot wrong these days, and this is a powerful, sensuous, emotive performance. The supporting cast isn't important, but some scene-stealing is done through the comedic efforts of Dilip Prabhavalkar and Rajpal Yadav. Amitabh Bachchan is magnificent in his brief appearance.

Black has some marvellous performances. Ayesha Kapur, an unschooled little girl, plays the young Michelle McNally to absolute perfection, decidedly the highlight of the film. Theatre veteran Shernaz Patel is superb as the mother, and Dhritiman Chatterjee provides adequate foil as the father. In a script requiring massive acting histrionics, Rani rises to the occasion on most parts, but it is tragically the script itself that keeps hers from being an immortal performance. Amitabh Bachchan, rattling some insanely grandiloquent soliloquys, hams tremendously. He is required to deliver, but just mires the film into mediocrity.

The narrative: Paheli is a slow film. It starts slow, stays slow, and remains a lazily told story. The simplicity of the story is plain; it is how the director has chosen to sketch in the details that makes the difference. For example, a pair of hand puppets share occasional dialogue with the ghost, fleshing out his, and the film's, character delightfully. The song sequences were a total letdown, the director unaccustomed to the classic Bollywood devices, and the lengthy songs just drifted harmlessly through the film, aided by the splendiferous colours.

BlackBlack works in fits and starts. While you are still adjusting to the vacuously lit, tremendous open spaces, characters are introduced and confusion is born throughout as none of them achieve true credibility. At best, the film is shadowy, free of empathy and surrounded by cinematographic smoke and mirrors. For example, Nandana Sen, who plays Michelle's sister, is an inexplicable persona, a cross between jealousy and affection the script never works on explaining.

The flaws: WARNING. SPOILERS HEREIN

Ah. The 'interesting' bit. Paheli has its share of loopholes, with a lot of viewers decrying the fact that the ghost eventually chose to enter the husband's body. Why couldn't he have done that at the very beginning? Well, readers, if we're assuming that a spirit can fall in love, why can't we assume that he too gets spooked (sorry!) by commitment? He's drawn to her, he wants to have her, but really, isn't it reasonable to think that he too might need time to think things over? Anyway, doesn't a fairytale (!) always have a blissful lack of absolute rationale?

Black's errors, on the other hand, weren't as harmless. To mention just one in a tremendously long list, nurses were justifiably up in arms after the film, as Bhansali constantly mixed up Alzheimer's and Parkinson's! This in itself is an unforgivable error, and in a film aiming to be a finely oiled and polished product, there can be no possible defense. The film drags tediously on, painting a strange picture lacking almost completely in realism.

In sum:

Black is not a good film. Hold your protests, and I swear if anyone mentions Krzysztof Kieslowski (the Polish filmmaking genius) and makes comparisons -- as several critics did at the time of the film's release -- with his Blue again, I will hurl Devdas DVDs at their scalp. Despite lavish and even breathtaking cinematography, and a couple of standout performances, Bhansali's film is insubstantial and ends up utterly inconsequential. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. If we would have sent this film to the Oscars, it would be laughed away. Not least because of the plagiarised content.

PaheliPaheli, on the other hand, paints a dreamscape. The enchanting story is laid out elaborately, framed magnificently in colours and Rajasthani exotica. The language is rustic and the actors have their accent-work well in place, so the dialect sounds appropriately faraway. The desert setting provides the cinematographer a perfect background to capture the trademark vivid brightness in the state's everyday clothing. The pagris are rich, layered, and as irresistible as the simple romance.

This is a magical film, and lets all hope fervently that the West wakes up to it as strongly as the Audrey Tatou movie (The French Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain, directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet), a couple of years ago. And we go one better, and grab us an Oscar.

Here's to you, Pahelie!

Link

Why Paheli scores over Black

Saibal Chatterjee

I quite liked Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s audaciously showy but meticulously crafted Black. Only a filmmaker of exceptional talent could have manipulated the emotions of the audience quite so sweepingly as this widely applauded triumph-of-the-human-spirit drama about a deaf-mute girl and her volatile teacher.

So, should Black have been India’s official nomination for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar? I am afraid the answer, for all the world-class trappings that film boasts, is no. Amol Palekar’s infinitely less ambitious Paheli, despite being a commercial washout in the domestic market, is a far better choice in the given circumstances.

There are at least three names that Black and Paheli share: Amitabh Bachchan, Rani Mukherjee and cinematographer Ravi K Chandran, who did outstandingly well with the camera on both films. But that’s where the similarities end. Black and Paheli ate completely different kettles of fish.

Paheli is completely original, unlike the much-audacious Black. What works against Black is that it is derivative in terms of content and style.
What works against Black is that it is derivative in terms of content and style. Powerful as it is, it is a film that could have been made anywhere in the world without anybody noticing the difference. The story of Helen Keller has been successfully told before, both on screen and on the stage.

Had Black been sent to Los Angeles to represent India at the 78th Academy Awards, the hard-nosed members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences would certainly have noticed that half the Bhansali film has liberally pinched ideas and situations from Arthur Penn’s brilliant The Miracle Worker (1962). And that would have been an embarrassment of sorts for the world’s largest movie industry.

Moreover, the drama at the heart of Black, a film that is ironically European in that way it is lit and cut, is obviously far too melodramatic and shrill for Western sensibilities. It might therefore have been a bit much to expect Academy members to sit through, let alone like, a film that seeks to go full tilt at the tear ducts. Also, being in English for the most part, Bhansali’s film wouldn’t really have qualified as a ‘foreign language’ film!

With Paheli, there are no such worries. It is completely original. Amol Palekar is right. Paheli is ‘Indian’ all the way. It could not, much in the manner of Lagaan and Monsoon Wedding, have emerged from any other nation in the world.

The story, a folk tale interpreted by celebrated Rajasthani writer Vijaydan Detha, was adapted once before for the screen. But Palekar’s adaptation is as far removed from Mani Kaul’s Duvidha (1973) as two Mumbai films ever can be. The visually translucent, languidly paced and consistently well-acted Paheli has much going for it.

The Film Federation of India (FFI) is a much-maligned body. Often dismissed as an organisation of fuddy-duddies who haven’t made a film worth the name for decades, it is charged with the onerous task of selecting India’s official entry for the Oscar in the Best Foreign Language Film category. It often goofs up big time, but can we forget that these were the very gentlemen who so famously homed in on Lagaan for the 2002 Oscar race?

This year, it certainly hasn’t got it wrong. The FFI jury’s decision to opt for Paheli cannot be faulted. One could argue that a film that hasn’t clicked with the audiences of its own country might find the going really tough when faced with the challenge of wooing Hollywood professionals. But domestic commercial success is no guarantee for a good Oscar showing.

Strictly on merit, Paheli, shorn of formulaic Bollywood conventions and borrowed technical flourishes, is indeed streets ahead of anything else that Indian cinema has thrown up in the last 12 months.

Palekar’s entry was competing against 14 other films – eight in Hindi, two each in Tamil and Telugu and one each in Marathi and Malayalam. The Hindi films in the fray were Mangal Pandey – The Rising, Veer-Zaara, Iqbal, Swades, Parineeta, Page 3, Black and Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi.

The choice of Paheli was unanimous, but the decision couldn’t have been easy one given the quality of some of the films it was up against. Paheli edged ahead of the competition after deliberations that lasted an entire week.

The question is: does Paheli stand a realistic chance of progressing into the short list of five Oscar nominees? It probably doesn’t, but rest assured that it wouldn’t give India a bad name even if it fails to make the grade. It has substance. It has style. And it is culturally rooted. Paheli is a film that India can be proud of.

A cursory glance at the list of recent foreign language Oscar winners should be enough to establish that thematic originality and stylistic novelty are the attributes that principally appeal to the voting members of the Academy.

Be it Pedro Almodovar’s All About My Mother, Roberto Benigni’s Life is Beautiful, Danis Tanovic’s No Man’s Land or Denys Arcand’s The Barbarian Invasions, the film that walks away with the statuette is invariably one that tells the world something about the culture it springs from as well as about the man who has crafted it.

To put it in Black and white, Paheli clearly scores over Bhansali’s film because it does not attempt to be what it need not be.

Link

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: