This year, India waited with bated breath for an Oscar nomination but it eluded the country again. Two women-led, women-directed, and women-oriented Indian films–Payal Kapadia’s All We Imagine As Light (AWIAL) and Kiran Rao’s Laapata Ladies–did not make it to the 97th Academy Awards despite rave reviews, positive word-of-mouth from critics and audiences alike, and several accolades in film festivals globally. While Indians have won Oscars in different categories over the years and The Elephant Whisperers (2022) won the Best Documentary Short Film, Indian feature films haven’t made it to the coveted statuette. It always seems to get just close enough though.
India’s fascination with the Academy Awards supposedly began in 1958 when Mehboob Khan’s Mother India (1957) earned the Best Foreign Language Film nomination at the 30th Academy Awards but lost by a whisker. Salaam Bombay (1988) and Lagaan (2001) were two other Indian films nominated for the coveted Oscars, neither receiving the golden statuette.
This time, though, the Film Federation of India (FFI) has come under the scanner for their selection of films to be sent to the Academy. The all-male federation did not feel AWIAL was “Indian enough” to be sent to the Oscars. The failure of their pick, Laapata Ladies, to make it to the Oscar shortlist drew sharp criticism of the FFI which has been accused of adopting a faulty selection process for quite some time now.
In 2013, the FFI picked the Gujarati film The Good Road instead of Irrfan-led The Lunchbox, a much-appreciated movie at several film festivals worldwide. It picked Priyanka Chopra-led Barfi a year before as India’s official Oscar entry. According to journalist Saibal Chatterjee, Barfi was destined to fail in comparison to stupendous films like the Iranian entry, A Separation, which ultimately won the Oscar that year.
Cinematic Appreciation or Obsession?
For a country so deeply fascinated and influenced by cinema, international awards are hard to come by. Even if they do, the failure of Indian movies to secure nominations, let alone win one, at the widely televised Golden Globes and Academy Awards seems to frustrate Bollywood filmmakers and audiences alike. What began as a fascination in the 1950s has become a complete obsession with the Oscars.
I spoke with two filmmakers to understand if the Academy Awards are an obsession rather than an aspiration, their take on the controversies involving the two films, and the challenges surrounding Indian movies and their international recognition.
Actor/Producer Swastik Choudhury considers the Oscars to be another feather in the cap of good films. “While recognitions like these are important, we shouldn’t elevate a single award to such a pedestal. I’ve noticed that some people become fixated on the National Award or Indian Panorama, yet they overlook films that may have been featured at top FIAPF-accredited festivals, even if those films faced tougher competition and might be equally, if not more, deserving of attention,” he says.
He cites the example of Jean-Luc Godard, the legendary French auteur, who turned down an Oscar in 2010 with the comment, “Which of my films have they seen? Do they actually know my work?”
“Then there’s Luis Buñuel, one of the most influential filmmakers in history, who famously said, ‘Nothing would disgust me more, morally, than to receive an Oscar.’ Interestingly, when the Academy later asked him for a photo with the Oscar statuette, he complied—but wore a wig and oversized sunglasses to hide his identity,” Choudhury reminds me.
Filmmaker and journalist Sandip Bal feels there is nothing wrong with this fascination with the Oscars. “We have seen many commercially successful Indian movies doing great in other parts of the world. Instead of treating the Oscars as a Western validation forum, I would rather cite it as a platform for alternate and meaningful storytelling.”
The Western ‘Gaze’ or a ‘Pitiful’ Gaze?
While certain sections of the audience have called Payal Kapadia’s film “poverty porn,” many feel AWIAL showcases bare reality which the selection committee might have felt controversial and harmful to “the image of India.”
Back in 2009, legendary Indian actors including Amitabh Bachchan, condemned the celebration and hysteria behind Slumdog Millionaire saying “India ain’t all slums & dogs.” A court case was filed against composer AR Rahman and actor Anil Kapoor alleging “abuse of slum dwellers.” Several sections of the Indian audiences too felt that Danny Boyle perpetuated stereotypes about India as a poor, dirty, downtrodden country just to appease the Western audiences.
Are we making films with an unconscious intention of appeasing the West? Would people categorize Satyajit Ray’s Pather Panchali (1955) and Apu Trilogy (1955-1959) in the same vein?
Choudhury opines, “Even revered filmmakers of the past have focused on India’s poverty and social struggles, projecting them through a lens that appeals to a Western audience. This approach to portraying misery while evoking a feeling that needs the developed world’s pitiful gaze has sometimes felt more aligned with Western perceptions of India, which may explain its wider acceptance. And the involvement of multiple global stakeholders (co-productions) in a film may sometimes influence the cultural context, leading to misrepresentations.”
For a wide section of the Indian social media audience, AWIAL’s international success and its multinational production collaboration seemed to make it a better contender for the Oscars. Notably, the film earned two nominations at the Golden Globes this year. However, not all movies on marginalized lives earn this kind of acclaim.
“If you look at a film like Cinema Bandi (2021), for instance, directed by Praveen Kandregula, it features protagonists from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, with limited means, but its core focus is on their brilliance and ingenuity, highlighted with sharp humor. It doesn’t lean to adopt a melancholic tone about their social status from a moral high ground.”
“Then there’s Vidhvasta by Ashish Avikunthak, which offers a brilliant exploration of the psychological dynamics between the ruling and serving classes. Yet, despite its brilliance, it hasn’t received the international recognition it deserves. If a similar film had come from the West, I have no doubt it would’ve been hailed as groundbreaking,” continues Choudhury.
Bal stresses the subjective nature of art and that it is exposed to individual interpretations and personal experiences. “The urge to categorize films as art, commercial, festival-oriented has been going on for several decades. It’s up to the audience how they want to see a film. We are so exposed to mass entertainment through mindless PR-driven movies that we feel certain films are only for a certain class of people. Sometimes the reality hits so hard that we feel it’s exposing our collective inefficiency,” he opines.
The Politics Behind the Films
Films are not apolitical even when they do not discuss politics overtly. Though only a conjecture, some feel FFI’s disapproval of AWIAL might have political undertones. After all, the movie does not sing praises of the system that fails the poor and the marginalized repeatedly.
Kapadia has also been quite the dissenter in her life. Notably, back in 2015, her alma mater, the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), took legal disciplinary action against her and her friends when they protested against the appointment of far-right actor and politician Gajendra Chauhan as the Chairperson of FTII.
Choudhury, however, does not consider AWIAL a film focusing on systemic oppression. “It’s more of an exploration of the characters’ inner worlds, their identity crisis, and the socio-cultural forces that shape their experiences. I’d be quite surprised if AWIAL wasn’t selected for that reason.” He feels all this discussion is mere speculation at the moment.
“It could be political, or perhaps the active promotion needed to capture the attention of Academy voters played a role—maybe the team behind Laapata Ladies had more influence in that area. Alternatively, it’s possible that Laapata Ladies simply resonated more with the sensibilities of the selectors,” he states.
While he views both the movies as “well-crafted” and “engaging”, there was nothing unexpected or unapparent in them. “I found All We Imagine As Light more conventional in its design, fitting the typical festival mold, while Laapata Ladies followed a very traditional approach in its exploration of emotional highs and lows.”
Bal echoes the same view. “I feel AWIAL is more rustic and open-ended while Laapata Ladies had a definite climax which most of our cinema viewers like. But about their selection or non-selection, I feel it’s more about how the jury sees the film. We shouldn’t forget that AWIAL won awards and appreciation at Cannes. It brought the Golden Globe nomination for the first time for an Indian director,” he remarks.
Holding Space for the Alternate
Regardless of the disappointment, controversies, and multi-faceted opinions over the Oscars, it’s a unanimous view that filmmakers need more platforms for experimental and radical forms of filmmaking.
Choudhury says, “Over time, I feel, the focus has shifted in cinema towards its marketability rather than its artistic merit. On top of it, please do not forget the biases and insecurities that some of the decision-makers may carry. Thus films that could have left a positive influence for the future get ignored. For indie filmmakers, this has made things even harder.”
Bal echoes similar views, especially on the changing nature of OTT platforms. “Earlier theatres used to showcase commercial and masala movies, while film societies and festivals were platforms for meaningful films and discussions. OTTs used to be space for alternate cinema, but in recent years, we have witnessed a decline in all these spaces for good films.”
As for the whole “movies for intellectuals” and “poverty porn” debate, Bal encourages a departure from labeling movies. “When we speak about poverty porn, do we mean that we shouldn’t showcase the stories of poor, downtrodden, socio-economically backward classes, underprivileged? Or are we living in a time where such movies are considered against the nation?” he asks.
Choudhury wonders if a lot of times films are labeled intellectual “simply because they stray from the conventional norms of Indian cinema with some nuances sprinkled around.”
”What’s the issue with a film being intellectual? I find it funny if people criticize a film on that parameter. Cinema is an audio-visual experience and like any other art form, it should provide enough depth to engage the brain—something that lingers after the credits roll. If a film doesn’t spark thought, transcend you beyond the obvious, or leave a lasting impression, what’s its purpose? Should it just serve superficial entertainment?” he says.
Food for thought indeed.
Editorial Courtesy of Neha Jha
Feature Image from ‘Laapataa Ladies;’ Credit to Producers Kiran Rao, Aamir Khan, and Jyoti Deshpande via India Current