Comments on: Slumdog Millionaire, Indian-American movies and do we need Oscars?

By: Particle

Particle — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:30:56 +0000

I say the following on the supposition that you are not an Indian:

You probably liked it because it gave you a completely new experience. But if considered on artistic merits the movie was aweful.

By: Particle

Particle — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:21:45 +0000

To Jabberwock:
Try debating about the degree to which a factor determines the final award. Every award is determined by both artistic and extra-artistic factors. The quality of an award can be ascertained by the degree to which artistic factors are important. It is difficult to determine this “degree”, VERY painful in fact, but in leads in constructive directions.

To Lekhni:
Oscars are definitely subjective, but it honors far better art in their own taste than do Filmfares.

By: Particle

Particle — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:05:25 +0000

“Bollywood” is perfect. The name captures the shittiness of its movies.

By: Particle

Particle — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:03:06 +0000

I never tire of repeating my points so once again I put forth the following characterization: “Identify a movie by the Audience it was made for.”

Satya: Indian
Slumdog Millionaire: British-American
Elizabeth: British-American

By: Particle

Particle — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:55:36 +0000

If you are really puzzled – as opposed to not just dissatisfied – I again suggest the following: West is rich and powerful. We want to be like West someday. So we worship everything in the West.

By: Particle

Particle — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:48:09 +0000

Monsters vs. Aliens at 5! Oh my God!

I would like to refine Phoenix’s position thus:
1. In Hollywood there is Art & there is entertainment.
2. In Bollywood, it’s just entertainment.

Also, Hollywood serves up a rich variety even in its cheapest movies, whereas in Bollywood it’s the same old crap over and over again.

By: Particle

Particle — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:41:32 +0000

Instead of getting swayed by that, shouldnt we work towards creating the Filmfare awards into a bigger brand, improving the process, inviting foreign films to compete (in a separate category like the Oscars) and so on?

Exactly.

Just think of what it takes to create a brand like Oscar and you’ll see where the problem actually is: India doesn’t count on the global scene. It’s awards are unlikely to attract the same fame as the ones insitituted in a superpower. Of course, awards need not & must not have their reputation dependent on the political standing of the country they are instituted in. They could develop a reputation solely on which movies and artists they reward. If Filmfares want to build such a reputation it needs to disqualify all Bollywood movies & artists from being nominated.

By: Particle

Particle — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:26:25 +0000

Oscars were never omniscient and are less so nowadays. But I think you are trying to use that not-so-objectionable flaw to suggest that Filmfares – which are the exact opposite of omniscient – are comparable to Oscars.

Even with their flaws Oscars honors much better movies and artists than Filmfares. Now you can argue that Indian movies and artists are aweful to begin with. But then why bother thinking about an award that is “of the Aweful People, by the Aweful People and for the Aweful People”?

By: Particle

Particle — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:14:16 +0000

First of all, I like the way you think. For the simple reason: You ACTUALLY think.

I agree with you on everything but your comment seems to give the impression that Oscar actually succeeds in honouring best of the art of the cinema. It doesn’t. It’s an award for the Spielbergs, not Bergmans.