With the film industry in the thick of the award season, every event is followed by a debate on whether the awards were fair or not. For instance, Anupam Kher's critically acclaimed Maine Gandhi Ko Nahin Maara got little or nothing on home turf, but it has just won three awards at the Riverside International Film Festival, California - People's Choice and Audience Choice Awards for the film, directed by Jahnu Barua, and the Founder's Award for Best Performance for Kher himself.
"I wondered why the film was not even considered for awards in India," says the actor-producer. "Had it been nominated, but not awarded, I would have accepted the jury's decision. But ignoring a film like that was really surprising," says Kher, speaking from London.
Which brings us to the question of difference in parameters for judging a film in India and abroad. Directors Shyam Benegal and Sudhir Mishra have conflicting opinions on this. "There's really no difference in the way films are judged here and abroad," Benegal feels. "It's a consensus of what the chairman of the jury and the members have decided."
Sudhir Mishra, whose film Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi has been a festival favourite abroad but has missed out on awards at home, thinks otherwise. "The quality of the jury has to change," says Mishra. "We can't have retired filmmakers deciding which film should be judged the winner in its category. The biggest problem is that we have dinosaurs at the helm of affairs, with mindsets stuck in the 1920s."
He insists that the next generation of filmmakers - Ashutosh Gowariker, Farhan Akhtar, Rakeysh Mehra and others -should be made chairmen of juries at film festivals and awards functions. This is an idea that film programmer and writer Uma Da Cunha shares: "Our jury should comprise active members who are young and innovative with progressive thinking, who have the knowledge to judge a film on its merits." However, she and Benegal both feel that every film fest will have its share of winners and losers, and the losers' disappointment may colour their opinion on the fairness of the proceedings.
{{/usCountry}}He insists that the next generation of filmmakers - Ashutosh Gowariker, Farhan Akhtar, Rakeysh Mehra and others -should be made chairmen of juries at film festivals and awards functions. This is an idea that film programmer and writer Uma Da Cunha shares: "Our jury should comprise active members who are young and innovative with progressive thinking, who have the knowledge to judge a film on its merits." However, she and Benegal both feel that every film fest will have its share of winners and losers, and the losers' disappointment may colour their opinion on the fairness of the proceedings.
{{/usCountry}}Da Cunha is not sure by what criteria films win at awards in India, but points out, "Content and technique are very important when it comes to selection at film festivals abroad. The competition is getting tougher abroad as the low-budget realistic films here can't afford the high production and post-production costs."
Mishra emphasises, "Juries abroad may not be completely fair. But, at least, they have quality jurors on the international scene."
Ignored at home, feted abroad
Pather Panchali: Satyajit Ray's path breaking film was initially ignored in India. It was at Cannes where Ray was discovered and hailed as a master
Terrorist: Santosh Sivan's film about a suicide bomber found no takers here. But Hollywood star John Malkovich took it upon himself to distribute the film in the US
Fire: Deepa Mehta's film won rave reviews all over the world, but ran into rough weather in India
Devaki: Bappaditya Bandopadhyay's film on devdasis was judged Best Feature Film at the Asheville International Film Festival, North Carolina. But the film got no nominations here