#thegoodroad

Last night saw The Good Road.. Let me admit that I saw it just to find why it was the official Oscar entry. And no way it was on my mind why not Lunchbox. It was more of why not "Bhaag Milkha Bhaag".

First how was The Good Road as a movie.. It is a nice simple story on various lives - harsh but true realities. It shows some aspect of rural India that you don't see otherwise. But it ends there. Beyond that, neither the direction nor the performances will impress you much - it's very ordinary. And hence surprised.. And hence not surprised why there is no much hue & cry of it being the official entry.

I hope the judges knew that this is entry to Oscars, that honours the art of movie making and not to a tourism conclave to showcase the elements of the country.

It is about how the different elements of art have been used to weave an experience that enthrals the audience. Some draws their power through direction, cinematography and some through powerful performances by the cast, and some having a mix of both. It has to be definitely something more than a story. Because the movies are about telling the story - the medium has to add value on top of the story.

And that's where Bhaag Milkha Bhaag or The Lunchbox scores far more than The Good Road.

The Lunchbox is again a simple story written around a wrongly delivered lunchbox (yes, six sigma allows such few mistakes in million cases). It also beautifully plays around the small elements of daily life. For example, Irfan who usually remain inside the train mostly, is shown hanging by the gate soaking in fresh air, when he falls in love. And not to forget the strong but silent performance by Irfan Khan - how many people can do that - be it here or beyond. Probably the ending disappointed the jury as it did many in the audience, as we have grown up to the "live-happy-ever-after" endings.

Bhaag Milkha Bhaag, a boipic, but more than that a great exercise in movie making. Right from how to romanticise a story to presentation (flowing as a prose) to solid performances, it has left no stones unturned. For me the biggest victory for this movie is how it has left my 6 year kiddo inspired. He has been running since then (hope he didn't go too far..).

And if I have to pick a wild entry, it will certainly be Inkaar. Again not the art movie variety but nevertheless a great movie - a very mature treatment to a mature issue. And what makes it score higher is the direction - showing same scene in two subtly different way based on who is saying the story, adding those biases to the scenes.

A lot has been said in the past 4 days about the pros and cons of the two films at the Oscars. A lot of criticism has also been sent the way of those people who have criticized the FFI decision. In the process, those associated with the film who have criticized the FFI decision, like Karan Johar and Anurag Kashyap, have been called sore losers and whiners. They are whining, as are many others who've followed the kind of acclaim The Lunchbox has got over time and for good reason. I'll elaborate on these reasons here and some of the questions people have raised in this post.

Why is The Lunchbox a better bet at the Oscars?

A lot of people wishing well for TGR and happy at its selection don't appear to know much about the selection procedure through which nominees at the Oscars are selected. If you look at the previous winners and nominees there are certain patterns that emerge. Those films became known at major festivals like Berlin, Venice, Toronto, Cannes, Telluride, generated a lot of buzz in the international press, picked up a few awards along the way and most critically got picked up for distribution by an American Studio. 

Films that India usually send have none of these things going for it. The Good Road, for example, was featured at one festival in London and it was not even a major one. I found no reviews, good or bad, emerging from that festival about the film. 

On the other hand The Lunchbox was first sent to several scripting labs around the world before it was even shot, including Torino, Rotterdam Cinemart (where it got an honorable mention), Sundance, and Berlinale's Talent Campus. If you've seen the film you would have seen all these names in the end credits (Read more here: http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/cannes-film-review-the-lunchbox-1200483926/) .

The producers for The Lunchbox had the foresight to pitch their film correctly. It was premiered earlier this year at Cannes in the Critic's Week Section where it won the viewers' choice awards. It got excellent reviews at Cannes from The Hollywood Reporter  and Variety . It generated enough interest at Cannes that Sony Pictures Classic acquired it for North American Distribution. Some of the films they have picked in the last 5 years or so are Austria's Amour (2012), Chile's No (2012), Iran's A Separation (2011), In a Better World (2010), Argentina's The Secret in their Eyes (2009),  Waltz with Bashir (2008). All of these films were nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film category. Since 2009 Sony Pictures Classic has been the studio behind every single win in this category. No film without a US Studio backing it has ever won the foreign film oscar. 

When people complain about the FFI's lack of vision this is what they are talking about. Having a US Studio backing you, having festival acclaim is what ensures that the film gets nominated. If you've followed Irfan Khan and Ritesh Batra's interviews you'd also know that SPC felt pretty confident about TLB making it to the top 5. They were ready to back it and lobby for it and these people clearly know what they are doing. Following Cannes, TLB also got acclaim at Toronto and Telluride - two other festivals that are a pretty good indication of how this category will play out at the Academy Awards. 

How does TGR measure up to this acclaim. It got bad reviews when it ran for one week in Gujarat in the local press. The few people who've seen it in India don't have too many kind things to say about it. The Academy voters have to create their shortlists from some 70-odd foreign films. There is simply not enough time for them to watch all these films and the English language films. They look at festival acclaim as a means to gauge which film would be worth it. In all likelihood most Academy voters won't even watch TGR when it is time for selection. There first question would be why the film hasn't been to any major festival. Whether the NDFC can even get enough DVD screeners out is another question. Which means that TGR will not even make a blip at the Oscars radar. 

The Oscars are a game and TLB was our best shot at winning that game so far. The Hollywood Reporter, Indiewire, New York Times all mentioned it in their list of possible winners. The "Twitter campaign" in India, as it has disparagingly been called, cannot influence these people and they know what they are talking about.

Is The Good Road a better film?

The other side of the argument I've heard is that TLB having studio backing or festival acclaim should not matter. We should only send a submission based on quality. Well on this note too I would really like to know what the jury was thinking. I saw TGR last night and its one of the most amateur films (in terms of production, acting, story) that have been sent by India in the last decade or so. The film takes a somewhat innovative idea but does not have a clue what to do with it. It plods along along clumsily and hopes to make up for its lack of character development and story with visuals of the salt desert in Kutch and colourful duppattas flowing in the air for no apparent reason. I don't have a problem with expletive laden dialogue but it seems to exist in this film only to make it feel edgy. If you've seen the Lunchbox, what strikes you immediately is the pitch perfect acting of the three main players (and 4 if you count Aunty). In front of that, the acting in TGR is so amateur it is embarrassing. People recite their dialogues like we used to in school plays. There are two scenes where parents of the missing child breakdown but its hard for you to feel anything for them because their characters are so hollow. Compare that to TLB, where the film endears you to a character you never even see on screen. 

The Lunchbox is not just a smarter choice, it looks like a masterpiece in front of the student film like TGR. Actually that is unfair - I've seen better student films. 

Why do we need approval from the West/Aren't the Oscars corrupt?

This isn't about getting approval from someone. It is about making the best use of an opportunity. Sending a film to the Oscars is not an achievement. Any country can make a submission. Since we've been sending films, an Indian film has only ever been nominated thrice. For reasons mentioned above TLB could have changed that. The Oscars are important for the market they open up for the producers, directors and even the country associated with a particular film. A win or even a nomination shines the spotlight on that country's cinema in a new way. That is what happened with Japan, Denmark, Chile, Iran (and Asghar Farhadi in particular), and Argentina in the last few years. This would be good not just for a lone Lunchbox and Karan Johar/Anurag Kashyap but several other indie filmmakers in India. They could possibly look at the co-production route to take Indian films overseas beyond the diaspora market. 

This is not about sucking up to the west but about expanding our own opportunities and playing it smart. Will a Sony Pictures Classic pick up another TLB in the coming years knowing how foolishly the FFI makes it choices? Its a lost opportunity, not simply for Sikhya/AKFPL/Ritesh Batra, but also other filmmakers in India. 

Shouldn't we support the small film/the regional film?

This I have to say is one of the most infuriating arguments I have heard. Because regional films have been ignored in previous years its good that TGR was chosen. So we'd rather send a bad film than a good film just because it is in Gujarati. How is this even logical? Apart from this, its not like The Lunchbox is some big production cheesy bollywood film. It is also a small film. This sudden positioning of the film and its makers as some kind of bullies is laughable. They also fought against odds to get this film made and they made the better film. This attitude of supporting the regional films is something I find patronising. If you want to support regional films support the good ones - Vihir, Natarang, Lucia, even Eega. I'm not saying these films would have a better chance at an Oscar but at least they are far better than TGR. 

Can't TGR get backing and still make it in the nominations if we all support it?

There are two problems I have with this line of argument.

A. Why should I/or anyone support a film that I know is bad. Barfi wasn't worth it, Paheli wasn't worth it, Devdas and Jeans were also not worth it. TGR is essentially in the same league. 

B. Even if you put down my criticism of TGR to my individual taste, the window of opportunity to get US studio backing is pretty much closed. Most of the festivals where it could have been picked up are over. The studios already have their line-up of films they will be concentrating on. Oscar lobbying is an expensive process and I doubt the NDFC has the money or the clout to manage it. 

Sore Loser?

I see a lot of complaints against the attitude of the TLB team because they have criticised the decision of the FFI. If you had put in as much effort as they have to get this film made, to have the screenplay go to screenwriting labs, to get an international sales agent, to get studio backing, to get acclaim at festivals and have your studio tell you that you stand a good chance at the final 5 (as Irfan himself said in an interview) and then you had people as daft as the FFI throw away this opportunity on a film that is bad - will you not be disappointed? Should you then hide that disappointment for a fake show of graciousness. I'd rather have this outrage from their team so that the FFI is forced to defend and explain its decision rather than just let them slide by.