And the Oscar doesn't go to...
So even the Oscars couldn't defy "Gravity" its anti-gravity moment. The mexican director would have lived out his space in trance as his film bagged seven oscars out of ten. Predictable? Not so much. Or maybe. Because over the years, the awards have a degree of giving out max to those films which generate the maximum adulation from the global audience. This could be because the Hollywood Studios and their gargantuan think-tanks are hitting a dry run when it comes to big markets like China, HongKong, India, and the MiddleEast where cultural dissimilarities are making their films come a cropper. "Gravity" collected Rs.62 crores in Indian theatres despite the hoopla. "Dookudu" and "Gabbar Singh" generated a higher RoI than that film.
On that count, you can see why films like "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Gravity" sweep the awards even if with diluted standards and dumbing down of English for the global audience. It is like a Miss World contest or Miss Universe contest - Hollywood which represents the apogee of American Culture wants and crowns film-makers who strike gold with more eyeballs rather than film-makers who are altruistic (Oliver Stone), brazenly American (Martin Sorcerese), uncompromising (Steven Spielberg) or self-obsessed and controversial (Woody Allen).
If the trend continues, 20 years down the lane, I think there will be more foreign language films competing for the Oscars or film-makers with the American sensibilities but a global pulse like Eduardo. That leaves the Indians with a terrific opportunity - don't make films for the Oscars, try to beat them in sensibilities and cultural opulence and larger-than-life sliceness. One day, with SFX a "Bahubali" or a "Hanuman" or a "Mahabharat" will gross as much as a Spidey or a Batman. Americans have killed more film industries since the 1920s by their clinical imperialism of the culture of Americana which has a distinct closeness with most Western cultures except the Koreans, the Chinese and the Indians. Watching the Oscars this time became more boring than a Pogo channel where the anchor hustles with a masked face. No wonder, the Oscars are now looked down by those who covet the BAFTAs, the Golden Globes, the Cannes or now the Sundance where unconventional yardsticks of measuring success are bringing out such exciting films like "Boyhood" and "Wajdah" (2012).
On the contrary, Oscars are still stuck on criteria that the critics and the audiences don't seem to agree often but are determined by quixotic whims and messages from the masters who call the shots at the industry. Any idea why Sandra Bullock didn't get the best actress award? Any thoughts why Leonardo Dicaprio continues to be at the non-receiving end of the awards? Despite a uni-dimensional way of judging the films, the Oscars get the maximum mileage but still lesser than what the Superbowl or FIFA World Cup command.
Today, close to seven billion people are watching films and a fraction of them are wanting to make films in as many unique way as their sensibilities and paradigms motivate them to. The Oscars can go to anybody who is trained to give a well-rehearsed elevator speech. But lets not think that their success is a benchmark - don't be misled by the UNESCO heritage-type statements going out when the Oscar goes to a film that talks about slavery in Africa, a war waged in Afghanistan or Iraq or a legend in South Africa. There are more ways to watch a film, make a film and even review a film. Remember tonite that Oscars may be more anti-diluvian in ways you haven't yet realised.
