 "Market forces are what drive film awards: Mahesh Bhatt")
At the 14th Stardust Awards recently, the Farah Khan directed action-heist comedy Happy New Year, a film that was panned by critics, clinched the maximum number of awards. Farah Khan was crowned ‘dream director’ and her film’s leading man, Shah Rukh Khan, was awarded ‘best actor – thriller/action’. And Tiger Shroff, whose Heropanti was labelled by some as zeropanti, was declared the ‘superstar of tomorrow’. Film award ceremonies are increasingly raising questions about the criteria on which films are awarded. Director-producer Mahesh Bhatt tells Veenu Sandhu why these awards are not about good cinema anymore. Excerpts:
How credible are film awards today?
Award functions are not award functions. They are TRP-catching tools for television networks. It’s the big stars who generate higher TRPs (Television Rating Points that judge which programmes are viewed the most). And big stars do ‘bad films’. But these films sell. So, the writing is on the wall. Music and films, which may be panned by critics, will find more visibility at these awards because the television networks are not here to serve the art. Their aim is to generate profits. And they do so by turning film awards into huge television entertainment events. But they also go about this business cleverly, eating their cake and having it too. They reserve a small section for niche content and give awards to actors in that category. Those who fit into this category are happy to receive these awards because it gives them the visibility they would not get otherwise. After all, this also amplifies their brand.
Things haven’t changed. They have only become more transparent and open. Even back then the wise people in the industry would say that these were only market-driven incentives. When we walked into the industry we were told that the awards were for sale and all will lobby. Even then the agenda was to optimise the circulation of the magazine or newspaper behind the film awards. It’s a myth to think that the days gone by were good days, when, once upon a time, saints walked the earth, when we were holy and how man has now become a beast. This is all yarn.
We call the Oscars the purest kind of awards. But the reality is that the market forces and the politics of the time have the world in their hands. Why else would US First Lady Michelle Obama suddenly show up (in a surprise video appearance) at the Oscars to announce Argo as the Best Picture? That’s because it endorses their politics and it serves their constituency. (Argo is a 2012 film based on real events and chronicles the life-or-death operation to rescue six Americans from the US embassy in Tehran following a conflict between the US and Iran).
What purpose do these awards serve for those who receive them? Do they also stand to gain professionally?
What do stars want? Visibility. What do brands want? Visibility. These awards are nothing but opportunities to be visible, to get the brand varnished. That’s one reason you’ll find awards in every category. There is no longer just one best actor or best actress. There is also the best actor and actress in the thriller/action category; there’s best actor and actress for drama, and best actor and actress for romance/comedy. May the tribe grow. For the stars, the deal is: “Why should I go to clap for somebody else?” For the organisers, it’s: “Let’s draw as many stars on to the podium as possible.”
In the process, are we ignoring serious, meaningful, or fine cinema?
For that there are the state-backed national awards that have no razzmatazz and also no viewership. The entire atmosphere here is slow, laborious, highbrow and solemn. The body language is ancient. The entire construct is different and so is the rulebook. But here also you now have the category of ‘best popular film providing wholesome entertainment’. Besides, who decides what is good cinema? The critic? A handful of people with ‘superior’ tastes and a niche worldview? That’s what used to happen. But now the masses are revolting. Now the numbers are deciding. And you can’t argue with numbers. The rise of the masses has, in a way, democratised the process. With television having penetrated the interiors and the very crevices of the nation, people see these awards for what they are, to amuse themselves. Why shouldn’t the television networks and advertisers cash in on that?
Today, there is a glut of film awards. Which one would you say remains the most credible?
I have not been a part of this for a long time. But I would say there is no hierarchy. Each award has its own rulebook. But I would say the awards today have brought together art and commercial cinema — the two streams that would never meet. So, at the awards if you have a film that did business worth Rs 200 crore, you also have one that made Rs 10. After all, in this business, you don’t want to upset either.
How credible are film awards today?
Award functions are not award functions. They are TRP-catching tools for television networks. It’s the big stars who generate higher TRPs (Television Rating Points that judge which programmes are viewed the most). And big stars do ‘bad films’. But these films sell. So, the writing is on the wall. Music and films, which may be panned by critics, will find more visibility at these awards because the television networks are not here to serve the art. Their aim is to generate profits. And they do so by turning film awards into huge television entertainment events. But they also go about this business cleverly, eating their cake and having it too. They reserve a small section for niche content and give awards to actors in that category. Those who fit into this category are happy to receive these awards because it gives them the visibility they would not get otherwise. After all, this also amplifies their brand.
Also Read
How have things changed from the time when there were only a handful of awards?
Things haven’t changed. They have only become more transparent and open. Even back then the wise people in the industry would say that these were only market-driven incentives. When we walked into the industry we were told that the awards were for sale and all will lobby. Even then the agenda was to optimise the circulation of the magazine or newspaper behind the film awards. It’s a myth to think that the days gone by were good days, when, once upon a time, saints walked the earth, when we were holy and how man has now become a beast. This is all yarn.
We call the Oscars the purest kind of awards. But the reality is that the market forces and the politics of the time have the world in their hands. Why else would US First Lady Michelle Obama suddenly show up (in a surprise video appearance) at the Oscars to announce Argo as the Best Picture? That’s because it endorses their politics and it serves their constituency. (Argo is a 2012 film based on real events and chronicles the life-or-death operation to rescue six Americans from the US embassy in Tehran following a conflict between the US and Iran).
What purpose do these awards serve for those who receive them? Do they also stand to gain professionally?
What do stars want? Visibility. What do brands want? Visibility. These awards are nothing but opportunities to be visible, to get the brand varnished. That’s one reason you’ll find awards in every category. There is no longer just one best actor or best actress. There is also the best actor and actress in the thriller/action category; there’s best actor and actress for drama, and best actor and actress for romance/comedy. May the tribe grow. For the stars, the deal is: “Why should I go to clap for somebody else?” For the organisers, it’s: “Let’s draw as many stars on to the podium as possible.”
In the process, are we ignoring serious, meaningful, or fine cinema?
For that there are the state-backed national awards that have no razzmatazz and also no viewership. The entire atmosphere here is slow, laborious, highbrow and solemn. The body language is ancient. The entire construct is different and so is the rulebook. But here also you now have the category of ‘best popular film providing wholesome entertainment’. Besides, who decides what is good cinema? The critic? A handful of people with ‘superior’ tastes and a niche worldview? That’s what used to happen. But now the masses are revolting. Now the numbers are deciding. And you can’t argue with numbers. The rise of the masses has, in a way, democratised the process. With television having penetrated the interiors and the very crevices of the nation, people see these awards for what they are, to amuse themselves. Why shouldn’t the television networks and advertisers cash in on that?
Today, there is a glut of film awards. Which one would you say remains the most credible?
I have not been a part of this for a long time. But I would say there is no hierarchy. Each award has its own rulebook. But I would say the awards today have brought together art and commercial cinema — the two streams that would never meet. So, at the awards if you have a film that did business worth Rs 200 crore, you also have one that made Rs 10. After all, in this business, you don’t want to upset either.