 "The Bollywood awards bazaar")
In the 1970s, the common man looked less like Arvind Kejriwal and more like Amol Palekar: mild and non-confrontationist. So it comes as a bit of a surprise that Palekar heaps scorn on film awards. These are designed to be "glamourous events," he says in mocking capital letters in an email, stage managed to boost television viewership, keep the sponsors happy and ensure star presence at functions. "These are like the management seats in an academic institution allowing backdoor entry to non-meritorious students." Having won his fair share of awards, even though at times he was pitted against superstar Amitabh Bachchan, and having served on many award juries, Palekar says it is ridiculous to expect popular awards to honour talent.
With every glitzy show, the disenchantment with awards is rising. Nearly every entertainment magazine and channel has an award and it is common to see undeserving winners, says actor Anupam Kher. "Film awards are nothing but business." Bachchan too lamented the quality of awards with a tweet in 2012: "Relationships and circumstances sometimes decide who it is that shall be rewarded." Bhaag Milkha Bhaag, which dominated the latest string of awards, was slammed as a "completely fake" film by noted actor Naseeruddin Shah. "Farhan (Akhtar) has no doubt worked very hard but building up muscles and growing your hair is not exactly working hard on your acting," said the actor who has won three national awards and has received a Padma Shri as well as a Padma Bhushan.
In 2011, brawny Dabangg was picked by one jury as the best film over artful Udaan and Peepli Live. Irrfan Khan's performance in Paan Singh Tomar was good enough to fetch him the national award for best actor in 2013, but was not found up to the mark in popular award shows - he did win the Screen award but along with Ranbir Kapoor for Barfi. That year, Gangs of Wasseypur lost in the 'best movie' category to Barfi that was found to have lifted comic sequences from classic movies without acknowledging them. In 2014, critically acclaimed films like Lootera and Fukrey did not feature in the best film and director categories, while Chennai Express did. ("Some films are hard to make sense of. Others are just nonsense. Chennai Express ticks both boxes," reviewer Rajeev Masand said on CNN-IBN.)
A combination of factors has caused the rot. Filmfare was the first and, for a long time, the only popular Hindi film awards. It began as a stage show in 1954, with a limited number of guests and sponsorship in the form of some standees and posters at the venue, usually Shanmukhananda Hall in Sion. Photographs were carried in magazines and newspapers, where these advertisements would appear in the background. As celebrity performances were added to the mix, the scale and entertainment factor rose. Screen launched its awards in 1995 and several others followed.
From 2000 onwards, TV channels started buying rights regularly and a battery of sponsors and partners joined the bandwagon, turning awards into mammoth events attended by a few thousands and watched by millions at home. The venues used now are massive. Filmfare is held at Yash Raj Studios, while Bandra-Kurla Complex hosts Stardust and some other functions. Every show today features top stars as hosts, large dance crews, gaudy costumes, pyrotechnics and at least one actor, often Akshay Kumar, making an entry aerially or on a motorbike. There is simply too much money riding on the show; it can't afford to be an intellectual discourse.
The awardees are picked either by a jury or public votes. Organisers are not uniformly transparent about jury members. At one popular magazine that picks winners through readers' votes, for instance, the nominations are shortlisted by a group of its editors. To please advertisers and big stars, the composition of juries itself is sometimes designed in such a way that awards can be allotted without internal disputes, alleges Palekar. Do sponsors put pressure to give awards to the actors on their payroll? There is no conclusive evidence so far, though such rumours have started doing the rounds - just like they did several years ago that some large advertisers were pressuring Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to include their brand ambassadors in the team. Some allege there is lobbying and domination of big banners.
The television rights for such shows come expensive. Apart from these rights, channels make other investments too: a curtain raiser episode and a red carpet special and several allied properties that help generate buzz and provide a month-long build-up to the final telecast. Costs range anywhere between Rs 10 crore and Rs 15 crore for the event and Rs 4-8 crore for marketing. This money has to be recovered from advertisers. And advertisers will not buy time unless the show is "mass market". This challenge of gaining viewers requires a full tamasha. That's why channels have a say in everything about the on-air content, notes Stardust Editor Ram Kamal Mukherjee. "The theme, how the set looks or who will perform - it is all about glamour and scale. For the organisers, it is a catch 22 situation because if the viewership drops, channels can say it is because you did not take XYZ suggestion."
This year, Life OK channel took over the TV rights for the Screen function from Colors. "We also made new promos for all our prime-time shows and had our actors share stage with Bollywood stars," says General Manager Ajit Thakur. The show helped it record a 10 per cent jump in viewership, according to numbers available with Television Post. The show was hosted by Shah Rukh Khan.
Shah Rukh, who participated in two major functions this year, and Salman Khan are said to charge between Rs 2 crore and Rs 3 crore for an act. Katrina Kaif and Priyanka Chopra get Rs 50 lakh to Rs 1.5 crore for performances. If the performer is given an award, he or she is likely to offer a discount, asking for about 30 per cent of their usual fee, according to one source. Consider this: Shah Rukh danced with Madhuri Dixit at a function in 2011, the same year he won the best actor award for My Name Is Khan. Katrina Kaif danced to popular hits at another show in 2012 as well as 2013 and won an award called 'international icon (female)' for both years. At the 2013 Screen awards, where he picked up the best actor trophy along with Irrfan Khan, Ranbir Kapoor performed a nine-minute tribute to RK Films. Aamir Khan, thanks to his absence, rarely wins. He stopped going after his performance in Rangeela lost out to Shah Rukh's in Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge back in 1995.
Priyanka Sinha Jha, the editor of Screen, points out that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences, which organises the Oscars, too faces this problem but deals with it through a varied choice of emcees. "While it is essential for such a property to be commercially viable, sustenance should not come at the cost of credibility. And that - to strike that balance without diminishing the essence of what you stand for - is going to be a constant battle for everyone."
Whatever be the status of their credibility, actors are usually thrilled by wins and disappointed by losses. Celebrity manager Anirban Das Blah says awards can bring validation to someone like Vidya Balan or his client Deepika Padukone. "They are commercially successful and when they sweep the awards, it adds value. Maybe one award can get the winner wrong but not all of them." Film publicist Dale Bhagwagar says awards mean "nothing and everything" to them. "An Aamir benefits more from not going to an awards night than maybe Shah Rukh would by going and winning some awards. People form a positive perception about him." But both Bhagwagar and Blah agree awards hold little value in acquiring new work.
Nevertheless, categories are created purely from a marketing perspective to keep some stars in attendance, says Blah. New sections that have been introduced are popular actor and actress, style icon and best jodi. The most recent edition of Screen included a "best marketing" title which went to Chennai Express, produced by Shah Rukh, who was also the function's emcee. At the Filmfare awards, the film was awarded in the Sony Trendsetter of the Year category. There are also special jury prizes given for work that has critical acclaim, separate from the regular awards. "It is like a consolation prize," laughs Shreyas Talpade who won one for his work in Iqbal. "As if they're saying we can give you the cake but the icing is for someone else."
In the past, juries had a rich catchment in parallel cinema. But its demise over a decade ago has made box-office success a factor in deciding awards. Commercial success, while not a key parameter, should not deter juries, says film maker Sudhir Mishra. "Sometimes, the popular can be good. Look at the work of Raju Hirani." Talpade, who was on the Screen jury for Marathi films this year, says commercial success ranks high in his judgments. "Eventually, a film is made for the audience and people should have seen it. A viewer can relate to the award if it goes to a film he knows about." And commercial success, we all know, is not about performances alone.
"Critical acclaim has lost its stature"
What is your take on popular film awards - are they reliable and relevant?
When almost every 'film awards night' is designed only to be a glamorous event, why look for reliability and relevance? We should look at these only as entertainment events devoid of genuineness and merit. However, whenever I am on the jury I fight for substance rather than frills - then you see a film like Udaan getting the best film award in competition with Dabangg and My Name is Khan. Today, even at the National Awards level, the antagonism of mainstream versus non-mainstream, big-budget formula films versus low-budget original cinema, well-marketed mediocre films versus films released in 20 cinema halls, Hindi cinema versus regional cinema, often surfaces. Over the years, juries have also contributed in lowering the credibility of awards, and we as audience have developed a carefree attitude towards it.
Did these awards have more integrity historically?
Parallel cinema emerged in 1960 and co-existed with mainstream cinema until the 1990s. Amol Palekar was the aam aadmi of Hindi cinema who could and did win Screen and Filmfare awards as best actor. Naseeruddin Shah, Om Puri, Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil, Sadhu Meher also could and did bag ace awards. The blockbuster heroes of larger-than-life cinema like Amitabh Bachchan, Rajesh Khanna and Dharmendra were their competitors. Shyam Benegal could bag the best director title for Junoon against Yash Chopra for Kaala Patthar, or Govind Nihalani for Aakrosh against B R Chopra for Insaaf Ka Tarazu. However, such a scenario is not seen for the last two decades.
Has box-office success become more significant in deciding awards?
Glamour industry awards always had the flavour of box-office success. Unsurprisingly, A Wednesday, Udaan, Dev D, Lootera or such small budget films don't get chosen for best film despite critical acclaim and even box office success (though not comparable to the Rs 100 crore club). Lobbying in the unprofessional and unethical sense is prevalent throughout our history of film awards. Interestingly, viewership equations and the sponsors' pressures for 'star presence' at functions caused organisers to create 'popular awards' category. These are like management seats in an academic institution allowing backdoor entry to non-meritorious students! Needless to say, in such cases, the composition of juries is well-designed such that awards can be allotted without internal disputes.
Conversely, has the importance of critical acclaim been diminishing?
Film reviews? Why are we talking about those as if they have sanctity? In today's times of paid news and promotional media partnership, critical acclaim has lost its stature and credibility.
You spoke of lobbying in the National Awards. What pressures does the jury face there?
National Awards were most credible until 2000, though there was lobbying from Malayalam and Bengali cinema. Fortunately, the films and the directors they lobbied for made world-class cinema. For the last decade, the Bollywood lobby has been actively pursuing the awards. In the same breath, Bollywood is running after Oscar nominations. Do we think that if a film gets the Oscar for that year, it is indicative of excellence? Why are we engulfed in such a superfluous activity?
What could be done to improve the setup and increase integrity?
We ought to have consensus that we need to restore faith in our awards. Juries ought to have the ethical compulsion to be impartial. Anybody chosen in a jury must have knowledge of world cinema; he/she must not have conflict of interest with any film in the pool. Names of jury members should be announced rather than kept a secret. Apparently, it's not done fearing that participants will pressurise them. But influencing the juries is regularly done overtly or subtly! If names are announced, then participants can raise an objection, if any, to a particular jury.
With every glitzy show, the disenchantment with awards is rising. Nearly every entertainment magazine and channel has an award and it is common to see undeserving winners, says actor Anupam Kher. "Film awards are nothing but business." Bachchan too lamented the quality of awards with a tweet in 2012: "Relationships and circumstances sometimes decide who it is that shall be rewarded." Bhaag Milkha Bhaag, which dominated the latest string of awards, was slammed as a "completely fake" film by noted actor Naseeruddin Shah. "Farhan (Akhtar) has no doubt worked very hard but building up muscles and growing your hair is not exactly working hard on your acting," said the actor who has won three national awards and has received a Padma Shri as well as a Padma Bhushan.
In 2011, brawny Dabangg was picked by one jury as the best film over artful Udaan and Peepli Live. Irrfan Khan's performance in Paan Singh Tomar was good enough to fetch him the national award for best actor in 2013, but was not found up to the mark in popular award shows - he did win the Screen award but along with Ranbir Kapoor for Barfi. That year, Gangs of Wasseypur lost in the 'best movie' category to Barfi that was found to have lifted comic sequences from classic movies without acknowledging them. In 2014, critically acclaimed films like Lootera and Fukrey did not feature in the best film and director categories, while Chennai Express did. ("Some films are hard to make sense of. Others are just nonsense. Chennai Express ticks both boxes," reviewer Rajeev Masand said on CNN-IBN.)
A combination of factors has caused the rot. Filmfare was the first and, for a long time, the only popular Hindi film awards. It began as a stage show in 1954, with a limited number of guests and sponsorship in the form of some standees and posters at the venue, usually Shanmukhananda Hall in Sion. Photographs were carried in magazines and newspapers, where these advertisements would appear in the background. As celebrity performances were added to the mix, the scale and entertainment factor rose. Screen launched its awards in 1995 and several others followed.
From 2000 onwards, TV channels started buying rights regularly and a battery of sponsors and partners joined the bandwagon, turning awards into mammoth events attended by a few thousands and watched by millions at home. The venues used now are massive. Filmfare is held at Yash Raj Studios, while Bandra-Kurla Complex hosts Stardust and some other functions. Every show today features top stars as hosts, large dance crews, gaudy costumes, pyrotechnics and at least one actor, often Akshay Kumar, making an entry aerially or on a motorbike. There is simply too much money riding on the show; it can't afford to be an intellectual discourse.
The awardees are picked either by a jury or public votes. Organisers are not uniformly transparent about jury members. At one popular magazine that picks winners through readers' votes, for instance, the nominations are shortlisted by a group of its editors. To please advertisers and big stars, the composition of juries itself is sometimes designed in such a way that awards can be allotted without internal disputes, alleges Palekar. Do sponsors put pressure to give awards to the actors on their payroll? There is no conclusive evidence so far, though such rumours have started doing the rounds - just like they did several years ago that some large advertisers were pressuring Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to include their brand ambassadors in the team. Some allege there is lobbying and domination of big banners.
The television rights for such shows come expensive. Apart from these rights, channels make other investments too: a curtain raiser episode and a red carpet special and several allied properties that help generate buzz and provide a month-long build-up to the final telecast. Costs range anywhere between Rs 10 crore and Rs 15 crore for the event and Rs 4-8 crore for marketing. This money has to be recovered from advertisers. And advertisers will not buy time unless the show is "mass market". This challenge of gaining viewers requires a full tamasha. That's why channels have a say in everything about the on-air content, notes Stardust Editor Ram Kamal Mukherjee. "The theme, how the set looks or who will perform - it is all about glamour and scale. For the organisers, it is a catch 22 situation because if the viewership drops, channels can say it is because you did not take XYZ suggestion."
This year, Life OK channel took over the TV rights for the Screen function from Colors. "We also made new promos for all our prime-time shows and had our actors share stage with Bollywood stars," says General Manager Ajit Thakur. The show helped it record a 10 per cent jump in viewership, according to numbers available with Television Post. The show was hosted by Shah Rukh Khan.
Shah Rukh, who participated in two major functions this year, and Salman Khan are said to charge between Rs 2 crore and Rs 3 crore for an act. Katrina Kaif and Priyanka Chopra get Rs 50 lakh to Rs 1.5 crore for performances. If the performer is given an award, he or she is likely to offer a discount, asking for about 30 per cent of their usual fee, according to one source. Consider this: Shah Rukh danced with Madhuri Dixit at a function in 2011, the same year he won the best actor award for My Name Is Khan. Katrina Kaif danced to popular hits at another show in 2012 as well as 2013 and won an award called 'international icon (female)' for both years. At the 2013 Screen awards, where he picked up the best actor trophy along with Irrfan Khan, Ranbir Kapoor performed a nine-minute tribute to RK Films. Aamir Khan, thanks to his absence, rarely wins. He stopped going after his performance in Rangeela lost out to Shah Rukh's in Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge back in 1995.
Priyanka Sinha Jha, the editor of Screen, points out that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences, which organises the Oscars, too faces this problem but deals with it through a varied choice of emcees. "While it is essential for such a property to be commercially viable, sustenance should not come at the cost of credibility. And that - to strike that balance without diminishing the essence of what you stand for - is going to be a constant battle for everyone."
Whatever be the status of their credibility, actors are usually thrilled by wins and disappointed by losses. Celebrity manager Anirban Das Blah says awards can bring validation to someone like Vidya Balan or his client Deepika Padukone. "They are commercially successful and when they sweep the awards, it adds value. Maybe one award can get the winner wrong but not all of them." Film publicist Dale Bhagwagar says awards mean "nothing and everything" to them. "An Aamir benefits more from not going to an awards night than maybe Shah Rukh would by going and winning some awards. People form a positive perception about him." But both Bhagwagar and Blah agree awards hold little value in acquiring new work.
Nevertheless, categories are created purely from a marketing perspective to keep some stars in attendance, says Blah. New sections that have been introduced are popular actor and actress, style icon and best jodi. The most recent edition of Screen included a "best marketing" title which went to Chennai Express, produced by Shah Rukh, who was also the function's emcee. At the Filmfare awards, the film was awarded in the Sony Trendsetter of the Year category. There are also special jury prizes given for work that has critical acclaim, separate from the regular awards. "It is like a consolation prize," laughs Shreyas Talpade who won one for his work in Iqbal. "As if they're saying we can give you the cake but the icing is for someone else."
In the past, juries had a rich catchment in parallel cinema. But its demise over a decade ago has made box-office success a factor in deciding awards. Commercial success, while not a key parameter, should not deter juries, says film maker Sudhir Mishra. "Sometimes, the popular can be good. Look at the work of Raju Hirani." Talpade, who was on the Screen jury for Marathi films this year, says commercial success ranks high in his judgments. "Eventually, a film is made for the audience and people should have seen it. A viewer can relate to the award if it goes to a film he knows about." And commercial success, we all know, is not about performances alone.
"Critical acclaim has lost its stature"
Amol Palekar
What is your take on popular film awards - are they reliable and relevant?
When almost every 'film awards night' is designed only to be a glamorous event, why look for reliability and relevance? We should look at these only as entertainment events devoid of genuineness and merit. However, whenever I am on the jury I fight for substance rather than frills - then you see a film like Udaan getting the best film award in competition with Dabangg and My Name is Khan. Today, even at the National Awards level, the antagonism of mainstream versus non-mainstream, big-budget formula films versus low-budget original cinema, well-marketed mediocre films versus films released in 20 cinema halls, Hindi cinema versus regional cinema, often surfaces. Over the years, juries have also contributed in lowering the credibility of awards, and we as audience have developed a carefree attitude towards it.
Did these awards have more integrity historically?
Parallel cinema emerged in 1960 and co-existed with mainstream cinema until the 1990s. Amol Palekar was the aam aadmi of Hindi cinema who could and did win Screen and Filmfare awards as best actor. Naseeruddin Shah, Om Puri, Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil, Sadhu Meher also could and did bag ace awards. The blockbuster heroes of larger-than-life cinema like Amitabh Bachchan, Rajesh Khanna and Dharmendra were their competitors. Shyam Benegal could bag the best director title for Junoon against Yash Chopra for Kaala Patthar, or Govind Nihalani for Aakrosh against B R Chopra for Insaaf Ka Tarazu. However, such a scenario is not seen for the last two decades.
Has box-office success become more significant in deciding awards?
Glamour industry awards always had the flavour of box-office success. Unsurprisingly, A Wednesday, Udaan, Dev D, Lootera or such small budget films don't get chosen for best film despite critical acclaim and even box office success (though not comparable to the Rs 100 crore club). Lobbying in the unprofessional and unethical sense is prevalent throughout our history of film awards. Interestingly, viewership equations and the sponsors' pressures for 'star presence' at functions caused organisers to create 'popular awards' category. These are like management seats in an academic institution allowing backdoor entry to non-meritorious students! Needless to say, in such cases, the composition of juries is well-designed such that awards can be allotted without internal disputes.
Conversely, has the importance of critical acclaim been diminishing?
Film reviews? Why are we talking about those as if they have sanctity? In today's times of paid news and promotional media partnership, critical acclaim has lost its stature and credibility.
You spoke of lobbying in the National Awards. What pressures does the jury face there?
National Awards were most credible until 2000, though there was lobbying from Malayalam and Bengali cinema. Fortunately, the films and the directors they lobbied for made world-class cinema. For the last decade, the Bollywood lobby has been actively pursuing the awards. In the same breath, Bollywood is running after Oscar nominations. Do we think that if a film gets the Oscar for that year, it is indicative of excellence? Why are we engulfed in such a superfluous activity?
What could be done to improve the setup and increase integrity?
We ought to have consensus that we need to restore faith in our awards. Juries ought to have the ethical compulsion to be impartial. Anybody chosen in a jury must have knowledge of world cinema; he/she must not have conflict of interest with any film in the pool. Names of jury members should be announced rather than kept a secret. Apparently, it's not done fearing that participants will pressurise them. But influencing the juries is regularly done overtly or subtly! If names are announced, then participants can raise an objection, if any, to a particular jury.