Are India's National Awards becoming a bit of a joke?

This year's choice of Best Actor has triggered off (justifiable) endless tirades

Khalid Mohamed

Published: Fri 21 Apr 2017, 6:35 PM

Last updated: Sun 30 Apr 2017, 11:17 AM

Oops, he has placed the proverbial foot in his mouth: a faux pas that could have long-term repercussions in the judgement of the prestigious National Film Awards. Following the announcement of one of the year's most-anticipated honour list, this year's jury chairman - senior and once-prolific filmmaker Priyadarshan - in an interview stated that Aamir Khan in Dangal wasn't considered for the Best Actor Award. Reason? I quote, "Aamir recently said that he wouldn't personally accept the award if he is given one. He didn't attend the ceremony when he won the award for Taare Zameen Par (adjudged the Best Film on Family Welfare in 2007). So, why spoil it for some other actor who stood as good a chance of winning the award?"
"As good"? I'm not quite sure what Priyadarshan meant by that. Akshay Kumar, who bagged the award for Best Actor in Rustom, he stated, was in the jury's final checklist for Airlift as well. But since he could be awarded for just one film according to the rules, Rustom it was. Besides Akshay Kumar, the other
favourites of the year from Bollywood were Amitabh Bachchan (Pink) and Manoj Bajpayee (Aligarh).
The jury's decision has to be respected, most certainly so. However, the statement about Aamir Khan's exclusion purely because of his political incorrectness is a lamentable one. Not even the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences have dared to make a winner's presence at the ceremony a pre-condition to receiving an award.
Among those who did not fetch up to
receive their Oscar trophies in person on stage include Marlon Brando (The Godfather), Woody Allen (Annie Hall), Paul Newman (The Color of Money), George C Scott (Patton) and Katharine Hepburn (Morning Glory, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, The Lion in Winter, On Golden Pond). And if renowned musician Bob Dylan stayed away from attending the Nobel Prize ceremony, was it denied to him? No way.
Maybe these are lofty comparisons. Yet 'attendance' cannot be made a criterion of judging awards in any category anywhere. In fact, despite Aamir Khan's age-old boycott, he has been declared Best Actor by several popular award ceremonies for his performances in Raja Hindustani, Lagaan, Rang De Basanti and, yes, Dangal as well.
Also, Priyadarshan and his jury have been criticised strongly for ignoring the widely-lauded Aligarh. Its director Hansal Mehta actually took to Twitter to assert that he had no grouses on being left out in the cold, but he did have objections to the chairman going on record to say that, of late, many films made in Bollywood harped on the same issue as Aligarh did, while "regional films were themed around fantastic social issues".
Again, the word "fantastic" was left to arbitrary interpretation.
As it happens, the National Film Awards, instituted way back in 1954, are still the only one of its kind - covering cinema produced from all centres of India. Initiated to promote "art and culture", of late, the institution has been going downhill for two primary reasons. One, the pre-dominance of factional interests, which means heavy lobbying from various regions and quarters. And two, the jury members and the chairman are appointed by the central government. Those in alignment with the ruling party - of any ideology over the decades - actually find themselves closeted for a fortnight or more, watching five to six films a day non-stop.
Lately, most films are watched on fuzzy video projections. Moreover, the chairperson ends up wielding infinite power and if they possess the gift of the gab, she or he can sway the decisions of the members, many of whose qualifications are debatable.
To this date, two of the most-criticised decisions of the jury have been the awards for Best Actress to Raveena Tandon (Daman) and Best Actor to Saif Ali Khan (Hum Tum). In the case of Raveena winning the award, way back in 2001, some of the irate jury members had resigned in a huff.
Clearly, there was some 'influence' at work. Throwing caution to the wind, a prominent politician, who once hobnobbed with the
Bollywood set, even hosted a lavish party in her honour.
Ah, but why dig up old skeletons now. The point is that a chairman should either desist from explaining the decisions of the jury in public or be held accountable for making brash statements.
And so something tells me that Aamir Khan must be having the last laugh.
wknd@khaleejtimes.com