Read the full article on Firstpost, here: https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/why-gully-boy-is-the-right-choice-for-oscars-visibility-international-buzz-gives-the-film-a-real-shot-at-winning-7406641.html
Of late, we’ve been hearing a lot about Anurag Kashyap. His Gangs of Wasseypur, which was screened at the 2012 Directors’ Fortnight at the Cannes Film Festival, was the only Indian entry in The 100 Best Films of the 21st Century, compiled by The Guardian. (“Stylish, visceral film-making, violent and hard-hitting, it’s got a valid claim to be India’s answer to The Godfather.”) Projects he’s been involved with — Sacred Games, Lust Stories — have found themselves nominated for the International Emmy Awards. He plays a (voice) role in Gitanjali Rao’s Bombay Rose, which opened the Venice International Film Critics Week this year. And he seems to have a spot reserved in the Special Presentations section at the Toronto International Film Festival. Mukkabaaz (which he directed) was screened there in 2017, and this year, it was Geetu Mohandas’s Moothon (which he co-produced and wrote the Hindi dialogues for).
Also, Anurag Kashyap has worked with (or alongside) Zoya Akhtar in Lust Stories and Bombay Talkies and Luck by Chance, and therefore, in a “six degrees of separation” kind of way, he is connected to Gully Boy, which is India’s nomination for the Best Foreign Film Academy Award. I am only half-joking, for everything (and everyone) he touches seems to turn into international gold. Which episode of Lust Stories has Radhika Apte landed a nomination for Best Performance by an Actress at the International Emmy Awards? The one directed by… Anurag Kashyap. I rest my case. All this throat-clearing is partly to acknowledge how singularly influential this filmmaker has become. He is extraordinarily talented, no doubt, but there are other directors you’d call that, too, and they are barely a blip on the radar when it comes to Indian cinema’s international presence.
Continued at the link above.
Copyright ©2019 Firstpost.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Ramit
September 26, 2019
Gully Boy has similarities with 8 Mile. I hope that doesn’t lead to its disqualification.
LikeLike
Vikram s
September 26, 2019
BR, fully agree. Gully Boy might have a decent shot since the makers can pump in resources to get the film in front of the voters.
Is GB the best? That’s a different question altogether 🙂
LikeLike
Madan
September 26, 2019
But this is different from Lagaan how? Both films may have had directors and stars who are well known in India, but I doubt the name of either Ashutosh Gowariker or Zoya Akthar rings a bell abroad. I like Gully Boy as an Oscar pick better than Lagaan because the former has a context that American critics might relate to better than a cricket match between village folk and the British Raj but it still may not be frightfully exciting for them. You say we should send those films that Non Indians want to see and I agree but how many of the big films we make are those kinds of films (as opposed to those already customised for Indian palates)?
As for visibility, that was already achieved with Slumdog which paralleled a flood of foreign studio money into Bollywood. Most of them burnt their fingers, unable to understand this market. American enterprise (not all of it) has a long history of failing in India because they would not like to change their products or processes for a different market (see General Motors). The more important question is what did Slumdog do for Rahman? Not much. He has scored a few medium sized films, most of which had an Indian sub continent context (and YET, he didn’t land the biggest one, Life of Pi). But he is nowhere close to breaking into the marquee club even ten years after that film. He nudged the door open a tad, that’s all.
LikeLike
Sai Ashwin
September 26, 2019
I have been hearing a lot of justification for Gully Boy. But this has been a problem for years. I mean ours is a country that sent fucking Jeans to Oscars! And Lunchbox wasn’t, which probably had the best shot in recent times. There needs to be lobbying done for heavyweight art-house filmmakers.
A mainstream film like gully boy even if it does manage to get a nomination wont change anything. But an art-house film getting a non might open up a lot of doors for international co-productions and distributions. And maybe filmmakers won’t mortgage their house or wait extended periods of time to make a film.
Now let us say Gully Boy even gets nominated. Now look at the how the presuming fellow nominees would be Parasite, Pain and Glory and … a desi slumdog 8 Mile.
LikeLiked by 3 people
jaga_jaga
September 26, 2019
shouldn’t the title be – Why Gully Boy is the right choice for Oscars: Visibility, international buzz give the film a real shot??
“Give”, not “Gives”????
LikeLike
Honest Raj
September 26, 2019
About Lunchbox being snubbed by the jury, here’s what Gautam Ghosh, the chairman of the committee, had to say:
Although Lunch Box was my personal favourite, but as a chairman one should not impose his or her choice on others … And I think the media was again to some extent responsible for this decision. Because every day during the deliberation or the screenings, the media projected Lunch Box as the chosen one. It’s my assumption, that the members probably thought, “My God! If the media has already taken the decision then why we are here?”
https://web.archive.org/web/20140512224420/http://tinpahar.com/article/416
His assumption might well be true. Maybe, this is how the winners across major award ceremonies in India are decided most of the times.
LikeLike
Honest Raj
September 26, 2019
I don’t understand why Jeans gets singled out whenever this topic comes up. I mean it’s not as if India has always sent “quality” (even by our own standards) films to the Academy. We also have Deiva Magan, Saagar, Anjali and Indian among others.
LikeLike
therag
September 27, 2019
Are the Oscars even worth it? Is there any monetary benefit to Indian cinema? I specifically say monetary because it is easy to claim that the Oscars (and Cannes and Venice and Toronto and ….) are great for exposure, visibility etc etc. What I want to know is if a statistically significant number of people will start patronizing Indian cinema who previously didn’t.
The festivals are quite happy to take the money and then screen the films in categories that not many people care about. And the filmmakers are happy with all the press that comes from screening their film in . All in all it is just marketing with a veneer of prestige. Does that at least mean the films do well internationally? I don’t think so. The strongest factor for a film doing well internationally is if the film appeals to the Indian diaspora — basically an extension of the Indian market.
Even the Hollywood produced films that win today don’t do all that well at the box office. The so-called oscar bump in the box-office is very muted. The Oscar viewership is declining and many surmise that this is because most people haven’t watched any of the nominated films.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anuja Chandramouli
September 27, 2019
I don’t agree with you BR though you made some valid points. The 8 Mile comparisons are inevitable for this year’s underwhelming choice and Gully Boy is an extremely diluted, meh version of the same. Truth be told, it is going to come across as a poor man’s 8 Mile and a Bollywood Beeyotch take that lacks the raw honesty and stark realism of that cult classic. In fact, I had to re – watch 8 Mile to wash out the taste of Gully Boy from my mouth.
Think it was Vetrimaaran who said that the International circuit appreciate honest to goodness, slice of life films that capture the real India. I agree with him. Films like Kaaka Muttai, Pariyerum Perumal, Kumbalangi Nights, Angamaly Diaries, Sairat would be worthy contenders unlike stupid, pretentious, undeserving films like Gully Boy. No amount of marketing savvy can help disguise the fact that GB was made by a hack but that said regional filmmakers need to pull up their socks and work harder on the fine art of generating a buzz around themselves and their films at a national and global level. Relying on good word of mouth is not going to cut it.
LikeLike
Enigma
September 27, 2019
It is highly doubtful if any Indian film would even make the final shortlist, forget winning the big prize. I just feel that they (westerners in general) cannot relate to Indian films – they probably feel that Indian films are too loud (even the art house variety). That is natural, Indians are loud and our films reflect that. I don’t think even sending ‘Lunchbox’ would have made a difference. I’ve noticed that people here (Aussies) generally steer clear of Indian films or Indian music. The only exception being Indian food, which remains quite popular.
LikeLike
Madan
September 27, 2019
@therag: In earlier years, Oscars would reward the popular favourite one year and go more left field the other. That created a balance. So if in 1999, American Beauty won in a field of weird films, 2000 saw Gladiator win followed by LOTR. In 2002, Beautiful Mind. And then from 2007, they veered sharply in a left field direction. Without There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men being the hottest nominees, ratings slid. They thought the problem was the host Jon Stewart and changed him. And since then, they have been chopping and changing hosts, eventually dispensing with an emcee altogether last year.
There are two problems for the Oscars. One is the utter domination of superhero franchises at the BO. There was a time when a film like Butch Cassidy could also do well at the BO but now there is a ceiling on their performance vis a vis the big budget Marvel/DC heavyweights. I THINK the Academy is trying to resist allowing the ceremony to be taken over by such films and favour the ones that offer a more worldly experience instead. But that comes at a loss of ratings.
Secondly, the show format itself is so long and unwieldy. Back when there wasn’t a lot you could watch on TV, that wasn’t a problem. I remember when watching Tom & Jerry on Sunday on DD Metro was supposed to be a real treat. Compared to THAT, the Oscars were once in a year extravaganzas. TV has gotten a whole lot less boring and there is a plethora of other options out there for entertainment. But the Oscars haven’t changed. And it’s not just the Oscars. People used to watch the Filmfare Awards here. When I say they watched, I mean you would hear the broadcast from your neighbours’ TV sets. The way it still happens sometimes during KBC. Nobody feels award shows are a must watch anymore.
LikeLike
An Jo
September 27, 2019
Hats off Anuja for calling out what GULLY BOY actually is – a hack job of a film, and horribly derivative one at that. In almost each and every scene , the ‘snobbery’ of South Bombay is stamped — if one ever tries to step-out of the fiefdom of the Akthars and the Kashyaps. And remember, this film has been loved all across the breadth of India,,but ask the folks living in Bombay and watch folks shitting on the railway-lines when taking the local: fast or slow – you would get a different view.
But i will agree with BR Saab if his intention is, as per the article: “let’s JUST get out there.” So his article is actually one on getting the door opened: it’s marketing dear, not talent. But I am not sure that’s even necessary. I mean, our art-house films like Satyajit’s have already conquered that arena — never mind that
Ray had to be on his death-bed to get the recognition.
As Madan articulated, hasn’t SM already done that? Did the committe even consider looking at Tamil, Malayalam, Bengali films? On what basis was GB selected?
LAGAAN was THE greatest chance – because that was a film made BY US, FOR US. The competing film, NO MAN’S LAND won the Oscar. Why? Because it was politically apt at that time; though cinematically, LAGAAN was a far, far, better achievement as a cinematic piece. Goddammit, who would have thought a 3 hour 25 minute film with 1 hour dedicated to the intricacies of of Cricket could make it to the Oscars; with the short, extremely sort American time-span of attention: For God’s sake, they have a ‘WORLD SERIES’ on base-ball where the only teams competing are from within America!! You get a drift of who we are dealing with here!!
BR Saab himself has answered any questions one might — or he himself — might have had. Just read his last paragraph. It has the ‘MUSLIM’ angle, it has all the check-boxes that the left-sleeping [not leaning] Oscar orgasms on. Plus, you have a BHOOKHMARI SE AAZADI ‘utilized’ here who thinks it’s publically-owned right to have one’s PhD dragged on for 7 years – another 7 years and he would actually be a right-winger supporting Siya RamChandra…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Josh-E-Maddy
September 27, 2019
@therag Bravo. I am surprised that someone here can have views like these. Most Oscar fans have been living in denial for quite some time (ironic for people who preach us to face reality). Oscars have been on the wane for the last few years but nobody wants to talk about it. As for India, hardly anyone cares for Oscars, apart from some film critics (if you count KRK as one) and a few ‘chugat’ fans to whom Academy-worthy cinema is more about social status rather than a personal preference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ravi K
September 28, 2019
Madan wrote: ” I like Gully Boy as an Oscar pick better than Lagaan because the former has a context that American critics might relate to better than a cricket match between village folk and the British Raj but it still may not be frightfully exciting for them.”
Cricket might not be familiar to American audiences and critics, but the story itself is very much in the vein of the classic American underdog sports film formula, but with much higher stakes. If anything, it was an unusual film for Indian audiences.
LikeLike
Saket
September 28, 2019
I don’t see why we need to make any excuses for Gully Boy. It’s a good, uplifting film…with terrific performances. And the filmmaking is sublime. It deserves a nomination for its cinematography alone!
Can’t remember where I read it, but one needs to look at the history of Oscars to realise that films with great cinematography have had a better shelf-life than some (most?) of the winners.
I’d have been equally happy for Kumbalangi Nights or Andhadhun, for that matter. Not so much for Super Deluxe, which is also a “woke” film, but dissipates its goodwill towards the end.
All said and done, Gully Boy doesn’t need disclaimers or a qualified approval — the film stands on its two feet, quite handsomely. Based on artistic merit alone.
The film’s woke-ness, or its politics, are just small add-ons.
LikeLike
therag
September 28, 2019
@Madan, Well then I guess Joker can win big this year. They probably didn’t want to be the first to award a comic book movie but now that a ‘prestigious European festival’ took the plunge, the Oscars can heave a sigh. Viewership will spike even if the movie is nominated.
All the films you cited were also box office successes in their own right. And a lot of weird films that won had this guy called Harvey Weinstein involved. Must be a hell of a producer \s.
It gets better though. If we restrict the search to Foreign Language films, the only film that did really well in the US are Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and Life is Beautiful, both quite popular crowd pleasers. The close timing of the release date with Oscar season may have helped but I think the films would have done well nevertheless, especially Life is beautiful.
I think the Vetrimaran interview by BR really illustrated what a charade the Oscars are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Saket
September 28, 2019
Also, why is there complete radio silence when it comes to Sacred Games season 2?
IMHO, it’s the best screen-writing I’ve come across in a long, long time. An absolute treat! I’ve already watched it twice — and I don’t have the patience to finish a two hour movie these days.
LikeLike
Saket
September 28, 2019
ask the folks living in Bombay and watch folks shitting on the railway-lines when taking the local: fast or slow – you would get a different view.
This is false equivalence. Satyajit Ray’s Apu Trilogy did not appeal to extremely poor folks living in rural Bengal either. The whole argument that slice-of-life films should somehow appeal to the section of society it’s based on, is rather banal. It’s never going to happen.
Doesn’t mean such films shouldn’t be made. If we extend that logic, Shyam Benegal, Govind Nihalani et al are all failed filmmakers. Let’s call them stupid and pretentious, while we are at it.
LikeLike
Madan
September 28, 2019
“All the films you cited were also box office successes in their own right. And a lot of weird films that won had this guy called Harvey Weinstein involved. Must be a hell of a producer \s.”
To the first part of this line, well, even today, the eventual academy award winner is a box office success. Like Greenbook, which made 300+ plus million. Just that for Hollywood, even $300 mn is not a blockbuster anymore. Compared to that, the Marvel films or Disney films rake in billions. The last film that did lukewarm biz and still netted the Oscar was Hurt Locker in 2009, beating out the ginormous Avatar. So this is in keeping with those years in the 90s/early noughties when smaller successes beat out the box office monsters at the Oscars. Like 1996, when English Patient beat out the monster that was Independence Day. But note that I-Day was a nominee then. So was Lion King in 1994, or Jurassic Park in 93 (losing to Spielberg’s own Schindler’s List, talk about range!). Titanic, Gladiator and LOTR raked in multiple Oscars. LOTR was the last blockbuster film to also win big at the BO. By the time Bourne Ultimatum was spurned in favour of No Country for Old Men, the audience had had enough.
Good catch on the Miramax factor. There’s an article about how Weinstein lobbied the Academy to beat out Saving Private Ryan with…Shakespeare in Love. At the time, we were upset that Shekhar Kapur’s Elizabeth hadn’t been rewarded but turns out that wasn’t the only one that Harvey robbed. Even rewarded Gwyneth with Best Actress, beating out Cate Blanchett’s masterful portrayal of Queen Elizabeth. I am sure Kapur felt deeply disillusioned then, having ditched Bollywood after a variety of frustrations. And that was kind of the point I was making earlier about Gully Boy. Kapur made a wonderful historical living up to the highest technical standards with awesome performances all round, but especially from Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush. And it STILL lost badly at the Oscars. It’s a rigged game and I don’t see why we should care about it. Grammys is even worse. People stopped caring about Grammys long ago and Oscars will follow suit, especially now that they can’t even persuade emcees to host the entire event. Sure enough, the last time I watched the Oscars show was in 2012, which was the last time Billy Crystal hosted it. Even SethMcFarlane is too radical for them and Chris Rock probably triggered the big egos with his truth bombs. Oscars needed a particular brand of harmless, inoffensive humour in its hosts which, again, has died out.
LikeLike