SEP
29: Amol Palekar's Paheli has been chosen as India's entry to
the Oscars this year. The film, starring Shah Rukh Khan and Rani
Mukerji, has beaten the likes of Mangal Pandey, Veer-Zaara,
Iqbal, Swades, Parineeta, Page 3, Black, Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi,
Sachein (Tamil), Anniyan (Tamil), Uttarayan (Marathi), Achuvante
Anna (Malayalam), Graham (Telugu), and Kadal (Tamil).
Vinod Pande, acting chairperson of the Film Federation of
India, defends his choice.
How could Paheli be nominated over more deserving films like
Black?
The choice for the jury was extremely difficult. The films were of
really high calibre. We had resolved that we would have discussions
only after all the screenings. We had bargained for an hour's
discussion but we discussed for an hour-and-a-half. We took into
consideration every aspect (of the films).
All of us in the jury wrote down our recommendation. We were
unanimous in the selection of Paheli.
The decision to elect Paheli was unanimous?
Yes, absolutely. We feel this film is very high on cinematic
excellence and directorial competence. It is deeply seeped in the
Indian ethos and true to the Indian concept of fine arts, costumes
and art designing. The performances were also outstanding.

I cannot tell you why Black was not elected. But let me tell you, it
was a tough competitor. It was rejected outright by some jury
members for being a copy of a foreign source. But I vehemently
defended it. If a film is inspired by a true event, it doesn't mean
there cannot be two versions of it. The jury understood my point of
view. Then some jury members argued that Black was rejected by
Cannes. I convinced them that our decision shouldn't be governed by
any international competition.
Was language the clinching factor against Black?
I wouldn't like to comment on that.
Was Paheli selected because it panders to the foreigner's view of
Indian ethnicity?
Akeli Indian culture hi sab kuch nahin hoti [Indian culture is not
the sole factor]. There was another beautiful film in the running
called Uttarayan. You have to have a very composite look while
selecting. We saw all the films.
But Paheli was neither a critical nor commercial success in
India.
We weren't perturbed by that. We have seen some fine films in the
past not getting their dues. When we did our job, we did it with a
clean conscience. We had our own judgement and creative faculties to
rely on. We are as capable of assessing as any member of the press.
I insisted on a press conference because an afternoon paper carried
a malicious article on the Oscar nominations hours before our
decision was taken. How dare they talk like this? Three members of
this year's jury, including me, were part of the jury that had
elected Lagaan. The press owes us an apology.
But someone like Harmesh Malhotra [chairperson, FFI, whose
indisposition made Pande take up the job] hardly seems qualified to
decide what goes to the Oscars.
Have you spoken to him ever? He is such a cogent, coherent speaker.
When you have chosen someone, you have to look at his over-all
competence.
But where does a man who made Nagina, Pathar Aur Payal and
Ankhiyon Se Goli Mare show any aesthetic sense?
Bhaiya, ek business hoti hai, ek aesthetics hoti hai (Business is
one thing, aesthetics is another). When he was in the jury, we
should respect that. We should discuss films, not jury members.
Harmeshji wasn't there during the final decision. He fell ill. We
were keen to have him but he requested me to assume the position of
the acting chairperson. We were collectively and absolutely sure
Paheli was the right decision.
How could Paheli compare with Black on any level? Look at Mr [Amitabh]
Bachchan's performance in Black.
He's outstanding even in Paheli. He was assuming a completely new
character. Let me repeat, it was a very tough competition. We had to
exercise caution about our judgement. We could not select a film
that could be rejected later on at the Oscars.
When we send a film, we did not want it to be rejected on account of
some legalese or loophole.
Black is not a copy of The Miracle Worker.
These are lobbies working. Finally, it's every individual jury
member's subjective decision that determines the final decision. |