Natl Award winning movie vs Oscar entry..

Shouldn't the movie that won the Natl award for the best move be the obvious choice for the Oscar entry?

Wouldn't you send your best to a competition?

Why the disconnect is there?

Natl award winning movies..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Film_Award_for_Best_Feature_Film

Oscar entries from India..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_submissions_for_the_Academy_Award_for_Best_International_Feature_Film

Your thoughts...

Because it's not necessary that a film which appealed to Indians will also appeal to Americans. The films which should be sent to Oscars should hold a worldwide appeal, yet at the same time not losing its Indianness, and by "Indianness" I meant showing the poor India.

There's a reason that the three films Mother India, Salaam Bombay and Lagaan which were nominated in Oscars showed poor India. You can even count Slumdog Millionaire(British film) and Water(Canadian film). All five films showed the poor India and have won and were nominated for Oscars. So Gully Boy has a good chance.

Both are not worth anything. 😆

Originally posted by: Looney86

Because it's not necessary that a film which appealed to Indians will also appeal to Americans. The films which should be sent to Oscars should hold a worldwide appeal, yet at the same time not losing its Indianness, and by "Indianness" I meant showing the poor India.

There's a reason that the three films Mother India, Salaam Bombay and Lagaan which were nominated in Oscars showed poor India. You can even count Slumdog Millionaire(British film) and Water(Canadian film). All five films showed the poor India and have won and were nominated for Oscars. So Gully Boy has a good chance.

The problem is the Indian selection committee who seem to have little knowledge of world cinema and no knowledge of what the Academy likes. True, in the foreign language category they like films that feel foreign but “Poor” is not the only India. Yes, the Academy loves stories about triumphant underdogs but really they love any kind of story that genuinely resonates with the human spirit, that you feel deeply and/or think about long after the film has ended. That kind of story may be easiest to tell in India when set amongst the poor but American critics also love political struggle (Ghandi, Argo), gay and or racial struggle (Moonlight, Milk, Say my Name, Greenbook, 12 years a Slave, Lagaan, and about a million more), religious struggle (Spotlight), war, crime and justice, etc and films which are legitimately novel/groundbreaking (Birdman, Shape of Water).

Having said all that I seriously believe the Lunchbox would have been nominated had India sent it, and I am not alone - National Public Radio did a whole segment on how India selects its entry and why they didn’t choose the film with the best chance (!) when the Lunchbox didn’t get selected

Seriously Indian films and the Academy are not to blame for India rarely being nominated. The fault lies squarely with the committee that chooses the films to send. It is the equivalent of a sports committee sending the very best cricket players to the badminton championship - every single year.

I would like to be part of that meeting where they decided to send Eklavya: The Royal Guard

Originally posted by: Nova19

The problem is the Indian selection committee who seem to have little knowledge of world cinema and no knowledge of what the Academy likes. True, in the foreign language category they like films that feel foreign but “Poor” is not the only India. Yes, the Academy loves stories about triumphant underdogs but really they love any kind of story that genuinely resonates with the human spirit, that you feel deeply and/or think about long after the film has ended. That kind of story may be easiest to tell in India when set amongst the poor but American critics also love political struggle (Ghandi, Argo), gay and or racial struggle (Moonlight, Milk, Say my Name, Greenbook, 12 years a Slave, Lagaan, and about a million more), religious struggle (Spotlight), war, crime and justice, etc and films which are legitimately novel/groundbreaking (Birdman, Shape of Water).

Having said all that I seriously believe the Lunchbox would have been nominated had India sent it, and I am not alone - National Public Radio did a whole segment on how India selects its entry and why they didn’t choose the film with the best chance (!) when the Lunchbox didn’t get selected

Seriously Indian films and the Academy are not to blame for India rarely being nominated. The fault lies squarely with the committee that chooses the films to send. It is the equivalent of a sports committee sending the very best cricket players to the badminton championship - every single year.

Lunchbox not being selected is still one of the greatest crimes towards film I've ever seen lol. That movie was such a fresh, rare, change of pace. A beautiful story and the absolute humanness to it all. UGH. I'm sad again lmao.

Tha Academy is just as racist as you would expect any institution in America to be, so of course they gravitate towards the 'poor' 'triumphant struggle' stories from India, but the few rare times a good flm has won its been nothing less than a victory. RE: Moonlight's win over La La Land for Best film 😆

Originally posted by: Gameon_Reborn

I would like to be part of that meeting where they decided to send Eklavya: The Royal Guard

I forget that this was a thing and every time I remember I just gaze far away like I'm on The Office 🤣

Originally posted by: Gameon_Reborn

I would like to be part of that meeting where they decided to send Eklavya: The Royal Guard

And I want to be a part of the one which chose Devdas...

Originally posted by: Looney86

Because it's not necessary that a film which appealed to Indians will also appeal to Americans. The films which should be sent to Oscars should hold a worldwide appeal, yet at the same time not losing its Indianness, and by "Indianness" I meant showing the poor India.

There's a reason that the three films Mother India, Salaam Bombay and Lagaan which were nominated in Oscars showed poor India. You can even count Slumdog Millionaire(British film) and Water(Canadian film). All five films showed the poor India and have won and were nominated for Oscars. So Gully Boy has a good chance.

It doesn't matter what will appeal to the Americans because you are cheating ur own country by sending a movie which wasn't the best movie that year....maybe they are sending the movies that appeal to the Americans and failing and that is the reason that forget about getting the Oscar......the movies don't even get nominated for Oscar...only 3 times....have the movies been nominated...obviously the selection committee is failing big time...whatever their idea of appealing to Americans is...doesn't appeal to Americans...and one should be honest and send their best...and not do manipulations ki what they want to see...

Originally posted by: blue-ice.1

And I want to be a part of the one which chose Devdas...

Not the worst choice - but it definitely did not live up to the mark of some of the other releases made in that year. Devdas was so visually stunning, and Chandramukhi will forever be an incredibly iconic character, but you can't substitute gorgeous cinematography for a good film 😆 I am also surprised that it was an official pick 😆