I’m a filmophile. Or a moviophile. You choose.
I love movies. I love the wonder and the world that they belong to – that is just an inch away that you can touch and be a part of it – yet is a million miles away where we can hardly find a connection. Like people get passionate about football (I mean soccer) and cricket, I feel the same about movies. I am the one who watches movies that are known to be bad films. How else will you ever know what good films are about? And yet, I have not found a (useful) rubric that defines good films, other than the sermons of a handful of critics. And most of these critics talk on an a very elusive technical plane.
Emotional appeal is lost to them. Well, I lose it sometimes, too.
The Filmfare Awards are the equivalent of the Oscars, in India. They are a bit younger than the Oscars, but in spite of many other awards, they seem to carry some weight unlike the others. You will hear many complain that we do not have the finesse of presenting an award show. It’s usually not well planned, its offensive sometimes, and more often than not – garish. I have a theory about that, which I will promulgate in another post. I have other concerns at this time.
I was devastated when the best actor award went to Ranbir Kapoor when you had nominations for Irrfan Khan (Paan Singh Tomar) and Manoj Bajpai (Gangs of Wasseypur). If the Filmfare Awards were purely a people’s choice award, I would have let go; they aren’t – they are dual. If some kind of statistics has come into play – weight-age, summation, mean, median, mode, that’s fine; there’s no way I can argue with that. But there’s no way, people who have seen all the five films thought that Ranbir Kapoor was better than the other nominees.
As far as I am concerned, Ranbir Kapoor is Bollywwod’s answer to Harrison Ford. Both of them have a “permanently bewildered” expression for any emotion. Some actors, just cannot be The Last King of Scotland.
Blue corner redefines its ethos.