Why the Oscars are a con

Why the Oscars are a con

John Pilger


This year's Oscar nominations are a parade of propaganda and stereotypes.

Why are so many films so bad? This year's Oscar nominations are a parade of propaganda, stereotypes and downright dishonesty. The dominant theme is as old as Hollywood: America's divine right to invade other societies, steal their history and occupy our memory. When will directors and writers behave like artists and not pimps for a world-view devoted to control and destruction?

I grew up on the movie myth of the Wild West, which was harmless enough unless you happened to be a Native American. The formula is unchanged. Self-regarding distortions present the nobility of the American colonial aggressor as a cover for massacre, from the Philippines to Iraq. I only fully understood the power of the con when I was sent to Vietnam as a war reporter. The Vietnamese were "gooks" and "Indians", whose industrial murder was preordained in John Wayne movies and left to Hollywood to glamourise or redeem.

I use the word murder advisedly, because what Hollywood does brilliantly is suppress the truth about America's assaults. These are not wars, but the export of a gun-addicted, homicidal "culture". And when the notion of psychopaths as heroes wears thin, the bloodbath becomes an "American tragedy" with a soundtrack of pure angst.
American airbrush

Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker is in this tradition. A favourite for multiple Oscars, her film is "better than any documentary I've seen on the Iraq war. It's so real it's scary" (Paul Chambers, CNN). Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian reckons it has "unpretentious clarity" and is "about the long and painful endgame in Iraq", and that it "says more about the agony and wrong and tragedy of war than all those earnest well-meaning movies".

What nonsense. This film offers a vicarious thrill through yet another standard-issue psychopath, high on violence in somebody else's country where the deaths of a million people are consigned to cinematic oblivion. The hype around Bigelow is that she may be the first woman to win the Oscar for Best Director. How insulting that a woman is celebrated for a typically violent all-male war movie.

The accolades echo those for The Deer Hunter (1978), which critics acclaimed as "the film that could purge a nation's guilt"! The Deer Hunter lauded those who had caused the deaths of more than three million Vietnamese, while reducing those who resisted to barbaric commie stick figures. In 2001, Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down provided a similar, if less subtle, catharsis for another "noble failure" by the US, this time in Somalia, airbrushing the heroes' massacre of up to 10,000 Somalis.

By contrast, the fate of an admirable American war film, Redacted, is instructive. Made in 2007 by Brian De Palma, the film is based on the true story of the gang rape of an Iraqi teenager and the murder of her family by US soldiers. There is no heroism, no purgative. The murderers are murderers, and De Palma ingeniously describes the complicity of Hollywood and the media in the epic crime of Iraq. The film ends with a series of photographs of Iraqi civilians who were killed. When it was ordered that their faces be blacked out "for legal reasons", De Palma said: "I think that's terrible because now we have not even given the dignity of faces to this suffering people. The great irony about Redacted is that it was redacted." After a limited release in the US, the film all but vanished.

Non-American (or non-western) humanity is not deemed to have box-office appeal, dead or alive. They are the "other" who are allowed, at best, to be saved by "us". In Avatar, James Cameron's vast and violent money-printer, 3-D noble savages known as the Na'vi need a good-guy American soldier, Sergeant Jake Sully, to save them. This confirms they are "good". Natch.

My Oscar for the worst of this year's nominees goes to Invictus, Clint Eastwood's unctuous insult to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Based on a hagiography of Mandela by a British journalist, John Carlin, the film might have been a product of apartheid propaganda. In promoting the racist, thuggish rugby culture as a panacea of the "rainbow nation", Eastwood gives barely a hint that many black South Africans were deeply embarrassed and hurt by Mandela's embrace of the hated springbok symbol of their suffering. He airbrushes white violence - but not black violence, which is ever present as a threat. As for the Boer racists, they have hearts of gold, because they "didn't really know". The subliminal theme is all too familiar: colonialism deserves forgiveness and accommodation, never justice.
Sheer realism

At first I thought Invictus could not be taken seriously, but then I looked around the cinema at young people and others for whom the horrors of apartheid have no reference, and I understood the damage such a slick travesty does to our memory and its moral lessons. Imagine Eastwood making a happy-Sambo equivalent in America's Deep South. He would not dare.

The film most nominated for an Oscar and promoted by the critics is Up in the Air, which stars George Clooney as a man who travels the US sacking people and collecting frequent-flyer points. Before the triteness dissolves into sentimentality, every stereotype is summoned, especially of women. There is a bitch, a saint and a cheat. However, this is "a movie for our times", says the director, Jason Reitman, who boasts about having cast real sacked people.

“We interviewed them about what it was like to lose their job in this economy," said he, "then we'd fire them on camera and ask them to respond the way they did when they lost their job . . . It was an incredible experience to watch these non-actors with 100 per cent realism." Wow, what a winner.

MY Name Is Khan

MY NAME IS KHAN makes two strong statements...

• The first: B.C. [before Christ] and A.D. [after death] are designations used to label years in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. There's a third designation now - 9/11. Post September 11, the world stands divided. Terrorist outfits continue to strike in the name of religion and the common man, not even remotely associated with these groups, is bearing the brunt. The world is not a safe place anymore.
  
  
  
• The second statement: There're two sets of people in this world - the good and the bad. No matter how strong the evil forces are, good always triumphs.

MY NAME IS KHAN mirrors the era we live in. Not a day goes by when you haven't heard/read/watched news of terror attacks and innocents being killed. We live in turbulent times. Also, the movie states - and states very strongly, without mincing words - Not all Muslims are terrorists.

Karan Johar's cinema got more real from KABHI ALVIDA NAA KEHNA onwards. In MY NAME IS KHAN, the storyteller attempts to make a social statement and succeeds completely. At the same time, it takes no sides. If the protagonist says 'My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist', it also exposes those who misadvise the youth with inflammatory and rabble-rousing speeches.

Karan's take on the issue deserves the highest praise, since a subject like this is difficult to attempt. Final word? MY NAME IS KHAN is Karan, SRK and Kajol's best outing to date. Do I need to add anything more?

Rizvan Khan [Shah Rukh Khan moves to San Francisco and lives with his brother [Jimmy Shergill] and sister-in-law [Sonya Jehan]. Rizvan, who has Asperger's syndrome, falls in love with Mandira [Kajol]. Despite protests from his brother, they get married and start a small business together. They are happy until September 11, when attitudes towards Muslims undergo a sea-change.

When tragedy strikes, Mandira is devastated and they split. Rizvan is confused and upset that the love of his life has left him. To win her back, he embarks on a touching and inspiring journey across America.

Let me alert you. The story unfolds feverishly from the very start itself. So if you miss a scene or two, chances are you would've missed some vital links in the story. The fact is, there's too much happening in the first half. Although the narrative tends to get leisurely-paced at times, the wheels continue to move from one episode to another.

A number of sequences are endearing. For instance, the romance between SRK and Kajol is subtle, yet charming. But it's SRK's relationship with Kajol and their kid that's one of the best parts of the movie. Your heart bleeds when an accident occurs and their lives are torn apart. Kajol's outburst - first, when her son meets with a catastrophe and second, when she confronts SRK - are truly shattering.

MY NAME IS KHAN's strength lies in the fact that you root for Khan all through. At the same time, you are weighed down when he's in a vulnerable situation, especially when he's labelled a terrorist and thrown behind bars. You don't realize it, but the fact is that you, as a spectator, have already got entwined in Rizvan and Mandira's lives.

There's a slight hitch in the second hour, when SRK returns to Georgia to save a hurricane-ravaged hamlet. Also, the media exercise tends to add to the length of the film. Nonetheless, it's a minor hiccup that doesn't rob the film of its punch.

There's just one word to illustrate Karan's direction - exemplary. One of the finest storytellers of our generation, he deserves brownie points for deviating from 'Karan Johar brand of cinema' and attempting a film that knocks on your heart and stimulates your mind. With MY NAME IS KHAN, Karan takes rapid strides as a storyteller.

Shibani Bathija's screenplay is truly arresting. Shibani and Niranjan Iyengar's dialogues are noteworthy and at times, applaud-worthy. Ravi K. Chandran's cinematography is awe-inspiring. Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy's music gels well with the nature of the film.

When a film stars two of the finest talents of the country, you expect nothing but the best. SRK, well, how does one describe his performance? To state that this is his best work so far would be cutting short the praise he truly deserves. In fact, no amount of praise can do sufficient justice to his portrayal of Rizvan Khan, who has Asperger's syndrome. His latest work is several notches above anything he has done before. The only compliment that I can think of is, SRK has a new screen-name now. Raj is passé, Rizvan it is.

Kajol is pure dynamite and casting her for this character was the most appropriate decision. No other actress could've matched SRK in histrionics the way Kajol has. In fact, SRK and Kajol compliment each other wonderfully well and this film only proves it yet again. It's a powerhouse performance from this supremely talented actress.

The film boasts of a number of capable actors, but the ones who leave a rock-solid impact are - in this order - Zarina Wahab, Sonya Jehan, Jimmy Shergill, Arjun Mathur, Parvin Dabas and Arif Zakaria. Sugandha Garg is confident. Navneet Nishan supports well. Vinay Pathak leaves a mark in a brief role. Tanay Chheda [young SRK] and Yuvaan Makaar [SRK and Kajol's son Sameer] are excellent. The American actors, especially the kid who plays Sameer's friend, deserves mention.

On the whole, MY NAME IS KHAN is a fascinating love story, has an angle of religion and a world-shaking incident as a backdrop. It not only entertains, but also mesmerises, enthrals and captivates the viewer in those 2.40 hours. At the same time, a film like MY NAME IS KHAN is sure to have a far-reaching influence due to its noble theme. I strongly advocate, don't miss this one!