Video
Sagarika Ghose: Hi there. Yes, the film 'Barfi!' is India's entry for the Oscars for the year 2013. There's been a great deal of adverse comment on this choice made by the jury of the Film Federation of India with many, saying 'Barfi!' was simply not the best in a list that included among others the Telegu film 'Eega', Hindi films 'Paan Singh Tomar', 'Gangs of Wasseypur' and 'Kahani', Marathi film 'Deeol' and Malayalam film 'Akashthinte Niram'. Critics say Barfi borrows heavily from other films and is too dependent on the Bollywood star system. Let's ask our panellists, if sending 'Barfi!' to the Oscars is doing an injustice to Indian contemporary cinema?
Joining us tonight Sudhir Mishra, producer and filmmaker. Joining us Meenakshi Shedde, film critic. Joining us Rajeev Masand, entertainment editor of CNN-IBN. And Manju Bora, Assamese filmmaker, and she was the head of the jury of the Film Federation of India, which has in fact sent 'Barfi!' to the Oscars. Let me kick it off with you Manju Bora. You were the head of the jury that has sent 'Barfi!' to the Oscars. Let me put to you a question that has come in from a viewer. This is Malvika Chandan, who has written to us on twitter. She has said, "Wondering about selection criteria and if Film Federation of India has been biased to films that portray India more positively." She has asked a second question, "If 'Barfi!' does get nominated it joins the league of 'Lagaan', 'Salaam Bombay', 'Mother India'. Does it belong to that league?" So two questions, what are the selection criteria, and does 'Barfi!' belong to the league of 'Mother India', 'Lagaan' and 'Salaam Bombay'?
Manju Bora: First of all I would like to clearout that this film for Oscar nomination for foreign category is not selected by the Film Federation of India. Film Federation of India, is am organisation which brings people from different states and form a jury, it is the responsibility of the jury to select a film. That is my first clarification.
Critics say Barfi borrows heavily from other films and is too dependent on the Bollywood star system.
CNN-IBN
Sagarika Ghose: So it is a jury that is based from members of Film Federation of India.
Manju Bora: No, jury is selected from different parts of the country, and Film Federation of India is no say in selecting a movie.
Sagarika Ghose: Right. But you were head of this jury?
Manju Bora: Yes.
Sagarika Ghose: So comment on these two questions. What are the selection criteria and does 'Barfi!' belong to the league of 'Mother India', 'Lagaan' and 'Salaam Bombay'?
Manju Bora: Well, it depends on the films which get entry to the competition. Like this year there were only 20 films. The country were we talk about producing largest number of films in the world, so we can't send a film which is in controversy. But with our limitation, our job was to select a film, and the 11 judges headed by me? so we selected one film out of those 20 entries which are being made in India. Suppose you want to send a very suitable film, but if it is not produced in our country, what can we do about it? But in our selection process, I think, we were very honest, and out of those 20 films, with majority 'Barfi!' became a winner.
Sagarika Ghose: And what are the selection criteria?
Manju Bora: Selection criteria is like we have to see the films in totality. There are different elements in a film, as everyone knows, so those elements need to be there. Like, good craftsmanship, good performance, all these things are considered. And which film can represent our country, it has to be very Indian, and another criterion is that the producer has to an Indian. Another criterion is that the film has to be released in India.
Sagarika Ghose: So the primary criteria is that it has to be Indian, it has to represent the Indian realities. But can only Hindi films do that, Sudhir Mishra let me put it to you, there is in fact a question from a viewer Abhinandan Chatterjee, this has also come to us on Twitter, he writes, "Why not Chitrangada directed by Rituparno Ghosh, an outstanding film? Why are regional films always neglected for Oscar entries? And in fact Rituparno Ghosh has himself Twitting. Rituparno Ghosh has been Twitting, "What I'd like to point out is that all Indian Oscar nominations have come from Bollywood, barring a few 'politically perforced' Marathi films. Why this discrimination? India has a strong enriching tradition of regional cinema being made all over the country." Respond to that, do Hindi films necessarily get chosen above regional cinema in Oscar entries?
Sudhir Mishra: Well let me first of all say that there is a lot of criticism against 'Barfi!', where Chaplin is brought into the question. If you see films like the 'Artist' and many other films, they are all Chaplin inspired. For example, I think, Gangs of Wasseypur is a great film, but, you know, people select and one film that is gone, and I think you should now hope for it to win. That said you know I have always thought that India represents many industries, then there should be more than one film that should go. Kerala film industry is very different from the Bombay industry, which is very different from Tamil industry, which is very different from Bengali industry. I think, at least three films should go always, one from East India, one from South India, and one from Bombay, because they are three separate industries, and I think o choose one is not a good thing. And it does a lot of disservice to lot of films from other parts. I have always said that more than one film should go. I mean, there are three distinct industries in India.
Sagarika Ghose: Let me get the film critics in here, Rajeev Masand do you think that in the regional films that were in the list, 'Eega' for example the Telegu film, it was highly graphic from what I hear. Do you really think that 'Barfi!' really standout, given the choices of regional films that were also on the shortlist.
Rajeev Masand: I think, it is not possible to find one film that will satisfy everyone, I think it is difficult to pick one best film, but I do think that in a surprising good year, it has been a fantastic year and there has been some good films, and like you correctly said there were some regional films that clearly have been overlooked. A film like 'Deeol' Marathi film, I think is as good as 'Barfi!' if not better. And I do think there is clearly very often, you know, the jury tends to look at Bollywood films more favourably. I think that is clearly very evident. It is a surprisingly very good year, and there were very fine films. Is 'Barfi!' the best film, it's hard to pick a film that everyone likes, but I think there were some very strong films even with in other Bollywood films, I think films like 'Paan Singh Tomar', Gangs of Wasseypur', films like 'Kahani', as good as 'Barfi!' if not better.
Sagarika Ghose: So there were in fact? 'Paan Singh Tomar', when I putout by Twitter poll, whether 'Barfi!' was the best film or not, 'Paan Singh Tomar', won lot of votes. Let me come to you Meenakshi Shedde, a writer in Firstpost Lakshmi Chaudhry has written that there are three reasons why 'Barfi!' will be an Oscar dud. She says that 'it borrows heavily from Charlie Chaplin's 'Adventure and City of Light', from 'Notebook', from 'Singing in the rain'. She also says it is not uniquely Indian, and she also says that it is simply not good enough. The choice that the jury is very Hindi centric and it shows that it is enslaved by Bollywood hierarchy. Do you agree withy this take or not?
Meenakshi Shedde: I find 'Burfi!' quite charming but I have to agree that it is not uniquely Indian. In a sense, when I say, it means sit won't be same in any other culture that is not true. But I think film like 'Eega' or 'Deeol' are much more uniquely Indian. And they also often insides into our society and culture, and are self critical. If you also have at the end an underdog as the hero, that is an ultimate combo. But I think the biggest tragedy this year, that we really had a mixed jury, with a regional filmmaker heading the jury, and we still could not look beyond Bollywood, I think, that is the biggest tragedy, really.
Sagarika Ghose: Manju Bora, respond to that, you are a regional filmmaker yourself, was the jury enslaved by the Bollywood hierarchy, the Bollywood star system.
Manju Bora: As an independent filmmaker I always have this question in my mind, that all the electronic media, even the print media? do they ever think to promote a regional film. For example, films from Assam, Manipur, films from other states, they have forgotten to do that. Suppose I want to promote my film, will any channel come and do publicity of my film.
Sagarika Ghose: But what about your role to promote regional cinema?
Manju Bora: We would always like to promote regional films, but in fact what we are doing practically. But this moment I'm very said to say that in the 20 films, most of them were Hindi. No film came from Odisha, no film came from Bengal, from Assam?
Sagarika Ghose: But just because maximum films come from Hindi, that doesn't mean you choose only from Hindi. You could make choices based on cinematic quality.
Manju Bora: Definitely, when you are selecting a board, some juries are there from different regions, then you have to depend on them, and as rules go, which ever movie gets me maximum votes get selected.
Sagarika Ghose: So t is winability rather than talent. Let me bring in Rajeev Masand here, Rajeev, I know you have strong views on winability and the films that can actually win, can actually lobby, and market themselves to the academy, as Aamir Khan showed with 'Lagaan' that you have to go out there and market and lobby for your film. Does that guide the jury?
Rajeev Masand: It does, I mean, it should. I'm going to say something very controversial here, you are not really meant to be looking at the best film, you are meant to be looking at the correct film. You are meant to be looking at a film which could exploit that opportunity. And, you know, like it or not, fortunate or unfortunate, the truth is that a lot of Bollywood films, coming from big studios, have a much greater opportunity to exploit that potential. Last year there was a regional film that was sent, and in fact the producers, you know, came out very openly and said they needed help from independent producers, independent filmmakers to really fund their Oscar campaign because really what happens at this point is just a film being selected from India. The work really starts from this point on. And the whole selection process? I have to appreciate what Manju Bora said, she said, "20 films were submitted and most of them were Bollywood films." There is a flaw in the system itself, the film has to be entered by a producer. The truth is that a lot of regional films and filmmakers don't enter because there is a heavy fee to enter that film line. The fee is perhaps Rs 1 lakh, but you have to understand that for a lot of regional films that is a big amount. And then the cost of staging a campaign, Oscar campaign, in the US, where they need to woo the academy to look at your film is an expensive and long procedure, which a lot of Bollywood films have those deep pockets. Producers like UTV, producers of films like 'Barfi!' have those deep pockets. Aamir Khan spent 4-5 months after 'Lagaan' was selected, to actually run that campaign, to make sure that maximum numbers of jury members watch 'Lagaan', which is why 'Lagaan' made it to that shortlist of five films. So, yes, it is about winability, it is not really so much about which is the best film. In any case it is hard to pick the best film and find a film that pleases everyone. It is about which is the film that could do, that can exploit that potential and make it to that final shot. And I also want to say, given that criteria, also, I think, perhaps one has to look at films like 'Paan Singh Tomar', 'Kahani' if one was looking at stronger Bollywood films. And as Meenakshi said you need films that are inherently Indian. You need films that are topical. If you just look at films that have won Oscar in the foreign language category in the past couple of years. you know, the films like 'Departures', the Japanese film, even film like Roberto Benigni's film 'Life Is Beautiful', these are films that are inherently true to their culture. And also films that are typical, but that in case of 'Barfi!' is not true.
Sagarika Ghose: But is 'Barfi!' true to its culture, because again quote from Lakshmi Chaudhry article, she has quoted Mark Harris who is a film writer who has written, "That in the best foreign language film category, the academy likes movies that depicts, the drawbacks, the ritual, the sociological peculiarities, the class and historical scars of which ever country they are from." So what he is trying to say that the academy prefers the realism of the foreign language film. And 'Barfi!' this time is up against 'warwick' which is about child soldiers in South Africa. So is 'Barfi!' actually reflecting the gritty reality of India, or is it a beautifully shot film, which perhaps doesn't have the change against the criteria which the academy wants from foreign language films.
Rajeev Masand: In deed that is true in fact also because if you look a 'Barfi!', you know, it is a sweet film, but it is not the escapist part of the film that is the problem, you know, if you look at the film like Roberto Benigni's 'Life Is Beautiful'. 'Burfi!' is a very sought of upbeat film, but it is not topical. But 'Burfi!' is not very fine film, it is just not topical.
Sagarika Ghose: You made some very, very points, let me get Sudhir Mishra, Sudhir Mishra, my statistics, we have sent 45 films to the Oscars since 1957, 30 of them are in Hindi, 15 only in the regional languages. Two Bengali, eight Tamil, two Marathi, two Malayalam, one Telegue. Do you also agree what Rajeev is saying, that in fact the regional cinema doesn't have the financial muscle to mount an Oscar campaign?
Sudhir Mishra: No, while Bombay film industry is entitled to send one movie, and 'Barfi!' is the choice? and I don't agree with the criticism that it can't be Chaplainst. That was a choice of the jury, you know, there was a time when 'Hazaron Khwahishen' didn't go and some other went. There can be many stories that can be bought? but I would like to reemphasise that you should lobby with the American academy that India is not one industry?
Sagarika Ghose: No but respond to that point, Sudhir Mishra, you made that point before, respond to the other point, the regional cinema doesn't have the financial muscle, is that the problem?
Sudhir Mishra: No, for example, something link 'No Man's Land' is not coming from a rich production company, or anything.
Sagarika Ghose: So you don't necessarily need that big budget.
Sudhir Mishra: I mean, may be you do, but if you don't have a budget doesn't mean you can't send a film.
Sagarika Ghose: Meenakshi Shedde, let get you to respond to what Rajeev Masand was saying that in fact it is not just talent, it is not just the best film it is the winnable film, that is the kind of film that needs to go. Do you want to give us your take on that?
Meenakshi Shedde: That is absolutely right, you know, from the Malayalam film (*) last year, it really suffered although it got selected, because there is a strategy required, but also because it has to release in a specific parts of Los Angeles. So it is not just having the money, it is also knowing, who, how, and not crossing the line. This is completely different from making a great film, so I think, that does come in, but it really shouldn't stop us from sending a good film from India. For example film like 'Paan Singh Tomar', it was uniquely Indian; it was offering insides to our society, and I think the producers had deep pocket, so I think in that sense it had press more buttons. And we should really think out of the box, I thought 'Arjun' was totally fantastic Indian film, you won't find that in any culture, it was really mesmerising elements from all over Asia, in its art and in its story telling. I don't think Box office is the criteria in this case, but also deep pocket, if they were really behind it. In fact Disney from overseas invited it to be released in Los Angeles.
Sagarika Ghose: There are other factors that apply, but Manju Bora let me put it to, you know, the charges of plagiarism that exist against 'Barfi!', that the fact that it as been taken from Charlie Chaplin. There are scenes that are lifted from the notebook, there is that the music is copied, there is apparently similarities in singing in the rain. I am quoting Lakshmi Chaudhry, she says, "When it comes to Oscars, however, we are content to watch a good not great 'Barfi!' doodle towards expected failure, so why bother competing at all." What do you think these charges of plagiarism disqualify 'Barfi!'
Manju Bora: No actually he had to go through a democratic process, and like earlier as I said the majority said 'Bardi!' is the winner. So I can't comment on plagiarism, because everybody know how films are being made, and how good movies are copied by many good filmmakers
Sagarika Ghose: But did the jury know, was the jury aware that these scenes were lifted?
Manju Bora: No, nobody discussed that thing? According to the rules, no remake film is suppose to in the winner list. But it was not discussed in the process of our selecting the film. And neither I had any knowledge before coming here.
Sagarika Ghose: So simply had no knowledge that these were lifted. Had you known would you have chosen 'Barfi!'
Manju Bora: No, it is not possible, as a filmmaker, I can't say that I have seen all the films made in this world. And only after seeing those films I have come to become the jury of the competition.
Sagarika Ghose: But Charlie Chaplin you must have seen?
Manju Bora: Charlie Chaplin is my favourite, of course, Ranbir Kapoor was sometime like Charlie Chaplin and sometime even like Raj Kapoor, but what ever he was, he came out very well. Whether he copied Charlie Chaplin or Raj Kapoor, the character he played, I think, he did justice to the character.
Sagarika Ghose: But you don't regret sending 'Barfi!', now that you know about the charges of copying.
Manju Bora: No, you see, after selecting one film, with all the limitations we had, now I can't repent, I can't even say anything because once it is selected by the majority votes, it is being selected. If we had selected other film, same think would have happened, that why this film.
Sagarika Ghose: So you hope in fact for a better film. Very quickly Rajeev, do you think that the charges of the copying that exist against 'Barfi!' will actually even disqualify it in Oscars.
Rajeev Masand: I don't think it will disqualify it is Oscars, because to be fair Charlie Chaplin is not the problem here, Ranbir has said all along that he had been channelling Chaplin. He said that he is channelling Raj Kapoor. I don't think the plagiarism charges will come in the way. I also that I know Sudhir Mishra has a very intresting take on the whole plagiarism charge and why all films are in a sense inspired from either real life or from other creative arts. But on the note was it the correct film to send this year, were there better films, I think there were better films this year.
Sagarika Ghose: There were better films. Thank you very much, Sudhir Mishra, Mudhir Mishra, Rajeev Masand, and Meenakshi Shedde.
Source: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/ftn-barfi-not-the-best-indian-entry-for-the-oscars/295351-64-151.html
safe and sound botticelli x factor winner footlocker julia gillard julia gillard pecan pie
Benjamin Franklin came up with a system for self-improvement.? The first thing that strikes you is the methodical way he sought to improve himself. He made a list of virtues.? Number 1 ("Temperance"): not to pig-out at meals or to get drunk.? Number 2 ("Silence"): not to blabber too much in conversation.? Number 3 ("Order): to become more organized at home and at work. He listed thirteen such virtues, and each week he would focus primarily on one of them.? In thirteen weeks, he noticed great improvement in all of them.? Except for the last - "Humility". The problem was that he found himself taking pride in his own humility.? 
Over the years, like Franklin, I've sought to improve myself.? I've never approached it in such a structured manner, but Franklin-esque systems and recipes do appeal to me.? Was Franklin being overly-cognitive in his systematic approach?? There may be some over-thinking here. A more flexible, intuitive approach to life has its appeal as well.? But while Franklin was cognitive and systematic, he was also creative and adventuresome.? He was what Myers-Briggs would call a "Thinker" rather than a "Feeler". (An Extroverted-Intuitive-Thinking-Judger, I imagine).
Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz is slamming new rules New York City?s Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has adopted in the wake of its legal battle against blogger Pamela Geller and her anti-terrorism ads, calling the MTA move ?plain dumb? and unconstitutional.?
7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner has written an essay in the