Mayank Shekhar (MID-DAY; February 8, 2020)

Whether on social media or offline, one of the things I find sorely missing in all conversations on Bong Joon-ho's Parasite is how playfully the picture is plotted. People come out ruminating far more on the intensity of class-divide that the movie strikingly shines a light on. Don't let that bog you down about Bong's film. Which is already in Korean, with English subtitles, picking up an unprecedented six Oscar nominations, including for the Best Foreign Language Film, that it'll certainly take home.

I know how such a résumé intimidates mainstream audiences. Can't reiterate more: Parasite is an out-and-out fun film — to start and end with. Now go catch it, whether or not it wins Best Picture at the Academy Awards on February 9, Sunday night (Monday morning, for Indians).

For, the Oscars is not merely an award. It's a statement that the Academy makes, through the choice of its films, reflecting on the changing world. And the rich-poor divide expressed through Parasite is hardly a statement unique to 2020. What is?

Honestly, Taika Waititi's splendid farce, Jojo Rabbit. It's about a little boy in Hitler's Germany. Unless you've been living under a rock, or in complete denial (same thing), you know what the world is currently grappling with — authoritarian leaderships, pushed to the top by a brainwashed band of cult-worshipping adults, spreading hate against an imagined 'other' that they've been lulled into assuming the worst about. That's Jojo Rabbit, as a film. Will it win? No.

Because it's hard to match the film-making flourish of Sam Mendes in 1917, that remains the most anti-war film, in the history of war films. And God knows we could do with that statement too — now, more than at any time in the recent past. That said, just look at the competition — what a year it's been for Hollywood; or the Oscars, as it were.

In any other year, Todd Phillips's dark, deep Joker would've hoped to gobble up all the top trophies on its own. Probably won't. Even James Mangold's Ford v Ferrari could've been a front-runner, for all you know. Says a lot that the only Best Picture nominee that bored the crap outta me was Greta Gerwig's period piece Little Women (and that too because it just seemed too irrelevant in my buzzing head, that's all).

For a simple example, you only have to compare Guy Ritchie's pure gangster thriller The Gentlemen this year, which is in the sort of domain Quentin Tarantino could lord over in the '90s. Look at where Tarantino is, at present, as an auteur, at the top of his game, with the semi-fictional Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!

Speaking of which, those few who vaguely dismissed Martin Scorsese's The Irishman, because they found it long, or slow or whatever, I'm pretty sure, years down the line, will wonder what the hell they were thinking when the Master delivered his masterpiece. No, it's not Goodfellas or Casino. Mull over the final 30 minutes of The Irishman, and you'll see in it a genre being lifted to meditation on life itself.

No Hollywood studio was willing to touch The Irishman. Netflix pumped money into it. As producer, Netflix has the most nominations at the Oscars this year — Noah Baumbach's gut-wrenching Marriage Story, and Fernando Meirelle's unusually cinematic The Two Popes, being the other toasts for web as the new cinema! Academy ought to reflect this change on its prize-winners' roster.

Will they? Well, the only Oscar that Scorsese ever received was for the Hong Kong adaptation, The Departed (2006). Come on! And I don't even want to go into history and pluck out Orson Welles's Citizen Kane (1941), almost indisputably considered the greatest film in Hollywood history. It didn't win an Oscar. Which film did? How Green Was My Valley. What's that? Never mind. Just feeling better about listing films that should pick up the top awards this year. Won't feel terrible if they don't.

Oscar Predictions

Best Film: 1917
If not, then? Parasite

Best Director: Sam Mendes (1917)
If not, then? Bong Joon-ho (Parasite)

Best Actor: Joaquin Phoenix (Joker)
If not, then? Adam Driver (Marriage Story)*

Best Supporting Actor: Joe Pesci (The Irishman)
If not, then? Anthony Hopkins (The Two Popes)

Best Actress: Scarlett Johansson (Marriage Story)
If not, then? Charlize Theron (Bombshell)*

Best Supporting Actress: Margot Robbie (Bombshell)
If not, then? Laura Dern (Marriage Story)

Best Original Screenplay: Bong Joon-ho (Parasite)
If not, then? Quentin Tarantino (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood)

Best Adapted Screenplay: Todd Phillips (Joker)
If not, then? Anthony McCarten (The Two Popes)

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has been a favourite punching bag for viewers and media ever since it became ‘too Sanskari’ from 2015 onwards. It was a time when Pahlaj Nihalani took over as the Chairperson and he introduced several changes, which made the whole process very regressive. Words like ‘lesbian’ were censored while kissing scenes were chopped off by few seconds. The heights were reached during the time of 2016 release Udta Punjab. Here, some 89 changes were proposed, including deletion of the word ‘Punjab’ and names of several cities! A huge section of film industry, media and moviegoers come together collectively to voice their protest.

More than a year after Udta Punjab’s release (with just a cut or two thankfully, courtesy the Bombay High Court), Pahlaj Nihalani was asked to step down. He was replaced by adman-lyricist Prasoon Joshi. He was seen as a much progressive and sensible person and the hope was that now these outdated ways of censoring will keep to an end once and for all. Sadly, that didn’t happen. The censoring continued, but probably in a much lesser scale than in Pahlaj Nihalani era.

Some of the cuts were extreme and it rightfully made it to the news. Last year, viewers were shocked when the Hollywood film Hereditary was mercilessly butchered, despite the ‘A’ certificate. A crucial climax scene had nudity and it was cut in such a way that moviegoers couldn’t comprehend what’s going on. Another adults-only Hollywood film that faced many cuts was John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum. It’s a gory action film and the scenes of violence and blood and also abuses got edited out. This film released on May 17, 2019 and the same day the romcom De De Pyaar De also hit theatres. In a bizarre move, a scene featuring Rakul Preet Singh drinking in a wedding was censored. What was amusing was that the alcohol bottle was replaced by a bunch of flowers! An industry source says, “In the same sequence, actor Ajay Devgn can be seen drinking and that bit was retained. So, I guess the CBFC just had problems with a lady drinking in a shaadi. That’s quite a regressive mindset.”



The CBFC has always had problems with depiction of alcohol on screen. For every scene involving hard drinks, a ticker mentioning that consumption of alcohol is injurious to health has to be compulsorily inserted on the bottom right of the corner. The alcohol brands are a strict no-no and it’s common to see bottles being blurred for the same reason. This is not a justified move but it’s become very common. However, what’s not common is characters consuming alcohol in a glass where no company name is visible and yet, the blurring is done! This is what happened with the recent Hollywood release Ford v Ferrari. A few days before its release on November 15, the press screening was held from where pictures were clicked of scenes where glasses containing liquor were hastily pixelated. It affected the impact of the said scenes and angered the audiences. Even Farhan Akhtar tweeted about it.

The assumption was that the CBFC yet again has come in the way to force their diktat. As expected, it earned the wrath of the fans. A week later however, Prasoon Joshi spoke about this episode and made it clear that the said cuts were done ‘voluntarily by the makers’ and that he’s disappointed with the spread of the ‘false news’. The cut list of Ford v Ferrari confirms that Prasoon Joshi is indeed right. The only censoring that was done in the film was muting of abusive words.

This brings us to the new trend adopted by studios, especially the ones distributing Hollywood films. They themselves censor stuff they feel will be asked to remove and then submit for certification. The Independence Day release Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, of Sony Pictures, also comes in the same category. There’s not a single cut done by the CBFC! Many news outlets also made news out of it that how this much awaited Hollywood flick has been passed uncut by the ‘progressive’ CBFC! However, when viewers ventured out to see the film, they realized many words have been muted. And that’s because Sony themselves played the Sanskaari card and didn’t allow the CBFC to do so!

So why are these studios doing in-house censoring? “It’s simple,” says a trade source and adds, “By now, everyone knows which scenes and words will be edited out. And it’s a long process. The producer submits the film, then the CBFC views and asks for cuts, the cuts have to be made and shown to the CBFC and then the certificate is secured. Hence, in order to save time, the studios or the distributors feel it’s better they themselves blur or mute before the CBFC does so.” With regards to the Ford v Ferrari fiasco, the same source explains, “Fox Star Studios however went too far it seems. They even got alcohol glasses blurred, which is something the CBFC would have told them to do. But they did it anyway, not wanting to take a risk. And CBFC ka toh waise bhi naam kharab hi hai. So everyone naturally assumed that Censor guys must have played mischief, like they always do. But only this time, they weren’t to blame.”

Yet, Prasoon Joshi can’t walk away scot-free. There’s no guarantee that the Examining Committee of CBFC would have let the alcohol scenes go censor-free if those scenes weren’t blurred. He and CBFC have created this atmosphere because of which Fox and Sony are going the extra length of getting the censoring done themselves. To give credit where it’s due, Prasoon has indeed been progressive at times. For instance, he allowed the Sonia Gandhi reference and a reference related to Ram Mandir in The Sky Is Pink and Bala respectively. In one crucial scene of Article 15, the characters are discussing various logos of political parties and even here, no cut or mute was enforced. However, consistency is needed.

Sadly for moviegoers, no significant change can be expected in this regard. In the Ford v Ferrari controversy, Prasoon has proclaimed his innocence. He’ll also use this episode in future to show how progressive CBFC has become and that it’s not his fault if people are censoring and then submitting films for certification. And unlike how it was in Pahlaj Nihalani era, the industry is not up in arms against these cuts. And there’s a reason for that, it seems. In an exclusive interview to Bollywood Hungama last year, Pahlaj had alleged that “Prasoon Joshi has added a new clause that whatever modifications asked by the CBFC should remain confidential between the CBFC and the applicant. And if they don’t adhere to it, the certificate can even get revoked. Now tell me which filmmaker would stand the risk of revoking his film’s certificate.” To verify this huge claim has been a task but it won’t be surprising if it’s indeed true. In the last one year, this writer has tried to get a few filmmakers on record after their films got censored but they refused to speak about it at all. As a result, without the much-needed support of the industry, the sanskaari ways of CBFC will continue.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a very impressive period comedy drama from the master director Quentin Tarantino. It is like the filmmaker’s ode to Hollywood industry of the bygone era but surprisingly, there’s no proper, structured story in the film as such. Yet, one comes out of the theatre fully satisfied, entertained and thrilled and this is something only Tarantino could have pulled off. It’s a character-driven flick as it focuses on the three protagonists and their careers, insecurities, dark pasts, small joys etc. The film also switches tracks constantly and yet, one doesn’t mind as it’s all done so organically. In the last 30-35 minutes, the narrative style again changes and the climax is surely the best part of the film. Tarantino fans are sure to lap it up! Technically, the film is top-class and the way music is utilized in the film is praiseworthy. Talking of performances, Brad Pitt emerges as the best performer in the film. His character is very well fleshed out. The ‘cool’ factor also comes out very well and Brad makes it even better with his acting. Leonardo DiCaprio is also quite terrific and it’s pleasure seeing him on screen after ages. He goes overboard as per the requirement of his character and it’s just perfect. Also in a few scenes his silences speak a lot and that also is quite fun. Margot Robbie has minimal dialogues and as Tarantino correctly mentioned, has an ‘angelic’ presence. Margaret Qualley leaves a tremendous mark. Same goes for the young Julia Butters. Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern and Austin Butler are quite good. Al Pacino is a pleasure to watch in a cameo. Lastly, Mike Moh is hilarious and quite authentic (look wise) as Bruce Lee. All in all, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a gift by Quentin Tarantinto to cinema goers. Not to be missed!

My rating - **** ½ out of 5!

Hiren Kotwani (MUMBAI MIRROR; August 8, 2019)

Pooja Hegde, who will next be seen in the Akshay Kumar-starrer Housefull 4, had a brush with Hollywood recently. The actress was shooting for her Telugu film, Valmiki, when three-time Academy Award-winning cinematographer Robert Richardson (JFK, The Aviator and Hugo), who has also worked on Quentin Tarantino’s star-heavy recent release, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, visited the set in Hyderabad.

Robert even dug out his camera to take a few shots of Pooja after which the duo discussed cinema. “The most memorable moment for me was when he took a shot. He’s the man who has just photographed Margot Robbie and I’m the next girl in front of his camera,” Pooja marvels, still unable to believe that the man who had asked Leonardo D’Caprio to move a little to the right of the camera, was giving her the same instructions.

She admits she was his fan after seeing Hugo. “Robert is one of those cinematographers who gives the audience variety. Inglourious Basterds is as different from Hugo and Shutter Island as chalk and cheese. It’s hard to believe that one person has shot all these iconic films,” she reasons.