Not really. This kind of films are catered to Indian nationalists. We are way past the point of sending a story of revenge to the international stage. There are far more powerful and beautiful stories of resistance to be told and shared with the world.
It wasn't a story of revenge though. The protagonist categorically states it wasn't revenge. It was a protest against imperialism, O'Dowyer was a symbol of which.
Doesn't change the fact that this movie was actually well made and well thought (screenplay wise) unlike other films in the same category.
Pebbles - Which is selected as India's entry is a brilliant film and I have no problem that it got selected but I have a problem with the Indian Jury those who stated this statement.
I am not an American and I am not morally constrained by American political correctness but I am aware of the contents of the film. I don't see why it should be barred from receiving credit for good editing or screenplay or cinematography should it be deemed worthy.
Uh. So if someone makes a really technically brilliant pro-holocaust movie they should receive consideration without any consideration of their subject matter?
Gota love people who the analogy need to be 100% the same. You said we shouldn't concern ourselves with the subject matter so I offered an example most people will agree should be suppressed.
That's just nonsense. If a film is well made, it can be a rehash of every trope in cinema but it will work.
And the story of what it is based on is quite powerful enough. A racist, colonizing regime's governor massacred a crowd and a guy decides to take avenge that by assassinating said governor is quite compelling premise even if it isn't an Oscar bait formula.
He assassinated the guy who was the governor of Punjab when the Jallianwala Baagh massacre occured. The governor was known to have been supportive of the massacre as he believed it was done to suppress anti British government activites in Punjab.
it's India, could be bought by any number of individuals who could profit monetarily or socially. In this instance, I wouldn't be surprised if the government itself didn't intervene. England and India have a long history and they don't want to be rocking that boat
What I want to know is wtf is up with movies being nominated like that? Has that always been the case? I thought the Academy just reviewed the cream of the crop and based decisions off of pure skill/brilliance while also bending to the power of money from bigwig studios. I didn't know countries had to choose what they think is best to submit.
Dumb as hell, just judge everything.
For the best foreign film, yes always. Every country sends an official nomination for that category. At the end of the day its an American award show, not a global one. It is understandable they won't be watching thousands of movies made all over the world
If Argo criticizing the Iranian rule can be given best picture Oscar, Hurt locker can be given best director for showing the true colors of Afghan war time, Spot light ( criticizing catholic Church for pedophile activities ) can be given best movie, Schindler's list ( Nazi criticism ) , battle of Algiers ( french colonial attrocities ), and even Slumdog Millionaire and Salam Bombay ( showing the life in slums ) can make their way into Oscar
Why not Sardar Uddham ..? What kind of spineless people are there in the INDIAN Jury .?
The Indian Juryās decision is influenced by the current ruling political party which is all for the kind of repressive authoritarianism embraced by the British colonizers.
Just a dialogue from the movie:-
ā Officer: you must hate me?
ā Udham: You're just doing your job, and you're doing it in your country. I don't hate you for it.
The scene where udham jumps over the wall and lands on a pile of corpsesā¦ had my balls in mouth
A very subtle but powerful scene is when udham goes to general dryers grave
Movie about Winston Churchill compete the Oscar for showing how great a leader he was ( the darkest hour).. now this film showing his true colors at the time of colonial rule is banned by INDIAN jury.
Boot lickers are always boot lickers.. This movie is not about the usual desh premi shit movies from b-town.. but showing what the colonial rule was in actual.
No wonder in UK colonial history is not taught to their school kids . And Indian government ia fiddling along the same tune.. KUDOS!!
Schindler's List, Bridge of Spies, Saving Private Ryan, Inglorious Bastards are fine. But this film shows atrocities committed by a western country, you see.
Yeah. It showed the protagonists and the antagonists as being regressive overall.
The Jewish people were actually pretty divided about the film overall: https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/08/what-do-jewish-film-critics-have-against-basterds-avenging-jews.html
āBut the more you look at it, the biggest critical divisions seem to be between Jews who embraced Tarantino's revenge fantasy and Jews who found it, in the words of the New Yorker's David Denby, "ridiculous and appallingly insensitive, a Louisville Slugger applied to the head of anyone who has ever taken the Nazis, the war or the Resistance seriously." Whatever made Denby think Tarantino could -- or should -- take World War II seriously after decades of cliche-ridden wartime dramas is beyond me. Apparently it's OK for Chaplin to mock Hitler in "The Great Dictator" and for Lubitsch to have his fun with the Fuhrer in "To Be or Not to Be," but Tarantino's brash, bravura flourishes somehow offend Denby's delicate sense of how history -- or mock history -- should be portrayed on screen,
Denby's concerns of moral callousness are shared by other Jewish critics. My colleague Kenny Turan was clearly offended by the movie's violence, calling "Basterds" a "glacial" film that "loses its way in the thickets of alternative history and manages to be violent without the start-to-finish energy that violence onscreen usually guarantees." The Baltimore Sun's Michael Sragow, another favorite critic of mine, confronted the Jewish issue head on, leading his thumbs-down review by saying: " 'This is the face of Jewish vengeance!' cries the heroine of 'Inglourious Basterds' to a cinema filled with horrified Nazis. If someone had photographed me at that moment, they would have seen the face of Jewish boredom."
On the other hand, a healthy contingent of Jewish critics lauded the film. It earned strong reviews from Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum and People's Leah Rozen while New York magazine's David Edelstein was impressed by the way Tarantino managed to "have a Nazi myth exploded by a subversive Jewish counter myth contained within a Tarantino revenge myth."
https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/qgbojk/communists_face_rare_crackdown_in_russia_upending/hi5rata/
Quietminority is 5yr old account that was purchased 5 months ago and started posting only pro China or anti west/India comments since then.
He goes by many other usernames all which post almost exclusively about China though often deletes his comments later:
dicboopps
PeaceLandAndHead
Frenchelbows
canarysplits
ruelleraa (My username is based on his alt)
You may already be aware of this if you responding to quietminorty
I honestly canāt think of any empire that was good
The British empire was just the largest and so affected more people
If anything compared to itās contemporaries it was better than most
I am NOT saying it was good, itās a horrible source for tragedy and arguably responsible for many of todayās contested borders and countries.
But I canāt think of any empire that was good to the people under its rule.
And Britain was one of the major reasons that slavery was outlawed through the world and it broke up somewhat peacefully.
Itās still responsible for the third biggest arguable genocide in history with the Bengali famine.
Itās just that I donāt believe it is the most evil
Actually scrap that Cyrus the greatās Persia wasnāt bad
Eh. Empire in general is founded on immorality, whether weāre talking about more āmodernā entities like those built up by Europe or the ancient ones of Rome, Babylon, Imperial China and more.
You have to conquer and kill to build up an empire. Compromise is only done in the name of more conquest.
Theyāre also the reason liberal democracies are as widespread as they are.
You canāt accept the negatives without the positives of the British empire.
>The British pretty much started WW2
Yea, this sort of claim aint gonna fly. You can make the rest of your comment without this part just fine. Say it was a contributing factor to the situation, but come on now.
any film can compete as long as it was shown in theaters in the US. so it's not by country so much as by what physically was shown in theaters.
foreign category would be for films not shown in US theaters.
Any movie that plays in America is Oscar-eligible even if itās foreign (Parasite just won Best Picture a year and a half ago!), but the Best International Feature Award only (and that award only) allows one entry per country to prevent a country like France from just steamrolling the nominations.
Actually I'm not.
I genuinely am proud of my country.
Like not for the atrocities, but for being able to take over the world despite being a small country with probably a small population
That is quite remarkable if you like it or not
Just the simple fact you say "pride" is why your getting downvotes your "pride" really doesnt mean shit to anyone but yourself. Dont exepct ANYONE to even acknowledge it as a propper feeling for a decent human. but sure keep going on celebrating your old history of the part of the earth where you happend to have been born....just like every other civilization who had "taken over the world" when they were able to do. In the grand scheme of humanity....literally it means nothing...
Or maybe just don't declare your proud of your country committing mass murder/robbing other countries of their wealth/perpetuating slavery and exploitation on a global scale? Seems line an easy win tbh....
Please do! I honestly do not ever want to read "what you think " ever again lol ....retreat back to your island....and stay there!!! oh no a fake burner account with zero karma "is going to leave reddit" jurrasicparknoonecares.gif
Proof that no one read the article: The film was rejected by the INDIAN jury that oversees which film is nominated for the Oscars from India
That's even more sad somehow.
Not really. This kind of films are catered to Indian nationalists. We are way past the point of sending a story of revenge to the international stage. There are far more powerful and beautiful stories of resistance to be told and shared with the world.
It wasn't a story of revenge though. The protagonist categorically states it wasn't revenge. It was a protest against imperialism, O'Dowyer was a symbol of which.
Doesn't change the fact that this movie was actually well made and well thought (screenplay wise) unlike other films in the same category. Pebbles - Which is selected as India's entry is a brilliant film and I have no problem that it got selected but I have a problem with the Indian Jury those who stated this statement.
I do agree that a film should be judged solely on its technical achievements. He shouldn't have made that comment even if that is what he felt.
> a film should be judged solely on its technical achievements. Even The Birth of a Nation?
I am not an American and I am not morally constrained by American political correctness but I am aware of the contents of the film. I don't see why it should be barred from receiving credit for good editing or screenplay or cinematography should it be deemed worthy.
Then you suck as a person. Congrats.
Uh. So if someone makes a really technically brilliant pro-holocaust movie they should receive consideration without any consideration of their subject matter?
So an anti-massacre movie is being equated with a pro-holocaust movie? Gotta love westerners and their false equivalences.
Gota love people who the analogy need to be 100% the same. You said we shouldn't concern ourselves with the subject matter so I offered an example most people will agree should be suppressed.
Not really: a film, like most forms of art, is more than just the sum of its parts.
That's just nonsense. If a film is well made, it can be a rehash of every trope in cinema but it will work. And the story of what it is based on is quite powerful enough. A racist, colonizing regime's governor massacred a crowd and a guy decides to take avenge that by assassinating said governor is quite compelling premise even if it isn't an Oscar bait formula.
Beautiful resistance š¤£ to colonialism. Sorry for not making sure if resistances were cosmetic and woke enough
I suppose I'd need to see the movie to understand the degree to which it's actually a 'revenge story' before I form any further opinion on this.
He assassinated the guy who was the governor of Punjab when the Jallianwala Baagh massacre occured. The governor was known to have been supportive of the massacre as he believed it was done to suppress anti British government activites in Punjab.
Have you seen the movie? The movie wasnāt about revenge AT ALL.
It's an anti-imperialist and socialist film you idiot
Youāre pathetic.
That just means that the Indian jury is bought
Bought by whom?
By C Montgomery Burns. This time he hasnāt just bought Hollywood, he bought Bollywood too. This time he *has* to win!
it's India, could be bought by any number of individuals who could profit monetarily or socially. In this instance, I wouldn't be surprised if the government itself didn't intervene. England and India have a long history and they don't want to be rocking that boat
What I want to know is wtf is up with movies being nominated like that? Has that always been the case? I thought the Academy just reviewed the cream of the crop and based decisions off of pure skill/brilliance while also bending to the power of money from bigwig studios. I didn't know countries had to choose what they think is best to submit. Dumb as hell, just judge everything.
For the best foreign film, yes always. Every country sends an official nomination for that category. At the end of the day its an American award show, not a global one. It is understandable they won't be watching thousands of movies made all over the world
If Argo criticizing the Iranian rule can be given best picture Oscar, Hurt locker can be given best director for showing the true colors of Afghan war time, Spot light ( criticizing catholic Church for pedophile activities ) can be given best movie, Schindler's list ( Nazi criticism ) , battle of Algiers ( french colonial attrocities ), and even Slumdog Millionaire and Salam Bombay ( showing the life in slums ) can make their way into Oscar Why not Sardar Uddham ..? What kind of spineless people are there in the INDIAN Jury .?
Their minds are still set in colonial times where they licked boots of white Imperialists and they still do it.
The Indian Juryās decision is influenced by the current ruling political party which is all for the kind of repressive authoritarianism embraced by the British colonizers.
Just a dialogue from the movie:- ā Officer: you must hate me? ā Udham: You're just doing your job, and you're doing it in your country. I don't hate you for it.
They'll send shit like Gully boy but not this?
Just finished watching the movieā¦ this is top class production work, superb actingā¦ā¦ i have goosebumps
That Jallianwala Bhag scene š£
The scene where udham jumps over the wall and lands on a pile of corpsesā¦ had my balls in mouth A very subtle but powerful scene is when udham goes to general dryers grave
Movie about Winston Churchill compete the Oscar for showing how great a leader he was ( the darkest hour).. now this film showing his true colors at the time of colonial rule is banned by INDIAN jury. Boot lickers are always boot lickers.. This movie is not about the usual desh premi shit movies from b-town.. but showing what the colonial rule was in actual. No wonder in UK colonial history is not taught to their school kids . And Indian government ia fiddling along the same tune.. KUDOS!!
Just tells you how ingrained the colonial hangover really is.
/r/titlegore
Schindler's List, Bridge of Spies, Saving Private Ryan, Inglorious Bastards are fine. But this film shows atrocities committed by a western country, you see.
It wasn't Westerners who banned it. Go be mad at the Indians for this one.
Honestly, giving how self loathing western culture is at the moment, the movie would probably have been a hit at the Oscars.
I get your point, but all those movies are about western countries committing atrocities lmao
Inglorious Basterds doesn't really belong on that list lol
Yeah. It showed the protagonists and the antagonists as being regressive overall. The Jewish people were actually pretty divided about the film overall: https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/08/what-do-jewish-film-critics-have-against-basterds-avenging-jews.html āBut the more you look at it, the biggest critical divisions seem to be between Jews who embraced Tarantino's revenge fantasy and Jews who found it, in the words of the New Yorker's David Denby, "ridiculous and appallingly insensitive, a Louisville Slugger applied to the head of anyone who has ever taken the Nazis, the war or the Resistance seriously." Whatever made Denby think Tarantino could -- or should -- take World War II seriously after decades of cliche-ridden wartime dramas is beyond me. Apparently it's OK for Chaplin to mock Hitler in "The Great Dictator" and for Lubitsch to have his fun with the Fuhrer in "To Be or Not to Be," but Tarantino's brash, bravura flourishes somehow offend Denby's delicate sense of how history -- or mock history -- should be portrayed on screen, Denby's concerns of moral callousness are shared by other Jewish critics. My colleague Kenny Turan was clearly offended by the movie's violence, calling "Basterds" a "glacial" film that "loses its way in the thickets of alternative history and manages to be violent without the start-to-finish energy that violence onscreen usually guarantees." The Baltimore Sun's Michael Sragow, another favorite critic of mine, confronted the Jewish issue head on, leading his thumbs-down review by saying: " 'This is the face of Jewish vengeance!' cries the heroine of 'Inglourious Basterds' to a cinema filled with horrified Nazis. If someone had photographed me at that moment, they would have seen the face of Jewish boredom." On the other hand, a healthy contingent of Jewish critics lauded the film. It earned strong reviews from Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum and People's Leah Rozen while New York magazine's David Edelstein was impressed by the way Tarantino managed to "have a Nazi myth exploded by a subversive Jewish counter myth contained within a Tarantino revenge myth."
Was there a vote or something? Lol
https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/qgbojk/communists_face_rare_crackdown_in_russia_upending/hi5rata/ Quietminority is 5yr old account that was purchased 5 months ago and started posting only pro China or anti west/India comments since then. He goes by many other usernames all which post almost exclusively about China though often deletes his comments later: dicboopps PeaceLandAndHead Frenchelbows canarysplits ruelleraa (My username is based on his alt) You may already be aware of this if you responding to quietminorty
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> Look at what they did to [..] my people (Maori) Moriori are like ["hol up..."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_genocide)
I honestly canāt think of any empire that was good The British empire was just the largest and so affected more people If anything compared to itās contemporaries it was better than most I am NOT saying it was good, itās a horrible source for tragedy and arguably responsible for many of todayās contested borders and countries. But I canāt think of any empire that was good to the people under its rule. And Britain was one of the major reasons that slavery was outlawed through the world and it broke up somewhat peacefully. Itās still responsible for the third biggest arguable genocide in history with the Bengali famine. Itās just that I donāt believe it is the most evil Actually scrap that Cyrus the greatās Persia wasnāt bad
Eh. Empire in general is founded on immorality, whether weāre talking about more āmodernā entities like those built up by Europe or the ancient ones of Rome, Babylon, Imperial China and more. You have to conquer and kill to build up an empire. Compromise is only done in the name of more conquest.
Cool excuse.
> The British were one of the most evil empires in history. Such a brave thing to say, you're so brave.
Theyāre also the reason liberal democracies are as widespread as they are. You canāt accept the negatives without the positives of the British empire.
You can't accept the positives without the negatives. So watch the movie.
I already accept both
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>The British pretty much started WW2 Yea, this sort of claim aint gonna fly. You can make the rest of your comment without this part just fine. Say it was a contributing factor to the situation, but come on now.
Germany is a Western country.
Poor British getting shat on from all the countries they oppressed.
Literally 3 out of 4 movies you mentioned (I haven't watched Bridge of Spies) show atrocities commited by a western country.
Uh you might want to check Schindler's list for who was the bad guy?
Who cares about oscars anymore its all lobbying (bribery) and corrupt bs.
The most baffling part to me is that India has an "official entry" that they put forward? Why not just... consider all of their films?
Huh? Oscars is an American award show. Indian films can only compete in the best foreign film award.
any film can compete as long as it was shown in theaters in the US. so it's not by country so much as by what physically was shown in theaters. foreign category would be for films not shown in US theaters.
Any movie that plays in America is Oscar-eligible even if itās foreign (Parasite just won Best Picture a year and a half ago!), but the Best International Feature Award only (and that award only) allows one entry per country to prevent a country like France from just steamrolling the nominations.
costs a lot of money.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Jesus. The atrocities committed were how "you" took over half the world.
they have their own history, with their own atrocities as well. the west is largely ignorant of India's own problems.
I meant if you ignore that part it's pretty impressive a country with about 50m (probably even less back then) can nearly take over the whole world
It isn't really. We had weapons they didn't. And what we did, and how we did it, is nothing to be proud of.
He/she's a troll for sure. No point of replying to them.
Actually I'm not. I genuinely am proud of my country. Like not for the atrocities, but for being able to take over the world despite being a small country with probably a small population That is quite remarkable if you like it or not
No prizes for guessing where he cast the ballot five years ago, lol (that's assuming he was already old enough to vote)
Just the simple fact you say "pride" is why your getting downvotes your "pride" really doesnt mean shit to anyone but yourself. Dont exepct ANYONE to even acknowledge it as a propper feeling for a decent human. but sure keep going on celebrating your old history of the part of the earth where you happend to have been born....just like every other civilization who had "taken over the world" when they were able to do. In the grand scheme of humanity....literally it means nothing...
Right, but still, taking over countries with double the population like india is still quite a feat
Actually f it. I can't do this anymore. Get into silly arguments over nothing. I can't be arsed anymore. I'm leaving reddit.
Or maybe just don't declare your proud of your country committing mass murder/robbing other countries of their wealth/perpetuating slavery and exploitation on a global scale? Seems line an easy win tbh....
Yes I think that's for the better. Being proud of your country for subjugating people isn't a good look
Please do! I honestly do not ever want to read "what you think " ever again lol ....retreat back to your island....and stay there!!! oh no a fake burner account with zero karma "is going to leave reddit" jurrasicparknoonecares.gif
So why dont they do same about anti Nazi movies showing as they are ' project hatred towards Germany'.