THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: If Martin Prakkat’s Charlie and R.S. Vimal’s Ennu Ninte Moideen wiped off the cream of the 46th State Film Awards, and
Alphonse Puthren’s Premam could not secure even the least significant of the awards, there is a reason.
The Jury chaired by filmmaker Mohan has judged films the way church authorities view essays by Sunday school students; through a moral prism.
When asked why the most sensational blockbuster of the year was not considered for any of the awards, here is what jury chairman Mohan said: “For us to consider the film for any of the awards, it has to be good in the first place.”
Charlie is about a free spirit, as guileless as an angel and almost superhuman, who descends upon darkness like a radiant ‘jinni’ straight out of an Arabian Nights story. Ennu Ninte Moideen is about selfless love.
Premam, on the other hand, is about a confused youth who in a certain stage of his life falls in love, God forbid, with his teacher.”
The Jury’s self-righteous approach is spelled out in the Jury Report itself. “Even while exploring the technical and aesthetic excellence of the films, the Jury will also have to consider the educational and cultural values propagated by them,” the report says.
“Whose values are they talking about,” asked filmmaker K.R. Manoj. “This attempt to seek moral values in works of art is one of a piece with the right-wing attempts to impose uniform cultural values on the country,” he said.
Nonetheless, the jury had taken up cultural policing with great zest. “Since these awards are given away using public money, the social responsibility vested on the jury becomes all the more profound. The primary concern of the jury is to discover talents who can reform Malayalam cinema and society in a beneficial way,” Mr Mohan said.
The highly decorated filmmaker, T.V. Chandran, is livid. “This is nonsense. It is foolish to comment on foolishness, and it will also be construed that I am angry because I have not got an award” he said.
His latest film Mohavalayam, which is about the throbbing desires of the flesh, did not win a single award, just a ‘jury mention’ for Joy Mathew’s performance. But a jury openly laying down its logic can also be considered daring and radical.
“It just shows the courage of the jury,” said national award winning critic C S Venkiteswaran. “Usually the selection is made in a random manner. I have always felt that the jury should put out their ideology.” “At least we will clearly know why one film was preferred over the other,” he said.
