They may come with the ecumenical name of “National” Awards, but every time the announcement arrives, it becomes an occasion for parochial chest-thumping. “Tamil cinema gets 8 National Awards,” say Tamil Nadu-based newspapers and websites. Publications based in the north, meanwhile, trumpet the many wins of Haider and >Queen , adding almost as an afterthought that one of the most prestigious and major awards — for Best Actor — has gone to Vijay for the Kannada film Nanu Avanalla , Avalu . What purpose, then, do these awards serve, if not to alert us of the best of Indian cinema, make us care about not just what our State has made and won but what other States are making? What difference then exists between the National Awards and the awards routinely handed out by the various States, for local films and local talent? This question crops up every year, and there are no easy answers. Recognising “the best” in art is in the best of circumstances a most subjective endeavour. Imagine the plight of the jury members then if they have to ensure that these awards are handed out equitably, with no semblance of “partiality”. Even the announcement of the Dadasaheb Phalke award is not free from controversy. As beloved as >Shashi Kapoor is, one wonders if there are not others more worthy, who have done more for the cause of Indian cinema.
And yet, this imperfect system, it must be said, is the only one in the country that honours both popular cinema and the more niche cinema. Some directors have raised objections over this, claiming that popular cinema has its awards anyway, and that the National Awards — being the nation’s biggest honour for cinema — should only be for “serious” cinema. But given the size of our popular cinema, these recognitions matter. They spur at least some film-makers to make better-quality films for the masses, and if the general film-viewing culture is to improve, then it has to be through films that are viewed by the most numbers, not by a cine-literate few. And that’s why the recognitions to “popular” films such as Queen , Haider and Jigarthanda matter. In a way, this is the principle the Oscars adhere to, recognising not just the art-house creations but also the blockbusters. Even if one is making a movie for the masses, there’s something about the imprimatur of a prestigious awards body that makes one want to make better movies for the masses. That, really, may be the lasting legacy of the National Awards.
