‘Research For MNIK Opened My Mind To The World’ - Karan Johar

THREE YEARS AGO Karan Johar TOLD SHOMA CHAUDHURY THAT HE WAS DISSATISFIED WITH HIS SLEWOF HITS AND THAT HE HAD NOT YET MADE A FILM HE WAS PROUD OF. WITH HIS LATEST FILM, MY NAME IS KHAN, THE MAN WHO WAS ONCE A BYWORD FOR THE BIG AND SPLASHY WEDDING, MAKES A VERY PUBLIC SHIFT. IN THIS NEW INTERVIEW, HE TALKS OF THE UNEXPECTED CHANGES THAT THE MAKING OF THE FILM AND THE AFTERMATH HAD ON HIS SENSE OF SELF AND CINEMA. EXCERPTS:

There’s been a big shift of concern in the kind of films you are making — whether it is Kurbaan, Wake Up Sid or My Name Is Khan. Is this a conscious transition?
Karan Johar: A few filmmakers — only Adi [Aditya Chopra] and me actually — have been part of a transition in cinema. When Ashutosh [Gowarikar] made Lagaan, he hadn’t catered to the audience before, he had only made a couple of films. He immediately brought in a new sensibility. Farhan’s first film also brought in this new cool. While we had catered to a certain kind of cinegoer’s demands in the 1990s and then saw the evolution of the audience. I feel the need to adapt with the times. I had done a lot of films that were internal experiences, and as a filmmaker to challenge myself I felt the need to do something that yanks me out of my comfort zone. And as a producer I go by the diktats of the young minds I put my faith in — whether it’s Tarun Mansukhani who wanted to make Dostana, a rom-com with a mild edge or an Ayan Mukherjee who wanted to direct a coming-of-age film Wake Up Sid or Rensil D’Silva who chose to make a film on global terrorism. This year we have a quintessential date flick coming up called I Hate Love Stories and the official adaptation ofStepmom. These are not necessarily pathbreaking films but extremely warm mainstream endeavours. For myself this phase is going to stay because I’m in a different headspace from when I made Kuch Kuch Hota Hai (KKHH) and Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham (KKKG).

So these new concerns are not just about adapting to your environment, but also something personal?
Of course it is. Cinema is a reflection of your own state of mind. So I felt different when I directed KKHH and I feel totally different today — whatever you feel will reflect on celluloid and I don’t feel like I want to do something I’ve done before. I felt boredom had crept into my work.

The last time you and I spoke, you said you wished you could adopt a different name because of people’s expectations of your cinema.
I’m glad I may have kind of broken the shackles of my own perceived image. In media branding when they referred to a KJo film it was associated with terms like gloss, popcorn, glamour, mush, bubblegum, which were almost hurled at me like weapons — I felt like I was slotted too soon which was complimentary in a way but also annoying. You can’t slot me with two to three films, wait for two decades. With Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna I felt there was a shift in the perception, but now with My Name Is Khan (MNIK) I feel there is no way that I can be slotted in a category.

‘I’VE NEVER MADE A FILM I’M PROUD OF’ KKKG is all about me trying to show off, nothing else. It’s me saying, look, I’ve put up this big set; look, I’ve put up this star cast; they’re wearing beautiful clothes, look, look, look. Today I’ve become a school of cinema, whether you like it or hate it. Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna was my attempt to break my own mould. But what I did wrong was blend in some of my old need for opulence and scale and a star cast. I should have stuck to my initial thought, my first instinct, which was to make it an intimate drama of two couples. My gut and my spine is commercial, so no matter what, even while experimenting, I’ll always be mainstream. I sit here and visualise myself in my Armani suit, walking with my mother on the red carpet in LA, entering the Kodak Theatre, sitting in the twentieth row, hearing my nomination, getting the award, going up and ending my speech with, this is for you India. I have it all planned. But I will never make a two-hour film without songs, which might bore my country, just to achieve that. I’ve never made a film that I can proudly say is my film, that I can proudly tell people, did you see Lagaan, I made it. Or, did you see Rang De Basanti, I made it. I haven’t made that film yet, but I will. Sometimes my name hinders a film, because audiences come thinking there’ll be a lovely shaadi song. That worries me. I’ll have to strategise the promotion very cleverly — make it very clear that this is me — Karan. (laughs) Karan Trivedi maybe, or Saxena or Karan Thapar — anything, but not Karan Johar. excerpts PREVIOUS CONVERSATION

What triggered MNIK for you?
What annoyed me was when intelligent, educated, affluent people talked nonsense. That really riled me. A conversation I had with people I met in New York over dinner upset me. It was not said but there was an undertone of complete racial assault which put me off. I have a problem with generalisation and putting people into boxes. At a political and human level. Even if they’re just saying ‘fat people are sweet’ or ‘short people can’t be trusted’ I have a problem when people make statements like this. You cannot generalise one community or religion, it goes against the grain of humanity. A certain amount of general goodness has been forgotten with the cynicism of our times. I feel very strongly the need to address it as a filmmaker. Addressing the issue of the identity of the Muslim in the modern world was one way to address the human community at large.

That conversation triggered off the thought process. Then I went back and researched with various organisations that protect minority rights in America. My story was different then. Then we realised the simplicity of the plot would seem artificial if we went down the typical route. We had to go through a man not of our times, whose mind was not cluttered with what our minds are usually full of. We may have romanticised the character. He has Asperger’s Syndrome which is high functioning autism and he sees life very differently, sees things literally. So he comes from a place of innocence and vulnerability.

It gives a place for the social constructs to fall away
Zarina Wahab’s character — Rizwan Khan’s mother — her philosophy could be extremely simplistic to some and deeply profound to others.

When you were doing this research, did it politicise you, change you?I felt the need to engage myself with what was happening globally. It opened my headspace up to so much. When you do this kind of research the information that you get isn’t just facts, you feel it, you’re associating it with your own film – so it made me passionate towards what was happening in the world.

Read more HERE.

‘Research For MNIK Opened My Mind To The World’ - Karan Johar

THREE YEARS AGO Karan Johar TOLD SHOMA CHAUDHURY THAT HE WAS DISSATISFIED WITH HIS SLEWOF HITS AND THAT HE HAD NOT YET MADE A FILM HE WAS PROUD OF. WITH HIS LATEST FILM, MY NAME IS KHAN, THE MAN WHO WAS ONCE A BYWORD FOR THE BIG AND SPLASHY WEDDING, MAKES A VERY PUBLIC SHIFT. IN THIS NEW INTERVIEW, HE TALKS OF THE UNEXPECTED CHANGES THAT THE MAKING OF THE FILM AND THE AFTERMATH HAD ON HIS SENSE OF SELF AND CINEMA. EXCERPTS:

There’s been a big shift of concern in the kind of films you are making — whether it is Kurbaan, Wake Up Sid or My Name Is Khan. Is this a conscious transition?
Karan Johar: A few filmmakers — only Adi [Aditya Chopra] and me actually — have been part of a transition in cinema. When Ashutosh [Gowarikar] made Lagaan, he hadn’t catered to the audience before, he had only made a couple of films. He immediately brought in a new sensibility. Farhan’s first film also brought in this new cool. While we had catered to a certain kind of cinegoer’s demands in the 1990s and then saw the evolution of the audience. I feel the need to adapt with the times. I had done a lot of films that were internal experiences, and as a filmmaker to challenge myself I felt the need to do something that yanks me out of my comfort zone. And as a producer I go by the diktats of the young minds I put my faith in — whether it’s Tarun Mansukhani who wanted to make Dostana, a rom-com with a mild edge or an Ayan Mukherjee who wanted to direct a coming-of-age film Wake Up Sid or Rensil D’Silva who chose to make a film on global terrorism. This year we have a quintessential date flick coming up called I Hate Love Stories and the official adaptation ofStepmom. These are not necessarily pathbreaking films but extremely warm mainstream endeavours. For myself this phase is going to stay because I’m in a different headspace from when I made Kuch Kuch Hota Hai (KKHH) and Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham (KKKG).

So these new concerns are not just about adapting to your environment, but also something personal?
Of course it is. Cinema is a reflection of your own state of mind. So I felt different when I directed KKHH and I feel totally different today — whatever you feel will reflect on celluloid and I don’t feel like I want to do something I’ve done before. I felt boredom had crept into my work.

The last time you and I spoke, you said you wished you could adopt a different name because of people’s expectations of your cinema.
I’m glad I may have kind of broken the shackles of my own perceived image. In media branding when they referred to a KJo film it was associated with terms like gloss, popcorn, glamour, mush, bubblegum, which were almost hurled at me like weapons — I felt like I was slotted too soon which was complimentary in a way but also annoying. You can’t slot me with two to three films, wait for two decades. With Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna I felt there was a shift in the perception, but now with My Name Is Khan (MNIK) I feel there is no way that I can be slotted in a category.

‘I’VE NEVER MADE A FILM I’M PROUD OF’ KKKG is all about me trying to show off, nothing else. It’s me saying, look, I’ve put up this big set; look, I’ve put up this star cast; they’re wearing beautiful clothes, look, look, look. Today I’ve become a school of cinema, whether you like it or hate it. Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna was my attempt to break my own mould. But what I did wrong was blend in some of my old need for opulence and scale and a star cast. I should have stuck to my initial thought, my first instinct, which was to make it an intimate drama of two couples. My gut and my spine is commercial, so no matter what, even while experimenting, I’ll always be mainstream. I sit here and visualise myself in my Armani suit, walking with my mother on the red carpet in LA, entering the Kodak Theatre, sitting in the twentieth row, hearing my nomination, getting the award, going up and ending my speech with, this is for you India. I have it all planned. But I will never make a two-hour film without songs, which might bore my country, just to achieve that. I’ve never made a film that I can proudly say is my film, that I can proudly tell people, did you see Lagaan, I made it. Or, did you see Rang De Basanti, I made it. I haven’t made that film yet, but I will. Sometimes my name hinders a film, because audiences come thinking there’ll be a lovely shaadi song. That worries me. I’ll have to strategise the promotion very cleverly — make it very clear that this is me — Karan. (laughs) Karan Trivedi maybe, or Saxena or Karan Thapar — anything, but not Karan Johar. excerpts PREVIOUS CONVERSATION

What triggered MNIK for you?
What annoyed me was when intelligent, educated, affluent people talked nonsense. That really riled me. A conversation I had with people I met in New York over dinner upset me. It was not said but there was an undertone of complete racial assault which put me off. I have a problem with generalisation and putting people into boxes. At a political and human level. Even if they’re just saying ‘fat people are sweet’ or ‘short people can’t be trusted’ I have a problem when people make statements like this. You cannot generalise one community or religion, it goes against the grain of humanity. A certain amount of general goodness has been forgotten with the cynicism of our times. I feel very strongly the need to address it as a filmmaker. Addressing the issue of the identity of the Muslim in the modern world was one way to address the human community at large.

That conversation triggered off the thought process. Then I went back and researched with various organisations that protect minority rights in America. My story was different then. Then we realised the simplicity of the plot would seem artificial if we went down the typical route. We had to go through a man not of our times, whose mind was not cluttered with what our minds are usually full of. We may have romanticised the character. He has Asperger’s Syndrome which is high functioning autism and he sees life very differently, sees things literally. So he comes from a place of innocence and vulnerability.

It gives a place for the social constructs to fall away
Zarina Wahab’s character — Rizwan Khan’s mother — her philosophy could be extremely simplistic to some and deeply profound to others.

When you were doing this research, did it politicise you, change you?I felt the need to engage myself with what was happening globally. It opened my headspace up to so much. When you do this kind of research the information that you get isn’t just facts, you feel it, you’re associating it with your own film – so it made me passionate towards what was happening in the world.

Read more HERE.

A Royalty Pain

Musicians and lyricists love it. Producers hate it. What is this mystery law cleaving Bollywood into two raging camps? RISHI MAJUMDER tells all

Regulating Bollywood can be like regulating the Mumbai underworld. Imagine Home Minister PC Chidambaram calling in Dawood Ibrahim and Chota Rajan for discussions on the drafting of a hypothetical Immunity To Organised Crime Bill. And inquisitive press men reporting a squabble between them – on whether it is the hitman or the don who must take credit for the crime – in bold black headlines which place what each said out of context. Finally, imagine Dawood Ibrahim sulking, and Chidambaram calling out to him, saying, “Come back. We need your help in drafting this bill.” Such a fracas, however imaginary, would be no less ridiculous than what was reported of the one that took place recently, involving actor Aamir Khan, Lyricist Javed Akhtar, and HRD Minister Kapil Sibal, over proposed amendments to the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. Ridiculous for two reasons. Because the media has ruined any hope of meaningful dialogue by misrepresenting every party involved, and missing the larger point. And because both the underworld and Bollywood are practically parallel systems, which run on their own terms – despite what the law deems.

 

Music and film companies still strong-arm rights out of an artist, which the provision aims to prevent

Let’s take the first reason first. The Bill that will incorporate the proposed amendments to the Indian Copyright Act is yet to be made public. But preliminary reports about it from lawyers and legal blogs show it to offer up a smorgasbord of changes. It seems to promise, among various things, to bring the Act into conformity with the WCT and WPPT, protect various members of the music and film industry, address the concerns of the physically challenged and safeguard the rights of authors – of both musical and literary works. Yet the media has transformed this guardian of Indian intellectual property into a Hindi film dialogue drama, with dialogues no writer would claim credit for. In this case, the actor didn’t either. The Times Of India, this country’s leading daily, actually carried on its editorial page a ‘view’ and ‘counter-view’ on the absurd and unrelated issue of whether an actor is more important than the song ‘picturised’ on him. A few days later, Aamir Khan “the actor in question” gave an interview published on the editorial page of the same paper, claiming this was not his question of choice in the first place.

Now, the second reason. Every legislative process has three aspects – a law, a lobby, and a context. The law, in this case, is the Indian Copyright Act, for which amendments were prepared in 2005 by the Ministry of HRD, which after wide ranging consultations with stakeholders constituted a core group of 30 members for this purpose. Certain provisions with regard to the film and music industry, however, have been reportedly been added to this list of amendments in 2009, without any great national consultation – indicating that the ministry’s enthusiasm for democracy might have somewhat waned by then. Now, just before the bill is to be presented in the parliament, a committee of representatives from the film industry has been formed, to first try and grasp convoluted legal provisions, and then provide their insight on them. Out of these provisions, there is only one that the Hindi film fraternity seems to be aware of, and which it engages in violent debates on. The wording of this provision may be changed later, but according to current reports it reads: "No assignment of copyright in any work to make a cinematograph film or sound recording shall affect the right of the author of the work to claim royalties in case of utilisation of the work in any form other than as part of cinematograph film or sound." For Bollywood, this provision applies primarily to music directors and lyric writers. Even though screenplay writers are included in the meaning of the provision, its empowerment for them is symbolic and does not translate into revenue.

What it means for music composers and lyricists, on the other hand, is that they can “claim royalties” on their songs, if used in “any form other than as part of cinematograph film or sound”, which includes times when songs are used as ringtones, or for live performances, or on the radio – despite their assigning these rights in a contract, which makes the concerned rights non-assignable. Praveen Anand, managing partner of Anand and Anand, this country’s most prominent Intellectual Property law firm, is a member of the committee drafting amendments to the Copyright Act. A busy man, he talks briefly and doesn’t mince words: “There is no provision like this anywhere else in the world. It is a provision which is totally unacceptable.” Lawrence Liang, IP lawyer with the Alternate Law Forum argues against this: “Is there a need for a provision like this in other countries? The US, France and Germany have a grading system safeguarding the rights of authors, won through collective bargaining.” The concerned artists in India, he says, have no bargaining power because they are not united.

The lobby in favour of this provision, from Bollywood, so far consists of music directors and lyricists. They are tired of being forced by producers to sign away their rights to royalty, for work they have created, on a contract. Lyricist Javed Akhtar is a part of this lobby. Looking about half as enraged as the angry young man he wrote into scripts (with co-writer Salim Khan) and penned lyrics for, he produces a copy of such an agreement which every lyricist and music director is made to sign. “The rights assigned here are ‘for perpetuity and throughout the world”, Akhtar quotes.

Talking to some more music directors and lyricists provides a summation of this lobby’s reasons for pushing this provision. These arguments work their way up from a premise to a point. EIMP Vs IPR Society was a 1977 Supreme Court case where Justice Krishna Iyer observed that a use of lyrics and musical compositions beyond their use in a film would require license from the author and composer. Publishing royalties are already shared on a 50-50 basis between authors and composers and music companies. Also, publishing rights to music composers and writers “even those who lend their work to cinema” is provided for in the west. Most importantly, the Indian Copyright Act recognises clearly the copyright of music directors and lyricists. These facts constitute the premise. The point is that film and music companies still use the proverbial upper hand to strong-arm rights out of an artist during the signing of his contract. An arm twisting which the contentious provision aims to prevent.

Then come the stories. Stories of legendary lyricists like Sahir Ludhianvi and Shailendra and music directors like SD and RD Burman and Shankar Jaikishan, who with their talent wrote and put to song a film’s success, rather than the other way round. To credit their creativity entirely to the directions that filmmakers gave them towards the creation of their works would be blasphemy. There are tragic stories, such as that of the wife of Hemchand Prakash, composer of the Hindi film classic Aayega Aanewaala. His wife was found begging on the platforms of Mumbai’s Borivali Railway Station after her husband’s death. Another such story is told by Lyricist Shailendra’s daughter, Amla: “My father died at the young age of 43. If this provision was there at his time, he might have been alive today. An artist deserves financial recognition, in addition to other recognition.” Financial troubles, magnified by the failure of Teesri Kasam, a film Shailendra was investing in, have been quoted by many to have caused his death. And then there is music director Salil Choudhary’s son Sanjoy Choudhary, whose voice shakes as he says bitterly: “My father died a pauper. This provision will ensure artists get their due. It will inspire artists to create original work, not steal and mimic tunes.”

And finally the success stories, which evoke more of a reaction than those of failure. Such as that of music director AR Rahman, who won an Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire, and kept the rights to his work because it was for a UK based production house, whereas he would have had to surrender the same in an Indian production. Another success story is Vishal Bhardwaj, who has gone on from being a music director to being an acclaimed filmmaker, and producer. Having seen both worlds, his voice lends a poignant edge to the debate: “Despite being a producer, I can’t ignore the music director within me. This provision must be passed. I remember paying up for the use of the song ‘Aisi Bhi Baatein Hoti Hai’, in Ishqiya. Hemant Kumar and Kaifi Azmi, and their families, had a right to that payment.”

The Mumbai film industry lobby against this provision is very obviously made up of producers. And actor Aamir Khan, ever since his comeback and advent into a new kind of cinema with Lagaan, has been a producer. He calls from his retreat in Panchgani to say: “The first problem I have with these amendments is that I didn’t know about them.” Khan then narrates how he met HRD Minister Kapil Sibal socially, and how Sibal told him about amendments to the Copyright Act. How he wanted to know more, and how Sibal invited him for an official discussion and asked him to suggest names of other stakeholders who might also be invited. One of the stakeholders he suggested, he says, was Javed Akhtar. The spat that has ensued between producer and lyricist has possibly made Khan aware of the fact that he has more to lose than the average producer, because he is also a star. Even if, say, Mukesh Bhatt was to be projected by the media as a greedy megalomaniac, it wouldn’t really erode his fan base. But Aamir Khan smoulders in the heat of public gaze.

AR Rahman kept his Slumdog Millionaire rights because it was for a UK producer not an Indian one

The producers question both the means and the ends of this provision. They are astounded by the suddenness of a law, which will wrench away from them a crop of more or less certain earnings that provided great comfort in an industry plagued equally by piracy and flop films.

Also, an industry renowned for its sentimentality. The business of Bollywood is the business of unparalleled stardom and of great profits and losses in one day. This bequeaths many raw nerves. Every member of the film fraternity is extremely emotional. Producers see the fact that lyricists and music directors knew about these amendments, and didn’t tell them, as a sort of betrayal. As one producer dramatically, and paradoxically, asked of his lyricist: “How will you look me in the eye now, after stabbing me in the back?”

The producers of Bollywood have been and will be the great risk takers. They embark on ventures with zero certainty by taking on debts of many crores. Often these debts pile up, and a producer tries to pay them through other avenues – like earnings from ringtones, radio broadcasts and live shows. And a film’s failure doesn’t take away from the fact that they have to pay their actors, their cinematographers, their production managers and yes, even their music directors and lyric writers. With this provision in place, their one predictable source of income will have to be shared.

Read more HERE.

A Royalty Pain

Musicians and lyricists love it. Producers hate it. What is this mystery law cleaving Bollywood into two raging camps? RISHI MAJUMDER tells all

Regulating Bollywood can be like regulating the Mumbai underworld. Imagine Home Minister PC Chidambaram calling in Dawood Ibrahim and Chota Rajan for discussions on the drafting of a hypothetical Immunity To Organised Crime Bill. And inquisitive press men reporting a squabble between them – on whether it is the hitman or the don who must take credit for the crime – in bold black headlines which place what each said out of context. Finally, imagine Dawood Ibrahim sulking, and Chidambaram calling out to him, saying, “Come back. We need your help in drafting this bill.” Such a fracas, however imaginary, would be no less ridiculous than what was reported of the one that took place recently, involving actor Aamir Khan, Lyricist Javed Akhtar, and HRD Minister Kapil Sibal, over proposed amendments to the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. Ridiculous for two reasons. Because the media has ruined any hope of meaningful dialogue by misrepresenting every party involved, and missing the larger point. And because both the underworld and Bollywood are practically parallel systems, which run on their own terms – despite what the law deems.

 

Music and film companies still strong-arm rights out of an artist, which the provision aims to prevent

Let’s take the first reason first. The Bill that will incorporate the proposed amendments to the Indian Copyright Act is yet to be made public. But preliminary reports about it from lawyers and legal blogs show it to offer up a smorgasbord of changes. It seems to promise, among various things, to bring the Act into conformity with the WCT and WPPT, protect various members of the music and film industry, address the concerns of the physically challenged and safeguard the rights of authors – of both musical and literary works. Yet the media has transformed this guardian of Indian intellectual property into a Hindi film dialogue drama, with dialogues no writer would claim credit for. In this case, the actor didn’t either. The Times Of India, this country’s leading daily, actually carried on its editorial page a ‘view’ and ‘counter-view’ on the absurd and unrelated issue of whether an actor is more important than the song ‘picturised’ on him. A few days later, Aamir Khan “the actor in question” gave an interview published on the editorial page of the same paper, claiming this was not his question of choice in the first place.

Now, the second reason. Every legislative process has three aspects – a law, a lobby, and a context. The law, in this case, is the Indian Copyright Act, for which amendments were prepared in 2005 by the Ministry of HRD, which after wide ranging consultations with stakeholders constituted a core group of 30 members for this purpose. Certain provisions with regard to the film and music industry, however, have been reportedly been added to this list of amendments in 2009, without any great national consultation – indicating that the ministry’s enthusiasm for democracy might have somewhat waned by then. Now, just before the bill is to be presented in the parliament, a committee of representatives from the film industry has been formed, to first try and grasp convoluted legal provisions, and then provide their insight on them. Out of these provisions, there is only one that the Hindi film fraternity seems to be aware of, and which it engages in violent debates on. The wording of this provision may be changed later, but according to current reports it reads: "No assignment of copyright in any work to make a cinematograph film or sound recording shall affect the right of the author of the work to claim royalties in case of utilisation of the work in any form other than as part of cinematograph film or sound." For Bollywood, this provision applies primarily to music directors and lyric writers. Even though screenplay writers are included in the meaning of the provision, its empowerment for them is symbolic and does not translate into revenue.

What it means for music composers and lyricists, on the other hand, is that they can “claim royalties” on their songs, if used in “any form other than as part of cinematograph film or sound”, which includes times when songs are used as ringtones, or for live performances, or on the radio – despite their assigning these rights in a contract, which makes the concerned rights non-assignable. Praveen Anand, managing partner of Anand and Anand, this country’s most prominent Intellectual Property law firm, is a member of the committee drafting amendments to the Copyright Act. A busy man, he talks briefly and doesn’t mince words: “There is no provision like this anywhere else in the world. It is a provision which is totally unacceptable.” Lawrence Liang, IP lawyer with the Alternate Law Forum argues against this: “Is there a need for a provision like this in other countries? The US, France and Germany have a grading system safeguarding the rights of authors, won through collective bargaining.” The concerned artists in India, he says, have no bargaining power because they are not united.

The lobby in favour of this provision, from Bollywood, so far consists of music directors and lyricists. They are tired of being forced by producers to sign away their rights to royalty, for work they have created, on a contract. Lyricist Javed Akhtar is a part of this lobby. Looking about half as enraged as the angry young man he wrote into scripts (with co-writer Salim Khan) and penned lyrics for, he produces a copy of such an agreement which every lyricist and music director is made to sign. “The rights assigned here are ‘for perpetuity and throughout the world”, Akhtar quotes.

Talking to some more music directors and lyricists provides a summation of this lobby’s reasons for pushing this provision. These arguments work their way up from a premise to a point. EIMP Vs IPR Society was a 1977 Supreme Court case where Justice Krishna Iyer observed that a use of lyrics and musical compositions beyond their use in a film would require license from the author and composer. Publishing royalties are already shared on a 50-50 basis between authors and composers and music companies. Also, publishing rights to music composers and writers “even those who lend their work to cinema” is provided for in the west. Most importantly, the Indian Copyright Act recognises clearly the copyright of music directors and lyricists. These facts constitute the premise. The point is that film and music companies still use the proverbial upper hand to strong-arm rights out of an artist during the signing of his contract. An arm twisting which the contentious provision aims to prevent.

Then come the stories. Stories of legendary lyricists like Sahir Ludhianvi and Shailendra and music directors like SD and RD Burman and Shankar Jaikishan, who with their talent wrote and put to song a film’s success, rather than the other way round. To credit their creativity entirely to the directions that filmmakers gave them towards the creation of their works would be blasphemy. There are tragic stories, such as that of the wife of Hemchand Prakash, composer of the Hindi film classic Aayega Aanewaala. His wife was found begging on the platforms of Mumbai’s Borivali Railway Station after her husband’s death. Another such story is told by Lyricist Shailendra’s daughter, Amla: “My father died at the young age of 43. If this provision was there at his time, he might have been alive today. An artist deserves financial recognition, in addition to other recognition.” Financial troubles, magnified by the failure of Teesri Kasam, a film Shailendra was investing in, have been quoted by many to have caused his death. And then there is music director Salil Choudhary’s son Sanjoy Choudhary, whose voice shakes as he says bitterly: “My father died a pauper. This provision will ensure artists get their due. It will inspire artists to create original work, not steal and mimic tunes.”

And finally the success stories, which evoke more of a reaction than those of failure. Such as that of music director AR Rahman, who won an Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire, and kept the rights to his work because it was for a UK based production house, whereas he would have had to surrender the same in an Indian production. Another success story is Vishal Bhardwaj, who has gone on from being a music director to being an acclaimed filmmaker, and producer. Having seen both worlds, his voice lends a poignant edge to the debate: “Despite being a producer, I can’t ignore the music director within me. This provision must be passed. I remember paying up for the use of the song ‘Aisi Bhi Baatein Hoti Hai’, in Ishqiya. Hemant Kumar and Kaifi Azmi, and their families, had a right to that payment.”

The Mumbai film industry lobby against this provision is very obviously made up of producers. And actor Aamir Khan, ever since his comeback and advent into a new kind of cinema with Lagaan, has been a producer. He calls from his retreat in Panchgani to say: “The first problem I have with these amendments is that I didn’t know about them.” Khan then narrates how he met HRD Minister Kapil Sibal socially, and how Sibal told him about amendments to the Copyright Act. How he wanted to know more, and how Sibal invited him for an official discussion and asked him to suggest names of other stakeholders who might also be invited. One of the stakeholders he suggested, he says, was Javed Akhtar. The spat that has ensued between producer and lyricist has possibly made Khan aware of the fact that he has more to lose than the average producer, because he is also a star. Even if, say, Mukesh Bhatt was to be projected by the media as a greedy megalomaniac, it wouldn’t really erode his fan base. But Aamir Khan smoulders in the heat of public gaze.

AR Rahman kept his Slumdog Millionaire rights because it was for a UK producer not an Indian one

The producers question both the means and the ends of this provision. They are astounded by the suddenness of a law, which will wrench away from them a crop of more or less certain earnings that provided great comfort in an industry plagued equally by piracy and flop films.

Also, an industry renowned for its sentimentality. The business of Bollywood is the business of unparalleled stardom and of great profits and losses in one day. This bequeaths many raw nerves. Every member of the film fraternity is extremely emotional. Producers see the fact that lyricists and music directors knew about these amendments, and didn’t tell them, as a sort of betrayal. As one producer dramatically, and paradoxically, asked of his lyricist: “How will you look me in the eye now, after stabbing me in the back?”

The producers of Bollywood have been and will be the great risk takers. They embark on ventures with zero certainty by taking on debts of many crores. Often these debts pile up, and a producer tries to pay them through other avenues – like earnings from ringtones, radio broadcasts and live shows. And a film’s failure doesn’t take away from the fact that they have to pay their actors, their cinematographers, their production managers and yes, even their music directors and lyric writers. With this provision in place, their one predictable source of income will have to be shared.

Read more HERE.

Happy Holi

Happy Holi

Filmfare Awards 2010

Best Film (Popular) - 3 Idiots

Best Director - Rajkumar Hirani (3 Idiots)

Best Actor (Male) Popular - Amitabh Bachchan (Paa)

Best Actor (Female) Popular - Vidya Balan (Paa)

Best Actor (Male) Critics - Ranbir Kapoor (consistently outstanding performances through 2009)

Lifetime Achievement Award - Khayyam

Best Actor (Female) Critics - Mahi Gill (Dev. D)

Best Film (Critics) - Firaaq

Best Supporting Actor (Male) - Boman Irani (3 Idiots)

Best Supporting Actor (Female) - Kalki Koechlin (Dev. D)

Best Debutante (Male) - Ayan Mukerji (Director, Wake Up Sid)

Best Debutante (Female) - Zoya Akhtar (Director, Luck By Chance)

Best Screenplay - Rajkumar Hirani, Vidhu Vinod Chopra, Abhijat Joshi (3 Idiots)

Best Story - Abhijat Joshi & Rajkumar Hirani (3 Idiots)

Best Lyrics - Irshad Kamil (Aaj Din - Love Aaj Kal)

Best Music - AR Rahman (Delhi 6)

Best Playback Singer (Male) - Mohit Chauhan (Masakali - Delhi 6)

Best Playback Singer (Female) - TIE - Kavita Seth (Iktara - Wake Up Sid) & Rekha Bhardwaj (Genda Phool - Delhi-6)

The RD Burman Award for Music - Amit Trivedi (Dev. D)

Best Cinematography - Rajeev Ravi (Dev. D)

Best Action - Vijayan Master (Wanted)

Best Costume - Vaishali Menon (Firaaq)

Best Production Design - Helen and Sukant (Dev D)

Best Sound Design - Manas Chaudhry (Firaaq)

Best Choreography - Bosco Ceaser for Chor Bazaari (Love Aaj Kal)

Best Visual Effects - Kaminey

Filmfare Awards 2010

Best Film (Popular) - 3 Idiots

Best Director - Rajkumar Hirani (3 Idiots)

Best Actor (Male) Popular - Amitabh Bachchan (Paa)

Best Actor (Female) Popular - Vidya Balan (Paa)

Best Actor (Male) Critics - Ranbir Kapoor (consistently outstanding performances through 2009)

Lifetime Achievement Award - Khayyam

Best Actor (Female) Critics - Mahi Gill (Dev. D)

Best Film (Critics) - Firaaq

Best Supporting Actor (Male) - Boman Irani (3 Idiots)

Best Supporting Actor (Female) - Kalki Koechlin (Dev. D)

Best Debutante (Male) - Ayan Mukerji (Director, Wake Up Sid)

Best Debutante (Female) - Zoya Akhtar (Director, Luck By Chance)

Best Screenplay - Rajkumar Hirani, Vidhu Vinod Chopra, Abhijat Joshi (3 Idiots)

Best Story - Abhijat Joshi & Rajkumar Hirani (3 Idiots)

Best Lyrics - Irshad Kamil (Aaj Din - Love Aaj Kal)

Best Music - AR Rahman (Delhi 6)

Best Playback Singer (Male) - Mohit Chauhan (Masakali - Delhi 6)

Best Playback Singer (Female) - TIE - Kavita Seth (Iktara - Wake Up Sid) & Rekha Bhardwaj (Genda Phool - Delhi-6)

The RD Burman Award for Music - Amit Trivedi (Dev. D)

Best Cinematography - Rajeev Ravi (Dev. D)

Best Action - Vijayan Master (Wanted)

Best Costume - Vaishali Menon (Firaaq)

Best Production Design - Helen and Sukant (Dev D)

Best Sound Design - Manas Chaudhry (Firaaq)

Best Choreography - Bosco Ceaser for Chor Bazaari (Love Aaj Kal)

Best Visual Effects - Kaminey

Atithi Tum... has no romantic angle: Konkona

There is no romantic angle to the movie Atithi Tum Kab Jaoge, award-winning actress Konkona Sen Sharma says about her new film.

"Though Ajay and I play the role of a married couple in the film, there is no romantic angle; it's about the comedy that happens while trying to get relief from a person who comes as a guest and shows no signs of leaving," said Konkona.

The film revolves around the story of Puneet (Ajay Devgn) and Munmun (Konkona Sen Sharma), a happily married couple living in Mumbai. Their life takes a turn when a distant relative Chachaji (Paresh Rawal) turns up unannounced at their doorstep from a far-off village.

The chaos that follows makes it a rib tickling comedy where the agonised couple tries various methods to get rid of him but fails time and again.

Ajay Devgn was all praise for Konkona's performance and maintained that it's always a pleasure working with a commendable actor.

"It was a great experience working with Konkona. When you act with a very good actor, it becomes a fantastic experience. People think that when we work, we compete with each other but if the other person works well, then only can you work better because filmmaking is teamwork," said Ajay.

LINK

Atithi Tum... has no romantic angle: Konkona

There is no romantic angle to the movie Atithi Tum Kab Jaoge, award-winning actress Konkona Sen Sharma says about her new film.

"Though Ajay and I play the role of a married couple in the film, there is no romantic angle; it's about the comedy that happens while trying to get relief from a person who comes as a guest and shows no signs of leaving," said Konkona.

The film revolves around the story of Puneet (Ajay Devgn) and Munmun (Konkona Sen Sharma), a happily married couple living in Mumbai. Their life takes a turn when a distant relative Chachaji (Paresh Rawal) turns up unannounced at their doorstep from a far-off village.

The chaos that follows makes it a rib tickling comedy where the agonised couple tries various methods to get rid of him but fails time and again.

Ajay Devgn was all praise for Konkona's performance and maintained that it's always a pleasure working with a commendable actor.

"It was a great experience working with Konkona. When you act with a very good actor, it becomes a fantastic experience. People think that when we work, we compete with each other but if the other person works well, then only can you work better because filmmaking is teamwork," said Ajay.

LINK

Road, Movie is experimental: Abhay Deol

Road, Movie has generated quite a buzz in international film circuits and actor Abhay Deol hopes that the Dev Benegal directed film will fetch a similar response in India.

"Road, Movie is very subtle in its humour and drama. However, the fact is that subtlety is not something that people lap up rather quickly," said Deol, adding that the film comes with a niche appeal.

The 33-year-old is quite pleased with the response that Road, Movie is fetching internationally.

"We have been to some really major festivals and foreign audience are going gaga over it. There have been awesome reactions all over which has pretty much established Dev's vision of making Road, Movie as a film which has a universal appeal," said the actor.

The film was premiered at Toronto Films Festival to a thunderous response. During its screening at Berlin Film Festival all three shows were sold out but closer home, Deol is awaiting the response to the movie, which he believes is more experimental than his earlier films.

"Road, Movie is more experimental whereas Dev D was actually quite stylish in treatment rather than being experimental. In fact Dev D relied a lot on visuals while
Oye Lucky Lucky Oye had music to elevate its commercial viability. Moreover, since it was a Delhi based film, there was a lot more identification factor involved," he said.

However, while refraining from commenting much on the commercial aspects of Road, Movie, Deol said,"People will appreciate it for the kind of difference it is going to make to cinema. In fact if they don't catch it now then may be 10-15 years down the line, it would be considered as landmark movie. I am quite positive about that", said the actor.

Meanwhile, Deol continues to live the philosophy that he has adapted ever since he started working in Bollywood films.

Read more from HERE

Road, Movie is experimental: Abhay Deol

Road, Movie has generated quite a buzz in international film circuits and actor Abhay Deol hopes that the Dev Benegal directed film will fetch a similar response in India.

"Road, Movie is very subtle in its humour and drama. However, the fact is that subtlety is not something that people lap up rather quickly," said Deol, adding that the film comes with a niche appeal.

The 33-year-old is quite pleased with the response that Road, Movie is fetching internationally.

"We have been to some really major festivals and foreign audience are going gaga over it. There have been awesome reactions all over which has pretty much established Dev's vision of making Road, Movie as a film which has a universal appeal," said the actor.

The film was premiered at Toronto Films Festival to a thunderous response. During its screening at Berlin Film Festival all three shows were sold out but closer home, Deol is awaiting the response to the movie, which he believes is more experimental than his earlier films.

"Road, Movie is more experimental whereas Dev D was actually quite stylish in treatment rather than being experimental. In fact Dev D relied a lot on visuals while
Oye Lucky Lucky Oye had music to elevate its commercial viability. Moreover, since it was a Delhi based film, there was a lot more identification factor involved," he said.

However, while refraining from commenting much on the commercial aspects of Road, Movie, Deol said,"People will appreciate it for the kind of difference it is going to make to cinema. In fact if they don't catch it now then may be 10-15 years down the line, it would be considered as landmark movie. I am quite positive about that", said the actor.

Meanwhile, Deol continues to live the philosophy that he has adapted ever since he started working in Bollywood films.

Read more from HERE

Ash, Big B threaten to skip Filmfare awards

A furious Bachchan family has threatened to skip the prestigious Filmfare awards Saturday evening unless the Mumbai Mirror publishes a formal apology for spreading "false" news about Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's health.
The Mumbai Mirror and Filmfare both belong to the Times Group. Aishwarya Rai, who was supposed to perform at the event, has decided to pull out.

The Bachchans have also sent a legal notice to the editor of Mumbai Mirror, seeking a retraction and apology.

"We have informed Filmfare that neither will Aishwarya be performing at the event, for which all preparations had been made and neither shall any of us be attending," Amitabh Bachchan posted on his blog, bigb.bigadda.com.

The family is angry that the paper has not published a formal apology for the article stating that Aishwarya is suffering from stomach tuberculosis and cannot conceive, a news branded as "completely false" by father-in-law Amitabh.

"Suffice to say for the moment that despite a few personal apologies from management and owners, no public apology has taken place. You cannot abuse me in public and then come and say sorry to me in private."

"So, even though we have great relations with the family in ownership and despite the fact that we have continuously responded to their needs whenever desired, unstintingly - the lawyers notice has been delivered to the editor of Mumbai Mirror, seeking on a legal plane retraction and apology," he added.

The Bachchans are not alone in their stand. Director R Balakrishnan, who helmed the Amitabh and Abhishek Bachchan-starrer Paa, has also decided to stay away from the event to show his support to the Big B.

"Balki, the director of the film, even when Paa has been nominated in five categories for the evening, (is not attending). No coercion, just a voluntary decision of solidarity. Thank you Balki," said Amitabh.

The Filmfare awards will be held in Mumbai Saturday evening.

LINK

Ash, Big B threaten to skip Filmfare awards

A furious Bachchan family has threatened to skip the prestigious Filmfare awards Saturday evening unless the Mumbai Mirror publishes a formal apology for spreading "false" news about Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's health.
The Mumbai Mirror and Filmfare both belong to the Times Group. Aishwarya Rai, who was supposed to perform at the event, has decided to pull out.

The Bachchans have also sent a legal notice to the editor of Mumbai Mirror, seeking a retraction and apology.

"We have informed Filmfare that neither will Aishwarya be performing at the event, for which all preparations had been made and neither shall any of us be attending," Amitabh Bachchan posted on his blog, bigb.bigadda.com.

The family is angry that the paper has not published a formal apology for the article stating that Aishwarya is suffering from stomach tuberculosis and cannot conceive, a news branded as "completely false" by father-in-law Amitabh.

"Suffice to say for the moment that despite a few personal apologies from management and owners, no public apology has taken place. You cannot abuse me in public and then come and say sorry to me in private."

"So, even though we have great relations with the family in ownership and despite the fact that we have continuously responded to their needs whenever desired, unstintingly - the lawyers notice has been delivered to the editor of Mumbai Mirror, seeking on a legal plane retraction and apology," he added.

The Bachchans are not alone in their stand. Director R Balakrishnan, who helmed the Amitabh and Abhishek Bachchan-starrer Paa, has also decided to stay away from the event to show his support to the Big B.

"Balki, the director of the film, even when Paa has been nominated in five categories for the evening, (is not attending). No coercion, just a voluntary decision of solidarity. Thank you Balki," said Amitabh.

The Filmfare awards will be held in Mumbai Saturday evening.

LINK

Karthik Calling Karthik (2010) – Movie Review

Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called “The Pledge”. The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course… it probably isn’t. The second act is called “The Turn”. The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you’re looking for the secret… but you won’t find it, because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn’t clap yet. Because making something disappear isn’t enough; you have to bring it back. That’s why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call “The Prestige”.

- The Prestige

Similar to magic tricks, a suspenseful story or play or a film has 3 parts generally termed as Act 1, Act 2 and Act 3, and having similar significance as the 3 parts of the magic trick. How about modifying the meaning of Act 3 a bit and instead of solving everything for the audience, for a change leaving it unsolved. I think it is better to leave some mysteries unsolved instead of ending them badly. Though the general audience may get disappointed because they want closure and mysteries to be solved so that they don’t think about the film at all, but not all mysteries in life get solved. IMO, Karthik Calling Karthik was just that kind of a film that would have worked better for ME if it was unsolved instead of ending in the ridiculous twist that was shown. I was hoping against hope that the director really would not reveal the twist and leave the ending open or something, because the way he was moving the story forward, I knew, the twist won’t be as exciting as the buildup was. But like I said, that would not have been generally appreciated .

The film is about Karthik (Farhan Akhtar) who blames himself for the loss of his brother in childhood and can’t concentrate and focus on his life and tries to commit suicide until he gets a phone call. Karthik Calling Karthik is a confused film, and is a clear example of a the director did not know how to carry the story forward after having thought of a brilliant idea. The film could have been a lot better if it was made into a horror thriller kind of a film just like 13 B. Instead the director chose to take the story forward in a very relaxed manner. A few scenes in the film could have really worked better if it had the horror touch to it. The concept suited the horror genre a lot. But in KCK, most of the scenes instead of giving a thrill, look more like an unintentional comedy. Like when Shefali Shah receives the phone call, I ended up laughing instead of being thrilled. I really think the film should have had that 13 B kind of touch to it.

Though I say the idea of Karthik Calling Karthik was brilliant, I must say it is very much inspired from Fight Club (David Fincher), just that we don’t see the alter ego of Karthik in this film; instead we hear his voice over the phone. I won’t call it a remake of Fight Club, it is hardly that, but yes the concept seems to be inspired. A major part of the film in the second half reminded me of No Smoking where the protagonist tries to run away from himself. But unlike No Smoking this film is not a surreal one and a confusing one.

Read more from HERE

Karthik Calling Karthik (2010) – Movie Review

Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called “The Pledge”. The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course… it probably isn’t. The second act is called “The Turn”. The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you’re looking for the secret… but you won’t find it, because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn’t clap yet. Because making something disappear isn’t enough; you have to bring it back. That’s why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call “The Prestige”.

- The Prestige

Similar to magic tricks, a suspenseful story or play or a film has 3 parts generally termed as Act 1, Act 2 and Act 3, and having similar significance as the 3 parts of the magic trick. How about modifying the meaning of Act 3 a bit and instead of solving everything for the audience, for a change leaving it unsolved. I think it is better to leave some mysteries unsolved instead of ending them badly. Though the general audience may get disappointed because they want closure and mysteries to be solved so that they don’t think about the film at all, but not all mysteries in life get solved. IMO, Karthik Calling Karthik was just that kind of a film that would have worked better for ME if it was unsolved instead of ending in the ridiculous twist that was shown. I was hoping against hope that the director really would not reveal the twist and leave the ending open or something, because the way he was moving the story forward, I knew, the twist won’t be as exciting as the buildup was. But like I said, that would not have been generally appreciated .

The film is about Karthik (Farhan Akhtar) who blames himself for the loss of his brother in childhood and can’t concentrate and focus on his life and tries to commit suicide until he gets a phone call. Karthik Calling Karthik is a confused film, and is a clear example of a the director did not know how to carry the story forward after having thought of a brilliant idea. The film could have been a lot better if it was made into a horror thriller kind of a film just like 13 B. Instead the director chose to take the story forward in a very relaxed manner. A few scenes in the film could have really worked better if it had the horror touch to it. The concept suited the horror genre a lot. But in KCK, most of the scenes instead of giving a thrill, look more like an unintentional comedy. Like when Shefali Shah receives the phone call, I ended up laughing instead of being thrilled. I really think the film should have had that 13 B kind of touch to it.

Though I say the idea of Karthik Calling Karthik was brilliant, I must say it is very much inspired from Fight Club (David Fincher), just that we don’t see the alter ego of Karthik in this film; instead we hear his voice over the phone. I won’t call it a remake of Fight Club, it is hardly that, but yes the concept seems to be inspired. A major part of the film in the second half reminded me of No Smoking where the protagonist tries to run away from himself. But unlike No Smoking this film is not a surreal one and a confusing one.

Read more from HERE

Oscar awards Prediction thread

82nd Oscar awards will be announced on March 7th.. so let's start the prediction game :-)

Here are Chicago Tribune's Critic Michael Phillips picks:

COURTESY : Chicago Tribune.

  

Best picture

 (Courtesy of 20th Century Fox )

Nominees: "Avatar"; "The Blind Side"; "District 9"; "An Education"; "The Hurt Locker"; " Inglourious Basterds" ; "Precious: Based on the novel ‘Push' by Sapphire"; "A Serious Man"; "Up"; "Up in the Air."


The dope: Why 10 nominees? In theory, doubling the nominees mean more moviegoers staying home and tuning in, with a stake in the outcome. If the Academy has its druthers we will never again see an Oscar telecast where the big films in contention are "No Country For Old Men" and " There Will Be Blood." Film historian Neal Gabler calls the expanded best picture category a case of cultural inflation — "a growing number of opportunities for the less deserving to get a taste of ultimate victory, as part of a growing aversion to disappointing anyone." At least there's no "Hangover."


Will win: Very close. I suspect this one goes to "Avatar" (pictured above), and Cameron's ex will (deservedly) win for best director. This is, after all, the year the Oscars are reasserting rear-ends-in-seats populism.

 

 

Who should win best picture?

(Courtesy of Summit Entertainment)

Of the probables, "The Hurt Locker" (pictured above). Of the nominees who don't have a chance, "Up" was my favorite film last year, even with that blobby last half-hour. And I'd love to see "A Serious Man" win, just to watch the entire human contents of Hollywood's Kodak Theatre turn to stone.  

 

Best actor (Courtesy of 20th Century Fox) Nominees: Jeff Bridges, "Crazy Heart" (pictured above); George Clooney, "Up in the Air"; Colin Firth, "A Single Man"; Morgan Freeman, "Invictus"; Jeremy Renner, " The Hurt Locker." The dope: If Clooney hadn't won for "Syriana" we might have something to talk about. But he did, so we don't. Will win: Bridges.    Who should win best actor? Three-way tie, courtesy of the Oscar ceremony currently taking place in my head, between (from left) Jeremy Renner; Colin Firth; and Bridges.    Best actress (Courtesy of Warner Bros.) Nominees: Sandra Bullock, "The Blind Side" (pictured above); Helen Mirren, "The Last Station"; Carey Mulligan, "An Education"; Gabourey Sidibe, "Precious"; Meryl Streep, "Julie & Julia." The dope: Bullock starred in two of the most profitable modestly-budgeted studio pictures of 2009, "The Proposal" and "The Blind Side." Hollywood appreciates stars like that. Meryl Streep snags her 16th nomination. Hold on….late-breaking news…Meryl Streep has just read a headline from the newspaper out loud, and has received a 17th nomination! Will win: Bullock.    Who should win best actress? (Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics) Carey Mulligan for "An Education" (pictured above, right). She has everything it takes to rival Kate Winslet or Helen Mirren in a decade or two.     Best supporting actor (Courtesy of The Weinstein Company) Nominees: Matt Damon, "Invictus"; Woody Harrelson, "The Messenger"; Christopher Plummer, "The Last Station"; Stanley Tucci, "The Lovely Bones"; Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds" (pictured above). The dope: Tucci nominated for the wrong movie. Vastly more accomplished in "Julie & Julia." Re: "Lovely Bones," I wish all pedophiliac serial killers were so easy to spot. Nice surprise for Harrelson here, though. Will win: Waltz. Should win: Waltz. I'd also nominate Plummer's Tolstoy for best supporting beard.    Best supporting actress (Courtesy of Lionsgate) Nominees: Penelope Cruz, "Nine"; Vera Farmiga, "Up in the Air"; Maggie Gyllenhaal, "Crazy Heart"; Anna Kendrick, "Up in the Air"; Mo'Nique, "Precious" (pictured above). The dope: One surprise here is Gyllenhaal, for her role as the free-lance journalist with a soft spot, for long-overdue Oscar winners. The other is Penelope Cruz — deserving in other years for other films, but… Will win: Mo'Nique. Should win: Mo'Nique.   Best animated feature film (Courtesy of Disney/Pixar) Nominees: "Coraline"; "Fantastic Mr. Fox"; "The Princess and the Frog"; "The Secret of Kells"; "Up." The dope: Few, if any, even in Ireland, predicted the inclusion of the Irish animated feature "The Secret of Kells." I think the Academy showed some backbone in this category, simply by not throwing in "Monsters Vs. Aliens" or "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" simply because it made a pile. Will win: "Up." Should win: "Up." Though I surely did admire "Coraline" as well.    Best director (Tribune photo by Michael Tercha) Nominees: "Avatar," James Cameron; "The Hurt Locker," Kathryn Bigelow (pictured above); "Inglourious Basterds," Quentin Tarantino; "Precious," Lee Daniels; "Up in the Air," Jason Reitman. The dope: Not much doubt here. Will win: Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker." Should win: Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker."    Best original screenplay (Courtesy of The Weinstein Company) Nominees: "The Hurt Locker," by Mark Boal; "Inglourious Basterds," by Quentin Tarantino (pictured above); "The Messenger," by Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman; "A Serious Man," by Joel and Ethan Coen; "Up," screenplay by Bob Peterson, Pete Docter; story by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy. The dope: A strong field. Glad to see "Up" rewarded, as well as the little-seen drama "The Messenger." Will win: Tarantino, "Inglourious Basterds."    Who should win best original screenplay? (Courtesy of Focus Features) Joel and Ethan Coen, "A Serious Man" (pictured above).   Best adapted screenplay (Courtesy of Paramount Pictures) Nominees: "District 9," by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell; "An Education," by Nick Hornby; "In the Loop," by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche; "Precious," by Geoffrey Fletcher; "Up in the Air," by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner (pictured above). The dope: Another strong field, and lest we forget: It all begins on the page. Will win: Reitman and Turner, "Up in the Air."