With the Academy Awards a mere six months away, countries around the world have sent in their official submission for the International Feature Film longlist. India’s pick this year is the critically acclaimed satire Laapata Ladies, which, despite its acclaim, has exposed the FFI to controversy, defamation and some deeply upsetting slurs. Today, we sit down with the 13-member board of the FFI as they share their completely unbiased, totally apolitical side of the story. Read on for more!
[I sit across the table from the 13-member jury committee, 12 of whom I am positive suffer from arthritis. One of them is fast asleep.]
KK: This is just like 12 Angry Men.
Perpetually Angry Juror: Like what?
KK: Never mind. Let’s begin. Thank you all for taking the time to speak with me.
Randomly Misogynistic Juror: You know, I remember when women used to be scared to speak to older men. They’d hang their head in shame, wouldn’t even look us in the eye. How times have changed!
KK: That’s really unfortunate. Can I go on?
Randomly Misogynistic Juror: Continue.
KK: Well, let’s address your citation first. You’ve written juri- with an ‘I’- on the official report sent to the Academy, which confused the Internet a little bit. Could you shed some light on that?
Overly Patriotic Juror: Of course. You see, the word ‘jury’ actually comes from an ancient Indian language. It was later adopted by the British, who changed the spelling to include a ‘Y’. The spelling was intentional. It was us reclaiming our history and culture. Jai Hind!
[Silence.]
Embarrassingly Honest Juror: We forgot to renew our year-round Grammarly subscription.
KK: There it is.
Overly Patriotic Juror: We spoke Old French in India, you have to believe me!
KK: Moving on. What factors did you consider for the submission, and how did Laapata Ladies make the cut?
Consistently Dishonest Juror: We considered factors like the screenplay, storytelling, camera work and the general message of the movie. We only wanted films that dared to take on a bold narrative and positively impact the general thought processes of the people watching it.
KK: And what bold narrative did ‘Animal’ take?
Perpetually Angry Juror: It made me feel warm and nice, like a hug from strong, sweaty, testosterone-filled arms.
KK: That’s disturbing. Did you feel like Laapata Ladies checked these boxes?
Embarrassingly Honest Juror: Of course. We liked that it was empowering without being feminist. Too many films are feminist today. Oh, you want to fight the socially entrenched system of violence perpetrated against the women of our country in everyday life? Bo-ring!
KK: On the topic of feminism, I can’t help but notice that this selection committee is all-male, which seems a bit unfair.
Randomly Misogynistic Juror: Madam, don’t be silly. Everybody knows women can’t watch movies. It makes their uterus explode.
KK: That’s not right.
Randomly Misogynistic Juror: Well, who are we to say?
KK: You’ve also mentioned on your citation that ‘Indian women are a strange mixture of submission and dominance.’ What on earth does that mean?
Embarrassingly Honest Juror: We’ve been ordered by the police not to comment on that statement.
KK: Alright. Addressing the elephant in the room, let’s talk about Payal Kapadia.
[the jurors begin sweating]
KK: Kapadia’s feature film ‘All We Imagine as Light’ won the Grand Prix in the prestigious Cannes Film Festival this year, an award secondary to only the Palme d’Or itself. In 2023, ‘The Zone of Interest’ won the same award, then went on to win the Best International Feature Film accolade at the Oscars. In fact, it is expected of Cannes awardees to bag an Academy Award in their nominated category. Kapadia is also the first Indian to win the Grand Prix since the inception of the award. Keeping this in mind, would her film not have been the more suitable entry into the Academy longlist this year?
[Perpetually Angry Juror punches a hole into the wall]
KK: Or was the film just not chosen because of her participation in protests against the FTII, where she accused their president of being unqualified?
[Overly Patriotic Juror collapses]
Consistently Dishonest Juror: Not at all. We are proud of her, and we commend her for her contribution in bringing Indian cinema global recognition. As filmmakers ourselves, we owe her a great deal of respect.
KK: That’s the thing. None of you are filmmakers. Except the president, nobody in this 13-member committee is even remotely connected to filmmaking. You’re all producers, distributors and studio owners that have no reason to care about the contribution of politics in film. The art of cinema has been historically used in our country by marginalized communities to radicalize the ignorant, an art that is still as relevant today as it was 70 years ago. By cherry-picking commercial hits and forcing an exorbitant down payment on filmmakers to even be considered for this shortlist, you’re proving the point that these filmmakers attempt to showcase in their movies. A point you would realize if you had done your job and watched more than eighteen movies on Amazon Prime last year. When do we destroy the wall that lets only the dollar symbol climb over it every year? When will it be enough?
[Silence]
Perpetually Angry Juror: We should send the Tauba Tauba movie next year.
Embarrassingly Honest Juror: Oh my god, yes.
Randomly Misogynistic Juror: That’s the best idea you’ve ever had.
[The juri start clapping. Confetti blasts all around. Music starts playing in the background. One of them does a backflip, crushing his spine in the process. They revel in a job well done.]