An interesting article from Times Of India. If you don't have the strong finanical support behind you, you can't win & some even critique that a lot of politics & racial issues are involved at the Academy Awards.

""We concentrated on the foreign film category, because aiming for the mainstream awards like best film or best director would have meant 20 times the work and money,""

It Makes one wonder now weather the Oscars are any different from the Filmfare Awards ???

I think the article took things a little out of context - and the writer obviously doesn't hold much regard to the Academy or the the Oscar, as is apparent in the sentence - "Whether the 13-and-a-half-inch golden statuette is really worth all the hard work and heartache, however, is another matter". The Academy may not be made up of a perfectly fair jury - however, at least it doesn't just give out awards to any dumb movie the way Indian awards do, simply because a film made money. Can you imagine a film like Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai winnig Best Film at the Oscars!:)

Or Jaya Bachalan winning for K3G lol

I disagree with you, how do you explain Gladiator winning Best Picture over Traffic or Chrouching Tigers Hidden Dragon? Or Titanic over Good Will Hunting and L.A. Confidential? And both these films that won (Titanic & Gladiator) had earned more money at the B.O. than there inferiors. But were they really better films? I don't think so! Also, Gadar was 2001 biggest box office success, and it walked away with with a few cheap awards. Even Border was the biggest hit of 1997 in India, and it too never won best picture at Filmfare.

'Gladiator' won Best Picture over 'Traffic' & 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon' simply because it was a superior film compare to them both. Well that is my opinion and obviously that of the Academy, although clearly it is not yours. Anyhow the issue is of personal preferences, meaning you might choose the other two over Gladiator as I am sure some of the Academy Voters did too, but either way I am sure you would not say that Gladiator did not deserve to be nominated atleast. Quite honestly I think the nomination itself is a great honor and being amongst the best five is what should really count, since there will always be differences in opinions regarding the "one' chosen as the final winner. The same goes for the Titanic vs 'Good Will Hunting' & 'L.A. Confidential'. Although I personally prefer 'L.A. Confidential' and also I am not a big fan of Titanic, it would be wrong to say that it did not atleast deserve to be nominated. As far as the Box Office being an influence is concerned I agree there is some influence definately, but I don't think the influence is great enough to get totally undeserving films the nominations or for that matter the Oscar itself. Comparing and/or clubbing 'Gadar' in the same category or at the same level as 'Gladiator' & 'Titanic' is a travesty as great as 'Beimaan' winning Best Picture and that too in a year we had 'Baawarchi', 'Parichay', 'Shor' or what about the Best Actor award to Manoj Kumar for Be-Imaan rather than Rajesh Khanna for Baawarchi. Incase you can't relate that far back then how about more recently 'Raja Hindustani' winning Best Picture or for that matter Jaya Bachalan winning for 'Fiza' & 'K3G', makes me sic. Also what about Satya & Ram Gopal Verma being being sidelined in favor of Kuch Kuch Hota Hai or ... I could keep going on and on and on and....UFFFFFFFFFFFFF

As for Gadar not winning this year, I think it being nominated was an atrocity in itself. Also I could guarantee that had the movie somehow been linked with the Bachans, Chopras, Johars and if it were not for Lagaan (special case this yr due to the critical and commercial acclaim, specially the Oscar nomination), Gadar would most definately have won.

Sanjay, I thought Jaya Bachchan was very good in Fiza and deserved more than the filmfare award although she was really useless in K3G. And I think she's one of the better actresses from the 70's...

I guess you could put that in the category of, each one to their own. But even then I find it hard to understand how grimacing and making faces can be construed as good acting. As far as the '70s are concerned, yes she did give some good performances then but again very limited in the roles a emotions played by her. In my opinion one of the most over rated actresses.