Ayye Kancha!!

Come to think of it, if Academy jury sits down to select the one Indian movie out of one fifty [link] movies relesed in 2008 then what will happen. Half of the jury will go lunatic watching the same cliches and same banal stuff over and over in all those three-hour length movies. The other half will join LeT with a vow to annihilate whole of Bollywood (Mumbai) as if 26/11 was not enough.

Big B talks about the entertainment that Bollywood provides,"The commercial escapist world of Indian Cinema had vociferously battled for years , on the attention paid and the adulation given to the legendary Satyajit Ray at all the prestigious Film Festivals of the West, and not a word of appreciation for the entertaining mass oriented box office block busters that were being churned out from Mumbai. The argument. Ray portrayed reality. The other escapism, fantasy and incredulous posturing."

I guess his wits has failed him mercilessly in recognising the true sense of Cinema even after being the legend of Indian cinema(I myself thinks he is the most prestigious entity of Indian cinema). But with all due respect, sir, the problem is not the difference between creating fantasy or portraying reality. Matrix and LOTR and many more are out rightly fantasies but still they are recognised by Academy. But the point here is those are neither cliches nor are those simplistic like Bollywood movies. This is the first point of why Bollywood movies are not recognized.
Secondly, look at the recent choices of Indian entries for Oscars: Paheli, Rang De Basanti, Eklavya, Taare Zameen Par.
Look at the movies which got nominations[link]: Mother India, Salaam Bombay, Lagaan. Now think why those got nominations, were the commercial, or they were stereotypical or those were pieces of cinema free from cliches and commercial aspects.
One movie chosen was Lagaan. Of course it showed a lot of stereotypes of poor India, but think if the movie really was about those stereotypes or was it about the fight a bunch of peasants gave to sophisticated cricket of British. One can think more of Mother India and Salaam Bombay.

The point I want to drive is that if your movie has a potential to become a good cinema which can be watched over and again in coming decades(example Casablanca) then it will be definitely recognized. If you don't have potential to make that then stop quibblling about 'your streotypes' of the world and foreigner's stereotypes. I will say Bollywood industry has a huge potential to make better movies but lure of commercial success and playing safe is the easy refuse for them. But I believe the onus lies with Indian audience itself. Recent example is Ghajini. It is amazing how it created records of 200 crore without having a novel idea in the movie, without significant acting, even without good music and compositions. Anyway commercial escapism should in noway mean that you should expect an Oscar or Golden Globe award for it.

Of course he has a point when he says,"Conditions the world over are so similar. Perceptions differ, but the reality of life and existence, unchanged."
But 25% of the population living below $1/day [link] can not be ignored, Mr. Bachchan.
And by the way, a movie having link with reality or fantasy or stereotypes has no relation whatsoever with it being a good piece of cinema.

He goes on to say, "But look how rapidly all that is changing. Retrospectives in Paris and New York. Dedicated TV channels running Hindi cinema on prime timings. Premiers at Leiscester Square, the home of all Hollywood royalty, thronged by hundreds on the street in cold biting weather."

Another piece!! By all this do you mean to say that Hindi cinema is serving good cinema? Or you are just re-iterating the fact that commercial success of Indian cinema is being taken noticed of (Of course every business man in his right senses would want to be part of it). Or few good movies that come out every year are helping to change the image of Indian cinema.