And the award for the best actor goes to

The day after the big night. The day after a decade of Oscars. This is a better time than most other to air my mixed feelings about awards in the acting categories (hereafter called acting awards) given my interest in fiction.

While the deservingness of awards are eternally debatable, awards play a role in reminding us of some notable events of any year. I tend to remember the acting awards more than any other awards. Because I love and root for the stars who bring those characters to life. Because I can appreciate and prefer character-driven stories to plot-driven and drivel-driven ones. Because I can more easily imagine myself having a conversation with them than imagine myself pondering great ideas or themes or crowds or angles.

I have watched 32 of the last 40 performances that won acting awards. The ones that I haven’t watched yet — including three that were announced last night — are from the movies Iris (2001), Monster’s Ball (2001), Dreamgirls (2006), La Vie en Rose (2007), There Will Be Blood (2007), Precious (2009), The Blind Side (2009) and Crazy Heart (2009). I have watched many others that won just the nominations, but it would overwhelm us all if we went into those statistics.

Anyway, as I thought about all those 40 characters it struck me that only 4 each from the leading actor and actress categories are fictitious. The remaining 12 characters are based on real people. Why is that? What does it mean? Every year Hollywood makes several biopics. Several, but a minority. Then how come some of these not only manage to get nominated but also win?

Apart from the given fact that the actors must have acted well, real characters have a great advantage. The writers and the actors start with a lot of material, from costumes to quirks to voices to unexplored depths. The actor can push limits to a great extent, lose or gain a few stone, grow hair or go bald, spend hours with the real fellow learning to play the piano, wear the underwear of the same brand that the real one did, do outrageous things that they wouldn’t normally do for a fictitious character. This gets the actor and the audience to believe that he or she has immersed into the character. The actor and the audience alike are willing to accept that there is something about this character that is unique, that is inexplicable, that is the way it is. And if you get it right, you get the award right?

I don’t mean to suggest that this is undeserving. Hollywood has got that part right about making biopics, about making in-depth character studies. Whether it is the writers’ inability to identify worthy protagonists, or the lack of freedom for them to do such things without getting into serious troubles, I haven’t yet seen that culture of making biopics take off in Indian cinema. I only wonder whether the award has been given to the actor because he or she has acted better than all others or because the actor has successfully delivered what we knew and expected from the character.

On the other hand, only 5 supporting characters of the last 20 that won are based on real people. If an original screenplay writer has a great character, they should probably write it as a supporting one.

Amazon Ads: