With landmark decisions, the State Awards jury wins the popular vote

Mollywood talent has surely got an energy shot with the announcement of the winners of this year’s Kerala State Film Awards, which broke conventions and also set new standards. While the fans online had a field day celebrating Vinayakan’s and Rajisha Vijayan’s win as the Best Actor and Best Actress respectively, they also didn’t fail to laud the jury headed by Odisha filmmaker A K Bir for its decisions “awarding talent that deserved recognition”.
There were many firsts this year – including Vinayakan being adjudged the Best Actor despite not being the ‘hero’ of the movie, Rajisha clinching the Best Actress award for her debut movie, 86-year-old P K Kanchana winning the Best Character Actor and also Vidhu Vincent being the only woman filmmaker to win the Best Director in the history of the awards.

An ‘award-worthy’ decision
“Kudos to the jury,” says State Award winning director Madhupal, who had also served in several jury panels over the years. The filmmaker appreciated the decisions of the jury that gave prominence to the work done by each person nominated in the 38 categories rather than their popularity.
“This year will be written in golden letters in the history of Malayalam cinema,” he says. “The jury assessed each entry on the basis of quality, without any bias, and that’s a major reason why the awards stood out.”

Supporting him, film critic C S Venkiteswaran observes that the basic objective of the awards is to promote people who stand out and bring something special to the field. “This year’s jury has done exactly that,” he says. “The panel has clearly asserted that awards are meant to encourage fresh talent and experiments in cinema.”

Breaking conventional award standards
A major talking point this year has been that Vinayakan “deservedly” clinched the Best Actor award for Kammatipaadam, despite the movie having Dulquer Salmaan as the “face of the film”.
Venkiteswaran says that this year’s jury have cleared broken the notion that Best Actor awards should only be given to those who have done full-length roles or the hero. “It’s a good sign that Vinayakan, filmmaker Vidhu and her movie Manhole won the top awards,” he says, adding that the jury reminded people that a best actor needn’t be the hero but any actor who adds value to the movie with his power-packed performance.
He also point out that veterans such as Nedumudi Venu, the late Oduvil Unnikrishnan, Jagathy Sreekumar and KPAC Lalitha were brilliant actors who never received enough accolades. “That’s why this year’s decision marks a pivotal change,” Venkiteswaran says.
Madhupal too concurs, adding that even the technicians recognised this year were appreciated for their “stellar work”.

New hope for fresh talent
The winners though are still surprised at the jury’s decisions because it was different from the trends of the previous years.

For Rajisha, the jury’s faith in her has emphasised that she “is in the right track” in her career. “It’s a reassuring sign that I have not committed a mistake by entering the film industry,” she says. “The award also gives me the confidence that I would be able to deliver more if I work harder.”
She also says that every award announced this year gives hope for people who are passionate about cinema. “It is the first time in history that an actor who is not a hero is winning an award. This happens in the Golden Globes Awards and the Oscars, but I never expected that to happen here. But the jury never cared if Vinayakan was just a sidekick to the hero, they gave the award for the actual hero of the story,” she says. Even the award for the Best director is a “huge motivation” for aspiring filmmakers. “This opens new path for us beginners,” Rajisha adds.

We just did our job: Jury members
While the jury have been lauded, the panel members themselves maintain that they were “just doing their job”. Director Priyanandanan, who was part of the nine-member panel, says, “We made the choices together. We didn’t assess how many scenes the actors were part of, but only about the impact their performances had on the film. The lineage, the popularity or the awards the nominees had won before never factored in the decision. Neither did we look at the genres or commercial success of the films. All we considered was what a film envisioned and how well it conveyed that message to the audience.”
His view reflects why films that weren't commercial success such as Guppy, Olapeeppi, Kambhoji and Ottayalpatha were the most recognised for their quality of work.