I am rooting for Slumdog Millionaire to win as many awards as possible in tomorrow’s Oscars. Certainly the Oscar for “Best Picture” as well. Does that mean I think it’s an amazing picture? Do I really think it’s better than some of the good movies churned up by Indian cinema?
Not really. Off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few Hindi movies that were as good, or better – Swades, or Chak de India, or even Lagaan. Even if we were to look at movies made just about kids in Mumbai slums, I’d say Salaam Bombay was far more touching, and it never won any Oscars. Plus, these movies all competed in the “Foreign Film” category, which is obviously a big handicap. Nor did they have the marketing muscle that Slumdog has.
But even if it’s not the bet picture we’ve seen in Indian cinema, it’s still quite good. I found it quite disquieting, and yet I liked it. So why do Indians hate Slumdog Millionaire?
We went with another couple to watch the movie. We were all disposed to like the movie, even though we knew the reviews were hostile in India. But after the movie, my friend, a Mumbaikar, was upset over the depictions of Mumbai.
“Why do they only show the poverty?”, she wondered. “Why don’t they show all of Mumbai instead of focusing just on Dharavi?”
I was silent. The movie is disquieting, but I realized a large part of my disquiet stems from the fact that it’s a possible tale. I can believe most of what the movie shows. The police brutality, the wretched life in the slums, the religion-based riots, the kidnapping of kids to work as beggars, I can believe all this. There are a few twists of plot that are hard to believe, but I cannot question the essential portrayal.
It’s true the movie focuses on the slums, but that’s what its story is about. It’s also true that Danny Boyle manages to show every symbol of India that the West focuses on – the slums, the call centers and the Taj Mahal. He somehow missed out on the snake charmers and the Great Indian rope trick, but he got everything else in. But then I am not surprised – it’s easier for someone new to India to stick to clichés rather than try to comprehend all of the complexity that India is.
But is that why people dislike the movie? Because it is full of clichés ? Shouldn’t we expect that? Aren’t Bollywood movies full of stereotypes too – the chain-smoking, hard-drinking villain, the honest hero, the innocent, beautiful, heroine and so on?
I wonder if our main objection to the movie is because it depicts a part of India we’d rather not focus on. We’d like to celebrate our economic growth and our resurgent middle class. We’d like to point to our new malls and glass-fronted buildings. The movie does not show much of the prosperity of middle class India. It shows the other India that not many of us know very well, or would like to think about – the poor India that has remained poor despite all the recent economic growth.
Not many of us ever venture inside Dharavi. It’s still a symbol of what we’ve not yet accomplished, despite pious statements like “Garibi Hatao” all those years ago.
None of the things shown in the movie is news to us, but we don’t like being reminded in an in-your-face manner about them. It is much more comforting to hope that with continued economic growth, eventually, the poor will also get a better quality of life.
So is this a class issue then? Does the middle class feel ignored and sidelined in the movie’s depiction ? Or is it just that we’d like the West, and the rest of the world, to focus on the positive story about India’s economic growth? Does the movie remind us a little too harshly about the stark realities of poverty that co-exist with our own comfortable existence? Is that why so many are flinching?
Odis Sorel
Savvy Aggarwal
Maria
Arindom Borah
Patrix
I doubt Indians are blind to the harsh reality of Indian slums, or even to the cliched misrepresentation of the Bollywood troupe dancing half-clad in the Swiss Alps. I think the reason behind the sudden noise with SDM is because it now has an international audience who (according to the noisemakers) is likely to equate slums to India. As if that’s news! All this while Bollywood movies, however badly made or far from reality, had mostly Indian viewers. And others from the subcontinent. It’s almost like not wanting to be caught in your PJs when a guest visits / you go out.
I wish these guys took the movie for what it is, though – a story. About serendipity. It just happens to be a story based on a certain aspect of India. A harsh aspect, yes, and very close to the harsh reality. But it isn’t and doesn’t claim to be a documentary where one can question the accuracy of its portrayal. My only qualm is about Darshan Do Ghanshyam not being by Surdas. The book has that error too, apparently.
-g
I love the comparison with being caught in your PJs when guests visit
Yes, it s something like that..
I always thought “Dashan do” was just a movie song – Musicindia does credit G S Nepali as the composer. it brings back memories as a childhood friend used to sing it very well..
Dear Gauri…You gave a stunning over view to what this movie meant,i wish the people in india would shut up and embrace the truth and reality this movie has to offer,Danny did not mean to show mumbai as a slum arena but he focused on the poverty which i regret to inform exists all over india.I am not going to deny movies like lagaan,devdas and etc,they made an wonderful and terrific impression on me and they were touching as well.But when it comes to the sing song melody,not everyone in other parts of the world would be willing to accept that.
Take the famous book shantaram,it gave you a real insight to the life of the thriving slums,home to the thousands n thousands people out there in India,i think slumdog millionaire has portrayed it really well.There was a burst of colours,excitement,anger,and everything else which blended in very well.It focused just a certain aspect and only people whose general knowlege is poor would think that the whole of india is a slum country.Most of us know the other beautiful aspects of india and POVERTY IS EVERYWHERE.i think it is time the people of india appreciate what this movie have to offer and bask in its success instead of complaining all the damn time and whisking to offer a non reality movie instead!
oh btw i am a indian from southeast asia and i am proud of this movie and the success,and i am also proud of our AR RAHMAN the music genius.
to me this story is not abt the whole country but an individual for the slums made big by wining the the show and over coming whatever obstacle if let say the movie scene where not shot in india but us or uk it would mean the same bcoz poverty is everywhere even in the uk ppl r suffering, but this story is abt human spirit and triumph.
This is not India ! Trust me. I watched the movie after it won all the Oscars.
I have been to the Slums in Mumbai and have seen them very close. There is a lot of Disgust but not in the way shown in this movie. I was of the opinion that if an Indian would have made this movie , it would not have won the Oscars, but after this movie I realized it is not even worth indian Film Awards as it shows India in a very Bad Light. To me it seemed as if Danny Boyle thinks people from where he lives are all God and India is a total Slum and nothing and nobody is Good here. He has exaggerrated the poor living conditions in the slums and has tried to tell that most people there are very inhuman! Insulted India. If an author has exactly written what he has depicted then I would say that the author is a Disgrace to India!
Boyle played a safe game, he hit every cliche that would make it marketable to the west. Boy did they lap it up or what! Think about it, if the same movie was about a lower-middle class family struggling to keep up witht he fast paced economy. A boy rises from there and wins the plot, does that make it dramatic enough?
Let’s face it, poor India sells! Look at flickr accounts of people who’ve visited India, they will be full of beggars, dogs in garbage cans, children cryin on the roads or abandoned old people. Thats the biggest draw, so lets give it to them.
Let’s make a few more, that ways our technicians get a chance to win awards and get recognition. I find the gareeb-dekho tourism very lucrative, and if they win the oscars, I might even consider it!
Till then, jai ho!
That’s very possible, I am sure poverty is a horrifying and riveting spectacle. It’s probably one of the things that come to people’s minds when they think of India (call centers, the Taj Mahal and Gandhi being others).
It might be a bad, cliche-ridden movie, but since when have people started taking out protest rallies just because a movie is bad?
I am very Hurt ! Please get Real ! How can you think only in terms of how others think. Show them what they have not. Mind you there are worse conditions around the world but it is not highlighted or encashed. Even when they will look at you they will look down upon you as one grown up from the Slums.
Ok. Just judging by the merits of the movie, it is a very good one, and every soul in this world loves it when the underdog triumphs. Whether it deserves an Oscar or not, is debatable, as much as any other movie is, these days.
The movie does project the so called “dirty underbelly” of India but unlike others, I don’t think it is taking advantage of it and/or that is the reason it is being lapped up in this part of the world with so much enthusiasm. If it were not an underdog story, but still set in the slums, I think it would have just been an also ran.
And about your argument, I think there is a crucial flaw. You start the article comparing it to Indian movies and calling it Indian cinema. It may be set in India, in Bombay, but it is as much an Indian movie as Blood Diamond would be, African. It is a Hollywood movie, set in India, from the director who gave us the brilliant Trainspotting(which showed the dirty trashy self destructive lives of spoiled British youth, with a scene overflowing with trash, like the one in Slumdog). I wonder why people don’t see that as the dirty underbelly of the Western world(or any other world, for fear of generalizing). So this poking of the Indian inferiority complex by a Hollywood flimmaker is what is irking people. You cannot compare it with Indian movies and filmmakers and try to make a logical argument out of it. If it was “Indian Cinema” I would have seen Amitabh Bachchan attend the premiere and not find him writing an illogical blog post.
You raise an interesting question – when is a movie considered Indian? Is a movie Indian just because its director or producer is, or because the cast and theme is Indian? This discussion merits a post of its own..
Like you said, its because we’d rather not focus on the not so flattering part of ourselves.
BUT poverty and squalor are a part of all big cities- Harlem, Bronx, East Palo Alto, Tenderloin…I can go on and on. It’s there whether we like it or not.
That’s very true. Why don’t we see poverty as an issue to be tackled, rather than something to be ashamed of?
Only some Indians don’t like it. I am Indian and I love it and so does everyone I know who has seen it. Middle class Indians can’t handle the truth about the existence of the poor. When was the last time a Bollywood film ever explored their lives? Also, not all the reviews in India have been hostile, there have been just as many positive reviews of the movie. Also, I think there is a lot of jealousy involved too. Let the howling dogs howl whilst the slumdog triumphs. Jai ho.
I agree, not all Indians dislike the movie; I don’t dislike it either.. Why do you think jealousy is involved? Who would be jealous?
I think you have got it bang on, when you say that parts of India dont like to show one side of what we stood for ! An India that we think we have moved on from, in the event of all the global take over and India Shining marketing !
But this is the truth. And there is a world out there. And this film takes us there. It is slickly made. Makes you squirm by reminding you of that world. But thats like it ! And thats the story !
I think we should move on. But these days, anybody who lives in a glass house gets stoned. I mean..hurled at !
I agree. It IS very disquieting
While I don’t know if this movie deserves an Oscar or not, I am
(like you) surprised at people’s (indians) resentment towards the depiction of poverty and the squalor that does exist. It has been shot in real locations, not on sets. And its a story that’s wound around slum kids. So Boyle need not show what else is happening in mumbai. The rest of mumbai may be really great. And the rest of the populace may be leading secure, stable, mundane lives.
I liked it for it reminded me of what I myself had seen hazily, while passing through dharavi, or while travelling by local trains or yeah while landing in mumbai. Oh yes, I still recollect the stench.
Yes, some of the scenes may have been been over-emphasized, the plot contrived, and the twists hard-to-digest, but then how else would an underdog triumph?
My sentiments exactly. Boyle is not obliged to be politically correct and have his characters make statements about how great the rest of Mumbai is, right? Although, as sirensongs points out, he does show the call centers and the new real estate developments..
I agree. Why this sudden urge to show all possible angles of Mumbai? Have even people in Mumbai seen all angles or lives lived in Mumbai? You surely don’t seen people complaining about Hum Aapke Hai Kaun or DDLJ citing reasons that we don’t break into song at every goddamn event in our lives and nor are our houses mansions. Where was the poverty angle of India in those movies? I can understand why people don’t like a movie but dammit why should I not like it just because you didn’t?
..i personally didnt like the movie all that much. But that was because I though the lead actors were stiff as hell. I think the other disconcerting aspect of the movie is that english speaking bit – as an indian you watch and you get a mental disconnect right there.
I think also there is an element of outside-in portrayal which one will not find in movies like say, chandni bar or salaam bombay – which again jars. but i guess that is to be expected isnt it.
I agree the acting could be better
The child actors performed wonderfully, though – they were the real stars of the movie.
The “outside in” portrayal is true, but as you say, that’s to be expected. I’d say that happens even in movies directed by hyphenated Indians – say Nagesh Kukunoor’s “Hyderabad Blues”..
I would only say onething – India shown ina very wrong Light !
What can’t you handle constructive criticism? India just like China is a big rabbit club expecting the world to sing songs of praises about the complexities and uniqueness of India. It’s ironic how a typical Bollywood movie with all its singing and dancing and fake realities become an instant hit while a movie that deals with the harsh realities of India is loathed by some. How many foreign movies and not Hollywood movies based on realities of life do Indians watch?
Every country will have something they are not proud of. India has poverty. Face it and deal with it. Promote family planning or better still have a one child policy which will minimise poverty which in turn will make sure that India will have less chances of being shown in the wrong light.
It’s very middle-class to not want the neighbors to know how dysfunctional our families are, lest we feel embarrassed by it. A lot of Indians feel the same way about foreigners knowing about our slums. Unfortunately, the harsh world of slums is what is special about the third world to the average Westerner as they think they are seeing/ learning something new. Sure, one could say there are plenty of ghettos in the West too, but just as Indian youth who listen to gangsta rock probably think thug life is something that happens in Compton and Harlem, completely oblivious to the fact that it’s probably not a lot unlike life in our very own Dharavi, Western youth see poverty and corruption as something that exists in the third world, and not as something that lies under their very nose in the ghettos of America and the slums of Paris.
I’m sure Western youth know there are poor people in the West too, but I guess it exists only in pockets, where it is all pervasive in the third world..
for india to win oscar it has to showcase its poverty ala slumdog millionaire…or do a historical piece from the times of the british rule in order to register a chord in the west…for now we must give oscar for giving indians a new tag/stereotype (rightly or wrongly) in the western world, i.e. SLUMDOG…
like: Hey Dude…Hey Slumdog…..HaHaHa
Hey, to be fair, the movie does not tag all Indians, or even all slum kids as slumdogs; it is just an epithet that one Indian character uses on the hero..
However it is true that you need to treat really serious themes (holocaust, bosnia etc) to win awards. Boy meets girl themes rarely fetch awards.
Yeah..and all Indians were called Raj after they saw DDLJ.
how many western non-indians saw DDLJ to tag desis RAJ?
negative tag is easier to catch fire, get twisted…no matter how incorrect it is…but off-course you guys will lead chaddi campaigns to negate any misuse of that nature…right?
The movie did depict modern, middle-class, glass-front India- I remember finding the scenes in the flat-screen TV bungalow with security guard such a contrast with the slum scenes. The film does show that India has and is changing. A character also says, “see the slums where we grew up? now it’s all high-rise housing.”
The call centre scenes were also filled with educated, well-dressed middle class youth. Middle-class “new India” was not the sole focus, but it was represented.
Boyle is experiencing “the burden of representation” — what every artist, in film or other media, encounters when portraying or addressing an historically underrepresented people, nation or topic. The (usually well-meaning) artist is unfairly expected to redress every mis-representation of the topic that has occurred throughout the centuries, all in one two-hour film, 30 minute sitcom or 500 page book.
So let’s all look forward to AR Rahman’s Oscar win and more! mere desh mahan.
You are right, Boyle does show the call centers and high rise apartments, the bungalows with security guards and whatnot. But apparently, for many people those scenes are inadequate
Interesting phrase – “the burden of representation”. You are right that no Indian director would face such an expectation if he were to make such a movie..
An Indian Director would in my opinion be more focussed on the storyline and would be more concerned with the message and would not focus unneccessarily to show the trash and dirt in the Slums !
The truth however, is that the people of dharavi didnt find it great to have their life portrayed on the screen. That is what counts. It doesnt matter what middle class indians think about it. The slumdogs didnt like it- oscar or otherwise.
Even if some people in dharavi protested, I doubt they spoke for all of Dharavi. Besides, if I don’t like someone telling me my faults (assuming the criticism is true), should I stop them from saying it?
No, no one stops you from saying it but i guess cinema is all about entertainment isnt it? After all it is not the fault of the people in Dharavi that the infrastructure is so bad out there.
Interestingly, here in the US the movie is perceived as a “modern-day fairy tale” (I am quoting the NYT), the story of an underdog’s success and so on..so while they do show the poverty, the spin on it is positive..
I totally agree with the Fact that the people of Dharavi Must have not at all liked the Movie as this was not them and it was more like danny boyle was trying to justify the name !
Lekhni
Well tackled. Did you read Pr3rna’s post on Slumdog as well?
The reason in my view is a combination of false national pride, a culture that places much emphasis on face-saving over reality/ truth, a tendency to sweep real problems under the carpet and in a pendulum-swing from absolute lack of self-confidence to extreme arrogance, the ease of blaming everything on a third party (in this case, a white man daring to portray what everyone in India sees, smells and wonders about anyway, with most ignoring it successfully in the guise of ‘survival need’).
As I told many who argued with me on my recent trip to India, if you open the doors, you let people in, and you get scrutiny, that’s life; so don’t like the game (of globalisation of everything), quit it and lock yourself back in. Sounds like a plan, no?
PS: Isn’t this also the flipside of claiming every remotely desi person’s achievements as India’s own (cue: Bobby Jindal, Sunita Chawla and so on)?
Prerna makes the same point, right – she doesn’t like the movie because she thinks talking about poverty is like leaking a family secret. I don’t see where the secret is, though..
I too have mixed feelings on the patriotism that verges on jingoism I see in some young Indians. Shouldn’t true patriotism involve accepting that some things need to be fixed, and trying to fix them? Rather than railing at people for daring to point out what needs to be fixed?
Lekhni:
Yes, Prerna said something like that and I said that any sniping couple would be foolish to believe that the whole world doesn’t already know of their sniping.
Bad things often are open secrets.
I also thought you will find this a tangential but amusing read. http://www.manuscrypts.com/?p=1503#comment-9913
I think we like democracy and free market only as long as our own preferences are reflected in the outcomes. So, many Indians will tell you why Jai Ho is not Rahman’s best but who cares if they want to compare it to all his previous catalogue and pronounce it sub-par? As far as the broader global market is concerned, it is a stellar piece and so be it.
The debate will continue but I must commend you on attracting a singularly civil audience
No gaali? Whaaaat???
I remember reading that WaPo article (last year?) on Joshua Bell. I didn’t know even street (ok, underground) musicians in London are pre-selected
As I said on Twitter, I am wondering why no one has questioned my patriotism yet
Everyone has been unfailingly polite, and has left very thoughtful comments!
Many thanks, all you commenters, for a great discussion!
yes this movie has raised awareness in india and people are on the streets sweeping the slums clean, getting them good sanitation ,electricity, etc… Jai Ho to you and the media for covering it…
never mind the nameless people who get highlighted every hour on the media and your blog rants for actually working in the slums and trying to make a difference…How come that doesnot get your coverage??? after all you are daring to point out what needs to be fixed or being fixed by a few unknowns…open your doors and eyes first before trying to blog your solutions to ether…
Rana,
I take it we agree that we need to do something about the slums – we cannot pretend they don’t exist; their existence only means we, the middle class, need to do more to help eradicate poverty..if the movie has raised awareness, it’s certainly a good thing.
“Isnt this also the flipside of claiming every remotely desi persons achievements as Indias own (cue: Bobby Jindal, Sunita Chawla and so on)?”
Shefaly, the flip-side cuts both ways.
Not if the remote desi was a ‘flop’
I seem to remember people saying similar things about MIDNIGHT COWBOY and its negative depictions of New York City when it was released in 1969.
That’s interesting, I didn’t know. More recently, “Rent” faces the same fate..isn’t it true that wherever we are, we are united in our dislike of unpleasant truths about ourselves
“The slumdogs didnt like it- oscar or otherwise.”
++++++
Revathi that is simply not true. This is just one article that explains how much kids who have lived in slums enjoyed the movie. I have read several articles identical to this.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/32/20090212/1049/top-their-people-like-us.html
People from slums who have seen the movie have reacted overwhelmingly positively towards it.
Ok I was wrong then. I heard that it simply didnt have the same kind of reception like say, a bollywood winner.
I liked the movie, but what I really hate that ‘Indian’ Movie is going to win an oscar. I support AR Rahaman, but rest of the nominations are not for India or Indian in that case.
As you already said, SDM is nice movie but we had much better in past or present. Also its interesting to note that clearly ‘Jai Ho’ is not Rahaman’s best. But never the less, I will never understand why people are so blind and mad for oscars.
As already discussed above, its a nice movie….. few will like it, few won’t like it. Of all the bad things shown in movie, it also portrays, strong characteristics of ‘Indian making it works’. No matter what, Life works in India.
Plus, movie can easily be framed as biased if one has read the book. (Reference to: Real India and Real America comment scene).
JAI HO
I agree too – why do Indians feel the need for an Oscar nod? Why do we debate endlessly on which movie to nominate for “Best Foreign Film”, and feel disappointed if our entry doesn’t win? Why do we believe the Oscars are the last word for every film in the world, instead of just American films?
It is natural. Like winning the nobel prize. Even super powers like america would love to have the nobel – given by a nobody like the king of sweden. So if a certain prize has a reputation, it is natural that everyone aspires for it.
There would be criticism if this film was about the wealthiest 1% of Bombay as well. A filmmaker is not responsible to showcase a city. Get over it people.
Your post made me finally break and write a post on this over-discussed movie!
http://tatvam.com/blog/2009/02/22/slumdog-millionaire/ It expands on my pithy statement above
I agree. Not only is a filmmaker not responsible for showcasing a city, I’ll go further and say that it’s not possible to compress any description of India in a movie. As I said in your blog, it’s like the story of the six blind men trying to describe an elephant – any description will be necessarily incomplete.
Could you please let me know whom do you refer to as Indians in the title of this topic? As far as I know I hv not seen any body disliking the movie and I am pretty sure they are Indians…..
Well, then, let me point you to this news report and this one.
A quick observation: If the Indian box office is anything to go by ‘Chandni Chowk to China’ – a truly awful experience bar none – has destroyed SDM 2:1. If Slumdog wins best “motion” picture, it will be perhaps the most appropriate subject matter award in the Oscars’ history.
As far as I can see, the box office collection just goes to prove that Indians dislike Slumdog Millionaire.
Yes, Indians clearly dislike Slumdog. The fact that SDM has won, or been nominated for, a total of 91 awards but has largely failed to connect with Indian audiences merely points, once again, to the huge chasm between how the West likes to imagine India & how Indians view their own lived realities.
In that case, I suppose the success of Dark Knight and Iron Man shows how the West “view their own lived realities”? When have box office collections determined Oscar winners?
Patrix, but SM is a realistic movie which depicts truth (that’s all I’ve heard) whereas TDK and IM are fantasy comic-book character movies. So your example is not a good rebuttal to a valid point of the chasm that sanjay mentioned.
I’m a Westerner and a lover of stories from all over the world. Some stories are about poor people, some stories are about rich people, some stories are realistic and others are utter fantasy. I thought Slumdog Millionaire was thoroughly entertaining, inspiring…and fictional. I wouldn’t use such an obvious fantasy to make broad assumptions about an entire country! We have poverty and violence here in the United States, too; such injustice is not unique to India.
I appreciate the opportunity to read everyone’s opinions on this blog. This can be a sensitive subject.
Thanks for your comments. I hope your comments underscore to my fellow Indians on this blog that not everyone who watches the movie is going to think Dharavi is all India is
I disagree with the person who says all westerners who travel to India take pictures of the slums/street kids and that’s all they are interested in. Who would take a picture of a slum child, whom they do not even know? Perhaps some do it, but I find that to be extremely inappropriate! How would anyone like/feel to have their picture taken of by a stranger because they look “different” or impoverished? As a western American Telugu speaker. I have stayed for a long time in Hyderabad and briefly visited parts of north India (Agra, New Delhi,Jaipur, Amritsar) I only hope that most western people can see how this movie is not representative of India as a whole, but only parts of India are like that. Certainly Mumbai is a beautiful city, besides the slums. I feel like some ignorant people will take away a negative stereotype, but hopefully this movie will spark another Indian inspired movie that is more like Chak De India or even Bommarillu. I do agree that poor sells in America, which is sad. Perhaps after this movie, someone will be inspired to show a different side of India. So that the ignorant do not take a way a skewed typical third world image.
I know somebody from Europe who passed out at the back of the taxi when driving through Dharavi. He still goes to India regularly on work but avoids slums as far as possible.
We simply don’t like seeing ourselves in the mirror and especially when the mirror is been shown by an outsider!! Probably!
I guess it hurts more because it was, as you say, an outsider
Just because some outsider decides that he wants to hold up a mirror, Indians are not obligated to look into it. The normal reaction would be to turn the mirror back the other way “who the hell are you to be holding up mirrors?” The attempted rationalization that SDM is a true “Bollywood ishtyle” film i.e. that we are holding up a mirror to ourselves – was weak & failed to find any traction. Nobody bought it.
I think this is so because even in Bollywood (1) not every director has the carte blanche from Indians to be holding up mirrors to society – Boyle is certainly not one of them (2) more importantly, we accept, even welcome, moralizing in religious movies & in “art” films. In all other popular genres, we simply roll our eyes & wait for the speech to get over.
“not every director has the carte blanche from Indians to be holding up mirrors to society”
I guess Madhur Bhandarkar or Vishal Bharadwaj were never invited to the national mirror holding meetings.
I don’t think the showing of the mirror around is anyway going to change what faults lies with us. So rather than indulging in blame-game, why can’t we DO something to improve our image. The outsiders,as we call them, will then not be able to show us whats not there!!
Lekhni:
Here is an interesting one from AR Rahman in his interview with the BBC:
“But being an ambassador for fighting poverty for the UN, I believe this film will make a greater statement than any politician or lobbyist.
I hope this will be a positive step towards eradicating poverty. In Mumbai, you have the richest man in the world and the poorest person in the world co-existing side by side, which is a shame. You can’t accept that.”
The link: http:// news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/oscars/7884108.stm
Interesting. If this helps get aid to resettle Mumbai’s slums, I am all for it !
my dislike of slumdog millionaire had nothing whatsoever to do with the depiction of poverty; that is something i would never object to. a filmmaker has all the freedom to make what he/she wants to make as long as it doesn’t insult the target audience’s intelligence. what i didn’t quite like was the discrepancies, the plotholes, the lack of research in certain areas, the rather rather too far-fetched coincidences (even destiny has its limits), and an overall lack of emotional depth; nothing actually drew me into the characters’ lives. and dev patel, whose acting…speech and mannerisms alike…betrayed a certain condescending arrogance and resulted in a rather caricatured portrayal of the slumdog jamal. most of all, however, i resented the positive attention it received because so many far, far better indian films have been passed over, ignored, all these years. and the fact that had slumdog been an indian film, made by an indian filmmaker, reviewers would probably have called it a ‘brave experiment, but without a plausible storyline or character depth’, and forgotten all about it. i suppose i like slumdog millionaire for being the bit of surrealist pop-art it is, but all the attention it’s received is like passing over van gogh for andy warhol.
I agree, there are many Indian movies which are far better, which have had to compete in the “Foreign Film” category and got passed over. The lesson to Indian filmmakers is going to be – don’t compete as a Foreign film.
true, but seeing as most indian films are made in vernacular languages, is it possible to enter them in any other category?
Aren’t we taking the Oscars too seriously? If we think we make good movies, why do we need the Oscars to validate them?
Oscars are taken seriously by the film fraternity and i can undestand why. The key is services, technical services in the film industry. Huge money defintely capable of increasing the standadrd of life of many of the technicians in our film industry.
Agreed.
Like somebody said in a earlier comment, Slumdog is a fast paced slickly edited film which uses some the harsh realities of india as a backdrop to tell a story with a positive outcome. It is a bit difficult to believe that the film would have evoked the same international response if the film’s backdrop was not a harsh India.
Personally I feel Danny boyle used the back drop that would sell the most to his target audience and he hit bulls eye, it generated enough controversy and along wth it pulled the audience to see the film, he is laughing all the way to the bank. It is foolish to think that he had an agenda greater than making a good film and he used all his creative juices to come up with a relaistic story. That does not mean everybody should necessarily like it, My issue is, there seems to be a common thread that anybody who does not like the film is denying the harsh realities of india, which is the B.S that i take offence with.I dont deny the existence of such harsh realities but why pay good money to see something that is right there in front of you. When i go to a movie i dont want to see any body jumping into a shitpot , indian, caucasian or otherwise.
I can see your perspective that it doesn’t make sense to see poverty when it’s all around us in India. But in the US at least, this movie is seen not as a film about poverty per se, but more as a rags-to-riches story, a feel-good “triumph of human spirit” and all that, so much needed in this recession.
I’m Indian, and I don’t hate SM, but I find it to be average. I’ve seen enough Bollywood films to be slightly jaded by the melodramatic, requiring-suspension-of-belief plot set midst the poverty and the gangsters. It simply adapts Bollywood formulas for a western audience. If you want to see a piece of true Indian genius, watch the Apu Trilogy by Satyajit Ray, the first movie especially. It easily surpasses SM in its eloquent depiction of poverty. SM has covered ground that has been covered before. Hasn’t the misery of India’s poor been talked about enough?
In SM we see Jamal being tortured by policemen and given shocks, his mother killed by Hindus in riots, him eking out an existence at a huge garbage dump living under a tent, gangsters masquerading as running an adoption center picking up vulnerable children and forcing them to beg, blinding them and selling them into prostitution, the elder brother getting into a life of crime, getting drunk on power….I find this potrayal of India rather negative and worn. Talking about poverty and India is old. I’m not “denying” the fact that India has another face to it, I’m saying that has been talked about enough.
Yeah, it sure does have some positive, fun parts like Jamal and Salim making money by being tour guides and this and that, and Jamal ends up being a chai-wallah and then he wins the game show. But is the story or even just the last bit plausible?
The film was melodramatic, and uses Bollywood formulas to tug at heart strings. Look at all these emotional, crazy twists and turns in the plot, like Jamal finding the love of his life, his brother Salim doing one last good deed, and her falling into his arms at the end of the film. The whole good things-bad things twists and turns is, atleast I feel, a sort of formula. Also, for Indians the slums and the life there is nothing new, but for the West its novel.
This is minor, but it feels rather weird, when the film suddenly shifts from Hindi to English. Hearing perfect English from Jamal and Salim feels odd. I also dislike the title. What has “slum” got to do with “dog”?
My point is, the film is ok, its average, but whatever it is, it definitely does not deserve the attention and awards it has garnered.
I agree the film is average, and there have been many better Indian movies more deserving of awards and attention. Which basically goes to show that it’s not about the product as much as it is about the marketing.
My first experience with the “reaction” to this movie was when a cousin of mine told me they went to see it in New Jersey and then WALKED OUT after about fifteen minutes. He was very offended by the portrayal of the slum and viewed it as a racist depiction of India.
A few years back, I visited a family friend in Bangalore, a cardiologist. He told of being quite upset when a young Indian-American journalist, the daughter of another friend came to do a story for the Wall Street Journal about the plight of the poor of Bangalore in the face of the high-tech boom. He wanted to know why she was more interested in their story than the positive story of Bangalore.
Another thing I wonder about is whether those who resents the movie were educated to believe in their heroic nation-saving qualities and feel that these kinds of movies quite graphically shovel their failure in their faces.
It’s interesting to compare the movie to Trainspotting, where the triumph at the end was getting the bag of cash, while in SDM, apparently (?), the hero loses the money but gets the girl.
That’s exactly what I’ve seen too, of people’s general reaction in India. But my point is, unless we even start with accepting that there is enormous poverty in our midst, how are we going to do anything about it?
I liked the movie. I did not think it was Oscar-worthy, although I am sure Americans found the experience quite exotic and fascinating. I also did not think Rahman’s songs were outstanding. although they were not bad; the main reason he won the award was because he really didn’t have any competition. I also think it’s strange that people are criticizing it for “slandering India”. The whole thing is a story for God’s sake. It’s a fictional story. It’s not supposed to be a social commentary on India or a portrayal of the country.
I agree, but given the poverty is real, people are not focusing on the fictional aspect of the story
I agree its appeal seems to be more exotic and it’s not one of India’s best offerings..
I think on the whole Indians (those who are complaining) are jealous and cannot withstand the fact that a film on India made by a foreigner has garnered such tributes.
Such a simple explanation…Love it..
Mezba,
I suppose they are also jealous that this movie has helped A R Rahman win 2 Oscars?
till now the WEST thought that India was all about snake charmers and Elephant rides, now they think India is one big SLUM with snake charmers and elephant rides.
If there are any people so ignorant and impressionable as to come away with an opinion of an entire country based on parts of one movie, I wonder why we have to worry about the opinions of such people?
Great post. I think Danny Boyle hit it on the head in his recent Time interview. The poverty is there in the movie, sure, but it is not the theme of the movie. The theme of the movie is the vitality of the Indian people, and that screams through. The colors, the music, the gorgeous kids. I believe thats what made this movie a winner last night. I am one of those Indians who deeply resents India being depicted in cliches, but Slumdog didn’t do that. Instead, it captured the essence of the country in a way Lagaan never did.
I agree, it is certainly perceived (at least in the US) as a feel good movie, as a positive spin on what someone even from the lowest economic strata can achieve…and there is the exotic Bollywood appeal.. I am less sure of whether Slumdiog, or any movie can capture the essence of India, but certainly this tries to make sense of India.
Slumdog is the worst movie to represent Indian film industry. Infect it was foreign film shot in India with use of some Indian baggers as a cast.
Western world always want to see India as a poor country and all they came to India for focusing poverty.
Even baggers in India has their OWN slum (Zopda) but in developed country, govt give them houses and support them. in my view, they are more than baggers as they can’t survive without them.
Bollywood hasn’t got marketing muscle power as foreign film industries got. it might be the cheapest film ever made in British film industries but they spend more money to market it and get 8 OSCARS.
out of 8 Oscars, Indian A R rehman got only 2. all other went to the people who has nothing to do with India.
Talking about A R Rehman, he is the best musician we got these days but Slumdog’s music was even below than his average music. think about ROJA,BOMBAY,TAAL,LAGGAN etc. Excellent piece of music he gave.
I live in outside India from last 4 years but still I support Indian film industry not British film based on just Indian poverty shot in India.
Bollywood is capable enough to get its merits in western world. Hum koi OSCAR ke mautaj nahi. Hume koi certificate nahi chaiye ki hamari films acchi hai. We knew it anyway.
Keep making good movies for Indians not for foreigners !!
I wonder why we have to care so much for an Oscar seal of approval anyway? Why do we believe that any single movie represents all of Indian filmdom?
Why do we feel that Slumdog represents the Indian film industry, even while refusing to consider Slumdog as an Indian movie, calling it a British movie instead?
Lekhni:
Interesting debate here. I would ignore the ‘experts’ cited therein:
http:// roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/the-real-roots-of-the-slumdog-protests/
I wish they hadn’t called them “experts”. They could have just said they asked 3 Indians for their opinion. Calling them experts spoils the whole article..
I was passing through these blogs and i found this interesting discussion. i have not watched SM yet, and i have seen a host of opinions about it. Majority of them do agree that the film is good, but do believe its over the top about the potrayal of poverty. see the things about films and social messages is they are short lived. i was inspired 15 years ago when i watched Kamal in Indian. it took a social message of corruption.
the slums in Dharavi exist because of more than a host of reasons, bottom line, for India to grow, it needs to have an attitude makeover. unfortunately it is atleast 15 years away. the whole notion of free welfare and socialism is the doom for this country.
We Indians don’t get swayed by beggars that much because we are aware of the various scheming ways people make money. we know the dark side of people to use poverty as an excuse. Although there are many real deserving poor people who needs help.
but we are sensitised growing up watching poverty all our life. No one who has grown up in India or been in India for an extended period of time, can escape it.
I mean as you touch down the runway you see all the JJ colonies besides the airport.
why we are so getting worked up over a british movie that won an Oscar(which is nothing but a US version of Filmfare awards) and i see news headlines, india brand can get positive publicity over this Oscar win. Give me a break. when we will stop patting ourselves and hyping ourselves for little things. that is like me throwing a party because my three year old came first in her pre-KG class.
I seriously think we need indians need to stop this whole INdia shining, india gaining thing and gird our loins and get to work. also enough already with the India is becoming an economic super power…thing we are still atleast 25 years behind China, which by the way is still classified as an emerging market
LOL @ “an Oscar (which is nothing but a US version of Filmfare awards)” The opposite is true.
Mukundan,
I agree we are de-sensitized by our constant exposure to poverty in India; that is the only way we can survive without falling into depression. I also agree that while we have made some progress, we still have a long way to go, so the patting ourselves on the back is very premature.
No, no, no! This did not happen, did it? Slumdog Millionaire winning Oscar is a one, big, awful nightmare. No.
There was a dozen of better movies made this year that beat Slumdog in a face. Why was it chosen? Because some American criers were deeply moved by a image of blind child. Wow, so lame. The only plus for this movie wsa BEAUTIFUL actress playing Latika. That is it, and that is all.
Thx for reading. (If you read, of course..)
Thanks for your opinion, and yes, I do read all comments and respond to every one of them..
The issue as I see it is that Indian fans who are raving over realistic portrayal of India by a Brit, are not much knowledgeable about Indian movies that have portrayed reality. (BTW, could someone explain to me why is it a big deal that a Hollywood/British film portrayed reality – that too clichéd – about India? What makes it so worthwhile?) But when the plot-holes and numerous unrealistic depictions are pointed, then it shifts to “Oh it’s a modern fairy tale”, “Oh it’s a Bollywood escapist fantasy.” Seems like people want to have it both ways.
Here are three examples:
In a country where Sagarika Ghose and Barkha Dutt rule, how realistic is it that a Muslim who is in the spotlight and about to answer the final question would be whisked away and tortured by the police, and these reporters and progressive activists wouldn’t even raise a stink?
As far as I know, WWTBAM is not telecast live and is pre-recorded. So the whole plot device of Latika watching it live on TV and hearing the phone ring and running to the car falls apart.
For someone who has gone through such horrid experiences, Latika doesn’t really display any emotional scars.
So much for portraying reality.
Also, simply having a realistic backdrop of a slum doesn’t mean that it also depicts the *issues* realistically. I didn’t really see any serious treatment of *reasons* of poverty which Danny Boyle (didn’t) explored in this film. The redemption comes in the form of a British TV game show.
As for those talking about inequality in India, maybe they should check out the wealth distribution in the US and what top percent owns what percentage of wealth.
It’s just a fluffy film which doesn’t really withstand any serious scrutiny. That’s why I’m surprised over the big hoopla over it and at those who are treating it as worthwhile cinema.
I agree, the plot has numerous holes, it is as cliched as any Bollywood movie, and poverty is not unique to India either. Why, then, are we so touchy about a film that depicts a Mumbai slum for what it is? I think it comes down to it – the fact that the film was set in a slum, instead of showing middle class India.
slumdog was more popular in foreign countries like UK and USA. because the people there love to see the poverty prevailing in India. Thats why the movie just focussed on the Dharavi slums and not on the real Mumbai or India. Yes we admit that poverty is the big problem in our country, but there are more greener sides of India too. They depicted the slumdwellers, the riots, the beggary to the stealing things at Taj Mahal to the brothels, but my question is “Is this really the complete India that the movie is trying to show”.
Calling a slumdweller as a “slumdog” is completely inhuman. How dare they call them as dogs,
One scene that I remember was completely shocking.. that was when Jamaal as a kid was beaten near the Dhobi ghat in Agra because the children stole the peripherals of the car. There the boy said “If you want to see the real India here It is” and then the American lady caring for her said” If you wanna see real America here It is “. This is how it shows what the Americans really think of us.
Movies like this will eventually cause more of the Indians being victims of racisms in foreign countries. I think its completely insane to applaud this movie for winning the Oscars . Just the only good thing is Indians bagged two Oscars, thats it. In India the movie is doing not really good . So that is one good news.
Is a movie supposed to show the complete India? All any movie tries to do is tell a story. It is not the PR machine of India’s external affairs ministry.
If some people are racist, then they will chose to hold those beliefs irrespective of whatever the true facts are – most people don’t want to believe anything contrary to their beliefs.
why all this hooplah over slumdog millionaire? and poverty porn??? r v too concerned abt the image of india or just embarassed that the world got to see the reality. what is the problem if one movie showcases india’s slums?? obviously they not gonna show american slums in a movie abt mumbai!!! truth is we r scared tht the global audience is seeing a movie like slumdog. take walk in the slums of india and u’ll know the reality, then why so much criticism?? just cos a movie of urban india does not get such recognition globally so we r getting jealous? all tht we showcase in our “real bollywoodism” is movies like dostana(girl wearing bikini all thruout) or candyfloss movies of SRK and karan johar. yes india has produced movies on slums b4 and they din get such recognition but did we criticise them for showng them reality? wht is the prob if a foreign director made a indian movie and got recognised. why din we ever criticise the original book Q&A by an INDIAN!! why the movie by a firang???
All good questions. Why so much hoopla over the movie indeed?
Im an NRI and a lover of stories from all over the world. Some stories are about poor people, some stories are about rich people, some stories are realistic and others are utter fantasy. I thought Slumdog Millionaire was thoroughly entertaining, inspiring and fictional. I wouldnt use such an obvious fantasy to make broad assumptions about an entire country! We have poverty and violence here in the United States, too; such injustice is not unique to India.
To me this story is not about the whole country but an individual for the slums made big by wining the show and over coming whatever obstacle; if let say the movie scene where not shot in India but US or UK it would mean the same because poverty is everywhere even in the UK people are suffering, but this story is about human spirit and triumph.
Mariam Mohammed
(An NRI)
i liked ur posts;
i am new to blogging and will like to post some of ur blogs in my blogging website;ofcourse wit credits;
if u agree plz send me a mail;
You are free to provide a link to any post of mine if you have something to say on the same topic, but you don’t have my permission to copy text from my blog posts, even with “credit”.
I notice you haven’t provided your blog’s url either..
You may wish to read my post on the same. The comments are interesting too
http://www.rahuljauhari.net/2009/01/bow-wow-or-wow.html
i watched the movie and i think its one of the dumbest there is…..im not saying because im an Indian.I do accept the poverty shown in the movie because its there.I did not like it because its not worthy of winning 8 oscars.This movie is just like another Bollywood masala movie….which our own critics would have slammed if made in Hindi.The only reason the Indian critics are hailing it is because it got the pat and approval of the west……who do not want to think of India as an upcoming nation.They just want to stereotype us and make themselves beleive that we are poor and will always remain under their shoes….
Exactly!
so true…..these westerners think that india will stay under them forever…im hoping it’s not so…
As a European, I think this focus on stereotyping as a form of indirect subjugation is silly. People going to see the movie in Europe, North America, Australia etc will not be thinking quietly to themselves – “haha, look how poor they are. They shall always be under our control”. What nonsense. It was a very enjoyable, entertaining film which I felt captured the complexity and diversity of experience that is India and no way tried to paint the country in a negative light.
I think what makes Indians uncomfortable is that the image of poverty depicted in the film is not a fabrication – it is reality. The glass-sheeted modernity of modern, middle class India has to represent a maximum of 10% of the population.
Rough areas in Western cities are often depicted in American, British, French, Spanish movies etc. And you don’t see the public raising hell about it? The problem is that there is a major inferiority complex on the part of India at the moment – which is quite understandable given the relative youth of India as a modern nation-state.
I say good luck to India in its development. If it works hard, develops itself over time, and begins to fix its cultural defects such as hypocrisy (Example: I met a number of Indian males while I was at Grad School in the US who had had sex with juniors at elite boarding schools (Doon, St Pauls) but were completely against gay rights etc), secrecy, caste-based forced marriage and corruption, it too can enjoy the standard of living that 90% of ordinary Europeans, Americans and Australians enjoy.
The key to prosperity is transparency – politically, economically and SOCIALLY. It is this third social aspect of advancement that India has yet to master.
I’m a European, and thought the film was ok. I completely agree it was not worth all those Oscars. It was a palatable, unchallenging film for the masses in the west – like an attempt to format bollywood elements in a hollywood structure. Novel idea, a bit formulaic and nothing too deep. There were MUCH better films around at the time. The hero and heroine were 2-dimensional, but it was a film made for popularity, not really for any deeper artistic reasons. There was some nice camera-work & the basic idea was novel. Also, I wonder if the director will actually make a much deeper film about India in the future.
People in the west are not ignorant to the poverty in large rapidly developing cities throughout the world, nor do they really care about ‘keeping india under their heel’. Post-colonial countries are not under the illusion that they have much power now, because its all determined by economics and china and india are massive economic power-houses that lead to large numbers of job losses in the west. With more travel national identity is really beginning to dissolve and people are moving to where there is work.
This movie is just like another Bollywood masala movie
True.
which our own critics would have slammed if made in Hindi
False. They have praised far worse.
who do not want to think of India as an upcoming nation.They just want to stereotype us and make themselves beleive that we are poor and will always remain under their shoes .
Don’t put intentions where there are none. West depicts India the way it sees it not the way it wants it to be. They don’t have that much time for India.
India is insignificant.
If I were to make a movie about Africa, it is far more likely to be about hunger, poverty & war. Does it mean I want to “stereotype Africa” or make them “believe”(!) they are poor? No. It just means Africa IS a predominantly poor country and presently IS under the shoe of westerners.
Sure, Africa would have brighter sides too, but they are not as visible. And why should I care? I’m no patriotic African; I read a racy work of fiction about Africa, I see commercial potential and I make the movie. I do not give a damn about “real” Africa, nor does my audience. And why should I? Africa might have made some progress somewhere, but where does it stand in comparison to India? Africa is insignificant to me. I don’t have time to explore the “real” Africa. That does not mean I have anything against Africa. If an African Diplomat had written a racy work of fiction about brighter side of Africa I would have made a movie about that.
Wait….what?
This movie is just like another Bollywood masala movie
True.
You contradict yourself Particle…scroll down into my comments….where you say False…. ah well…
Dont put intentions where there are none. West depicts India the way it sees it not the way it wants it to be. They dont have that much time for India.
India is insignificant.
Seriously? I think you were a different person while writing these comments…because the others you wrote are so much more sensible….India is insignificant? seriously? dude*…that was a pretty under-informed statement…I live in the west (I don’t know if you do too, but if you do, then I’d be reeeeaally confused) and yeah….India is not “insignificant”…and it is a little difficult to be “insignificant” with a consumer market of hundreds of millions of people….ah well…what market? we are only poor people who cannot take care of ourselves right? lmao
* Call it conditioning if you will…I assume you are male from now on…correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.
I didn’t really understand what was your objection to my movie related comments, so can’t respond.
About the consumer market of hundreds of millions: Arabs are significant because of the oil. Does that mean westerners have stopped depicting them as the medieval creatures they are? Should they?
Yea that was just one example. Don’t bring the middle east into this man, I don’t know what has to be done to the middle east. I was just flabbergasted by your comment everywhere about how India is insignificant, India does not count etc. I am just saying India is not as insignificant as you seem to think. You did not explicitly disagree with India being a huge consumer market, so I’ll assume you agree.
Having seen the movie, I don’t think it is worth the Oscars!
It has shock value & the Westerner’s get a “feel Good factor” by making such a big hype about it!
Someone aptly called it poverty porn as it jolts you out of your safe & sterile world!
“Poverty Porn”. Interesting.
I must say though that everybody like poverty porn, not just westerners. I recommend “Hotel Rwanda” for Indians.
Hi, I really liked your article and I loved the movie too.
I agree with alot of people out here. Its not worth all those oscars. It was like watching a movie that went straight to a DVD. It didnt capture India and the feeling of it. It made Indians look like violent people. Which is far from the truth. When i went to India everyone was so friendly and hospitibile. I have also read the book Q & A from Vikas Swarup. That book is believable and is a more accurate version of the story. I must admit certain things do happen in India and no one is ignoring it. Its a growing country, problems will occur but it was potrayed in a very bad light far from the book. I think the screenwriter hated India. especially Amitabh Bachan. Its a typical movie where a british person makes India look stupied and brought his colonial ways back as he made millions out of this movie. Exploiting Indian weaknesses.
Aptly said, Sarah.
Oh Poor Sarah, Feeling guilty about the past? Don’t.
My country IS stupid. It does not understand that it is not a British person’s job to portray my country in a good light, it’s my own.
I’ve seen a litttle bit of the movie but I can still say that Taare Zammen Par was a LOT better and should won the Oscars.
Mr. Boyle should have concentrated on the brighter aspects of India and made something more sensible like a documentary on Indian culture or something.
As for the soundtrack, it was nothing all that impressive and shouldn’t really have really won all those accolades, specially Jai ho and O saaya.
“Ive seen a litttle bit of the movie but I can still say that Taare Zammen Par was a LOT better and should won the Oscars.”
I have seen a little bit of TZP & I can still say that Slumdog is a LOT better because I couldn’t even watch TZP for more than 15 minutes.
“As for the soundtrack, it was nothing all that impressive and shouldnt really have really won all those accolades, specially Jai ho and O saaya.”
If Jai Ho can win Oscar, Rehman should be bagging at least 50 oscars by now. He IS a genius musician and deserves many oscars, but “Jai Ho” would count among his lowliest works.
Did you see Shwaas? Its a marathi movie and I watched it with subtitles… freakin’ amazing acting! Slumdog acting was like “nothing” compared to this movie…(well not nothing…but you know it was pretty good, probably better)
I agree. I don’t have high praise for Shwaas either but it was certainly superior to Slumdog. The child actor was brilliant though.
Slumdog can be rightly placed besides other Boyle flicks like “The Beach” and “28 Days Later”. Interesting, entertaining, technically superb, but not oscar material.
I guess i can perhaps tell what this Boyle fellow thought of.He caught hold of this decent Indian director to make a documentary about the “poor” people of the slums of the beautiful B town where everything is shadowed by the glitz and glamour of the Khans and Kapoors.He begged Anil Kapoor who was waiting for an international fame to come his way, got some rag pickers to work in a meagre amount in a documentary wherein he will show India in the best of light. He started shooting with this Dev Patel guy who cant even speak proper English leave alone HIndi ….and the cameras rolled. The film started and by the end all the Indian crew just couldnt back out when they realised what was actualy happening . And alas the film released in America …and the fairy just flicked the wand and this horrendous film became a hit. And then you could see Anil kapoor promoting his film.What else will he do apart from takin a lions share in the film or perhaps dancing at premiers .And then came the Baftas and the Oscars where all you could hear was Jai Ho.
Well the question realy is that is this film really worth what a film worth being even in the category of what Titanic or Gone with the winds was of?ABSOLUTELY NOT! It is an outrageous film showing India in the poorest of light .It is like a noose around the Industry that produced films like Sholay or Deewar waiting to be hanged to death.Boyle should be shot to death .Accepting that it is an extremist thought but just because you possess a dirty white skin does nt mean you have a ticket to Oscars. India would rather not have an Oscar than be called a country of slum dwellers . I prefer being called a snake charmers land than the whole world telling me that India is where you can see slums.
I didn’t read your comment in full, because all of it can be compressed to: “I love India no matter how $$$$ it is and anyone who tells me so is evil”.
lol why do you hate Dev Patel? I like Dev Patel….thought his acting was very mature….
I think the movie is a conspiracy to malign the image of India and propogate it worldwide… and what could be better way to do this than giving away 8 oscars!! I think it’s sheer jealousy stemming from global ecomomic climate. When the whole world is losing..India is still shining and thus the mud slinging!!
India is still shining and thus the mud slinging!!
Sorry for what I am going to ask but “Are You Delusional?”
In general global “climate” (which includes economic), India doesn’t count. It is a “developing” country and an “emerging” market. Conspiracies are made against “developed” countries.
Hey Particle, would you call China an emerging market or a developed country? Just curious.
An emerging market and a RAPIDLY developing country.
all the ****** who think this Movie is about India are morons and missed the point of the movie. its about the struggle of a poor boy who comes from nothing to realize a dream and the movie could have taken place in any country except the U.S.because it is happening everyday. The only reason so many Indian peope are upset is because it acurately depicts their pompous self righteous attitudes towards the poor. There isnt a place on earth where class is wielded more than in India it’s disgusting. india is a third world hellhole of a country and will remain so until the poor and disadvantaged are encouraged and embraced in their pursuit of wealth instead of being shut out because they are not wothy
You are free to write in your opinion on this blog, but there is no place for swear words here. I never edit comments but have to edit yours.
I wonder why people who call themselves “chodu” and use swear words are the only ones who make sense.
Probably because they are driven senseless by the inanity around.
I have a question. Jamaal is a guy who’s been born and brought up in the slum and who doesn’t even know the meaning of the word ‘school’ so how on earth does he speak in English so fluently and is able to operate a computer?
you are a superior fool. You are the whole reason that this movie is a mistake. It leaves you to feel superior, the whole attitude you becry. Hypocrite.
Nice post about that movie we never think in this mind we just watch the movie and came back to home nice once …