Its been a while since I blogged.I have been busy in final year decadence with trips and treats and general fooling around. I have in the meanwhile been on a trip to Coorg , co founded a company called TLS,thought a fair bit about pot girls and hot girls, given identity and standing to sheikhu(he now tells me he is much better off than he was and when I last saw him was playing around in roller skates) and spent a day or two mourning the ingnonimous exit of Djokovic from the Australian Open.
There has been much lashing against Slumdog Millionaire in India. It started of course with Mr.Bacchan Sr himself .Many Indians have termed the movie an outrage on Indian sensibility,derogatory and even gone to the extent of advocating a boycott.The latter was done in quite a fashion by Mr.Arindham Choudhary in the Hindu occupying a quarter of his full page length add on ‘Dare to think beyond the IIMs!’
On a more serios note I think we are blowing a mountain out of a mole hill for no good reason.Status messages,blogs ad much more have derided the movie forbeing anti-indian. When I watched the movie I simply loved it.So vibrantly shot that it leaves you in awe for a while.I let out a gasp when Jamaal was asked the third Musketeer and did not forward the Jai Ho song.In short i thought here was an honesty about the film, a genuine attempt to portray the triumph of an under dog.
People have accused the film of portraying an India of slums, riots, poverty, crime and insincierity.The truth is the majority of the country falls into that category.In fact i think what is more denigrading to the sense is the highly sanitised super rich families shown in Karan Johar’s movies. That slumdog in a sense refers not only to Jamaal but to India itself is true but the fact remains that the movie asks a genuinely puzzling question-’ how does India survive and thrive despite the problems?’ its indeed a matter of wonder that how a nation burdened with illiteracy,corruption,sectraian politics,terrorism has managed to survive an economic onslaught that has withered super powers like America.The answer the movie tries to give is that India survives not despite these problems but along with these short comings. The indomitable Indian spirit draws strength from the hardships faced.In a large sense its true and that is our strength and our weakness.
What puzzles me is the intolerance shown.There is a stereo typing of India to cater to the western audiences but this movie is not alone in that crime.Curious Case of Benjamin Button ,Outsourced and a host of others are partner to it.Its similar to the portrayal of Westerners as promiscous and untrustworthy in Indian movies.That the story is based in the slums necessitates the struggle for survival shown. I do not see any degrading aspect of portrayal in slumdog as compared to the one in Salaam Bombay of the same Mumbai slums. Slumdog Millionaire is an unabashed drama with its heart in the right place.It narrates a telling tale of survival in an indomitable city.If its crime is that it exaggerates Indian poverty then a greater crime in that regard is committed by our English media .If the problem is that it glorifies poverty then our Hindi movies have long committed that sin. We do not complain against derision of gay couples in Dostana, we swallow an assault on our sensibility by a string of Bollywood films but have suddenly woken up to claim that Indian pride rests on boycotting this movie.
The movie is brilliantly shot and enacted and to all of Mr.Bacchan’s claims of equally good Bollywood films i beg to differ.You can count those in your finger tips and regional cinema is often far more superior to the films churned out in Bombay.Its indeed a moment of pride that Rehman has been nominated to the Oscars for these awards do far better justice to excellence in movies than our very own national and film fare awards.
Anurag Nandwana Said:
on January 30, 2009 at 6:42 pm
this may be all abt the way of looking at things . not every person has the same “multiplex janta” way of thinking and he/she may not think in the same so-called “global” manner but inspite may have some concern for his country and countrymen being portrayed in the wrong manner. In case u r comparing it wid many other hindi movies which have similar themes , i’d say they dont have a global impact and also their directors dont give a msg saying “Mumbai is all abt slums” & “we have portrayed true India”. This may be a 3 hr entertainment for “aam public” but ask a person from slum , will he really like himself being called a DOG ? a common problem with the common Indian multiplex junta is that they just want to appreciate “real life ” kindda movies and in doing so they end up in copying their western counterparts blindly, no matter if many indian movies earlier had better similar stories and the same Indian actors acted better in the earlier ones. And if someone really wants to know the Indian response to the movie , it has really not done as well in the Indian theatres as was expected.
sudarshna kalyanraman Said:
on January 30, 2009 at 9:15 pm
1.this is the often cited pseudo intellectual and anti middle class argument that the indian middle class seeks to be cocooned from the reality.This group neither wants its country to be portrayed in a wrong manner nor does it distance itself from the rest.It is a critical reason why India survives so one should stop the anathema.So the question of a multiplex clique does not arise. its merely a statement based on facts that the criticism is over the top.
2.i did not compare it to hindi films with similar themes.i compared it to salaam bombay which is in a sense similar and different hindi films which are more removed from reality than this.
3.this movie is based on a novel called Q & A by vikas swarup written by an indian.so the movie has not invented the story line.
4.the movie never claims mumbai is all about slums.It states clearly that india is in the center of the world. it shows a better off call center toting english speaking india too.it also shows a rich host and refernces toa host of other people from diff walks of life.
what amuses me is that people expect the film to be a documentary on india or mumbai.its not. its merely a film based on a novel (in a slum.)so it has not necessity to show every aspect of mumbai.artistic freedom is seminal to entertainment.
maybe you should watch saalam bombay cited often in contrast to SM, it uncannily is the same with less drama and its not even based on slums!
5. some kind of a slum exists in every country including the US.so a slumdog if at all derogatory applies gobally.Underdog is another common word used from the PM candidate to sports person.no one takes an exception then do they?and its funny that the indian so used to calling each other dog must taken an exception. we have far better things to do than cry hoarse that the country’s image hangs on the balance of SM.
6.As for choice of movies is concerned its really unfair to AGAIN attack the middle class.that this film is brilliantly shot is undeniable and the vituperation against it only because its not made by an Indian is regrettable as art transcends barriers. if box office verdict is the criterion then Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi is a hit,Ghajini a copy of a copy is a hit too and if these are great movies as opposed to multiplex ones like DCH,Eklavya or say Water then i can only say tastes vary not necessarily to the betterment of the film industry as an art form.
P.S: people criticizing SM must dust and watch Ray’s movies and his depiction of India.