Slumdog Millionaire captivated my interest with its racing screenplay and rousing music. Based in Mumbai, a metropolis of monumental contradictions, the protagonists are from its slums which is very much a part of Mumbai. Instead of appreciating the hope the movie represents (that is how i saw it), many desis are agonized that the movie portrays the "wrong" side of India. I find it infuriating that these self-professed guardians of Indian Interests can't even digest that the forgotten side of Indian population (which runs into hundreds of millions in number) were acknowledged of their existence by a western movie.
These middle-class brethren of mine want anyone and everyone to see only the rosy side, which is fictitious, much like as shown in Bollywood movies nowadays. It is almost impossible to find a movie from Bollywood which attempts to look at the other end of the society. Every fricking movie is a fantasy overload with rich and super rich people agonizing over their pathetic love life. Probably that is the reason these guys are not able to digest when someone shows a little bit of reality. I can understand the Americans not able to digest the violence shown towards the poor given their narrow world view which never extends beyond their city and their neighborhood. But i find it amusing that we Indians seeing the poor and living with them on a daily basis find it shocking to see them on screen.
The scene that was over the top was the Amitabh scene. But that was a scene used to show the craze for movie stars amongst Indians. Since when did we become so touchy that we can't laugh at ourselves or too dense to not understand a metaphor. Its a fact of life that in our country that men go down manholes and sewage tanks to clean them up. I wish these people show all their outrage toward this practice.
In a country of over a billion people with more than half of it poor or desperately poor, it is no surprise that people get exploited. It is the reality. We could choose to live in denial and get outraged sitting in a multiplex (with our soda and pop-corn) watching a movie that shows a little bit of what happens next to us on a daily basis. Or, we can choose to watch the movie for what it is and be outraged at what happens in our society.
Between the two, i would like to see us choosing the latter, if not immediately at least in the future.
17 comments:
Very well written and echoes my sentiments exactly!
I was also surprised to see Amitabh write in a blog that the movie was degrading to Indians as it showed the life people lead in the slums.
A family with an annual income of 1300 crores per annum (a rumor, but a few crores below that figure wouldn't make a difference to the point) would never know, or want to know what India really is.
Neat column. I have been thinking exactly on the same lines and i have also had a bunch of my friends comment abt how badly india has been depicted in the movie.
the attitude has been how dare a foreigner potray india in such a shabby manner almost implying that it is perfectly okay for an indian to do the same. i did not see such hue and cry raised wen "Q & A" was released(that book has been translated in over 36 languages).
the movie had terrific screenplay. considering the number of characters and sub-plots in the story, the narration was pretty gripping.
well said.
Great article. Reflects my thoughts as well. Pls post this and your future articles in
www.newspaanai.com
It is tamil social bookmarking site.
I would have to disagree with you here slightly karthik. its about how India is depicted each time. Have we not already seen salaam bombay, Gandhi, writing of gunther grass et all? Simply what danny boyle depicts is nothing new. Can you name one single movie made on India by western directors which is about its long tradition and myths like they do for rome and greece? Or do we have a movie where they show a country trying to find its feet? Its easy way out for them to write and make movie about the poverty they see here. Its an easy sell. At the same time I hate any outrage of any sort over freedom of expression, more so, arts and you rightly condemn ppl show outrage sitting in AC offices.
As for as Indian movies are concerned, we have had lots of directors making movies on the subject. Satyajit ray being the most known of them. Do you expect hollywood summer blockbuster to be about ghettos? then why expect bollywood to tackle poverty? The subject is tackled by those who deem it important and they constantly get recognized by nantional awards including directors. Hindi cinema apart from bollywood has had a long list of directors making serious cinema. Govind nihalani, sai paranjpe, prakash jha and many more have kept the parallel movement alive.
well abhishek, we agree to disagree......a westerner coming to India is first hit with the overwhelming poverty and obviously thats the base they use....when millions find it hard to get thru the life, they would obviously base their story based on that background...there is no hidden motive there and its not their job to go arnd looking for the fewer feel-good stories to avoid pricking desis touchy ego. (Just like we desis liek to show europe/america with their glossier (most visible) stuff, and dont go trying to find the nuances of racism or class distinction in their societies)...so there is no reason for any outrage.
And I thought we had (one of the)the biggest middle class population in the world. Shouldn't it had been enough to base stories on? There are stories everywhere and you are right that they go to the place where they expect to find stories. That is because of their perception of the country and it just keeps getting reinforced. An unfortunate cycle.
the point is not that they should avoid picking such stories 'cause of our ego, the point is that they specifically pick same stories over and over again. But of course, hard not to watch and show poverty porn.
Its astounding to hear that when someone makes a movie with main characters from the poorer side of our society (which makes up more than half of our population), its called Poverty Porn. There is nothing in the movie that glorifies poverty or put in just to evoke emotion. For that matter it is about how the characters go beyond their circumstance to achieve waht they do. This movie is not poverty porn. And if the west still thinks India is poor becoz more than half the population is very poor, then i dont find fault with them. Its rather unfortunate that we don't have the stomach to watch wat is happening in our backyard.
I too would be outraged with if something like Indiana Jones: Temple of Doom comes out now. But Slumdog is another story
On the other hand, I am prepared to overlook a comic book caper like Indiana jones. Its fictional. But slumdog has to make some choices. Do I show a character jumping in shit? Do I show characters cheating and mugging tourists? Do I show characters refilling water bottle and sealing it? how about adding child prostitution and beggin mafia? how about smug rich guys joking about poor chaiwallah? How about police torturing a millionaire contestant with no one batting an eyelid? You have taken number of incidents which can happen anywhere and put it in a package to 'shock and awe' the audience. It does so successfully. Thats the one thing I like about the movie , it successfully achieves what it set out to do for its core audience. And as by the trend from 50s till now, nothing beats depiction of poverty when it comes to India.
Do I show a character jumping in shit? (already addressed in the post. Obviously over the top, but for a different reason)
Do I show characters cheating and mugging tourists? (This happens daily, thank god, he didn't show the rapes (of foreigners) that happened in Jaipur, Goa, Delhi, Chennai.)
Do I show characters refilling water bottle and sealing it?
(This is probably the best scene. As i repeatedly say, when the characters are in India, he shows wahts happening in India. Whats wrong with it? You are ok with someone basically goes to the extent of cannibalism in the name of Kali which was utter falsehood saying it was cartoonish and fictional. I think we must be offended when someone makes outrageous claims about us to make money than tell the truth abt us.
how about adding child prostitution and beggin mafia?
Well, within the given time frame he can show only so much :P
how about smug rich guys joking about poor chaiwallah?
Another over the top moment. However it doesn't represent India, but shows the negative shades of that particular character. So thats ok. (anyways, we as a society don't respect labor and hence people doing so called menial jobs. We can deny, but it happens.)
How about police torturing a millionaire contestant with no one batting an eyelid?
If we take the statistics of deaths in police custody, it wouldnt surprise us.
You have taken number of incidents which can happen anywhere and put it in a package to 'shock and awe' the audience.
The thing is these are number of incidents that can happen anywhere. But the sad thing is all of the above happens in India.
For the records , they do show both child prostitution and beggar mafia. Nothing was missed and that's my point. Its like an encyclopedia of negative things to see in India.
If I know nothing about the place then based on the movie the only thought I would carry is that whatever happens I should never visit that country. It has no government, no law, no human rights organization. A hell on earth.
"It has no government, no law, no human rights organization. A hell on earth. "
But it happens, doesn't it. Why are we so afraid about looking in the mirror. When someone shoves a mirror in front of us, we shout and cry, instead of taking stock.
i see a similarity between desis and pakis here. We are afraid of acknowledging our poverty. They are afraid of acknowledging their terrorism. Both say all of India is not poverty, all of pakis is not terrorism afflicted. But it doesnt take away the fact that it exists in both cases.
We can avoid looking at it, but that doesn't mean it will go away or someone else will stop telling you about it.
again, you miscontrue the point to the fact that we dont acknowledge it. Of course we do, how can we not? we live alongside it. But the discussion here is not how we see ourselves but how we are portrayed. If we start documenting just the negative stuff, where does it not happen? My point is about the singular depiction of the country not about how we as a society tackle this issue. Of course we have issues and there is a lot to do. But sometimes it would be nice to know that we have done something good in 60 years, and India of 09 is not india of 1947 or worse.
I am talking about our fear of seeing a portrayal of us that is true. And the other point being, he is not documenting the negatives of the society. He shows what an orphan from our slums went through to know the answer for each of those. Whats wrong in that? You want him to show chandrayaan and PSLV in between just to make our cry babies not notice the reality????
If there is something that is not true and that has been done deliberately to show India in negative light, then i can begin to see the anger. But there isn't one. If all we want to see is our Production support staff from IT firms (the so called good news about India) throwing money boozing and having fun then we should all stop watching these movies or reading books.
Slumdog Millionnaire is a very beautiful film, I absolutely loved it.
I enjoyed this article thoroughly.
Karthikeyan, I simply wanted to add a Westerner's perspective on something discussed in the comments.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a parody of 1950s-1960s action films. At the time it was released (in the 1980s) and certainly today, no one believed or believes that its portrayals of Easterners are accurate, and Lucas and Spielberg did not intend for anyone to take them literally.
With respect to depictions of the poor, Abhi, no one is picking on India. Boyle's most popular film before SLUMDOG, TRAINSPOTTING, was a depiction of the poor (and particularly heroin addicts) in Scotland. Western directors routinely tell this same story about Western characters: blacks in the inner city, rednecks in the woods, Cajuns on the bayou. Western audiences like these stories even when they hit close to home.
It's a legitimate criticism to say that a particular account is inaccurate, but not to say that it's too accurate.
Also...
"But sometimes it would be nice to know that we have done something good in 60 years, and India of 09 is not india of 1947 or worse."
It's a little hard for me to discuss this without having read "Q & A." However, the film does show progress and improvement in the lifetime of the main character, Jamal. Of course, there is a dark side to this progress-- the rich are criminals, etc. I don't know how accurate a depiction this is of India, and I don't know if Boyle and his screenwriter lifted this from the book or invented it, but this is a typical theme in American and British cinema as well. The people with the money and the power often have less than honorable motives. I suspect this is an attempt to make the story more relatable to a Western audience. It isn't a criticism of India specifically, but an acknowledgment of what we as Westerners know to be true of our own societies.
All in all, I think the fact that you are Indian might be obscuring the nature of this story for you. It isn't the West poking fun at your nation, it's a story set in India that would be appealing to Western audiences even if set in the West, with very common themes.
Post a Comment