FICTION, NOT FACT
Slumdog Millionaire is an immensely likeable slice of broad entertainment – nothing else. So why are we getting into a lather about whether or not it represents the “real” India?
JAN 25, 2009 – HAD SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE SIMPLY BEEN likened to Rocky, had it simply been christened this year’s artfully crafted feel-good fable (that you feel slightly sheepish about having enjoyed so thoroughly), I doubt the discussions around it would have centered on anything other than its cinematic merits. After all, coming from a nation where few filmmakers actually know anything about making a film, where static compositions and talky scenarios are the de rigueur mode of cinematic expression, isn’t the propulsive kinetic energy of Danny Boyle’s filmmaking its own reward? Isn’t the psychedelic decadence of his images like heroin pumped into the bloodstream? Have the slums of Mumbai ever come alive so, with the bracing electricity of a kitsch-art exhibition?
There’s little doubt that Boyle is a great filmmaker – but why is the world outside insisting that he has made a great film? Slumdog Millionaire is an immensely likeable slice of broad entertainment – and for that we should truly be grateful, especially in this Oscar season, when the corners of cinema screens begin to positively sag with the artistic weight of awards-baiting prestige productions – but why is this winsome trifle being positioned as some transcendent work of moral art? Why is this cheerful amalgamation of clichés about our country –Hindu-Muslim riots, filthy slums filled with filthier beggars, call centres, and, yes, the Taj Mahal, all presented with a theatrical this-is-India flourish – being routinely hailed as a “global masterpiece” layered with rich “social commentary?”
I suspect it’s these wide-eyed generalisations, mostly by the Western media, that are prompting touchy Indians like Amitabh Bachchan to point out, as he did in his blog, that if this film projects India’s dirty underbelly, causing “pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots,” then “a murky underbelly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations.” Indeed, it’s difficult not to wince when a fantastically staged chase along the bylanes of Mumbai is interrupted for a serene second to dwell on a garbage collector filling his bag with refuse, or when our invidious class system (namely, the modern-day caste system) is detailed in loving close-up as an upper-class quizmaster incessantly taunts the lowly chai-wallah competing on the desi version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.
We wince because these are realities. If Boyle paints this quizmaster in viler colours than even a loathsome villain who blinds little children and turns them out on the streets as beggars, that’s because the latter makes no effort to fit into decent society whereas the former, an upstanding member of the establishment, does everything in his power to derail the progress of Jamal, the slumdog protagonist. He’s the Shining India representative who wants nothing to do with the other India, the far-from-shining nation of slums and slum-dwellers, and, in a sense, he’s not very different from the critics of this film from our country, who appear upset because Slumdog Millionaire preys on poverty and other such unmentionables that wouldn’t find a place on a Visit India poster.
But my problem with Slumdog Millionaire (taken as a global eye-opener, as opposed to Slumdog Millionaire, the sweet fairy tale) isn’t that these realities are splashed across screens worldwide, thus, apparently, shaming us in the eyes of the Western world. It’s that these “realities” are little more than a colourfully exotic backdrop for an overfamiliar underdog saga. I was, for instance, constantly put off by the inauthenticity of the characters who speak in English – in strange accents that don’t belong in the urban pockets of India, let alone the slums – but I understand that this is a commercial compulsion, born of the need to address the world market. I can, therefore, bring myself to look past such horrific first-person utterances as “I knew I’d find you in the end. It’s our destiny,” or “Shut up. The man with the Colt 45 says: Shut up.”
But if Slumdog Millionaire were truly interested in India as more than just set decoration, why does it have its adorably brown-faced children grow up into fair, model-gorgeous creatures – like “before” and “after” versions in the advertisements for products that feed on our ugly obsession with skin colour? Why not feature a handsomely coffee-coloured hero pursuing a beautifully bronzed heroine? If Slumdog Millionaire is treated as just a fairy tale, this isn’t a nit worth picking – in fact, you could argue that this is part of the film’s fairy-tale agenda, to show that not only can a slumdog become a millionaire, but he can also walk away with a girl in his arms who looks like this – but taken otherwise, its supposedly scathing inquest into all things Indian is merely, well, skin-deep.
Even the infamous “shit scene” is nothing more than the recognition of a great visual opportunity. The structure of the film is that for every question that Jamal is asked on the show, we flash back to an episode in his life that made him wiser with the answer. And so, when he’s asked who the star of Zanjeer is, we go back several years, when, as a little boy, Jamal was defaecating in a public toilet when Amitabh Bachchan’s helicopter descended in the vicinity. Due to certain unfortunate developments, he falls into the cesspit below and ends up slathered with human waste. Undeterred, he picks himself up, races towards his demigod, breaches past the thronging crowds, and extends his arm for an autograph.
If we’d been presented with the reaction of the superstar, upon being confronted with this surreal vision – a little boy, oozing from head to toe with shit – the scene might have meant something. A refusal to sign, perhaps, or a disgusted holler to the cops nearby to eliminate this urchin from his line of sight could have told us something about the distance between the two Indias, one shining, one literally stinking. Even if the point of the scene was to impress upon the child the name of this actor – namely, the answer to the question – there may have been something to it. But Jamal already knows who the actor is – he decides to get the autograph because this is Amitabh Bachchan – and the point of the scene, therefore, is just the coolness of a visual where a little boy is smeared with shit.
In a similar vein, the point of the scene where we flash back to a riot where enraged Hindus converge on hapless Muslims – this time, the patently obvious question Jamal is posed is about what Lord Ram holds in his right hand – is simply the money shot where we hear the grown-up Jamal muse, “If it wasn’t for Ram and Allah, I’d still have a mother.” Is this apparent afterthought – this warm-fuzzy, John Lennonesque imagining of “Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too” – the kind of thing that passes for profound social commentary these days? That’s why the wildly overboard celebration and the equally hysterical condemnation of the film are both mystifying.
Had the conceit of Slumdog Millionaire been that the questions on the game show merely triggered painful memories in Jamal – and that his painful memories are, by extension, ours, the nation’s – the film might have functioned as a look, however glancing, at the real India. But because these flashbacks are meant to hold the specific answers to those questions (which are sometimes treated as nothing less than the mysteries of the universe) – after remembering the riot, for instance, Jamal wishes he didn’t know the answer to that question, as if the contents of Lord Ram’s right hand were otherwise unknowable in a country crammed with Hindus – it’s impossible to treat the film as anything but an elaborately entertaining gimmick.
The problem isn’t one of plausibility, that this slumdog’s life was built around the exact kind of episodes that would, one day, make him a millionaire – because that is the very stuff of fairy tales, whether from the Brothers Grimm or Bollywood. (Even the film’s trajectory is along the lines of happy wish-fulfillment, beginning with ultra-authentic scenes of electro-torture in a police station and ending with the kind of arms-akimbo dance number you’d find in a second-rate Bollywood production that couldn’t afford to hire Prabhu Deva or Vaibhavi Merchant.) The problem is when something this ridiculous begins to be taken as real, as representative of a nation’s reality, as more than a mere movie.
Because a movie movie – a shrewdly constructed artifice that explodes joyously on the big screen – is all that Slumdog Millionaire is meant to be. Let’s embrace the heartbreaking moments such as the one where Jamal and his brother, as children, nod off on top of a train and link their hands in each other’s to keep from plummeting into the countryside hurtling past beneath. Let’s lose ourselves in the long-distance romance, underscored by the exquisite ache of AR Rahman’s love theme. Let’s cheer our throats hoarse at the end, when the impossible is rendered not just possible but inevitable. But let’s not whip ourselves into a lather about it – for a few images of picture-postcard squalour cannot begin to highlight the complex realities of our country.
Copyright ©2008 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Aditya Pant
January 24, 2009
Couldn’t agree with you more. It’s a darn good entertainer, but nowhere close to a masterpeiece it is being called.
It’s good that you bring in the mention of Rocky, because in hindsight we all talk about what a blunder the Academy did that year by awarding Rocky over Taxi Driver or Network or even All The President’s Men, but at that time it was the feel-good-ness of the film that swayed everyone. That’s excatly what’s happening at the awards this year. I doubt if many would even talk about Slumdog a year or two down the line.
As an entertainer, this film worked well for me. I felt an emotional connect with the film as well. Using Ebert’s words, there were moments in the film where I felt “welling up of a few tears in my eyes, a certain tightness in my throat, and a feeling of uplift”. And that is all that mattered for me in the end…
LikeLike
priya
January 24, 2009
I think we get into a lather about it because we are all sick to dying of being asked questions like ‘do you have supermarkets/mobiles/phones/Net in India?’.
Or “you hindu fundamentalists are a violent lot aren’t you? india must be a horrible place for muslims and christians to live in’.
LikeLike
Akasuna no Sasori
January 24, 2009
The English was the precise problem I had with the film, specially the brother’s saying something like “Plenty of *&^^% in this town for me” midway through the film. Where do Indian kids pick up western slang like that?
Boyle tries to have it both ways with Slumdog. On the one hand, he throws in characters and setups corresponding to Western cliches, and on the other he has this relentless backdrop of poverty and misery to make this film “serious”, not a timepass underdog story.
LikeLike
Shalini
January 24, 2009
I think this is the only piece on this over-talked about film that I agreed with almost word for word.
As someone who likes to believe that I not just tolerate, but court, dissenting opinions, I’m suprised (and a little embarassed) at how relieved I feel at having my views echoed by someone else.:-(
LikeLike
Vamshi
January 24, 2009
Hi Baradwaj
I corroborate some of your views. I have written a review on my blog. Am including an extract from my review:
“One big note of caution before reading my views is that the context in which I have seen the movie was different than most audiences. I am one of the very few who have actually read the book on which the movie was based – Q&A by Vikas Swarup. The book, though not exceptional on literary merit, was excellent entertainment. I am cognizant of the pitfalls of comparing a book with the movie, however the pitfalls are likely to be fewer here as the book is largely a good story which should have been easy to film or adapt. However the filmmakers have changed the story around to make it more palatable to international audiences and reduce a few complexities.
However, one big grouse which I have is the sequencing of the questions to match the chronology of events in Jamal life. To elaborate, the first question might refer to something that happened to Jamal when he was 4 years, the second to something that happened when he was 5 and so on. This was really really stretching destiny. The book was interestingly structured where each question refers to a different phase of the protagonist’s life and we keep going back and forth till we have a neat mosaic of his life.
With the kind of structural experiments in narrative that we keep seeing nowadays (Following, Memento, 21 Grams, Irreversible etc) I thought that the story could have really merited a different flow to it.
Unlike the comments of some faux nationalists or ignoramuses, my crib is not that we are presenting the seamy side of India for the foreign markets but that it is not seamy enough to make a more hard hitting statement atleast for Indian audiences (including me) who have been long been inured to these scenes. I felt that there was a flippancy in the way these gritty events were handled, never lingering for the audience to think, but used just to propel the story to the next question. There is a visceral movement to the movie, a very music-video psychedelic pace which makes it very difficult to dwell for a moment on the love just lost or the horrors recently seen. In editing terminology, the movie I am sure would be having a very low average length of shot (ALoS) (I really wanted to use that, never got a chance to do that until now)
In a nutshell, these were my takeaways. I continue to feel that Dark Knight was seriously shortchanged during the award season.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
January 24, 2009
Baradwaj,
Saw the moview today, I couldn’t understand why a portion of the movie was in Hindi and the rest in English. The entire film should have been either in Hindi or English. Again, Anil Kapoor openly ridiculing Jamal in front of millions of live audience did not make much sense; cannot imagine Amitabh or Shahrukh doing that in KBC. But the film was great entertainment. Your take on the Jai Ho number made me crack up. Yes that number (the picturisation and the choreography) was ridiculous. I don’t understand what the fuss was all about (‘magical’ was one of the superlatives used in the western media to describe the Jai Ho number); imagine the effect Chaiyya Chaiyya would have on the western media.
LikeLike
Karthik
January 24, 2009
The purpose of the infamous “shit scene”, apart from the visual opportunity, was probably to demonstrate early on the lengths to which Jamal would go to get what he wanted..
LikeLike
Vishal
January 24, 2009
Great article! Very apt observations about the “shit scene” and the could-have-been-different conceit of the movie (trigger painful memories, as opposed to answers to the questions).
As you’ve mentioned, I also don’t have any problems with this movie when taken as an entertainer. But the fact that it got nominated (and will probably win) in the best movie category means that it’s being taken seriously – having social commentary and all. But then, that’s hardly the movie’s fault, is it? The movie doesn’t try (or, try too hard) to present those exaggerated depictions as facts, it’s the (Western) audience that is perceiving them as realities. That’s unfortunate, but not flawed filmmaking.
LikeLike
brangan
January 24, 2009
priya: Suffering much in the yoo-yess, are we? 🙂
Karthik: That does appear to be the case. But (from a writing/structure POV) my problem is this: This is the first time we see the film’s conceit being laid out, i.e. Anil Kapoor poses a question, and Jamal flashes back to incident that gave him the answer. That being the case, shouldn’t “getting the answer” be the point of this scene, the precursor to other such scenes that will follow, rather than the delineation of a character trait? And this character trait is not even necessary. In a fairy tale of this nature, we believe Jamal goes after Latika simply because HE’S IN LOVE. This early establishment of his doggedness doesn’t add anything, IMO.
LikeLike
Patrix
January 24, 2009
An excellent review as always, Baradwaj and captures my sentiment exactly. SM is as good as an entertainer as it can be and it lives up to the basic objective of any movie – captivating its audiences and making them empathize with the protagonist. Beyond that, a masterpiece it may not be and I don’t it even pretends to be. Sure, there are logical anomalies and inconsistencies but not more than any other masala flick. One can never understand why certain movies are liked the way they are but like you say, why not simply revel in its celebration and not get whipped up in a lather pretending to defend India at the slightest slight. I’m sure a nation the size and influence of India hardly needs defending; slums and poverty notwithstanding. Shouldn’t we be glad that Hollywood in fact admits liking a good entertaining masala flick, after Titanic, of course?
LikeLike
paadhi
January 24, 2009
Maybe the point of the scene was to impress upon the kid, the name of the film, zanjeer,that was filmed in his slum, instead of the name of the star, Amitabh. Something like the fact that although ARR needs no introduction to most of us ,how many of us know that he scored the music for a movie called manidha manidha 🙂
LikeLike
The Comic Project
January 25, 2009
I could not see any message in it, be it Jamal’s pursuit of his love or Danny Boyle’s portrayal of the “real india”. The film is like a western cook taking Indian ingredients and creating a great Indian dish to appeal to a western taste. We may complain that’s not Indian food, but it sells and for all we know, what we cook, will be trouble for their stomachs.
Is it Oscar material? Based on some brilliant films I have seen in the past, I don’t think so, but these things happen. If A.R Rahman doesn’t get one, I would be disappointed but the doors of Hollywood may have just opened for a talented Indian.
On authenticity, the accents sucked but if a filmmaker decides to make an entertaining film without compromising on authenticity, wonderful, if not, I am still willing to go along. It is not a documentary he’s making, and he’s not claiming it as one.
Regarding Amitabh Bachchan’s comments – they are convenient and can be interpreted in any way, depending on what our position is and allows him to deny whatever he pleases depending on the situation. And what’s this “pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots”? What the hell are we offended about? There are enough generalizations made in Indian films – about Indians and westerners (Tom Alter, the evil whitey and Bob Christo, the statue thief or gunrunner supporting deshdrohis). And if the generalizations offend us, let’s make a film that sets the record straight or commission a western filmmaker to present that point of view.
There are scenes that I couldn’t handle, but to associate “nationalists and patriots” with this kind of situation is utter nonsense.
It’s a film, don’t watch it if you don’t like it. Want to go on and on about how “negatively” India is depicted or how this is an uplifting, inspiring or realistic portrayal of India? Get a grip. This is a good film. Shocking in parts. Entertaining. An underdog story. Cliched. Fun. Period. There is no message. And the review is better than the film.
Thanks
LikeLike
The Comic Project
January 25, 2009
I have not reviewed the film but had my take on the associated protests on my blog – http://thecomicproject.blogspot.com/2009/01/tcp-toon-slumdog-millionaire-protest.html
LikeLike
Virginia
January 25, 2009
Vishal – I don’t agree that the Academy nomination for Best Picture signifies that those doing the voting believe that the movie is “serious” or provides “social commentary.” It is an award for excellent movie-making, and excellence does not have to translate to “serious/socially meaningful/arty.”
It’s voting done by film professionals – only – and of course a lot of factors go into it, but it’s basically the artistic/technical community’s appreciation of a good piece of work. Gone With The Wind might win one year, Gandhi another.
And – I have not read any writing by major film writers in the US, where I live, that treats it as different from what it is.
LikeLike
Sudha
January 25, 2009
There’s something I do not understand here. Is it really being touted as a true representation of India? Apart from Frieda Pinto never shutting up about how this is the most true representation of Bombay (more than any bollywood film ever made till today – seriously infuriating) in each and every interview she did with Dev Patel, no one else ever said that this is true of India. Everyone calls it a fairy tale, and seems to like it because it is a fairy tale.
Anyone who really wanted to understand India wudn’t stop with this movie, and those who do not – why care about them?
And you know what? The biggest revelation for me watching this movie with a US audience (about 2.5 months ago) was how everybody around me reacted when any of the kids was getting a beating from an adult. Makes u realize how commonplace that is for u. and the scene wher the white couple give him money and say “this is what real America is”, there was a hearty laugh among the audience.
LikeLike
Gamesmaster G-9
January 25, 2009
Baradwaj,
You’ve probably heard this before, but – you took the words out of my mouth. These are precisely the sentiments I experienced after watching the movie. After the overly dramatic death scene of Jamal’s brother, I buried my head in my hands, only to realise that the almost completely white audience had tears in its eyes. When they insisted on giving it a standing ovation, I attempted to get the hell out of the theatre as quickly as I could.
Sadly, I see that my reaction (and yours) are only a hair’s breadth away from Amitabh Bacchan’s (and the rest of the reactionary “patriots”). We’re walking a very fine line here, hemmed in by patriots on both sides. By not liking it, I am slotted together with the India-shining crowd, without being able to explain how the exoticisation of poverty is not the same as merely displaying it.
LikeLike
Hari
January 25, 2009
“as if the contents of Lord Ram’s right hand were otherwise unknowable in a country crammed with Hindus”
I feel sir that was exactly what Boyle wanted to show-the child was in no way a prodigy-even though he had read ‘the three musketeers’, he didn’t know the name of the third musketeer, even though he had studied quite a bit, he did not know about the Ashok Chakra, he could recognize Franklin on a dollar note but not Mahatma Gandhi.
All these incidents only show that he was not a genius, the reason he knew the answers was he had some distinct memories associated with these events etched clearly in his mind, perhaps if any other question had been asked in the place of those, he would not have been able to answer.
So, the director successfully proved that he won the Rs. 2 million amount because ‘it was written.’
Yeah, it was a highly commercialized flick but I feel that the realities were presented in a euphemistic way rather than the ‘in your face’ portrayal you would associate with movies like ‘salaam Bombay’
Another point is, Anil Kapoor’s character was pretty sloppily conceived and he proved to be quite irritating at places.
The shit scene was perhaps directed at showcasing the craze we have for movies-one could only see joy at the face of the child at the end in spite of being smeared all over.
By the way, did you notice his recollection had movies like ‘ram balram’, ‘toofan’ but no ‘zanjeer’?
And yeah, completely agreed with you when you say that it was pretty hard to believe that the characters immediately learn to speak fluent english.
LikeLike
B.H.Harsh
January 25, 2009
If this is the kind of Movie that Goras like and see something as capable of winning international awards, I must say Rakeysh Omprakash and Vishal Bharadwaj are capable of much more.
I mean I liked it quite a lot, and was thoroughy enjoying. But I dont see anything which makes it a masterpiece, a cult film for our country. We’ve seen way better films, for sure.
Great review as usual, Rangan sir. 😉
LikeLike
Alpesh
January 25, 2009
I saw the film a couple of weeks ago, so its no longer fresh in my memory, so I apologise for any holes in my points.
I think its possible that people might think that because the film is shot in a “realistic” manner, that the film is etched in reality. Like you said it is a fable. What i don’t understand is why people are quickly willing to point out the unrealistic aspects of this film, but are willing to accept anything that appears in pretentious films by likes of the chopra’s, johar’s, bansali’s etc.
If i have understood your point correctly, then I agree that scenes which do not contribute towards an explanation of an answer are unnecessary. The scene which I found irksome was regarding Jamal meeting the blind kid.
Regarding the “shit scene” is a nod to the infamous scene in Trainspotting, that someone is willing to go through shit (in this case literally) to achieve their dreams.
I also agree that the film is not the great film it is being made out to be, but at the end of the day everyone loves an underdog movie. Hollywood is full of them, they are universal and probably explains Lagaan’s Oscar nomination, let not forget everyone loves the underdog whatever the situation (even the film itself is an underdog if you take in to account the issues surrounding its distribution)
I do want to say one final thing, may be off topic and controversial, to all these people who are filing various court cases against people who are associated with the film…shame you on. Your behaviour is disgraceful and you make me feel ashamed of my indian heritage because your lowly actions
LikeLike
Rahul
January 25, 2009
I thoroughly agree with you here, brangan. I was a little confused after seeing the movie (this was the day it got a limited release in the US.. even then it had already garnered some really good reviews including by Roger Ebert). I was confused, because I surely liked the movie a lot, but only as a movie movie! There were some great sequences, some really convincing sets/performances (but the language kept interfering in a lot of scenes in the second half). But it never seemed to be the big deal that it was made out to be. Since then, the thing has actually gone completely out of hand! Most of the reviews at that time called it a really entertaining screenplay etc, but now the buzz is almost as if this is a great piece of art! The moment I came out of the theatre, I thought that this was exactly like a very well made bollywood movie. Full of cliches and simplistic themes, yes, but certainly entertainingly put together. I can’t believe that this is being considered a better movie than the likes of Let the Right One In or WALL-E. Or, even more entertaining that Frost/Nixon or The Dark Knight! sigh! I really can’t understand the mechanics of the movie-hyping machinary.
LikeLike
Rahul
January 25, 2009
By the way, the puzzling thing is that I am yet to meet anyone in person who thinks the movie is a masterpiece or anything like that. Most of my friends have found the movie entertaining, and a couple probably took it too seriously and had exactly the negative reaction about India’s portrayal or inconsistencies in the screenplay. But really not a single person I have met has found it to be as great a piece of work as the reviews (specially in India) are saying. Yet, it is so high on IMDb now! I guess I am just not meeting the right people! 🙂
LikeLike
Aravind
January 25, 2009
Jai ho Baradwaj! Couldnt agree more!
LikeLike
Adithya
January 25, 2009
I wholeheartedly agree when you say that it is massively entertaining but insanely overrated. But two things I don’t entirely agree with.
One, the shit scene does not lead Jamal to the answer, nor does it flash a bulb giving him the answer. In the scene that follows, Jamal himself tells the cops how anyone in India would know the answer to the question. Now looking at it from a western audience perspective, they probably need to be told how big Amitabh is, and how true the statement that “anyone would know the answer” is. The scene justified that. It could have been done in a hundred ways and the “shit” way[sic] was probably just one of them. It’s neither a great cinematic high nor the weakest link in the movie.
The other recurring argument is the incorporation of every damn cliche attributed to India as a country. In a different perspective, I felt, for a slum dweller, all those “cliches” probably belong to a natural progression. It is quite believable that a slumdog and only a slumdog could possibly come across the begging racket, prostitution, gangsters etc. The boy living in upmarket Cuffe Parade or Juhu is not going to be affected by those rackets or riots.
Otherwise, your review is perfect. It is not a great movie but a lovable one just because all of us enjoy the underdog story.
LikeLike
brangan
January 25, 2009
paadhi: Nice try 🙂
Gamesmaster G-9: “Gamesmaster G-9”? Seriously? 🙂 reg. “the overly dramatic death scene of Jamal’s brother,” – like many other scenes in the film, I guess this HAD to be overdramatic, overdirected, overshot and so on. That hyper-energy (that filmmaking rush) is why the impact of these scenes is so — because had Boyle slowed things down and shot in a more “realistic” way, we would have noticed that the relationship between the brothers (or the lovers) is barely fleshed out. Most of the time, it’s the filmmaking energy that’s giving us cues on how to react, rather than the depth of the characters and so on. IMO, this is a very valid way of making a film too.
Hari: Actually, Anil Kapoor’s character worked for me, and he played it very well too, giving us everything we needed to know about this quizmaster in the few scenes he had.
Adithya: reg. “Now looking at it from a western audience perspective, they probably need to be told how big Amitabh is…” Precisely. Which is why it doesn’t make sense to us.
LikeLike
brangan
January 25, 2009
An article where I’m quoted along similar lines…
LikeLike
KPV Balaji
January 25, 2009
For me the main problem about the movie was that i could not get connect with the characters one they started speaking in English. It kinda looked outta place and as if they were just reading out the lines rather than acting…the movie would have been a decent one if its in complete hindi. It should have something like apocalypto with full subtitles..It would have made much more sense.
LikeLike
riish
January 25, 2009
As always, a great review Baradwaj saar… in one of the scenes when they show the call centre building where Jamal works (EXL 5, if my memory serves me right), a couple of security guards are shown and one of them looks into the camera and says ‘no filming here’!
LikeLike
brangan
January 25, 2009
Letter to the paper…
A) With ref to column 3 on the infamous “shit scene”, “Due to certain unfortunate developments, he falls into the cesspit below….” Please note that according to the screenplay – he is FORCED to dive into the pit. The scene is significant since it shows the childs spirit; and nothing can stop him from getting to his goal (AB in childhood, but later on is the girl).
B) And with ref to column 4 “….and the point of the scene is, therefore, is just the coolness of a visual where a little boy is smeared with shit.” If, for a minute, we forget the settings of the film and focus on the narrative, it is easy to undersatand the moral of the story (if there is one);LIFE on the streets can be a NATURAL tutor – as opposed to kids who appear on game shows having undegone extensive GK tutoring.
The “shit scene” in particular, I think, is significant when the protagonist asks the compere of the show if HE was feeling nervous!Having experienced various “situations” in life (including the “shit scene”), the boy is least inhibited by the compere of a big show.
Regards,
LikeLike
raj
January 25, 2009
It is not so much that the movie showcase poverty etc but the fact that the men behind it seem to be more interested in sustaining cliches about India that might offend people like Amitabh Bacchchan. (Besides the fact that, ofcourse, this movie wasnt made by Bolywood and the one who got the Oscar nomination cannot be wholly appropriated by Bollywood, though they do try – the pangs of jealousy. Bollywood have probably been more comfy with an Oscar for Lagaan. For that alone, it is worthe celebrating the fact that Rahman gets his Oscar for SDM rather than Lagaan, though any day I would prefer the latter on my CD player. But that is just my mean pleasure. It was an absolute pleasure reading Times of India publishing tripe like “Even though Rahman won the GG, Anil Kappoor(remember, witha snigger) distinguished himself by showing passion in clappping hands(really!) and Shahrukh Khan showing Bollywood’s magic by blowing kisses to the audience”. Really, how desparate they were to show their bollywood’s greatness! – and we can quietly rejoice in ARR actually achieving something.Pleasure,a bsolute pleasure).
Ok, having confessed my morbid pleasure, coming back to the point, SDM’s intentions dont seem honest, as BR seems to allude at points – trying to use the set=up to set up a few picture-postcard moments and some shock-you-to-the-core moments. Something like watching a football match full of goals but all of them through penalties.
The only pleasure I get from this is Bollywood’s Pitmah Bhesshm(AB)’s distinct discomfort a someone else having stolen as the ‘face of Indian cinema’ masquerading as patriotic blubberings
LikeLike
Sid
January 25, 2009
Great review, as always, BR. I enjoyed the film immensely but it’s not anywhere close to a masterpiece — there have been better films this year, IMO, in both Hollywood and Bollywood.
I loved the energy that runs through the film — the editing, cinematography and score being primarily responsible. I would hardly call this one of Rahman’s best, but it works well with the material and other technical aspects of the film.
LikeLike
Anand
January 25, 2009
BR: Forget the subtext and social commentary, as a feel good entertainer, did the film achieve its potential? It came close but did not go the whole yard, IMO. Case in point is the scene when Jamaal is led by Salim to Maman, it had so much potential..it could have been really edge of the seat, but alas, did it fall short..
And the last qusetion…Jamaal does not know the answer, Latika does not know the answer, it should have been unapologetically filmed. But it turns out cold. Compare it with the last ball sixer of Lagaan..or the last goal(save) of Chak De..which is better?
LikeLike
A. Dey
January 25, 2009
I haven’t watched the movie but I am amongst those who didn’t find it palatable that the rest of the world is yet again obsessing with poverty in India. And that’s what the protest is all about as far as I am concerned. It’s not about whitewashing India’s image in the world and it’s not okay that it’s just a film so it can pretty much be any thing it wants.
I am going to make a Bollywood film about the US which features drug-addict, sex obsessed, murderous Americans to whom an Indian ascetic preaches about the values of ascetism and non-violence, have it win national awards, filmfare awards and a hundred other awards…and then let’s see how many Americans go crazy after it and cheer it as if they have won all the gold medals in the Olympics without any competition!
Foreigners either mock India’s problems, chiefly poverty, or they indulge in self-importance by rationalizing and celebrating it, or being massively charitable. I don’t see any reason to celebrate any of these instances no matter how real India’s problems are. The point isn’t India’s problems. The point is others’ attitudes towards them.
LikeLike
A. Dey
January 25, 2009
Oh, and about the film itself, its trailers looked nothing to be awed by, especially the dance sequence which you mention too, which looks straight out of a 90s front gallery Bollywood production. And Rahman’s music wasn’t great too. Don’t know what the brouhaha is all about. Those who have discovered Rahman should now listen to his real works of genius like the music from Roja, Bombay, Dil Se, Saathiya, or even two of his nice works from 2008, Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na and Jodhaa-Akbar
LikeLike
Vinay
January 25, 2009
Well, what can I say. It is as if you summed up my thoughts in a way that I could never have. Thank you.
The only slight personal disagreement I would have is that even purely as a movie it did not entertain me. The language issue itself was too big to not distract me from enjoying whatever few good parts it had.
LikeLike
Lakshmi
January 25, 2009
I agree with everything you said, Rangan. Was just talking to my husband about it… I think, in many *commercial* films, directors take artistic liberties for supposedly entertaining the audience. Many times, these *liberties* put me off and the entertainment is lost on me.
I think Boyle ended up doing the same in this film – impeccable English, use of slang, metamorphosis of Jamal from scruffy kid into poised, handsome young man – LOT of artistic liberties. But, the end result was entertaining and impactful, for me. I realise, it didn’t do the same for you!
Hey, you revealed way too much about the film in this post, though…:(
LikeLike
Geoffrey Lobo
January 26, 2009
Wow.. u whipped out all the subtle things we might have overlooked in the movie…
n i want to add.. that i don’t really think this movie is a movie made for awards..
Its a decent movie you can watch once.
I bet the Director n party r going crazy laughing at the people who nominated it for the Oscars.
You write really well.. Wish i could too
LikeLike
brangan
January 26, 2009
One of the sweeter letters that came to the paper 🙂
hello sir.
i am a 3rd year architecture student. i read ur article ‘it’s just entertainment’ about the film slumdog millionaire and i have liked the article from my heart.
thank u.
LikeLike
Virginia
January 26, 2009
A. Dey, for your proposed project how about just dusting off Hare Rama Hare Krishna, I think it meets your specs!!
Language in Slumdog – Indians seem to be commenting on this, so it got me thinking.
For one thing of course it is an American movie, so it’s in English for the American audience (the “subtitle” audience is much smaller), and then also the director speaks only English. The Hindi is in it only out of necessity, the little kids he cast could not act in English.
In the US we are used to foreigners in English language movies speaking English, usually with some kind of “foreign” accent. So as this is a usual thing I was wondering what the fuss in India was about.
Then I realized – one reason for reactions – English is a language of India, so I guess for you Jamaal comes across as a boy who speaks the wrong Indian language for his social situation, rather than, as he does to me, as an Indian in an English language movie, played by a guy who looks Indian and is speaking English because the movie is in English.
The American audience will assume that everyone is more or less supposed to be speaking in Hindi, the way the people in an American movie set in France are supposed to be speaking French, and that they are speaking English just because it’s an American movie. (Very few of this audience know much about English in India.)
An ancillary thought: I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “foreigner” as a real character in an Indian movie. I couldn’t reflect on how Indian movies portray their foreign characters and have them talk, because — they don’t!!
PS — I don’t mean people named Kitty played by Helen, or Prem with orange hair.
LikeLike
sakthi
January 26, 2009
Nice review. There is an interesting construct of the films narration. But I don’t feel this movie as anything great. It was an average one especially with those English accents…It shows the reality but I felt surely this is not a social commentary. I think I may be lonely or loathed but the BGM is too loud and not connected with the scenes. ARR has done much better than these and he deserves a Golden globe , even an Oscar but if you ask me does this movie music deserves one. i doubt it
LikeLike
brangan
January 26, 2009
More Slumdog feedback to the paper…
Hi Baradwaj
I loved reading your review of Slumdog Millionaire in the Sunday’s Express edition. Very well balanced, and exactly what I felt after watching the film. Really one of the saner reviews I have read so far. Keep it up.
Regards
LikeLike
brangan
January 26, 2009
Sid Says: “there have been better films this year, IMO, in both Hollywood and Bollywood.” I swear. I’ve always wondered how the Oscar committee would react to something like Mithya, for that’s exactly the sort of film the Eurpean countries submit every year.
Lakshmi : “But, the end result was entertaining and impactful, for me. I realise, it didn’t do the same for you!” Actually, I’ve written here that the film *was* entertaining. Deep, it was not.
Virginia: “for your proposed project how about just dusting off Hare Rama Hare Krishna…” LOL. Let’s not forget Purab aur Paschim 🙂 About foreigners as “real” characters, there’s Lagaan, Junoon, Shatranj Ke Khilari…
sakthi: “but the BGM is too loud and not connected with the scenes.” You didn’t like even the love theme? That’s one thing that really worked for me.
LikeLike
Arif Attar
January 26, 2009
@Virginia
I guess Sue McKinley changed all that.
LikeLike
brangan
January 26, 2009
Well, after all that non-stop adoration, some sort of Slumdog backlash had to happen sometime… Here’s one.
LikeLike
as349
January 26, 2009
I’m long time reader, first time commenter. I love reading this blog because even when I don’t agree (I think there’s about 90% overlap), you are always insightful.
I saw this movie in the NY premiere a while ago before it became over-hyped. I liked the movie, but didn’t love it. I thought it was a great concept with ok execution, a lot of things didn’t work for me in the film. I felt that a lot of the gripes I had were because the screenplay was written by a someone who didn’t “know” India.
My main problem is that the film didn’t know what it wanted to be. The tone was inconsistent, going from gritty to light without the appropriate transitions. You could say that the movie was a fairytale, but the violent scenes were too graphic/impactful to dismissed as easily as they were in the movie. The song at the end also irritated me. It’s like the makers thought “We are in India, let’s add a song and dance routine.” Adding a song and dance at the end doesn’t make your movie “Bollywood.” To me it was very cliche and somewhat insulting. You could say it was the result of the joyous reunion at the end, but I didn’t think it really fit.
I could go on and on about other gripes, but this already a long post for my first ever so I shall stop. 🙂
One last comment is that I noticed a big difference in the way the movie was perceived. I noticed Indians thought it was ok in general, but international/Western audiences really loved it. I think it’s because they might not realized all the things that are “off” in the movie.
LikeLike
hrishi
January 26, 2009
hey baradwaj, someone told me to prefer watching slumdog crorepathi as it is a hindi version and more natural….while the english has a lot of subtitles/dubbing, is that the case? it was a bit surprising since normally the original is best.
LikeLike
brangan
January 26, 2009
as349: “You could say that the movie was a fairytale, but the violent scenes were too graphic/impactful to dismissed as easily…” But that is par for the course for fairy tales, no? Before Disney came up and cleaned everything up, there was quite a lot of horrific imagery in those tales. I mean, Rumpelstiltskin?
hrishi: It could be, but I have a general problem with dubbing (mainly because of the lip sync match issues), and where possible I try to stick with subtitles. And now don’t ask me how come I watch Tamil films if I have “lip sync match issues” 🙂
LikeLike
Suresh S
January 26, 2009
After the first 15 mins or so of the movie, I realized I was watching a cartoon !! What I mean is that in this movie there is shit, but no stink, blood but no pain, riots but no emotion. Cliched English movie dialogs are strewn everywhere. I couldn’t go beyond half the movie. Maybe Jamal got his Latika or maybe she went off with another Rich Millionaire, I couldn’t care less.
My observation about the music is that the background score was probably conceived and delivered as a separate piece and used in the movie as such. What I mean is that Rahman doesn’t seem to have seen the movie and then scored. Because in many cases, the chase sequence, the riots, the train sequence, the music just keeps playing in the background generically without changing a note to take into cognizance what was actually happening on the screen. Maybe that is how Boyle wanted it.
LikeLike
brangan
January 26, 2009
Surely the longest letter ever sent to the paper…
Hi Brangan, I read your cover story in IE’s Sunday Magazine section on Slumdog Millionaire. Maybe because I’d seen the movie the previous evening, I felt quite strongly about the movie and your article. I sat down to type out my response and here it is. My initial aim was to draft it as an article, but it turned out to be a personalized note – and I dont know if IE would be interested in publishing such a note. I’m not letting that stop me from sharing my response to your piece with you:)
Regards,
And the “personalized note”
I hate Danny Boyle. Here I was listening to Slumdog Millionaire’s audiotrack and immersing myself in AR Rahman’s music in all its pristine form. And then, I decide to watch the movie. An accompanying friend casually mentions that he was surprised to know that Slumdog was from the same director who made a dark movie by the name Trainspotting. I wonder why such a director would make a movie about a kid getting lucky in a TV game-show. But that’s just a fleeting thought as we hurry into the theatre, a few minutes late.
In my college days, I rarely felt the need to buy the latest movie soundtrack. I would patiently wait for my circle of friends to express their opinion and then decide on listening to the songs. That’s not to say I was not a music fan – well, who isn’t? I had a reputation for getting hooked on to the songs that I liked; and I would play each song in a near-infinite loop. But something changed in 2006. There was this special someone who entered my life; who made me wonder about how it’d feel to get a first-day copy of AR Rahman’s music. And so it began with Sillinu Oru Kadhal. The pick of the album was, of course, New York Nagaram – a song celebrating love in times of separation. From then on, I became a true-blue ARR fan buying up every new CD as soon as possible – including Slumdog.
Slumdog’s music seemed especially divine to me – be it the inspirational Jai Ho with its captivating crescendos, the contrasting highs ARR and MIA reached in O Saya or the serene song titled Riots. However, in the movie, somewhere between the vulgarities of diving into a cess-pool, losing a parent in a senseless riot or the unknowing participation in a Kaun Banega Beggar program, Danny Boyle manages to rob AR Rahman’s music of its divinity by juxtaposing it with a series of stark realistic images. Boyle skillfully ties in these striking images as distinct episodes of Jamal’s life destined to lead him to an answer in the ‘Who Wants to Become a Millionaire?’ Contest. The sheer nerve-wracking suspense of the contest makes it quite an entertaining movie. I could sense the entertainment quotient of the movie in the way others in the theatre reacted. Yet, to me, it was a deeply disturbing movie. And I believe that is the best aspect of this movie – the decadence of life is there for you to see; if you choose to. Danny Boyle chronicles the story of Jamal without any ideological baggage; and shows Jamal’s world as he sees it. He does not spend time professing on the despair engulfing lives in the slums; the extent of their desperation and drive to find a better life (as brilliantly etched in Salim’s character) or celebrating the love between Latika and Jamal. By restricting himself to simply narrating the story, Boyle has created a mirror of a movie; and the audience’s reaction has a lot to do with the audience themselves rather than just the movie.
Watching Slumdog, I was reminded of this one other instance of a dispassionate mirror-like movie creation that I have experienced – Mani Ratnam’s Guru. The movie treads a middle-line in tracing the career of Gurubhai; chronicling his unethical and illegal business practices; but yet had movie-goers in awe of Gurubhai’s success. Again, the audience’s reaction reflected their own identity within the morality spectrum – and not the director’s morality.
In a similar vein, whether Slumdog exploits – or truthfully depicts – poverty is a question that could elicit a wide range of responses. And that, to me, is a measure of the director’s success. As someone who has not seen Trainspotting, but only heard of its dark tones, I would imagine that following that movie with such a nuanced dark movie indicates the expansion of Boyle’s creative horizons. As for ARR’s music, I’m yet to recover from the movie. I have listened to only Jai Ho – and only once – in the past three days since I watched the movie. The realism of the movie refuses to let me escape into the heavenly divinity of the music. And therein lies the key to ARR’s success in this movie– the soulfulness of his music complements, and more importantly, reinforces the movie’s realism. Slumdog Millionaire may not be an epic, but it gets quite close to being one!
LikeLike
Liju
January 27, 2009
Fiction, not fact….You summed up an entire movie which is the darling of the media and the critics alike in 3 words. This is sheer GENIUS 😉
What’s the point of an argument here if we enjoyed this movie as another work of DESI fiction from the WEST. Boyle has been extremely careful to avoid a handful of cliches he thought that plagues our filmdom but in the process he went overboard with some. The song and dance routine which graced the Credits was the most boring part of the movie in India but I wouldnt be surprised if it will be voted as one of the best closing sequences of a movie in the West. We’re as different as Chalk and Cheese, but I salute Boyle’s resolve to make a movie on India. Fiction is not to be argued upon.
LikeLike
QuestionNoAnswer
January 27, 2009
I find all this talk about DB exploiting the dark underbelly of India amusing given that the movie is sourced from a novel written by an **INDIAN**! Shouldn’t AB and their ilk be hounding Vikas Swarup first?
LikeLike
Azad
January 27, 2009
Slumdog is entertaining and it ends at that. I liked the tribute it offered to our own Indian Cinema, esp Hindi Cinema. I have no problems with Danny Boyle making an escapist cinema, but I am baffled with the audience reaction. This same audience and critics would have ripped apart the same movie, had it been in hindi and made by an Indian director. Yours is one of the few reviews that analyses the movie objectively.
P.S. – I loved Slumdog much in same manner as I love Amar Akbar Anthony. Not a great cinema, but entertaining nevertheless. If Slumdog can win an oscar then thousands of other movies from India too can 🙂
LikeLike
raj
January 27, 2009
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=News+is+the+inspiration&artid=G0b9|n5wriw=&SectionID=f4OberbKin4=&MainSectionID=f4OberbKin4=&SEO=&SectionName=cxWvYpmNp4fBHAeKn3LcnQ==
An article from Baradwaj’s paper by Jeyamohan who says Naan kadavul has a similar theme (or probably sub-plots).
LikeLike
raj
January 27, 2009
Jeyamohan continues in a similar vein in his site.
LikeLike
brangan
January 27, 2009
And the letters keep coming…
Dear Mr. Rangan
Greetings.
I have chanced to come across your analytical article on Slumdog Millionaire in The Indian Express(Jan25). I am astounded by the similarity of your assessment of this movie with my own assessment, as expressed in the form of a letter, in response to an article appeared in the Times of India – per attachment. Of course your assessment is eminently more readable as it is written in a brilliant manner, questioning the need for some of the visuals which are unfurled in the process of explaining the situations which have resulted in the boy learning the “answers”.
As you have observed, it is silly to use Ram’s bow question as an excuse to depict Hindu-Muslim riot scene,with its associated violence designed to churn the stomachs of the critics. Even more sillier is the scene related to Zanjeer question.The boy needed no prompting from past experience as he KNEW who Amitabah was,even before jumping into pit of shit.
I have read a few articles,some criticizing the film for showing India in poor light while the others extolling its virtues for “realistic” presentation.Yours is the first article I have come across which is more balanced – readily acknowledging the brilliant movie-making capabilty of Boyle but at the same time questioning his insincere,exploitative approach.
Best regards
——–
Dear sir
I refer to your article on Slumdog Millionaire (TOI-23Jan09).
I agree it depicts India the way a foreigner sees it . And I also agree we deny that.
But I cant agree this movie deserves the hype it is getting. No,it is not just a matter of my personal opinion but it is an assessment borne out of my passion for good cinema.Unlike the majority of Indian critics who cant digest the depiction of poverty and the ugly and nauseating underside of the financial capitol of India, I have no issues with the way Boyle has chosen to glorify the gory details. That is his creative freedom and he has exploited it to the hilt, to SHOCK the target western audience though I felt some of his choice of visuals is disgustingly fascinating – like the man and the buffalo wading through muck during the police-boys chase scene.Or the free flowing gutter-falls into the open sewerage canal in the same scene. One can see the efforts that have gone in to locate such filth which is guaranteed to turn the insides of any reasonably placed person , leave alone the more “developed” western world audience.
I have nothing against showing the stark reality of poverty in India. My only grouse is in SDM it is used in such a calculated manner to constitute the form of the movie while the content of the movie is so ordinary and so full of cliches. The twists and turns in the movie would do justice to a Manmohan Desai or a Subash Ghai,the Kings of Kitch. In other words, choice of form has successfully overshadowed the pedestrian content, as can be seen by the pouring accolades.
Nothing wrong even in that as there have been many slick,well-made movies on predictable formula which have entertained the viewers and earned money for their makers. If SDM too does this trick ,it is good for the movie and its makers.I am not the one to grudge its commercial success as there have been far worse movies which have grossed far higher collections.But the problem arises when this slick,well-made masala movie with its rich visuals on poorest, is critically acclaimed and awarded- undeservingly so,if I may add.
One of the consistent criticism against Satyajit Ray has been his “exploitation” of Indian poverty in his movies. True, many of his characters are from lower strata of Indian society. But he has focused more on the sensitive human aspects, than just relying on visuals alone,designed to shock the film festival critics. That is why most of his characters are seen as men and women of real flesh and blood than just card board caricatures, as seen in SDM.
And lastly,the music award for this movie. I have been a fan of Rahman right from his Dileep days and I have no doubt about his genius. I have heard some of the greatest and innovative creations of Rahman. Unfortunately his score in SDM can no way be termed as greatest or innovative by any stretch of imagination. I have a sneaking suspicion that Rahman himself may be well aware of this irony.That to call his work as most original is travesty of justice if not ignorance. I hasten to add Rahman deserves the global recognition, but more for his genius and contribution to music than for his score in SDM.
If the end justifies means, then SDM is a winner in every which way one looks at it.
LikeLike
Liju
January 27, 2009
Whats the big deal about reminiscing one of those striking visuals he encountered while running for his life right after seeing his mother being beaten to death. I’m also certain I would carry memories of jumping into a pile of shit all the way to my grave(i.e if i did take that plunge)
I always associate a lot of things with memories from my past.
LikeLike
Pallavi
January 27, 2009
This review is by far the best review I have read of yous amongst all the ones that I have been reading since a year. Good one …
LikeLike
RP
January 28, 2009
brangan,
I was on your side until you decided to dissect the “shit” scene. If SM is a fairy-tale and if we are to treat it that way(fully agree), then why are you bent on demystifying the shit-scene? Perhaps the boy’s greatest memory of Amitabh Bachhan is simply this incident, because it brought him so close to the superstar. Hence the flashback. Lets not over-analyze it.
We Indians are a touchy lot. We take everything personally, even a movie made by a well-meaning Englishman, who would never dream of intentionally insulting or hurting anybody. And what truly qualifies as Oscar material? Only the holocaust movies? Why can’t a story like this be considered great cinema? Its energetic, lively, tells a great story, and all the inidivudal elements come together beautifully. And a good movie is greater than the sum of all its parts.
Oh and another thing– this is Danny Boyle’s film. All those people(including Anil Kapoor) out there who are hailing it as “the arrival of Indian cinema” should be reminded that its not an Indian movie–its merely a movie set in India. It could have been set in Rio, Shanghai, or Jerusalem, for that matter. Because the underdog exists everywhere.
LikeLike
Arif Attar
January 28, 2009
I have been a huge fan of his voice, but I think Jagjit Singh has completely lost it here.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1225376
“They don’t know what ghazals are all about and they lack good taste in music. What does AR Rahman know about ghazals? He will never use a ghazal in his films. All they do is pick up tunes from the West,”
But at least, he may have started a debate of sorts. It can only be good for everyone I think. Will also keep ARR honest.
LikeLike
brangan
January 29, 2009
Arif Attar: I would take such things with a sack of salt. Our sensationalism-seeking media isn’t exactly known for sensitivity (when it comes to understanding what exactly someone is implying by his statements) — that is, if at all JS uttered these words.
LikeLike
Siddharth
January 29, 2009
Did you really say “shit scene” in the paper?
LikeLike
brangan
January 29, 2009
Siddharth: Yes, I did. Why? 🙂
LikeLike
Siddharth
January 30, 2009
Impressive. The “S word” is okay, but calling a movie the “O Word” is not?
LikeLike
brangan
January 30, 2009
Siddharth: And what is this “O Word?” Which film are we talking about?
LikeLike
Siddharth
January 30, 2009
I incur the wrath of the legions of slumdog fans, but the word you are looking for is Overrated. On a side note, I hope they rejoice the reference to this movie by Jon Stewart and his Daily Show Posse; Blagojevich is scumdog million hairs.
LikeLike
Zafar
January 30, 2009
Long time reader, first time poster. Enjoy reading the column, in fact, enjoy the comments too. Glad to see the passion uniting movie buffs.
Just 2 points about all the hoopla about Slumdog Millionaire:
1. First the obvious one – perspective and life-context matter. For the average western audience, the cliches depicted in the movie ARE India. Think of the average someone living in India and the possible cliches they associate with Africa or the Middle East. Now imagine a Mani Ratnam or Shekhar Kapoor doing a film on either of those 2 regions. If that hypothetical movie were to just build on the cliches, tweak them ever so slightly, use a jittery hand-held camera technique with a Greengrassian scope of frenetic and jagged editing, all of us would rave about that movie too! Sometimes a masterpiece is created just by shifting the viewing angle ever so slightly.
2. For me, the backdrop of the Mumbai riots representing a turning point in the movie was all too symbolic of the massive shifting of the social tectonic plates of Indian society. After 1992, has anybody looked at Hindu-Muslim relations the same way? Don’t we bemoan the each-man-for-himself philosophy pervading Indian society? Don’t we see brother against brother typified by the Ambanis and now the Dutts? Aren’t our lives moving at the same frenetic pace represented by Jamal’s life after 1992? To me, that was the deeper backdrop against which the movie was set. And the slow yet final realization that in the end only love matters and each modern India man/woman has to struggle to find it in their lives particularly when there is nothing else you can trust.
Peace!
LikeLike
Kiruba
January 31, 2009
Happened to watch initial parts of ATM yesterday and was surprised to note its title music having influenced the liquid dance piece from SM to a pretty extent.
Am I the last person on earth to notice this?
LikeLike
vivek gupta
January 31, 2009
This reviewer has done a grt review. Whts the hype about? Both sides hype and brickbats are not required for this movie
BTW, why were they showing the jamal winning episode LIVE?
Is it magical realism or something like it is feel-good or something so this question should not be raised?
LikeLike