Slumdog Millionaire

I watched Slumdog Millionaire in mid-November and I’ve had the fortitude to not write about it till mid-Feb.

And now I cave, a few hours before the Oscars. In the interests of full disclosure, here’s what I thought about it -

Reaction after the movie

Reaction after the movie

I loved it. And I still love it. The movie captured me. It made me laugh, it made me cry. It made me care about the characters.

I saw it before the hype cycle started. And I reacted before the criticism cycle started. But since the film got to India, I’ve wondered at the negative reaction. All the criticism about poverty porn. Sure it shows the girtty parts of Bombay. So? Apparently citizens of Bombay feel it doesn’t show the beauty of the city, all the other parts that Bombay has.

If the worry is that the movie will give the wrong impression to people who don’t know India, get over it. First, the movie did show high-rise buildings, well-equipped call centers and posh mansions. Second, no one really thinks that Bombay is exactly what is shown in the movie. And third, for the small group of numbnuts to get all their information from a narrative film, do you really care what such idiots think of your country?

Now then, is it a filmmaker’s duty to show every part of every city? To show every strata of every country a film is made in?

What if a filmmaker came in and made a movie about the crème de la crème of Bombay – South Bombay society. What would the reaction be? Hmm… let’s see… It would be that the filmmaker is showing one small section of Bombay. That Bombay is not filled with people who spend more on their handbags than most people spend on rent. That houses are not usually adorned by Gaitonde’s and Raza’s. That the middle class uses CST to commute and not just BMWs and Maybachs. That Dharavi exists in the heart of the city. The critics would talk about how all this India Shining stuff is crap and we have tons of poor people who suffer on a daily basis.

Yep, that’s right – that’s what they’d say. So then, what if a filmmaker came and made a story based in Dharavi…

You see the point? You can’t win either way.

Why on earth should any filmmaker be burdened with representing a city or a country? He’s not making a documentary. There’s a story to be told. It involves a sliver of a view of a city. From the point of view of one ficititious life. The filmmaker’s job is to tell that story to the best of his/her ability. And that’s exactly what Danny Boyle did. And I for one, loved the result.

I’m rooting for it to sweep at the Oscars, but in particular for the Best Song and Best Original Score categories, for my fellow Madrasi, A R Rahman’s brilliant music and my favorite, Jai Ho!!

Comments

  • The movie is well made and that is the best part of it.
    It always makes me think, why is it that a foreigner comes and makes a film about India or Indians and all go ga ga over it? The reason is that they do it with a commitment and devotion and go all the way to see that it looks natural. Not the chalta hai type of attitude. (Jewel in the crown, Gandhi and Slumdog M are examples)
    I just loved the scene where they show the call centre and how it functions inside that office. So natural and so true.
    Lastly I am still wondering why the had to change the story from the original book (Q&A)
  • xamz
    People can't really live without contradicting the success of someone or something.Why don't they try to acccept the reality that there are some instances that might happen without expecting .The success of SLUMDOG wasn't a questionable matter for it finely showed that they deserve that kind of prestige and awards.am I right?
    its just that people don't know how to appreciate it..
  • Ah Mezba!! One must be the change you want to see! :)
  • The thing is, as a Bollywood watcher I myself am part of the problem. I would not want to put down hard earned money to watch A Wednesday (for example) but would rather watch a star laden escapist masala movie. It's very hard to get away from the star driven mentality.
  • Love your soothing green original template....
  • I did not like the movie. And let me say that my dislike has nothing to do with negative light, etc. etc. I thought that movie was your everyday full of cliches, run on the mill masala movie, it failed to bind me.

    Now coming to the point of "duty" of film maker. No, I don't believe it's filmmaker's duty of show every part of good and bad. SDM case has more to do with cliches than anything else. I recommend greatbong's article on it, if you haven't already read it

    http://greatbong.net/2008/12/29/slumdog-millionaire-the-review/
  • Sanjay,

    "The question was less about SDM per se and more about the tendency of the West to always award prizes to the seamiest & ugliest representations of India. Satyajit Ray’s harsh depictions winning accolades in the West was cited as an example."

    So? Aren't certain western stereotypes prevalent in India as well? We don't see those countries getting worked up over them. Insecurity on your part? Or are you just pissed because a Westerner 'dared' to show Indian poverty and you would have been fine if an Indian filmmaker did it.

    And if you think Satyajit Ray's movies were only about "harsh depicitions" of India then I'm sorry to say that you don't understand cinema. I would recommend Govinda flicks for you. You'll find happiness.

    Note to myself: must resist this "someone is wrong on the Internet" behavior.
  • sanjay
    You've missed the "elephant in the room" issue and instead gone after the easy straw men. The question was less about SDM per se and more about the tendency of the West to always award prizes to the seamiest & ugliest representations of India. Satyajit Ray's harsh depictions winning accolades in the West was cited as an example.

    Nor is this a recent phenomenon. Gandhiji noted this ugly tendency of the West and called it "drain inspection"; even earlier, Swami Vivekananda spoke about it in his 1893 Chicago address. It cannot be denied that the West has a long & inglorious tradition of imagining India in the worst possible way. The fact that Slumdog has won or been nominated for 91 awards perhaps only highlights this tendency even more. The tradition continues?

    You ask: "is it a filmmaker’s duty to show every part of every city?" of course not. The artist has the freedom to show whichever part of Mumbai he chooses. The population of Dharavi is between 6-10 lakhs and it is undoubtedly a reality of India. Is it the only reality in India? most certainly not, representing at most 0.08% of the population of India.

    But as a paying consumer, I also have the right to ask, analyze, deconstruct & question if I so please. Why does an artist makes some choices & not others? what personal demons, aspirations, hopes and ambitions drive the artist?
  • I did enjoy the movie - it was quite entertaining and engaging, and yes it did make me *feel* for the characters. But I think it's slightly over-rated. Top notch cinematography and production values though.

    By the way, your "justification" for Dev Patel's British accent -- if there were other movies with similar flaws -- that doesn't mean it's not a flaw, does it?
  • I feel Slumdog actually shows up another reality. Ironically while people in India are complaining that Slumdog is about cliches, Bollywood can never surpass Hollywood because Bollywood itself is about cliche. The same old tired plot. New plots and starless films never do well in India, so not many people make them.
  • @Mezba - I think that's slowly changing. While traditional film houses in India are making the cliches, the younger wave of directors like Navdeep Sing, Anurag Kashyap, Rajkumar Gupta etc. are making interesting cinema that is not star-based. Let's hope they continue to be able to do so.

    @Vishal - Yes, it is a flaw, but we overlook it all the time, so why make it a big deal in this movie? We've overlooked it Oscar winners all along. I don't know why American directors have given up on authenticity - probably to ensure the accent is easily understood - but that's the reality of today in a way.

    @Sanjay - Of course you can question an artist's motives. However, I find most artists I know are not motivated by the happy-happy-joy-joy parts of life. That's somewhat blah, no? Where's the drama? Even if the theme is happy, there has to be satire or something quirky to make it interesting. Now take that to the next step and I'd say a lot of artists are intrigued by the seamier side of things - whether Bombay or New York. Say the school drug scene in NYC or London (a la Trainspotting - which was hardly shiny and happy).

    Now to your elephant in the room - in case you haven't noticed, awards in general tend to go to the movies that have high drama and often serious, depressing, dirty, ugly, seamy content. When was the last time a romantic comedy won the best picture Oscar? This has little to do with India and everything to do with awards. As Sean Penn said "Homo-loving Commies" - another category that wins awards.

    @Nishit - Yes, I read GreatBong's review a while ago. Is it too much coincidence to one poor character? I didn't think so. Haven't we seen movies in Hollywood where the character is somewhat down and out on his luck and more and more crap gets heaped on him? Those actions paint the character into a corner from which he has to react. I can take each of those and make a checklist and make it seem ridiculous - which is what GB did. And as much as I love GB's reviews, I happen to disagree with him on this one. That's what's great about cinema - we don't have to agree. Even the universally acknowledged "greatest" film, the #1 on all lists, Citizen Kane has the lovers and haters. Thanks for visiting. I hope you come back - if at least to see whether we agree or disagree ;)

    @Sirensongs - I loved it too. But I made a compromise - I kept that as the base layer and added some layers on top of it to update and refresh it. Hopefully you'll find this pleasing too :)
  • @Arvind - thanks for the compliment on the post. Re: the color, will be fixed in the next few hours. Must have happy visitors whose eyes are soothed when they visit!


    @Bongopundit - Artistic merits is a broad term. If someone tells me they have an issue with the cinematography or editing, I can have a reasonable conversation as to why. If someone says they see flaws in the screenplay, I can accept some and maybe explain a few others from my perspective.

    If someone says though that they just didn't enjoy the film, there's nothing to be said. Like and dislike are a personal opinion. And anything visual lends itself to criticism (and appreciation) by anyone. You have to be a coder to know good code from bad code, so the coder is somewhat protected as a professional - a random passerby can't judge his work. But anyone has the ability to appreciate or dislike a visual.

    Personally, I feel the screenplay is tight enough. Most of the issues are explained. I have no issue with Dev's occasional Brit accent - I mean when Tom Cruise plays a German, he speaks in an American accent and Ben Kingsley had Gandhi with a British accent. We don't care then, do we?

    What makes a movie for me is whether the characters matter. And they mattered here.
  • Aditya
    Shripriya, though its awfully late commenting on this piece, I'd like to add that most of Danny Boyle's films have the protagonists finding light at the end of the tunnel eventually. Being a fan of his previous films, this was sort of a let down in the treatment as whole.(Loved the energy and cinematography which reminded me of 'city of god'.)

    And to add upon the accent issue, a slight correction here, Ben Kingsley playing Gandhi with a British accent is perfectly fine because that was how Indians learned to speak the language with an English accent at that point of time. For further proof, just listen to the old speeches made by Gandhi or Nehru. You find the English accent smeared all over.

    And to say that its okay for Tom Cruise to speak as he normally speaks playing German is so totally outdated. Its akin to making English actors play bad Nazis in world war 2 films or Soviets in cold war themed films. Authenticity or nativity is the name of the game right now. ( the first half of Slumdog was much better with the kids who supposedly couldn't speak in English well speaking in Hindi and you had subtitles). But people have a problem with subtitles and thats a whole different topic again.
  • I agree that a film-maker has no obligation to show a balanced portrayal of a country. Even someone like Ray got accused of using poverty to win awards !

    However, what is your response to the number of people who did not like the film simply on its artistic merits ?

    PS - Loved that Jai Ho and ARR won !
  • Well, it has won all the major awards (Oscars got concluded just a few hours ago). So Jai ho indeed!

    You've picked a topic (of slamming/praising Slumdog M) which had been burnt out over the last few weeks with repeated analysis. But comparison to 'pseud' Mumbai movie was fresh. I liked it!

    And I agree with 'Ajay'. The green colour is killing!
  • @Patrix - Yep - complain and take offense at everything! I don't it matters that he's white/non-Indian. Look at the grief Indian filmmakers get too.

    @Ajay - Lol. Fair enough - come back by the end of the week. Something is in the works to decrease your reliance on MS Word. :)


    @Lekhni - Thanks for the final nudge to write this post after I delayed for four months.
  • I agree with Patrix that taking offense seems to be our national pastime, at least judging by the frequency with which we do it ;)

    In some ways, it's like the story of the six blind men describing the elephant. Any attempt to describe India, or any part of it, will necessarily be incomplete. Besides, as you say, why should it be a filmmaker's story to show every part of Mumbai? If his story is about the slums, that's all he needs to focus on..
  • Shri....why dun you consider changing the background color from this scorching green to something else which soothes the eyes? Everytime I come over here I hv to copy your post to MS word and read from there.
  • Taking offense to anything, not hockey (or is it kabaddi?), should be our national pastime as evidenced by the recent 'barber' controversy as well. The problem is that the vociferous stupid minority that utters such inanity gets enough publicity to be considered as a legitimate voice of the people. Or perhaps as Lekhni pointed out, we are indeed prickly about anyone else talking or commenting about things we are ashamed of (poverty, etc.).
blog comments powered by Disqus
  • Recent Comments

  • I also blog at




Quick Reviews

Two In The Wave  ★★★½☆

thumbnail

Definitely go see this movie if you are in any way connected to film. It will inspire any writer/director – incredible how much these men achieved at such a young age and how they changed the course of our world. But be aware that it is merely a taste of things, not a fulfilling meal.

Battleship Potemkin  ★★★½☆

thumbnail

Watch this film for the Odessa steps sequence – which is stunning, disturbing and consuming. Watch it for the camera placement and how he builds tension. A must-see for film students it is the first real use of montage in film making.

How to steal a million  ★★★★½

thumbnail

This is a brilliant, witty, feel-good movie that’s deftly directed. I try to watch this movie once each year to laugh and sigh and smile. Like reading an old, familiar, happy book, this movie brings joy, peace and comfort. Audrey Hepburn is at her charming, gamine best. Peter O’Toole is his suave, dashing, debonair self. And the whole movie is just a pure delight to watch.

View All Quick Reviews..

Creative Commons License