SD was a British film w/a British lead. UK already has too much of a presence in Hollywood as it is.

Fetishized India isn't Indian at all.

"I do find some of the language on the movie’s website slightly problematic"

Which language? I find it slightly irksome when people use the term "slavery" to describe indentured servitude ("slave wage" is an oxymoron -- slaves by definition get no wages), but it's so common that I'm not going to give "Kavi" a particularly hard time for it. The tone of the website seems no worse than that in something like "The White Tiger" when describing the abusive treatment of servants and other laborers in India; it's just a bit Sally Struthers instead of sardonic.

I do find some of the language on the movie’s website slightly problematic though, and I wonder if the film has a similar undertone.

And here I was only blaming the lack of awards for Slumdog Millionaire yesterday on racism.

"I do find some of the language on the movie’s website slightly problematic though"

Taz, I'm also curious (in a nice way) about what language was problematic.. I glanced at the website, but didn't see anything jump out.

Taz, I'm also curious (in a nice way) about what language was problematic

Well - I did say "slightly" - all my slight concerns were those laid out by PG - The "Sally Struthers instead of sardonic" tone. Nothing major, just something that makes me look a little side eyed and wonder how the movie's tone is.

SD was a British film w/a British lead. UK already has too much of a presence in Hollywood as it is.

Fetishized India isn't Indian at all.

So having the other 10 leads (youngest and teenaged versions of the the kids, plus two of the three grown up versions, plus Anil and Irrfan) not to mention the entire rest of the cast, plus an Indian choreographer, cinematographer, assistant director, casting director and music director/composer doesn't count for anything with you? And since when is there a rule that Hollywood is only for Americans? Do you get annoyed when non-Brits win BAFTAs?

The source material for the film was written by an Indian as well. Was Vikas Swarup "fetishizing" India when he wrote "Q&A?" What counts as "Indian" in your book? Really, I'm curious. Would you consider "Monsoon Wedding" to be 'fetishizing' India because the director isn't an Indian national? Inquiring minds want to know.

Was Vikas Swarup "fetishizing" India when he wrote "Q&A?" What counts as "Indian" in your book?

Q&A had about as much to do with Slumdog Millionaire as Adaptation had to do with The Orchid Thief.

Regardless, it was still the source material, just as "Maximum City" is the source material for one of Danny Boyle's next films. I get the impression from Darth Paul's comment above that he would brush off that effort as well. Does having a non-Indian director make the story any less Indian? Does the entire team have to be Indian for the film to be considered Indian? (I feel like that's what I meant to say earlier, maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been.) In any case I feel that claiming SM was "fetishizing India" is unjustified. Amitabh Bachchan said roughly the same thing, and it just came across as sour grapes. Just my two cents.

In any case I feel that claiming SM was "fetishizing India" is unjustified. Amitabh Bachchan said roughly the same thing, and it just came across as sour grapes. Just my two cents.

It's not exclusive to "Whitey" either. I'd say Sashi Tharoor makes a habit of fetishizing India as well. Some level of generalization is required to be able to talk about the groups, but few seem to understand that the generalizations are a clumsy attempt to lump a lot of different things together, not an accurate representation of what's being described. Just reading through the site you get a lot of the same themes. It's generally either a gross oversimplification that treats India and Indians as caricatures of one thing or other rather than as a diverse country filled lots real individual people (Slumdog Millionaire, for instance) or it's some naive kid with a liberal arts degree going on about how (s)he must "save the world" yet can't seem to help sounding like Rudyard Kipling with an American accent.

Inquiring minds want to know.

More like inquiring mind (singular), but ok:

Screenplay, director, lead actor (singular- there's only one lead in a story like this), editing, production studios- all British. And FYR, the cinematographer is Danish, not Indian. The actual Indians (non-cast) were more or less in subordinate positions. "Co-director"...WTH is that? 2 people doing 1 job sounds wack.

Fetishization: based on the public reaction vis-a-vis farangis promoting it, not the story itself. All the buzz created a pitifully brief fad for perceived Indianness, which more or less means anything the average American can get at Urban Outfitters or Masala Wok. The absence of any sort of Indian (or desi, even) buzz NOW pretty much demonstrates what fetishized fad we were in this time last year.

Not really. Get past the racial fixation. The point is that people outside of India who try to talk about it tend to radically oversimplify an extremely vast and diverse country.

I'm not sure what 'racial fixation' you're referring to. Unless it's to my using the word "Indian" earlier, in which case I'd point out that "Indian" is a nationality (at least that's how I was using it, in response to an earlier commenter's pejorative dismissal of Dev Patel as British). And everything gets radically oversimplified. No one assumes that every person knows everything about a topic. Simplification, at least in media, is always going to happen, in reference to all countries, not just India. (It also may come as a shock to you that there are people outside of India who do, in fact, know what they're talking about, and that 'radically oversimplifying an extremely vast and diverse country' is not the sole purview of people outside of India.

Everything gets reduced down to some overarching theme about poverty or spirituality or some other such nonsense with no actual look at what life is like from the eyes of someone who is actually there.

I think you've just described the global film industry in general. I think you also forget that SM was never intended to be a documentary. Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

The absence of any sort of Indian (or desi, even) buzz NOW pretty much demonstrates what fetishized fad we were in this time last year.

I think it actually demonstrates that no one in the entertainment industry gives a sh*t about what gets nominated in the 'live action short' category.

And FYR, the cinematographer is Danish, not Indian.

Sorry, I meant sound engineer. My mistake.

"Co-director"...WTH is that? 2 people doing 1 job sounds wack.

Loveleen Tandan was credited as the co-director on SM (she was also the casting director). You may (or may not) recall that there was a pretty big stink about her not being awarded a directing Oscar along with Danny Boyle.

"The point is that people outside of India who try to talk about it tend to radically oversimplify an extremely vast and diverse country. Everything gets reduced down to some overarching theme about poverty or spirituality or some other such nonsense with no actual look at what life is like from the eyes of someone who is actually there. "

I think it is sort of difficult to talk about a certain aspect of India without sounding like you are fetishizing it-- especially with people you don't know. Usually on this site, I see people responding to a certain topic (i.e.. Slumdog Millionaire) on that topic (poverty, slums, and so forth). What happens then is people can very easily get upset because the comments are focusing on one aspect of India, not the full and vast range of things. Yet, I also see blog articles about Tata Nanos, or Indian Billionaires, etc. Usually on those posts comments are related to that. People get less upset about that. I think the bigger issue is not that some issues regarding India, such as poverty, casteism, slums are a sore topic because in the U.S. there has been more focus on them than the positive things, such as growing economy, great IT educations, expanding middle class, awesome Delhi Metro, etc.

It is hard not to appear to oversimplify a nation when trying to make a kind of art on one specific topic. If I wanted to document Hijras in India, you'll see a different India than if I show a film about 3 IT students, or a film about a child in school, or a film about a rich guy with troubles in love.It's the nature of the medium. Can you imagine trying to make a film that captures all aspects of India? Or even a book? Sounds impossible to me.

I think this is compounded by the fact that many Americans consumers who films like Slumdog Millionaire may appeal to are ones who want to see something different from what they are used to. They don't want to see "The Great Debaters", or a lifetime original on spousal abuse in America, so they are drawn to the different struggles of another nation. Hence they are drawn to things about slums, child labor, religion etc-- things that are not visible or take very different forms in the U.S. Hence the cycle kind of continues in that people who do know something about India may know more about the problems or some precursory idea about 'spirituality' and nothing further. But I suppose it's all about consumer demands.

I'm not sure what 'racial fixation' you're referring to.

And everything gets radically oversimplified. No one assumes that every person knows everything about a topic. Simplification, at least in media, is always going to happen, in reference to all countries, not just India.

I think you've just described the global film industry in general. I think you also forget that SM was never intended to be a documentary. Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

And sometimes a movie is an overhyped exercise in mediocrity that earns success by tapping into stereotypes and pretending they're genuine.

Well hey, if you didn't like it you didn't like it. A lot of people did, which is why it managed to be as successful as it was. If you hate it so vehemently, so be it I guess.

The reason I brought up Amitabh's dismissal of the film was because it felt disingenuous. He was outspoken (as were many in the Indian media) about SM peddling 'poverty porn' as if that weren't a real facet of life for some people in his own country. It was a pretty rich statement for someone who now makes a career out of playing patriarchal billionaire-type characters and who has never had anything to say about poverty being shown in non-Indian films (and who has said in at least one interview that he admired the film "City of God"). It sounded like he just didn't like it and was trying to come up with some sort of 'academic' justification for it.

Your assumption that accusations about the film being out of touch and prone to fetishizing were rooted in Danny Boyle's race rather than him actually being out of touch.

Darth Paul never said that Danny Boyle was out of touch. He dismissed the entire movie out of hand for being British, which, without any further explanation, reads an awful lot like "British people (ie non-Indians) can't make films about India."

It is hard not to appear to oversimplify a nation when trying to make a kind of art on one specific topic. If I wanted to document Hijras in India, you'll see a different India than if I show a film about 3 IT students, or a film about a child in school, or a film about a rich guy with troubles in love.It's the nature of the medium. Can you imagine trying to make a film that captures all aspects of India? Or even a book? Sounds impossible to me.

Linzi, thanks for saying that so much better than I did. :)

Can you imagine trying to make a film that captures all aspects of India? Or even a book? Sounds impossible to me.

How much South Asian History do you reckon the film major from USC learned before going off on his trip? How much exposure do you reckon he had to India beyond the Sally Struthers lens and the Incredible India marketing campaign? How much of this do you think a studio is going to expect him to have when he looks for funding?

Regardless of the ethnicity of the staff, the auteur is the one who sets the vision and scope of the work and if the auteur is a non-Indian making a film whose primary market is non-Indian, what you're going to get is a view of a story through the eyes of a non-Indian that focuses on their concerns and their values rather than those of the people being portrayed. I realize people get defensive when it is suggested that cultural differences make the kind of thorough understanding required for this sort of thing extraordinarily difficult, but it's a fact. To understand another culture well enough to write a good story set in it takes a lot of experience and immersion. Americans tend to be privileged with attention and the advantage of having most people know some basics about where they come from through dissemination of pop-culture so it actually takes a lot of dedication for us (I include myself in there despite being Indian because any non-Indian country I go to is going to present the same challenge for me) to be able to get that understanding.

"How much South Asian History do you reckon the film major from USC learned before going off on his trip? How much exposure do you reckon he had to India beyond the Sally Struthers lens and the Incredible India marketing campaign? How much of this do you think a studio is going to expect him to have when he looks for funding? "

You could ask him: contact@kavithemovie.com

If you hate it so vehemently, so be it I guess.

He was outspoken (as were many in the Indian media) about SM peddling 'poverty porn' as if that weren't a real facet of life for some people in his own country.

who has never had anything to say about poverty being shown in non-Indian films (and who has said in at least one interview that he admired the film "City of God").

"Jamal spent the entire movie jumping from one shallow cliche to another. "

Yet his "shallow cliche" of a life is quite a lot like (unfortunately) many of the former street children I worked with in Jaipur. (Though many of them had to deal with more things in addition, like rape, domestic violence, and drug abuse).

The shallow part I saw was the love story-- it didn't have any substance. But that is pretty typical of most romantic films I have seen.

It's not hard to believe that one wouldn't notice the glaring flaws in a portrait unless you actually have the opportunity to see what the portrait is of firsthand.

I suppose that's fair, but it still seems incredibly hypocritical (of him, not of you obviously). I wonder if he had similar comments about "poverty porn" in regards to Salaam Bombay? At any rate, my feelings about his dismissal of the film (actually not just his, but that's neither here nor there) are pretty well summed up by this article, so I'll leave it at that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/jan/15/danny-boyle-shows

To the topic at hand, I pay more than average attention to the Oscar race and found myself knowing just as much about "Kavi" this year as I did "Smile Pinky" last year. Which is to say not a lot. Unfortunately short films and documentaries, no matter how "exotic" they are to western entertainment writers, just don't get as much publicity as feature films. Had SM been in short film form, no one would have heard of it.

Melissa-- the article you linked to is very... umm, harsh, I guess is the right word, on Bollywood films. There assumptions bring up a discussion I had with my Hindi teachers once.. it is about the audience and what appeals-- In India, where you can walk outside and see poverty at your doorstep, fantasy "escapist" films are more popular. Films are generally to entertain an audience, and Bollywood allows people to enter a different world from the norm. Additionally, modern Bollywood is widening it's scope and includes much more than typical middle/upper class love stories. They are addressing many more issues in society, though still often middle or upper class ones. Also, Bollywood song and dance are an integrated part of Indian culture, not just the films. Kids learn the dance moves, people listen to the songs form Bollywood movies on the radio-- whether or not they have seen the film.

On the flip side, take a look at the movies that often appeal to Americans-- let's face it, Americans tend to favor movies about dark and depressing topics-- crime, poverty, abuse, government conspiracies. Americans often enjoy films about things they don't see outside their door step.

I don't think one type of cinema is better than the other-- they cater to an audience and evoke different feelings. And even while being 'escapist' Bollywood films also often educate people and throw in social messages, they often work as a way to get mass messages out to an audience (Taare Zameen Par and dyslexia, for example)

Yeah, I'm pretty well aware of the 'Bollywood' formula, etc. The point I hoped to express with that article link was Amitabh's seeming stubborn refusal to accept that SM wasn't some sort of libelous fiction (and how his own inflated sense of self-importance had more to do with his dislike of the film than the actual subject matter). Nirpal tends to be pretty harsh in his assessments of most Indian films, so I think the tone of the article has to be taken with a grain of salt. (I probably should have prefaced with that, sorry.)

I don't think you can really say that "Americans tend to like 'x', and Indians tend to like 'y'." Some Americans like 'dark, depressing' subject matter. Some just like fluff. Some like a mix. I'll go out on a limb and assume that pattern would hold true in most countries. There's a strong tradition of socially conscious film making in India, but (in my opinion) it's only recently that parallel cinema has started to not just become more mainstream, but become blended with commercial cinema; at the very least the line is becoming blurred, which I think is great. Five years ago the shop where I usually purchase Hindi films had a supply that could be mistaken for a shrine to Karan Johar; last week the two films they were prominently displaying were Amul and Dev D, and they were selling like hotcakes. It's nice to see, at least in some places, that 'mainstream' is starting to consist of something other than pure escapist fluff. (Not that I don't love the fluff!)

"I don't think you can really say that "Americans tend to like 'x', and Indians tend to like 'y'." Some Americans like 'dark, depressing' subject matter. Some just like fluff. Some like a mix."

I guess I was talking in terms of consumer power-- what tends to be popular-- what people buy. I'm not saying there is not fluff cinema in America-- Meg Ryan and Patrick Dempsey anyone? Just thinking about the general ratio of films aired..

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_in_film

Top Grossing Films of 2009:

1 Avatar 20th Century Fox $2,599,607,444 $720,607,444 $132,296,376 $89,291,338
2 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Warner Bros. $933,959,197 $301,959,197 $84,089,250 $34,999,141
3 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs 20th Century Fox $884,491,832 $196,573,705 $56,859,040 $24,725,499
4 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Paramount Pictures/DreamWorks $836,297,228 $402,111,870 $44,383,558 $33,554,033
5 2012 Columbia Pictures $769,653,595 $166,112,167 $31,052,159 $20,207,104
6 Up Disney/Pixar $723,012,453 $293,004,164 $55,413,275 $13,396,267
7 The Twilight Saga: New Moon Summit Entertainment $706,870,989 $296,307,000 $43,409,449 $38,148,045
8 Angels & Demons Columbia Pictures $485,930,816 $133,375,846 $30,726,140 $14,065,391
9 Sherlock Holmes Warner Bros. $468,978,470 $206,616,070 $39,795,286 $25,909,170
10 The Hangover Warner Bros. $467,323,663 $277,322,503 $36,033,624 $17,934,378

Out of these, I would say Up, The Hangover and Ice Age are not 'dark' or "depressions' (though I haven't seen any of them, correct me if I'm wrong)

Top Grossing Bollywood films of 2009

1 3 idiots Rs. 201,38,00,000
2 Love Aaj Kal Rs. 66,35,00,000
3 Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani Rs. 63,18,00,000
4 New York Rs. 62,50,00,000
5 All The Best: Fun Begins Rs. 61,00,00,000
6 Wanted Rs. 60,54,00,000
7 Kaminey Rs. 59,00,00,000
8 De Dana Dan Rs. 57,30,00,000
9 Blue Rs. 55,87,63,209
10 Kambakkht Ishq Rs. 52,00,00,303

Dark or depressing films- New York, Wanted, Kaminey (maybe, who has seen it?), any I am missing?

sorry.. the second source was here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollywood_films_of_2009

I think "dark and depressing" is being used as a synonym for "dramatic." Of the US list, I would say the majority of the non-comedies are simply 'dramatic.' It's not as if your average moviegoer is scanning the film listings and saying "I'm going to find the most evil, dark, horrible movie I can." (Though I'm guilty of looking at movie lists with an eye towards British accents and period costumes, so who knows?)

One thing's for certain: based on your lists, no one can accuse the majority of American (or Indian, for that matter) movie-goers of having good taste! ;)

. Does having a non-Indian director make the story any less Indian?

and i don't think monsoon wedding was fetishizing anything - it was a look at a very specific societal dynamic in india (and mira nair grew up in india, and this was based on the society to which she was exposed firsthand). i suppose sm was also a narrow look, which is fine, but the treatment of the subject could have been better and more accurate.

btw, the SM-mania is not over for me - a year later, i still have several colleagues coming up to me telling me that they just saw SM and how great it was. i try hard to coneal my real opinion of the movie :(

Does having a non-Indian director make the story any less Indian?

No. but don't you think coppola brought something to the godfather? spike lee to malcolm x?

"the SM-mania is not over for me"

it's just starting for me. wait, which SM are we talking about here

"I think "dark and depressing" is being used as a synonym for "dramatic." Of the US list, I would say the majority of the non-comedies are simply 'dramatic.' It's not as if your average moviegoer is scanning the film listings and saying "I'm going to find the most evil, dark, horrible movie I can." (Though I'm guilty of looking at movie lists with an eye towards British accents and period costumes, so who knows?)

One thing's for certain: based on your lists, no one can accuse the majority of American (or Indian, for that matter) movie-goers of having good taste! ;)"

hehe, true true! Well I think maybe my description of "dark and depressing" may have thrown you off... maybe it was not the best description on my part. Perhaps dramatic is a better term but I am not quite sure if that is exactly what I mean either... A lot of the dramas have a dark element-- crime, abuse, the never-ending battle of good vs. evil. ;)

and the switch from hindi to english, given the socio-economics of the protagonists, made it hard to take it seriously for the rest of the movie. also, i cannot believe that dev patel was the best actor for the lead - terrible accent or not.

I definitely agree with you on the language bit--the first time I saw the film I found their sudden grasp of perfect English pretty jarring. From a practical standpoint I know Danny Boyle has made mention of the challenge of getting a western audience for a 100% Hindi language film. Audience ease of understanding the dialogue probably had a lot to do with that decision. I'm also fairly certain (but I could be wrong) that Dev Patel had already been chosen for the lead role and his Hindi would have been as uncomfortable to listen to as Katrina Kaif's. I'm not sure that he speaks it with much ease, whereas the other actors all spoke English naturally.

They probably could have found another lead, though I think part of the impetus in casting Dev was his popular appeal in the UK, having starred in Skins. I think acting-wise he was very good--most of the negative comments seem to be about his accent. In the end I think you either really like the movie and are able to overlook those things, or they bother you enough to diminish your regard for the film. They're both certainly valid opinions.

it's just starting for me. wait, which SM are we talking about here

One thing's for certain: based on your lists, no one can accuse the majority of American (or Indian, for that matter) movie-goers of having good taste! ;)"

btw, the SM-mania is not over for me - a year later, i still have several colleagues coming up to me telling me that they just saw SM and how great it was. i try hard to coneal my real opinion of the movie :(

A lot of people, knowing that I like Indian cinema, proudly inform me after seeing SM that they "saw a Bollywood movie too!" I just let it go. At this point I'm just happy that they chose to see SM over the likes of Hannah Montana or some such miserable junk.

No. but don't you think coppola brought something to the godfather? spike lee to malcolm x?

Absolutely they did. The reason I asked my original question is that floating around somewhere in my head is the hope of going into film making. If I were to make a film about India or with Indian characters, would my film be dismissed out of hand as not authentic because I'm not Indian? What if I wanted to set a film in Italy, or Japan, or Mexico? Is there a point at which the cultural background of the director/writer/etc completely prevents them from making a film that does justice to the country they've set it in? The original comment that I responded to waaaaay up there gave the impression that, at least in his mind, foreigners can't make a film about India as well as an Indian can. I'm curious as to how pervasive that opinion is.

"If I were to make a film about India or with Indian characters, would my film be dismissed out of hand as not authentic because I'm not Indian?"

Depends on the depth and scope of the film. A short film, perhaps. Something like the godfather or malcolm x, which are two very deep personal stories about those communities likely so. Slumdog Millionaire was set in India, but basically a western film.

I'm curious as to how pervasive that opinion is.

From a practical standpoint I know Danny Boyle has made mention of the challenge of getting a western audience for a 100% Hindi language film. Audience ease of understanding the dialogue probably had a lot to do with that decision.

" (danny boyle has def. done far better work)"

such as the movie "millions"

If I were to make a film about India or with Indian characters, would my film be dismissed out of hand as not authentic because I'm not Indian?

I guess only you can answer the question as to why you want to make such a movie in the first place. Most filmmakers stay fairly close to the milieu they know best. Satyajit Ray (to take an example) hardly stirred from his base in Cal..., sorry Kolkota. He did make Shatranj ke Khiladi and Sadgati in Hindi and a documentary on Balasaraswathi but otherwise stuck to his beloved Kolkota and Bengal. But you might be interested to know that there is at least one American, Ellis R. Dungan, (1909-2001) who did make movies in India; indeed, he directed some of the early Tamil movies between 1936-50. I really doubt that many Americans - even Indian-Americans - know about him, but he's fondly remembered in the Tamil movie industry. In 1994, he made a visit back to Chennai (Madras, that is) and in his autobiography, he recalls the experience:

In January of 1994, I again was invited to return to India by some friends in the film industry (of course, the invitation is always open there)…When I got to the reception on my behalf, I was overwhelmed by all the attention from the press, film organizations, and actors. Most of the guests were from my filmmaking days in Madras. Among them was the great actress/musician M.S.Subbulakshmi and her husband T.Sadasivam. The chief minister of Madras and the American consul general were also there to welcome me.…M.S. sat next to me at my table, along with her husband, and later during the evening she honored me with a song. What a reception! Friends congratulating me…all the former film stars greeting me…I couldn’t believe it! These people were all there for me? Many of the guests would embrace me or get down on their knees and ‘take the dust of my feet’. And they wanted me to get up and speak, but when I got to the podium I was so overcome with emotion that I couldn’t speak. Words failed me, and the tears started to flow. I know the guests must have been disappointed, but I had to offer my apologies and sit back down. I’d never experienced anything like that in my life.

Interestingly, Dungan didn't understand Tamil at all! The issue of how Dungan ended up in India is interesting in itself - google is your friend. The above extract and more is available here:

http://www.sangam.org/articles/view2/?uid=691

Anyway, to answer you, if Vikram Seth can write "The Great California Novel", there's no reason why an outsider can't make a movie about India.

Suresh: that's really interesting, I'd never heard of Dungan. Thanks for sharing that :)

No problems, Melissa. Many of the early Tamil movies had many more songs than are there in the average movie these days but the songs in Meera and Shakuntalai (two of Dungan's movies) are still remembered. Here's a youtube link to one, the famous Kaatrinile Varum Geetham ("the breeze brings with it the song" -- not a good translation, I know) sung by M. S. Subbulakshmi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCiqqFVY4Xw

i thought boyle picked dev patel because it is hard to find his physiognomy among indian a-list actors.

During the red carpet leadup, we did see on elderly Indian couple on the carpet in the background watching
the celebs do their interviews - the lady was wearing a red sari.

‘Kavi’, American director Gregg Helvey’s short film about an Indian slave boy

And Slumdog and Gandhi were british movies. It takes foreigners to make world class movies about India. Bollywood is content to churn out garbage by the thousands every year.

The point is that people outside of India who try to talk about it tend to radically oversimplify an extremely vast and diverse country. Everything gets reduced down to some overarching theme about poverty or spirituality or some other such nonsense with no actual look at what life is like from the eyes of someone who is actually there.

What nonsense yoga fire. There are FAR more indians living in slums or working as child slaves than working in call centers, international corporations or as back office code coolies. Why do you want to only focus on a tiny minority of indians?

would my film be dismissed out of hand as not authentic because I'm not Indian?

Yes, there will be some who will, just like there are some who dismissed Slumdog for overwhelmingly silly reasons (like yogafire's objections above, which seem to confuse the basics of documentary and fiction, among other things). of course, the reasons might be articulated differently, because it does sound stupid to say that they reject the movie purely because whitey did it. so, if necessary, it will come down to actually debunking whatever objections the naysayers have, and whether those objections have merit.

How much South Asian History do you reckon the film major from USC learned before going off on his trip? How much exposure do you reckon he had to India beyond the Sally Struthers lens and the Incredible India marketing campaign? How much of this do you think a studio is going to expect him to have when he looks for funding?

Well if you had the luck to go to UCLA and study with Vinay Lal you wouldn't have learned much

It takes foreigners to make world class movies about India

Well if you had the luck to go to UCLA and study with Vinay Lal you wouldn't have learned much

always hilarious to see the uberpatriots crawl out of the woodwork

@Melissa, I have to laugh at you because you are deriding Amitabh for statements he NEVER made about Slumdogs. Obviously you are one of the gullible people who believe everything read in the tabloids - I won't say newspapers because most papers nowadays are crappy. Amitabh on his blog posted comments from readers both PRO and CON Slumdogs and opened up comments for debate. Some papers erroneously reported that he said Slumdogs was "poverty porn" when it was a reader who coined that phase in one of the comments posted by him. I hate to see misquotes posted as FACT and by someone who is trying to come across as "intellectual" when it comes to cinema.

BTW, contrary to your disdain, Amitabh is famous not for playing a billionaire in a couple movies but for playing the common man who fought against the system in most of his old movies. Not all Bollywood movies are just escapist fare some movies with singing and dancing have social messages embedded in them without just being dark and dismal.

It is a fact the foreign movies that usually win awards focus on dark subjects – Holocaust, slavery, human rights, sexual abuse, child abuse, etc. So of course Western filmmakers incorporate those subjects into their films to get attention from critics and award juries. One of the most beautiful movies I have seen from India, The Blue Umbrella had a lyrical quality but was not dark and dismal enough to win foreign awards.

"It is a fact the foreign movies that usually win awards focus on dark subjects – Holocaust, slavery, human rights, sexual abuse, child abuse, etc. So of course Western filmmakers incorporate those subjects into their films to get attention from critics and award juries."

Exactly. How about a "dark" film on the native american genocide, or transatlantic slave trade that doesn't show white people as the saviors?

Exactly. How about a "dark" film on the native american genocide, or transatlantic slave trade that doesn't show white people as the saviors?

Firstly, what's stopping you? The best way to counter is to make such movies oneself. Secondly, even with Hollywood movies, it is known that movies which focus on "socially relevant" themes usually win awards. Many are simply forgotten and often the ones that are remembered are the non-winners. As an example, only one of Hitchcock's movies - Rebecca in 1940 - won the Academy award. Yet arguably, his movies (North by Northwest, Rear Window and so on) are more remembered than some of the winners.

Anyway, the way the movie business operates is well-known. In India too, there are old complaints about how Muslim, Christian and South Indian characters ("Madrasis") are reduced to stereotypes in Bollywood movies. Rehashing these old complaints seems pointless to me.

Hence, if you want to judge Slumdog Millionaire, I would certainly not focus on the poverty. That is too easy. The question is, given the theme which is only to be expected, does it have anything new to offer? I don't know since I have not seen the movie but that is how I would go about making a judgement. In the same spirit, when judging Bollywood movies I would not focus on the songs or the melodrama - those are taken as given. The question is, given the constraints of the form (songs, melodrama), does it have anything new and substantial to offer?

There's this movie industry in a country that defies logic. The country has large masses of poor folk, but also world's richest people who can handily outspend any tycoon in the West. It's suffered years (some would say centuries) of oppression and then a few decades of misplaced socialistic paternalism. It's cultural riches are simply timeless and diverse and varied beyond belief. It also churns out movies like nobody's business. While the chattering classes abroad sip champagne as they watch bleak movies about this land tut-tutting about how bad things are, back in this land the people at large couldn't care less. While one big wealthy nation wants to make English its sole language, and another all-but-superpower nation has centuries ago by stamping out minority cultures created a robot like monoculture. Yet this land in question is home to vibrant cinema in seven different languages each a world within itself. Its movie makers (by which we include those who act, direct, and do everything connected with the film) have for the most part, as a rule, come from humble beginnings and struggled and trudged and plodded their way to success. So these movie makers like to make uplifting films that show people triumphing against the odds. There is of course a smaller ginger group within this land that isn't happy with this. How can you ignore the reality they thunder as they swill their scotch and soda. Arre baba as long as I make money for my employees and my distributor why are you worried? Asks the big bannerwala swilling his tharra! Along every now and then comes the foreign film maker - some of native origin and others of elsewhere. They don't understand the ways of the big bannerwalas because for one they have been taught that these guys make "escapist fantasies" and have "poor production values" and beat their womenfolk for fun. So our imports look for seamy side of things, and believe me it isn't hard to find. They make the movie and now and then it makes it big out there in the West. Some of us who live in the West are thrilled! Wow! We have made it they exclaim. Little do they realize that every land and every artistic domain has its own things to tell and own things to do, ultimately obsessed with itself. So one year after the high comes the low. But why blame the West? In the meanwhile back where the action is, in that land, in the year since, the much hyped movie is already forgotten. The biggest hits of the year are a film about three engg school grads in one language, and in another about a rural romance, and yet another two films starring a 45 year old Hercules like ripped Romeo that has frontbenchers in every C class town queing up to watch.

For Dilip Kumar aka Prema aka [I can't call you that because the Mods will spike this comment] there may be many more slum dwellers than BPO workers. But it would do well for the West to make more movies about India's service sector tigers for the reasons MoorNam wrote about last year. Making and watching trash like SDM may satisfy the limo-lib's patronising instincts and satisfy the reactionary right's "Milton is the Best/We follow XYZ so we are better off" notions. But the reality is different. Those millions of slumdwellers aren't living like that SDM hero. Some of them go to classes like Patna's Ramanujam Coaching Center and make it to the IITs. To quote from the article The son of a sweeper, Nagendra studied in the free government village school and was always ‘first’ in class. He hated the sight of seeing his father cleaning sewers and vowed he wouldn’t do that. Borrowed Rs 60 to buy the Super 30 application form. There are at this very moment probably a few million Indians who although desperately poor are aiming to leapfrog to the future. I should know. Our housekeeper whose husband was forced off her lands 16 years ago and had to move to Chennai has since educated her three daughters - one's a CPA, the 2nd a pharmacist, and the third studying to be a doctor. They made it out of a slum with no electricity to a home with a fast web connection and air-conditioning. Legal process offshoring which was a barely $50 million business ten years back in India is now worth $0.5 billion and on its way to doubling itself in the next five years. That means dimmer prospects for US law grads as has already happened to their counterparts in Blighty. This isn't your grandma's offshoring, not even your Momma's offshoring. When Fortune 100 firms have begun to base their backoffice in Chennai and Indian CAs lead global financial audits, you know how far things have gone. So rather than hankering for opportunities to trivialize and patronize, wake up and smell the coffee. A couple of years back my local newspaper (small town but big profile) ran a three part feature on Ivory Coast. The last part featured the country's education system and showed a photograph of high schoolers and college students milling around an airport parking lot early in the evening. It turns out that the airport is the only place in Abidjan that has uninterrupted power at night, so that's where students gather to do their homework and study for the next day's classes. When the poor don't act poor and are ambitious as heck as I found in India this December you had better take notice.
Indian movies are different and they have been taking up provocative themes all the time. Do Bigha Zameen, BootPolish (bleaker than SMD), then. And now we have a director like Bala, winner of this year's National Award for Best Director with his Naan Kadavul aka Aham Brahmasmi about a castaway brought up as an aghori. Bala earlier made Pitamaghan that earned a Best Actor award for Vikram in his role as a vettiyan - caretaker of a cemetery. Danny Boyle may know the Scots but as far as making movies set in India, he is a novice, and it shows.

This is a silly discussion and, I am sorry to say, a silly post. Hollywood is a vast industry, it generates enormous quantities of product, and, yes, depicting non-western cultures play some role in it as a kind of appetizer or dessert. And, yes, like any other industry (chemicals, software, auto), hollywood is basically focused on maximizing profit.

So why all this angst? Silly hair-splitting about authenticity and exploitation? It just comes across as adolescent and whiny.

It is your opinion that this is a silly discussion. If it doesn't appeal to you move on to things that do.

I would like to add a very few words which I hope will help Melissa and LinZi ***get it***. Supposing a Bollywood producer came to the US and made a movie about a kid growing up in East Harlem, or better yet West Virginia. The kid makes his way as best he can, with special adventures that involve sending his bare arm through places where the roto rooter usually goes, in pursuit of a movie star, a clear indication of his drive to succeed in life, and then, long story short, after staying away from dealing heroin, he suddenly wins at matka! Simple enough story line, girl woven in loosely, no need to know anything more than how poor some Americans are! This Bollywood producer's team would of course make sure all the actors were not unionized professionals but were instead finangled into accepting "slave wages" for their labor on a fairly informal basis. This would ensure that while they would likely be too uninformed to latch onto any inaccuracies in the way they were depicted in a foreign language, in case they did catch on, they would certainly be far too poor to sue over misrepresentations about their values, their history, their concerns, about which there would be plenty of distortions, all necessary to keep the plot ticking along. Then, this film would be set to music by Burt Bachrach and given a bunch of Indian awards with a great deal of fanfare and hullaballoo, the actors feted and bounced around through the Bollywood PR machine and then, after the Bollywood team had made their bucks, of course, all of it quickly forgotten.

'Amrita'. Right. My comment about why SDM might appeal to American consumers is of course short-sided, since I did not discuss EVERY SINGLE possible thing wrong with the movie in one breath. My apologizes. How dare I? Because ANY single concept I omit from a statement is one I must be oblivious or complicit to. You have me so pegged. I think you know my thoughts. It's crazy.

@Amrita: I think you'll find earlier I suggested that sometimes a movie is just a movie. Nowhere have I (or Linzi) suggested that SM is an "omg totally perfect true depiction of India!" We "get it" just fine. It's just entertainment. We understand that. That's why we haven't brought up the multitude of Hindi films set in the US that are, honestly, laughable in their depiction of Americans, American life, etc. Because it's not important. I'm not sure why you aren't able to grasp that someone's enjoyment of a film doesn't mean they think it's perfect. If people are going to get up in arms over such things, they should probably just never watch another non-documentary film again.

the comments of shilip, jyotsana and amritha say more about themselves than about the movie. there's very little need for this prickliness but may be, just may be, at the bottom of it all, you feel ashamed of the poverty and would rather not have anyone draw attention to it? if not, then what's going on? why does it matter how indians are represented in british or american movies?

i am not a psychologist or anything but i get the uneasy feeling that there is a deep inferiority complex in you guys.

I feel that claiming SM was "fetishizing India" is unjustified.

Of course it was fetishizing India. Specifically, the prolific use of handcuffs was making us all look kinky. It got to the point where I could not go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless I administered a slight spanking.

>

(snicker)

There are at this very moment probably a few million Indians who although desperately poor are aiming to leapfrog to the future. I should know. Our housekeeper whose husband was forced off her lands 16 years ago and had to move to Chennai has since educated her three daughters - one's a CPA, the 2nd a pharmacist, and the third studying to be a doctor.

You don't know what its like to be desperately poor, your housekeeper does. So her story means poverty is just a question of an individual working hard? You have more in common with Americans then you care to admit!

why does it matter how indians are represented in british or american movies?

i am not a psychologist or anything but i get the uneasy feeling that there is a deep inferiority complex in you guys.

Not all the people who live in the slums thought the movie respected them:

Riots as Indian slum dwellers object to Slumdog Millionaire

Disagreeing on how well or poorly the people who live in slums was depicted in the movie does not mean being in denial about poverty.

"Vikas Swarup, author of Q and A, on which the screenplay is based, says Slumdog might have "fallen by the wayside if it had been made 20 years ago." He says at least part of the film's success is because "India is the flavor of the season. People want to know about this country of 9% growth and enormous variety. People want to see what makes India tick."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1873926,00.html#ixzz0hi0cWm3k

Swarup's book showed the diversity of India better than the movie. Poverty is a part of countries, India included. But "poverty" is not what makes India or the poor "tick." They are human beings who are more than their economic situation.

Disagreeing on how well or poorly the people who live in slums was depicted in the movie does not mean being in denial about poverty.

That's why I really don't understand all this "But poverty in India is real!" apologia. The people shown in that movie are not anything resembling India's real poor. Yes, a lot of them are bastards who are just trying to swindle you, but most are actually some of the more honorable and generous people I've met. They certainly exceed your average middle-class American in generosity. Slumdog doesn't show that though. The protagonists are empty shells who exist to move the plot along and every single one of the other characters are greedy, exploitative, abusive beasts. We can see why Prema might rave about such a film, but I'm perplexed how people who actually express concern about poverty and the poor in India would think this is a worthwhile or positive depiction.

Here is a perspective that I have not heard before:

"Slumdog Millionaire may be set to sweep up some Oscars tomorrow, but does the film perpetuate myths and myopic perspectives? Slum dwellers of the subcontinent have rioted at screenings of the flick, while others see the movie as nothing more than “poverty porn at its worst“.

The most compelling argument against Slumdog, however, is that the film implies that adopting Western values is the answer to poverty, a disturbing and dangerous assertion..." Rob Maguire

A movie on this aspect of city slums probably won't be as popular, but showing their industriousness their self efficacy is something that I think would do more justice than SDM corny love story:

"This is also how we should think of the sprawling new slums of the developing world: not as doomed, deforming environments but as the low-cost housing built for (and by) displaced, formerly rural, people drawn into the modern urbanized economy and energetically aspiring to a better life.

The Economist captured this atmosphere of activity and hope in a December 2007 article about Dharavi, a Mumbai slum. Dharavi had "maybe a million residents crammed into a square mile of low-rise wood, concrete and rusted iron," yes, but its residents were also "thriving in hardship." Small "hutment" factories, for instance, exported leather belts directly to Wal-Mart.

Dharavi, the magazine observed, was "organic and miraculously harmonious … intensely human." The FinMark Trust, a South African housing think tank, has found no fewer than 335,000 businesses in one Johannesburg slum, one in seven home-based. They include everything from hairdressers and bars to welders and furniture makers.

These informal sprawls, for all their problems, may well prove to be a source of new products--and refinements and improvements of existing products--helping to fire future economic growth. Jane Jacobs envisioned this transformative churning in her landmark book The Economy of Cities--a process in which the poor, making the best of their circumstances, create substitutes for expensive imports and eventually develop superior products for export."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/19/slumdog-millionaire-bollywood-opinions-contributors_jacob_riis.html?partner=contextstory

The Economist captured this atmosphere of activity and hope in a December 2007 article about Dharavi, a Mumbai slum. Dharavi had "maybe a million residents crammed into a square mile of low-rise wood, concrete and rusted iron," yes, but its residents were also "thriving in hardship." Small "hutment" factories, for instance, exported leather belts directly to Wal-Mart.

I’ve seen hundreds of Indian films, mostly Hindi and Tamil with a few Malayalam, Telugu, and Bengali flicks thrown in for good measure. I am not speaking to the accuracy/ inaccuracy of the movie, I have no idea. My observation as an Indocinephile (ahem) is that Danny Boyle hardly did anything new, in terms of representing poverty or slums in India in a film. If one wants to have one's nose rubbed in Indian poverty, man's inhumanity to man (and woman), the sheer unfairness of life at the bottom of the heap but also its moments of dignity, it's been done plenty already on the silver screen by Indian directors, sometimes a lot more graphically and in a lot more slanted and biased fashion than in SDM. The Tamil director Bala, mentioned above, with Naan Kadavul especially but also with Sethu and Pithmagan, is particularly manipulative and graphic. Mandur Bhandarkar's Chandni Bar with Tabu and Kamal's Karutha Pakshikal with Mammootty were movies with big stars, great production values, heavy and nuanced storylines that won acclaim in India--- but why no crossover? I think Bollywood and Kollywood just don’t care to market their best stuff, or the stuff that shows India with warts on the nose, to the West. And why should they?

In my opinion, it sounds like the main offense Danny Boyle has committed with SDM (secondarily to being British, how galling!) was being wildly successful, which to give the guy his due he had no way of knowing would happen—he took a chance with that format. If it had been a flop and not gotten any acclaim at all that would have suited the sour grape patrol much better. I suspect the desi attitude might have boiled down to: “See, we’re still oppressed and invisible-- even a well known and acclaimed western director with a feel good story line can’t succeed if he uses an Indian milieu. Wanh, wanh, woe is us.” We would have been urging our friends to give the movie a chance, not rolling our eyes in annoyance over it being called a Bollywood fil-um.

Danny Boyle's SDM was an Oliver Twist style story of hope and perseverance, using the device of an Indian slum as a stew that the character rises out of -- yep, that's the movies. It was an enjoyable rags to riches yarn. He never claimed to be making a film for the ages, just an entertainment. So it had its inaccuracies, it wasn’t made by God, it was made by a 50 something Brit. If people don’t realize there is a difference between the movies and real life, doesn’t seem like Danny Boyle is the first one to string up. Even documentaries aren’t pristine depictions of life, we could argue endlessly about POV, editing, choice of interviews/material, etc. On the whole it has put India on the radar of the average American beyond Gandhi, Mother Theresa, oursourcing, and the Taj Mahal, and I think that’s a good thing.

Danny Boyle has committed with SDM (secondarily to being British, how galling!)

he took a chance with that format. If it had been a flop and not gotten any acclaim at all that would have suited the sour grape patrol much better.

And now we have a director like Bala, winner of this year's National Award for Best Director with his Naan Kadavul aka Aham Brahmasmi about a castaway brought up as an aghori. Bala earlier made Pitamaghan that earned a Best Actor award for Vikram in his role as a vettiyan - caretaker of a cemetery. Danny Boyle may know the Scots but as far as making movies set in India, he is a novice, and it shows.

naan kadavul and pithamagan are canonical examples of showboating and ridiculous over-the-topness masquerading as depth. sort of like how rainman is a thoughtful depiction of autism. slumdog is clearly escapist fare and was done very well. almost all the complaints are borne out of an inferiority complex, especially considering that the majority of bollywood films portray very non-representative slices of india and do it with a hundredth the quality.

almost all the complaints are borne out of an inferiority complex

That's right. If we don't all go go ga ga over this film, it is because of an inferiority complex. Not that we have a different opinion. No only the ones with healthy self esteem can truly see its worth and would not dare criticize it. That would be gauche. Damn it, why don't those silly inferiority complexed brown people see how what a wonderful Westernized film on an Indian subject this is! Don't you see we in the West don't only love shallow films like Rambo, but also nitty gritty real poverty films located in the 3rd world while we eat popcorn and diet coke.

Folks,

As a big fan of Bollywood movies, I think SDM is the BEST BOLLYWOOD movie ever made. SDM has all ingredients of a typical bollywood movie. Like all other Bollywood movies it is a life long love story that starts in childhood and it is got action, drama, emotion, poverty, corruption, honesty, sacrifice and luck.

It is far superior than other Bollywood movies because it is slick, good editing, relevent script and perfect direction. There was no boring moment in the movie.

Karan Johar shall take lessons from Danny Boyle and attempt to make MNK again to make it less annoying and hopefully entertaining.

Melissa and LinZi, angered much? Do I need to be handcuffed and a little bit spanked?

If we don't all go go ga ga over this film, it is because of an inferiority complex

sweetheart, it's not because you didnt go all ga ga over the film, i am referring to the "danny boyle doesn't know india and this film is a very bad rendition of india and doesn't show the complexity of our great country and is poverty porn and...." nonsense.

Damn it, why don't those silly inferiority complexed brown people see how what a wonderful Westernized film on an Indian subject this is!

your comment lives my handle.

"Disagreeing on how well or poorly the people who live in slums was depicted in the movie does not mean being in denial about poverty."

Can someone please tell me exactly what the "poor depiction" was?

I can only really think of the icky toilet-- which seems like an obvious movie storyline rather than real life.

What else was a poor depiction? Parent's being killed in an unfortunate way? Crappy schools with uniforms? Parentless children banding together? Kids riding the rails all over India? Evil people trying to do bad things to them while taking money from them? The fact that one brother got involved in crime? And the other tried not to?

The whole thing is a goopy sappy love story with a perfect ending, but really, besides the crappy toilet, literally, what was the "poor" depiction. And I wonder how many of you have spent time in the slums of Indian to know how accurate it was anyways.

"nitty gritty real poverty films located in the 3rd world while we eat popcorn and diet coke."

That's what the people in the "third world" cinemas are eating too... unless they want a nice helping of american corn or nachos.

"Do I need to be handcuffed and a little bit spanked?"

Gross. And more than a little bit creepy.

looks like all the secular slumdog aficionados have found their bete noires in hyperamerican women. cameron's x-wife could have made slumdog.

I have no desire to read through 75 comments debating whether or not Slumdog was or was not Indian or whether a movie directed by a non-South Asian is still South Asian... so I'm skipping over all of these comments.

Taz, your question was has anyone seen the movie. Yes I have. I went to see all of the Oscar short films.

Here's what I have to say about Kavi. I thought it was a fantastic short film that had me in tears within the first 30 seconds. I'm uncertain of what you didn't like about the language on the website. The film is about modern-day slavery. Kavi, the main character, is a young boy who works at a brick kiln. He and his parents work every day at the factory. He wants to go to school but cannot because his father owes a debt to the kiln owner. He wants to play cricket more than anything in the whole world and because he stops working to hand a cricket ball over to school boys who were playing near by he gets chained to a wall by the owner. His father tries to stop it and is beaten by the owner's thugs. Human rights workers attempt to free the workers but the owner has caught on and ships off the workers to another site so when the cops come there is no one but Kavi left to free.

I think what is written on the website is true to the mission of the film, which was the filmmaker's masters thesis. The movie isn't about Kavi's desi-ness. It could have been set in any country around the world that has child slave labor.

Its a great film and I strongly suggest you all take the time to see it.

It reminds me that when I visit India and I see people working that they are not all necessarily there because they WANT to be or because the CHOOSE to be... rather they may not have the choice and they may not have the freedom to leave.

I also saw Smile Pinky last year and that movie could have been about ANY of the numerous projects that The Smile Train conducts every year. It not necessarily about a desi girl. If you haven't seen it, you should make the time to see it. Its an incredible film.

It's ridiculous to say that SDM does not accurately depict slum life. WHOSE slum life are we meant to depict? Aren't there millions of people in slums throughout India? How on earth would a movie comprehensively capture the lives and individual experiences of ALL of them? I will agree with the person who stated that the movie depicts some of the lowest dregs of society, but that IS a reality for many people who dwell in slums. It does not make it less accurate simply because it is not *everyone's* reality.

I also feel that those who so vehemently dislike the movie seem to have the biggest issue with the fact that it was created by non-Indian people.

To the people who think the slum depiction in SDM was poor or in poor taste:-
What do you expect in slums and how do you know it was not accurate?

To the people who are directly or indirectly implying that a British guy wanted to show poverty:-
See serious cinema like Dev D, Manorama, Page 3 and older movie like Ankur - all these movies are made by Indians and no one from outside involved. These movies show the real face of presumable clean society.

SDM is a great movie.

Forbes has a piece on a slum development project in Mumbai.

Slumdog Billionaires

"Escapism is mental diversion by means of entertainment or recreation, as an "escape" from the perceived unpleasant or banal aspects of daily life."

slumdog is clearly escapist fare and was done very well.

Escapist for whom? For us in the West? It did poorly in India:

Slumdog Millionaire, an Oscar Favorite, Is No Hit in India
""They won't care much for this one." For many Indians, the film's subject and treatment are familiar to the point of being banal. A lot of Indians are not keen to watch it for the same reason they wouldn't want to go to Varanasi or Pushkar for a holiday — it's too much reality for what should be entertainment. "We see all this every day," says Shikha Goyal, a Mumbai-based public relations executive who left halfway through the film. "You can't live in Mumbai without seeing children begging at traffic lights and passing by slums on your way to work. But I don't want to be reminded of that on a Saturday evening." There is also a sense of injured national pride, especially for a lot of well-heeled metro dwellers, who say the film peddles "poverty porn" and "slum voyeurism." "

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1873926,00.html#ixzz0hsViulcs

Slumdog Millionaire Review and the Amitabh Bachchan controversy
January 24, 2009
"The scene where they show the slum “toilet” is one that I doubt any Indian director would have shown this close. But it’s a scene that western audiences will lap up, and why not. It is an example of how terrible our sanitation is. We know its horrors, but they don’t. The movie is clearly aimed at western audiences, whether knowingly or unknowingly." This is from someone who liked the movie and wanted it to be successful. But in a way she said it best. The poverty scenes of this musical love story were for Western entertainment.

Escapist fare in India are the Bollywood films that are very much loved there, and panned here on this post in comparison to SDM.

I read about a documentary done here in America where the film director gave video cameras to a couple of kids in the public housing complex. See their lives through their eyes. It was them telling their story in their way. Honest depiction of life in the slums isn't just the filthy living conditions. That is easy to do. People are more than where they live. Like the Forbes article I posted above about the changing view of slums in India, Brazil etc... Shabana Azmi did a lot for people living in slums. I remember her in the home of one woman in a documentary a couple years back, where her point was to change the image people have of those who live there. For us to see them more than just their living conditions. That home was small but well kept. I felt Azmi did more to show the rich humanity of people who live in the slums. Some of the people who live in the slums protested the movie SDM. Their point of view is deserved to be heard as much as anyone else's. I think it is healthy self esteem for them to speak up for their feels. Those who don't live in the slums who think this is poverty porn should not be so dismissed by those who like the movie as people with an inferiority complex. To me it is healthy self esteem when one expresses one's views that goes against the grain of the popular view.

SDM to me was a corny musical love story set in the slums. Other than being set to Bollywood music and set in slums it was uninspiring - all other issues about the movie aside.

"4 mins excerpt from Bombay Our City (1985)
(In the clip an angry slumdweller whose home has just been demolished accuses the filmmakers of exploiting images of poverty and injustice without being able to alter conditions in any way)

I chose this clip in part to reassure those who may have been upset at being addressed as the enemy that I was referring also to the enemy within. As a member of the Indian intelligentsia I know that all my good intentions don’t by themselves ensure that my work rises above voyeurism and becomes useful to the people I filmed. Bombay Our City made its share of noise in India and even won a national award for Best Documentary but the huts of the homeless continued to be demolished. We joined a movement for the Right to Shelter. After one of the slums we had filmed in was razed, some slum-dwellers and myself went on an indefinite hunger strike to demand resettlement. The following day a famous Bollywood star Shabana Azmi, who had seen Bombay Our City joined our hunger strike. We became front page news overnight. Within 5 days the government gave in and the evicted were granted an alternate site." Anand Patwardhan

""Slumdog Millionaire" was made about the people of Mumbai's teeming slums, but it was not made for them.
In the squalid shantytowns of Nehru Nagar, where parts of the Oscar-nominated film were shot, there was little of the excitement that has swept India since the low budget film emerged from obscurity to win four Golden Globes and 10 Oscar nominations.
Many of the slum's residents greeted Friday's India release of the movie with indifference. ...
...In real life, however, things are slower and hotter, the streets are more broken and the smells of dirt, defecation, death are stronger.
For the residents of Nehru Nagar, such stuff is not cinematic, it is home....
...When they do go [to the movies], they prefer the prefer the Bollywood staples of rich guys, gangsters and big song-and-dance numbers, not the grim reality of their daily lives.
The few who are drawn to the film say it's only because they love the music of composer A.R. Rahman, who was nominated for three Oscars, and because they are fans of the movie's two Indian stars, Irrfan Khan and Anil Kapoor." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/24/slumdog-millionaire-greet_n_160550.html

escapist?? wtfuk. i thought it was realist. american tourist shoves crispy dolla bills into slumdoggie's brown hand. "well, here's the real America". gee golly thankya mista. lolz. abd'ullahs fall for all kind of shit.

And yes I am aware Azmi liked SDM. If this film helps the awareness through a romantic musical and gets more aid to slum dwellers, then it has done something good.
But for me there is something not quite right for those who live in the slums for their gritty living conditions to be for Westerners to lap up as one pro-SDM (above) mentioned.

"one pro-SDM (above) mentioned" I am referring to my post #84

Bescides SM, Bombay Dreams was also fetishizing India. That's why I think those Indians who enjoy BDSM are propagating the very dominance and submission keeping us all in bondage.

For a much better alternative to Slumdog Millionaire or even the classic slumdog narrative of a life-changing opportunity to get rich , I would really recommend "Amal". It was such an amazing movie set in New Delhi, and as close to being realist as possible. In contrast to Slumdog, one of the salient messages wasn't about struggling to get out of poverty or the harsh realities of rickshaw and scooter wallas or street beggars, but how beauty and joy and all that's essentially good can arise from these difficult circumstances. Sounds corny and cliche I know, but this movie's far from being cliched. I'm surprised no one else has mentioned it...

"For us to see them more than just their living conditions. That home was small but well kept. I felt Azmi did more to show the rich humanity of people who live in the slums. Some of the people who live in the slums protested the movie SDM. Their point of view is deserved to be heard as much as anyone else's. I think it is healthy self esteem for them to speak up for their feels. Those who don't live in the slums who think this is poverty porn should not be so dismissed by those who like the movie as people with an inferiority complex. "

First, if I remember correctly, the most protest by slum dwellers was about the use of the term "slumdog".

Second, this movie isn't really about "slum dwelling families". Early on the movie, the two boys (as well as their friend) as made into orphans-- When the two boys did have parents, the mother seems like a pretty normal mom to me-- trying to keep two mischievous boys out of trouble and make sure they went to school. The problem is-- once they lose their family, they are not "slum dwellers" anymore-- they are street children. And life for street children is a lot different than life in an intact family in a slum. Street children do a lot of the things the kids were depicted as doing-- picking up various jobs like rag picking, hanging out where tourists are and giving "tours", riding the trains all over India, being used/abused by criminal adults, police beating street children (this happens all the time, and police generally know if a child has a family to stand up for them or not-- think about the police chasing the boys at the beginning of the movie and running into mom, and later when they are street children) This film didn't even tackle much in terms of other huge dangers for street children-- sexual abuse and drug abuse.

I actually didn't really like SDM at all, I heard all the hype and when I saw it I was disappointed-- the characters seem flat and unrealistic, the story line is super cheesy with a perfect 'feel good' ending. But I really don't think the actually depicting of "things street children" do was all that off. In terms of the beggar-master- children do get disfigured to make money, and if not actually disfigured, they do other probably various dangerous things to garner sympathy-- "rent" some one's baby for the day. In Delhi I saw begging children who had stuck their hand in some horrible chemicals that would make their hand look like it had been horribly burned. While I don't think it actually burned then-- I shudder to think what dipping your hand in toxic chemicals daily can do to you.

Obviously this film is not meant to show the regular life of a slum dweller or a street child-- it is a fantasy story about someone conquering the odds-- a depressing beginning with a feel good end. I still maintain I was not really impressed... I saw it once and have no desire to see it again.

I would really like to hear some actual examples of things that are not "realistic" in terms of the poverty? Besides jumping in the the crappy-swamp-toilet.

"This film didn't even tackle much in terms of other huge dangers for street children-- sexual abuse and drug abuse. "

Actually, sorry, correction-- I forgot that the little girl was forced by the older brother. A lot of young boys are also sexually exploited, especially street children, as well as girls.

LinZi, I believe I went into specifics about why I thought it was a bad movie. Jyotsana also made some salient points a few posts up from there.

Yoga Fire, I am not talking about whether the movie is good or not (like I said, I thought it was mediocre and agree with you on the shallowness of the characters).

I am asking for the people who specifically said "it does not depict slum life/poverty authentically".... I am not talking about the characters or the storyline... which is of course.. a movie story line. I am asking about how slum life/poverty was portrayed, the milieu... people are screaming that it does not depict things accurately, yet all I see is problems with the main characters, who are not expected to be real people anyways (I mean, when we watch a movie, we aren't expecting reality right? Especially a movie like this?)

I see a lot of people complaining how the poverty specifically is portrayed, yet I don't see any specifics... I am just wondering what exactly people see as unrealistic about the poverty, slum life or street child life as backdrop?

I looked at Jyotsana's comment and I just see a bunch of random commentary on poor people, I am not sure exactly what her point is about the movie specifically.

I just think if people have such complaints with the poverty being so unrealistic that they should easily be able to point out examples of inaccuracies?

I am asking for the people who specifically said "it does not depict slum life/poverty authentically".... I am not talking about the characters or the storyline... which is of course.. a movie story line. I am asking about how slum life/poverty was portrayed, the milieu

That is not realistic, it's just exploiting lame cliches.

Ah. OK.... I see now..

I think the difference in opinion is from starting with a different assumption. I assumed that the movie was never supposed to be realism, or that realistic in the first place. I guess if you are making the assumption that he was intending to make a realistic movie, then you would have a problem with the cliches.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of Salaam Bombay? To juxtapose the two.

1.I assumed that the movie was never supposed to be realism, or that realistic in the first place

2.I am just wondering what exactly people see as unrealistic about the poverty, slum life or street child life as backdrop?

3.Obviously this film is not meant to show the regular life of a slum dweller or a street child

Please make up your mind, LinZi

an old wolf, seems to me Linzi's statements are all in agreement-- she feels the movie was unrealistic, but some of the details were accurate according to her first hand experience:

91. ..."the characters seem flat and unrealistic, the story line is super cheesy with a perfect 'feel good' ending. But I really don't think the actually depicting of "things street children" do was all that off."

then she solicits others to talk specifically about the depictions in the movie:
94. "I am just wondering what exactly people see as unrealistic about the poverty, slum life or street child life as backdrop?"

cool handle, btw

So in conclusion, we're oversensitive.

-a desi

"91. ..."the characters seem flat and unrealistic, the story line is super cheesy with a perfect 'feel good' ending. But I really don't think the actually depicting of "things street children" do was all that off."

then she solicits others to talk specifically about the depictions in the movie:
94. "I am just wondering what exactly people see as unrealistic about the poverty, slum life or street child life as backdrop?""

Yes. What I meant to say was-- the main characters and storyline are fakey and cheesy, but the milieu, environment, backdrop seem rather realistic in terms of slum-life or street children, from my experiences, at least. When people said "that's not how poverty is" etc, I thought they were talking about the milieu, not the main characters/storyline, as I assumed that the main characters/storyline being a dramatic filmi story were already accepted as unrealistic. Hence the confusion.

That is why it is called poverty porn.
In a porn movie, the sexual act in itself is fairly accurate and anatomically correct. The milieu, environment, backdrop etc. is ridiculous, unrealistic and often degrading.
Likewise, this movie may have a partially accurate depiction of slum life when the parts are viewed in isolation.
When viewed as a whole and as a part of an (attempted) coherent narrative, it is an exoticised depiction of the worst aspects of slum life cherry picked and strung together for maximum impact, and maximum viewing pleasure of a western audience.
The warm and fuzzy love story is of course the perfect foil.

katiekateQNS, thank you.

"When viewed as a whole and as a part of an (attempted) coherent narrative, it is an exoticised depiction of the worst aspects of slum life cherry picked and strung together for maximum impact, and maximum viewing pleasure of a western audience. "

What's a typical Bollywood movie then? Love Story Porn?

"What's a typical Bollywood movie then? Love Story Porn?"

yea. basically what a typical hollywood movie was 60-80 yrs ago.

"I assumed that the movie was never supposed to be realism, or that realistic in the first place"

In what way? there's different types of realism / unrealism.

One type is two people walking, busting out into a song and dance, and 50 other dancers showing up to back them up. This does not require "suspension of disbelief" it in fact RELIES on disbelief. These filmmakers are just looking to entertain you plain and simple, not make you think that this is actually happening.

Another type of unrealism is unrealism with verisimilitude, which requires suspension of disbelief - to take you "into the story" which slumdog definitely was shooting for. Which is why they didnt have sinatra pop out of a birthday cake singing new york new york in the middle of the movie. Movies are unreal, they exaggerate, they compress, and they take the most exciting bits of what might actually occur and juxtapose it al together, but these movies don't want you thinking "oh right but this is completely unreal" while watching it. They want to lure you into a sense of belief, hence the phrase "suspension of disbelief"

"Another type of unrealism is unrealism with verisimilitude, which requires suspension of disbelief - to take you "into the story" which slumdog definitely was shooting for. Which is why they didnt have sinatra pop out of a birthday cake singing new york new york in the middle of the movie. Movies are unreal, they exaggerate, they compress, and they take the most exciting bits of what might actually occur and juxtapose it al together, but these movies don't want you thinking "oh right but this is completely unreal" while watching it. They want to lure you into a sense of belief, hence the phrase "suspension of disbelief""

Yes, definitely. But I think with movies like SDM you are supposed to suspend your disbelief while watching the film. It's like watching an M. Night Shyamalan film. We suspend our belief, enjoy the film, but we don't go home thinking "wow, I wonder who can see dead people?" or "when are the trees going to start killing us?" Instead we might be thinking "damn that Zooey Deschanel was looking pretty hot" or "what a clever twist ending! (maybe)".

The only time we should be like "wow! that's just life real life!" is when it was specifically designed as such-- like a biography of a real person. Or a historical movie depicting an event. Even then you kind of have to take it with a grain of salt. Even a documentary can't show everything-- it will still be limited.

"Yes, definitely. But I think with movies like SDM you are supposed to suspend your disbelief while watching the film. It's like watching an M. Night Shyamalan film. We suspend our belief, enjoy the film, but we don't go home thinking "wow, I wonder who can see dead people?" or "when are the trees going to start killing us?" Instead we might be thinking "damn that Zooey Deschanel was looking pretty hot" or "what a clever twist ending! "

You're missing my point. I'm not saying the realism presented in slumdog means you're supposed to walk out of slumdog thinking, "Wow, I should go on the game show, because every event in my life is going to map to a question. and Im gonna win"

All movies (except for those that are obviously breaking all bounds of logic - ie bollywood film dances) require a suspension of disbelief. In the sense, they require you to "sink in" with the characters. in the 6th sense, you're not supposed to believe that people can talk to dead people, you're supposed to believe that COLE SEAR (in the framework of the movie ) believes he can see dead people.

In this sense, the setting is supposed to assist in that, and provide a sense of realism. ie, philadelphia, present day, etc.. And to most westerners the "backdrop" of SDM (ie poor india) fits cleanly with their version of realism. They could have had elvis impersonators pop out and start singing hound dog in the call center, or the guy who made money off the kids - could have taken off his mask to reveal he was tom jones, and start singing this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0s_LirKfWM

or everyone could have driven bentleys and been wearing gucci

It would be equally "unrealistic" in your book - but why didn't they do that? because they are trying to build a sense of realism, from which story can "pop out" from. So it's very very understandable why slumdog has these criticisms levied against it. the filmmakers gave westerners the reality they were most comfortable with.

When you watch a bollywood dance, you're not meant to believe the *CHARACTER* actually thinks that he walks around with 50 of his friends just in case a music track comes on. It's a clear departure from even a logical reality. Both are entertainment and require suspension of disbelief, but in different ways, do you see the distinction?

And trees killing people is equally a logical unreality, but within the framework of the movie, its completely logical, because the phenomenon happens and the characters react how WE THINK WE might react (shock, confusion, fear, etc...) And that's why we get "lulled" into a suspension of disbelief, and again that's what I mean by it's a different kind of "unrealism".

"In this sense, the setting is supposed to assist in that, and provide a sense of realism. ie, philadelphia, present day, etc.. And to most westerners the "backdrop" of SDM (ie poor india) fits cleanly with their version of realism....

It would be equally "unrealistic" in your book - but why didn't they do that? because they are trying to build a sense of realism, from which story can "pop out" from. "

Well that's exactly my question. A lot of people here are saying "the movie was awful/evil/etc" yet I am still trying to figure out why. I get Yoga Fire's opinion-- the characters sucked, there were lots of cliches. OK.

But what I don't understand the the complaints about showing poor India as a backdrop. People were saying it is an "unrealistic" version of poverty in India. My question was WHAT ABOUT the poverty backdrop is unrealistic. No one seems to be able to address that question.

So my thought was-- I don't think people are annoyed because the backdrop of poverty is unrealistic, but rather simply because it is a backdrop of poverty in India.

"So my thought was-- I don't think people are annoyed because the backdrop of poverty is unrealistic, but rather simply because it is a backdrop of poverty in India."

I haven't read the opinions in detail further up, but, perhaps its just an inherent characteristic of the story that was picked, ie slumkids in India (because, really thats what India is all about.. right?)

Concievably the same story could have been done with kids living a middle class life.

Linzi, I agree with the following statement you made in post 107.

>So my thought was-- I don't think people are annoyed because the backdrop of poverty is unrealistic, but rather simply because it is a backdrop >of poverty in India.

But my question is why people are annoyed with it? Poverty was just one aspect of the movie.

My 28 years old white all American female Physical Trainer summed up the movie as "Chick Flick". That is the opinion of a lot of people I know.

What I personally found offensive about the movie was the color and levity attached to life in the slums. The oversaturated stylings of Danny Boyle seemed to be a vision of India that seemed like it had come from the start of the 20th century, "the colorful orient". It wasn't all bad, in some ways, Boyle managed to convey some sense of dignity to the people of slums. If Slumdog was purported to be a out an out commercial flick then I would have no issues with it. However, at the height of the hype cycle, the movie was spoken about as if it represented an element of truth, which is fairly offensive. A less empirical yet personally pertinent observation, I abhor going to a bar and have people start conversations with me with Slumdog-centric banter.

"I abhor going to a bar and have people start conversations with me with Slumdog-centric banter."

True, but it's going to be something or another. if not, it'll be whatever "in" having to do with India.

I did not the movie offensive since I liked the story of a Muslim in contemporary India. I am Muslim and though the film is fiction, I thought it was bold to depict to a Western audience the sectarian violence which plagues the nation from time to time.

"I did not the movie offensive since I liked the story of a Muslim in contemporary India. I am Muslim and though the film is fiction, I thought it was bold to depict to a Western audience the sectarian violence which plagues the nation from time to time."

That just happens to only show one side of that "sectarian" violence.

As an African American, I can sort of understand the indifference or dislike some Indians expressed about Slumdog. It's a reaction similar (in my opinion) to the discomfort some African Americans (including me) have expressed with the depiction of the lead characters in "Precious". A Black colleague of mine, when asked about "Precious", just rolled her eyes and said, "Yeah, yeah, same old, same old". And yet this is the same film that has been critically lauded, won a ton of awards, and has some prominent African Americans backing it. I think that the concerns expressed are similar: fetishization of the "other" by films that seem to be aimed at a predominantly white audience and present a picture of the way these "others" live their lives in a manner that just perpetuates the same tired stereotypes.

Sue, thanks for the backup. Due to India's 1000 year bout with British Christian and Islamic colonialism, a lot of Indians have internalized an inferiority complex. Even outright abuses seem to be praises to high heaven.

If you really felt slumdog was a slur, you'd call yourself s*****g is a slur, or at least sl*md*g is a slur. Since you proudly display the word "Slubdog" in your handle, it proves you have no real opinion about it and are just striving for attention. Now, get back into your tenement, cur!

@cc: I lol'd.

1000 year bout with British Christian and Islamic colonialism..a lot of Indians have internalized an inferiority complex

Your opinion...i believe the Brits were in India for about 150yrs and Islamic colonialism? I wouldn't call it that...we know Islam "colonized" Iran, others parts of the Middle East, Africa, many indigneous religions wiped out. That's quite sad to me. I see a lot more "inferiority" complexes in other areas of the world, which reflects the state of the country's institutions since their hegemonized or colonial past. Islam is part and parcel of India and alongside Islamic rulers were also Hindu and Sikh rulers...no biggie. All of Europe is like that as well as South America - the way you put it you act like India is one of the few regions of the world that have had come under an empire lol. But maybe many of those indigenous religious didn't have 1000 year old writings, have not been heard about since the new cultural powerhouse overtook them.

[quote]Your opinion...i believe the Brits were in India for about 150yrs and Islamic colonialism? I wouldn't call it that...we know Islam "colonized" Iran, others parts of the Middle East, Africa, many indigneous religions wiped out. That's quite sad to me. I see a lot more "inferiority" complexes in other areas of the world, which reflects the state of the country's institutions since their hegemonized or colonial past. Islam is part and parcel of India and alongside Islamic rulers were also Hindu and Sikh rulers...no biggie. All of Europe is like that as well as South America - the way you put it you act like India is one of the few regions of the world that have had come under an empire lol. But maybe many of those indigenous religious didn't have 1000 year old writings, have not been heard about since the new cultural powerhouse overtook them.[/quote]
The British did colonize India first, so they were still conducting some experiments in how to govern the country. As a result they did have men like Lord Curzon there who built some schools and a civil service and attempted to create infrastructure to the benefit of the Indian people (even if it was partly misguided and mostly overshadowed by the overall mercantalist attitude of the Parliament and racist attitudes of the Brits themselves.)
By the time they got to Africa, though, they concluded that the whole "White Man's Burden" thing was more trouble than it was worth and anything they did build was primarily and solely to facilitate the orderly extraction of wealth and natural resources.

So while colonialism in India did suck, it sucked less hard than it did for the Africans.

So everytime a slur is discussed it must be written with !@#$, or else it is not a slur! What reasoning! That means that anyone can write out a slur and that it will thenceforth cease being a slur! Or was it a freudian slip on my part and I do not really consider that slumdog to be a slur? hmmpph........

Please search jindal and slumdog and see common usage of the term/slur/whathaveyou "slumdog." Or do I need to post examples on this august board?

Why not? You have nothing else to do.

I don't think Slumdog is a slur, but if you post a few more times I'll be convinced that "Slumdog is a slur" is a slur.

Slumdog is a slur,

Although Islam came to India via conquest of the Sindh initially by Arab armies that invaded adjacent Iran (Baluchistan was not part of India historically, but Iran). Throughout Indian history, subsequent invasions of the subcontinent followed. However, the bulk of the Muslim population of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are indigenous converts to the faith of Islam. While some converted by force, the majority converted by choice. Islam for some was a means to escape the Hindu caste system, in the same way that some convert to Christianity or a means to join the mores of the dominant culture of the day.

The Indian Ocean was known by some European explorers as the "Muslim sea" because Islam was the dominant cultural force from East Africa to Indonesia. Islam served as a cultural conduit that changed and shaped what we now define as "Indian" culture from henna being imported from the Middle East, to the present form of the kathak incorporating Persian dance moves and Central Asian dress, to the Perso-Arabic script of Urdu, to dome construction as exemplified by the Taj Mahal, to Muslim innovations to the sari by introducing the petticoat for women and groom wear for Indian men. Even contemporary Hindi has numerous loan words from Arabic, Farsi, and Turkic languages which bears witness to former Muslim rule.

Not all Muslim rulers of India were enlightened, but Buddhism in India was largely driven off the subcontinent by belligerant Hindu reactions to the Sakyamuni's challenge to the Vedic traditions.

Culture changes and Indian culture is no exception.

To me Slumdog Millionaire was a excellent means of representing India and its complexicities to a Western audience. India is no perfect society, in a society of 300 million middle class consumers, India is still home to a large concentration of poverty, child labor, corruption, sectarian violence, social dislocation, uneven distribution and concentration of wealth, and social biases against a chai walla.

Indians seem defensive about their country and how it is portrayed. This is really no different from Muslims in Pakistan who are unwilling to confront the issue of terrorism in their midst. The Taliban was created by Pakistan's ISI to control neighboring Afghanistan. Now the policies of supporting jihadi groups has backfired as recent bombings in the main cities of the Punjab and Sindh have proven deadly.