Shaheryar Ali
Danny Boyle’s movie “Slumdog Millionaire” has taken the world by storm. Based on a novel by the Indian diplomat and author Vikas Swarup the movie tells the story of a poor slum dweller of Mumbai who is contestant on the Indian version of “Who wants to be Millionaire”. The movie was a huge success and was able to bag 8 Academy Awards.
The mood in India is nothing less than ecstasy, merging with the new obsession of Indian ruling and middle classes about “Shining India”.
For more than a decade now India is in the grip of free market economy and its lustrous attempt of building an “Indian dream”, India the great democracy, the greatest country in the world, where poorest of the poor are also happy singing and dancing on the streets. Most of it is a cruel illusion, the recent capitalization of India is very patchy and un even. Only parts of India have seen this free market boom. Most of the India has remained un touched. The Indian peasants are worse affected and the suicide rate has hit new heights Emergence of fascism has become a real threat in India, the slow degeneration of Congress party has resulted in popularization of Hindu nationalists who are out right communalist. Worse are the “New Liberals” who pro claim to be secular but subscribe to a virulent Hindutva ideology. They are rabidly anti-left consider them “pseudo secularist” but fail to see themselves who are just “Jeans clad” version of RSS.
The attitude in general Indian intelligentsia has been to hide these contradictions under carpet and glorify them. Without addressing the material base of these contradictions , a metaphysical blanket is put on the un desirable side, thus the slum become some thing of an “ideal” living place, the poor happy in their life and communalism just work of an evil anti social gunda.
While every one is busy partying on success of Slumdog Millionaire, we are providing an alternative view. This blog has always made sure that it gives voice to the suppressed opinion. .Arundhati Roy , the famous writer, anti globalization and anti-imperialist political activist has emerged as a conscience of India. A fierce critic of Indian ruling classes and established opinion, she spoke about the objectionable side of the movie
“People are selling India’s poverty big time both in literature and films. As they say, there is lots of money in poverty today. I am not against showing slums, but depicting them in a depoliticised manner, as has been done in the film, is quite unfortunate. Films do not show the real poor. Even if they are depicted, it’s not the true picture. The real poor are not shown in films because they are not attractive. Poverty sells but the poor do not. The film gives false hope to the poor that they too could become millionaires one day” The whole reaction can be seen here
Miss Roy wrote a wonderful critique of the movie for Dawn, the largest English newspaper of Pakistan. It was called “India not shining”. She writes:
“The debate around the film has been framed – and this helps the film in its multi-million-dollar promotion drive – in absurd terms. On the one hand we have the old ‘patriots’ parroting the line that “it doesn’t show India in a Proper Light’ (by now, even they’ve been won over thanks to the Viagra of success). On the other hand, there are those who say that Slumdog is a brave film that is not scared to plum the depths of India ‘not-shining’.
Slumdog Millionaire does not puncture the myth of ‘India shining’— far from it. It just turns India ‘not-shining’ into another glitzy item in the supermarket. As a film, it has none of the panache, the politics, the texture, the humour, and the confidence that both the director and the writer bring to their other work. It really doesn’t deserve the passion and attention we are lavishing on it. It’s a silly screenplay and the dialogue was embarrassing, which surprised me because I loved The Full Monty (written by the same script writer). The stockpiling of standard, clichéd, horrors in Slumdog are, I think, meant to be a sort of version of Alice in Wonderland – ‘Jamal in Horrorland’. It doesn’t work except to trivialize what really goes on here. The villains who kidnap and maim children and sell them into brothels reminded me of Glenn Close in 101 Dalmatians”
On the political side of the movie she comments:
“Politically, the film de-contextualises poverty – by making poverty an epic prop, it disassociates poverty from the poor. It makes India’s poverty a landscape, like a desert or a mountain range, an exotic beach, god-given, not man-made. So while the camera swoops around in it lovingly, the filmmakers are more picky about the creatures that
inhabit this landscape.
To have cast a poor man and a poor girl, who looked remotely as though they had grown up in the slums, battered, malnutritioned, marked by what they’d been through, wouldn’t have been attractive enough. So they cast an Indian model and a British boy. The torture scene in the cop station was insulting. The cultural confidence emanating from the obviously British ’slumdog’ completely cowed the obviously Indian cop, even though the cop was supposedly torturing the slumdog. The brown skin that two share is too thin to hide a lot of other things that push through it. It wasn’t a case of bad acting – it was a case of the PH balance being wrong. It was like watching black kids in a Chicago slum speaking in Yale accents”
The whole article can be reached here
A fellow blogger from Pakistan, Freethinker has subjected Slumdog Millionaire to very good “gender critique”. He deconstructs the “Hero Narrativity” and examines Slumdog Millionaire against these dominant discourses of Hero and Masculinity. He writes:
“It’s important to identify the mythical structure in the plots of both the movies which serves to build the hero narrative. Once the hero and the struggle have been identified, both movies establish the hero as the winner through leaps of logic that are more characteristic of myth than fiction.—————- But watching Sd M critically, asking how the protagonist has efficient reading skills without tutoring, or how all the questions asked on the game are linked to the most dramatic experiences of the protagonist’s life, brings home the mythical structure that serves to complete the hero narrative”
And:
“The narratives are also concerned with the hero’s masculinity. The happy endings themselves establish a definition of the masculine as the winner who ‘takes it all’. This is why in Sd M, it is not enough that the protagonist just resolves the central conflict of the plot, that is, his separation from his beloved. In the end, through strokes of luck that sacrifice the story’s plausibility, he not only has love but also wins fame and money.—- The hero’s masculinity is established in other ways as well.———- A different but more traditional approach to this same end is seen in Sl M, in which the hero of the narrative saves the archetypal ‘damsel in distress’. The hero here represents more the anguished warrior who, as he comes of age, gets to reclaim his manhood by getting back his childhood sweetheart and becoming the winner”
This is a very advance critique rooted in firm theoretical foundation, especially his formulation of concept of “emasculation of the collective”. The whole article can be reached here.
March 7, 2009 at 11:45 am
Salman Rushdie writes:
“What can one say about Slumdog Millionaire, adapted from the novel Q&A by the Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup and directed by Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan, which won eight Oscars, including best picture? A feelgood movie about the dreadful Bombay slums, an opulently photographed movie about extreme poverty, a romantic, Bollywoodised look at the harsh, unromantic underbelly of India – well – it feels good, right? And, just to clinch it, there’s a nifty Bollywood dance sequence at the end. (Actually, it’s an amazingly second-rate dance sequence even by Bollywood’s standards, but never mind.) It’s probably pointless to go up against such a popular film, but let me try.
The problems begin with the work being adapted. Swarup’s novel is a corny potboiler, with a plot that defies belief: a boy from the slums somehow manages to get on to the hit Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and answers all his questions correctly because the random accidents of his life have, in a series of outrageous coincidences, given him the information he needs, and are conveniently asked in the order that allows his flashbacks to occur in chronological sequence. This is a patently ridiculous conceit, the kind of fantasy writing that gives fantasy writing a bad name. It is a plot device faithfully preserved by the film-makers, and lies at the heart of the weirdly renamed Slumdog Millionaire. As a result the film, too, beggars belief.
It used to be the case that western movies about India were about blonde women arriving there to find, almost at once, a maharajah to fall in love with, the supply of such maharajahs being apparently endless and specially provided for English or American blondes; or they were about European women accusing non-maharajah Indians of rape, perhaps because they were so indignant at having being approached by a non-maharajah; or they were about dashing white men galloping about the colonies firing pistols and unsheathing sabres, to varying effect. Now that sort of exoticism has lost its appeal; people want, instead, enough grit and violence to convince themselves that what they are seeing is authentic; but it’s still tourism. If the earlier films were raj tourism, maharajah-tourism, then we, today, have slum tourism instead. In an interview conducted at the Telluride film festival last autumn, Boyle, when asked why he had chosen a project so different from his usual material, answered that he had never been to India and knew nothing about it, so he thought this project was a great opportunity. Listening to him, I imagined an Indian film director making a movie about New York low-life and saying that he had done so because he knew nothing about New York and had indeed never been there. He would have been torn limb from limb by critical opinion. But for a first world director to say that about the third world is considered praiseworthy, an indication of his artistic daring. The double standards of post-colonial attitudes have not yet wholly faded away.”
See the article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/feb/28/salman-rushdie-novels-film-adaptations
March 7, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Thanks Awais
March 7, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Still a Lefti left , in Rushdie , lol
Chut.ti nahi ye kaffir zuban se laggi hue
August 22, 2009 at 2:24 am
CORRECTION :Chut.ti nahi hai moonh say yeh kafir laggi hooi
March 7, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I read both the Rushdie and Roy pieces and I think they are both brilliant analyses of why so many people dislike the film. I agree with Roy that it “decontextualizes poverty”. Besides that, on a purely aesthetic level, it just wasn’t a very good film, certainly not best picture quality. But for some reason, goras are really excited about it.
March 8, 2009 at 3:03 am
i think you guys are missing the point… slumdog was a purely escapist movie in the grand tradition of all bollywood films. i think its really unfair to have it ripped apart by luminaries such as Roy and Rushdie who want to see it as a movie in the western sense, because i suppose that’s what the 8 oscars seem to imply.
i mean, take all the arguments put here so far, including the emasculation of the collective, ad then impose them on any bollywood flick and you wil find them all guilty of the same sins.
like every good bollywood film, there are goodies, there are baddies, there’s a girl, and theres a happy ending. simple.
what is interesting, and perhaps more instructive, is that it took a white guy to direct a bollywood film for the format to catch on in the west.
March 8, 2009 at 7:02 am
For some reason I liked the movie although after reading Roy’s and Rushdie’s view about it, I don’t like it that much..
March 9, 2009 at 5:22 am
Excellent post, Sherry. Thank you very much for sharing this.
March 9, 2009 at 1:08 pm
If this was not a ‘feel good’ story, it would not be a movie…rather a documentary. It is a fact that ‘rags to riches’ stories like these are the essence of true classics (harsh realities meshed neatly with fantasy). I can understand the Indian perspective on this…it shows the true and ugly side of the so called economic boom, and it is a blow to their pride.
As for its astounding success in the west…it earned laurels here because it captivated the audiences due to the sheer vitality of its theme -a slum dweller turned millionaire with sheer determination and the power of love. The original setting and real slum kids added to the appeal.
I heard the director defend his casting of a British guy as the protagonist. He did auditions in India, but they all tried hard to pose hero-like. Boyle said he needed someone who looked like a ‘loser’. I think his choice was great and the lead character did justice to his role.
March 12, 2009 at 12:06 am
“If this was not a ‘feel good’ story, it would not be a movie…rather a documentary.”
Well, I’m just sorry that you haven’t seen any good movies, Mansura Minhas.
‘karachi khatmal’ and minhas, I think you need to re-read Roy and Rushdie’s criticism. They’re contextualizing the film, telling us how some people feel offended by the film, by the way it portrays the poor, and India. If it’s just a feel-good film, everyone should enjoy it.
And yes the gender critique can be applied to just any other movie, Bollywood and Hollywood, and my piece used the movie just as an illustration.
March 12, 2009 at 8:53 am
@free thinker
fair enough, the critique was just meant to contextualize the film. i just meant to say that the movie really isn’t the big deal people seemed to be making it, but with the oscars in the bag i suppose it says a lot more about how the west views india, or the view of india the west is comfortable with… obviously it seems to be a view rushdie and roy don’t like, and fair enough i suppose
March 16, 2009 at 9:18 pm
this is one of the most amazing movies ive ever watched it funny inspiring a definte work of art its truly and amazing love story
April 23, 2009 at 4:26 am
Ring Ring Ringa Lyrics – Slumdog Millionaire…
Who wants to be a Hollywood movie fan? Slumdog Millionaire has reaped all rewards – not only the eight Academy Awards last night, but also box office receipts totaling over $100 million in the US..A lot of people may have seen The Curious Case of Benja…
March 13, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Fascinating, I’ve not even heard about this…