"Dogged" by Objections
Ah, Slumdog Millionaire. The Hollywood Movie with Bollywood aspirations. The only so-called 'Indian' movie (never mind the nationality of Danny Boyle, the director) to have won a total of 4 Golden Globes and 5 Broadcast Films Critics Association Awards (BFCAA), including 2 awards for A. R. Rahman and one for Dev Patel. The very movie that has been heaped with most critical acclaim in '08. But that's not the only thing causing newspapers to devote reams to the movie. There's a different controversy breeding around this movie. What's all the fuss about, then?
Well, it seems none other than Amitabh Bachchan started it all. A post on his blog went like:
"If SM projects India as Third World dirty under belly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky under belly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations. Its just that the SM idea authored by an Indian and conceived and cinematically put together by a Westerner, gets creative Globe recognition. The other would perhaps not." (For the full post, click here)
This excerpt puts forth two main points:
- The economic state in India is not much worse compared to the developed countries, and even they have "under bellies".
- SM won all this recognition and awards only because it's a western film.
And now, the first point. I take some of my inputs from a UK blogger about whom Mumbai Mirror has reported. (If any reader happens to have a link of the blog, I'll apperciate it). The slums in India are not the under belly; they are the nation. 80% of India lives under 2.5 pounds a day; 40% under 1.25. I now add, this is the portrayal of the Real India. All this 'India Shining', high growth rate, millions of jobs, this is all nonsense. The truth is the slum existance. The real India is the one that toils all day, near under-construction buildings, in fields, and even in your own homes (have a look at the domestic help AKA kaamwali cleaning up your house) and get barely a pittance in return, in which they have to run their homes... sorry, slums.
As if this was not enough, a case has been filed in a court against A. R. Rahman and Anil Kapoor (pray, tell me, whatever is their fault now?) for calling Indians as 'dogs' and slum dwellers as 'Slumdogs', which apparently constitutes infringement of the rights of slum dwellers. I'll reply to this in a mere couple of lines:
Compare the existance of an Indian slum dweller to that of a stray dog. If you find any differences, leave a comment below this post.
5 comments:
SM is in no way a hollywood film with bollywood aspirations. it is not even a hollywood film and is a product of the english school of cinema, which is quite different from hollywood. in real-world terminology, calling a film a HW or BW film is generally considered a comment about its commercial and artistic concentration and aspiration.
while paheli was a controversial choice, as an advanced film student, let me confirm to you that eklavya was a master-piece in its cinematography and scope. it had great artistic value which only a discerning viewer might understand. yes, we have made really bad choices in the past- jeans being one of them.
as of tzp, it is surely not a moron movie like you claim- as an outsider who hasn't explored the world of movie-making and its intricacies, your banishing of tzp is alarming. taking my knowledge of movies into account, let me inform you that while making a movie like tzp, it is very difficult to keep your emotional and creative flexing in tap.. and the director did a very good job in doing so.
there are many flaws in the 3 movies you mentioned... you just need to google it... i agree that they could have been respected better... but then again, critics did appreciate the efforts. SM displays a superior treatment of cinematic elements, which, a film teacher will confirm for you.
coming to your final point of a slum dweller and a dog being synonymous, i find it a disturbing comparison. the use of the word is a metaphor, but in terms of dogs and Indians.. it goes back a long way in history. I can easily see why an Indian might be offended because of this usage. it is not smart to take it seriously, but it is surely under people's justification.
slum dwellers are humans.. dogs are dogs... there might a similarity in the way they are treated, but they are in no way similar as entities.
thank you.
let me just add that even if those films would have been nominated, none of them would have made it to the final 5. maybe they would have been better choices than the ones we did send... but they were not as good as the ones which made it to the top 5.. all of which i have viewed.
i think we both would agree that it is a question of raising our own standards and not looking outside for recognition to come searching.
keep writing
Thank you for your insightful comments, especially the ones about TZP, I shall definitely keep them in mind while writing future posts. I understand I may have gone overboard while banishing TZP, but in my opinion, Black >> Paheli.
As for dogs and Indians, I know what you mean, but seriously, although the comparison is disturbing, it isn't entirely untrue... Impoverished Indians hardly get one meal a day, and having to feed 6-8 mouths in the family means nearly every member has to slog all day, even 5 year old kids, I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that...
And I fully agree with your last comment; we really do need to raise our own standards, and I can see that happening, slowly, but steadily.
On a different note, you have mentioned you are an advanced film student. May I know what exactly you are doing?
Keep reading!
I am finishing up my degree in film-making. Black might have better than Paheli for a casual viewer and also in terms of cinematic elements- but please read Aamir Khan's comments on the movie, which are perfectly right.
The movie is over-the-top.. lacks a lot of logic... there is NO justification for treatment of children that way, the fact that the child was challenged adds even more shock- and it is hard to keep calm when SLB goes with his usual over-dramatization.
Amitabh's acting compliments SLB's trying-too-hard style... and many scenes in the movie have been clearly pointed out by child experts as impossible/unethical treatment/reaction.
One cannot argue that it is a movie after all.. because one needs to define the depth of reality one wishes to portray. Black is obviously set in the real world, and hence, has to adhere by rules of the real-world.
About your dogs-Indians thing, as I said, there is a difference between treatment and existence. As smart individuals, both of us have no problem with the reference and can see what it really meant- let us leave it for the court to decide if everyone SHOULD have seen that implication.
I completely agree; we should leave it to the court to decide on the dog thing. However, this is my 'opinion' (on a blog aptly named 'Opinion Matrix'): The name has done no wrong. People are open to differ if their sensibilities are affected.
Post a Comment