Skip to content

Slamdog Millionaire

February 25, 2009

The whole world has woken up to the fact that Indian Cinema is a force to contend with. However, is it right to give Slumdog Millionaire the credit of having achieved this for us? While it is quite right to say that this film has improved global perception of Indian cinema, this view is limited to the contribution of a few Indian individuals like the technician, Mr. Pookutty and the one-and-only Rehman. (It is a British film, for crying out loud!) These people have won their awards purely on the merit of their skill. It is heartening to see an Indian technician competing with the best in the world and receiving mighty accolades as this. It was even more heartening to hear him speak at the Oscars. 

I watched the movie before any of the debates had begun. There was nothing I had heard about it to harbour any bias towards or against the film. Yet, as I walked out of the multiplex, though I could recognise the fact that it was indeed a well-made film, I felt a tremendous anger within. I would not go as far as to connect it with mighty and clichéd words like patriotism. But, yes, it was the Indian in me that revolted to any appreciation other than technical.

 In the days and weeks that followed, one has witnessed, heard and even been a part of innumerable debates regarding the portrayal of the Indian nation. The Indian populace has become very liberal. They have become open enough to look at cinema purely as art, quite conveniently. They saw nothing wrong in the depiction of India. I wondered every time I spoke to these people, if they were actually being liberal or if they were just insensitive. I concluded, it was, in most cases, the latter.

Third world! A taboo word almost. And that’s what I would have perceived of India from watching this film, had I not been an Indian. Agreed we have slums. Agreed, we had fraudulent practices. Agreed, we have nasty underworld that uses slum children to beg and go as far as blinding them in horrendous beastly ways. By all means cinema has the right to portray these truths. These are real problems and India is not in denial. We acknowledge this situation. But is there all there is to show? 

You go all out to show the filth, what with shit ponds and open sewer pipes. But why is there not a single scene in the film that shows Marine Drive or any of the thriving locales of Bombay. Mumbai is India’s financial capital! It’s an important hub in International finance and economy. Why then isn’t there a single mention of the development? Oh there is!!! The older brother of Jamal sits atop a building in construction and shows off to his little brother, the sprawling complexes and multi-storied towers and buildings standing tall, in the same area that once comprised of their slum. But guess what? He proudly tell Jamal that all of that belongs to the underworld. It’s the underworld who owns all of that, he says. So what is the message? Whatever development we hear of, is gratis the underworld? Nothing to do with India shining, India booming and what have you? After killing their tormentor and freeing the poor girl, they run to a hotel.  The hotel is deserted! The doors of the rooms in the hotel have swipe slots. So presumably, it is not a cheap hotel, but a star hotel. With no light? No attendants? No reception? I wonder?!! I wonder?!! 

The thriving BPO industry!? “Hello! Never trust the Indian BPO!” says the Slumdog Millionaire, “They let “chai-walas” answer calls, posing as technicians! They lie!”

Some people felt the film was very intellectual in subtly portraying important events in Mumbai’s history. They showed the emergence of Amitabh Big-B as a superstar. They showed the Hindu-Muslim riots during the Babri Masjid – Ram Janma Bhoomi tragedy. But wait. Why did they not show Hindus being attacked my Muslims in the riot? Why did they only show Hindu extremists attack the Muslim slums? In addition, wasn’t the “Mumbai Bomb blasts of 1992” a major tragedy in the history of Mumbai as well? Perpetrated by the underworld dons and Terrorists? (I refrain from the temptation to point out that the dons and the terrorists were Muslim.) Why then would this singular event be of such interest to the makers of the film? To show a little boy dressed as Ram holding the bow and arrow (he actually dressed so elaborately in the middle of a riot!) to provide the answer Jamal would one day need? Remarkable intellect, indeed! 

A waiter at a restaurant comes in with an order for, among other things, a bottle of mineral water. And most casually, he fills tap water in a used bottle and seals it with glue. Most arguments to this have been, “Well, its true. It actually happens!” I cannot refute it. Viewed by itself, maybe seems a harmless take on cheap hotels. However, in the midst of this incessant India-bashing through out the film, this only re-iterates the depiction of India and all its industries as spurious. Who can give me an assurance that this is not done in Europe, London or in the US? If you cannot, then would you be able to point out one filmmaker from these countries who might have had the courage or heart to show this on camera? And even if you might manage that, show me one such film that might have been raised to the skies and even awarded an Oscar!!! For Christ’s Sake!!

 In one of these discussions, when all defence against my criticisms failed, one said, “it is after all an adaptation of a book (Q & A)! So they’ve shown whatever is in the book!” now I have not read the book (and frankly don’t intend to). So I cannot comment on that either. Presuming they have stuck to what the book says, I wonder since when filmmakers became so loyal to the books. Haven’t filmmakers in the past edited screenplays to accommodate sensitive areas? To my knowledge, they always have. I have rarely come across a film that follows the book as it were a Bible.

 This depiction of Indian society and Indian cities is sinister. It is a deliberate attempt to cast a slur on the global image that India has built for itself. Despicable, to say the least.

 Two of the most incinerating lines in the film were the ridiculous “You wanted to see the real India? This is the real India.” And the response to this is an American woman flashing a Dollar note in charity to the boy saying, “Now I’ll show you the real America”.

 The real America did honour this, indeed, by handing out several Oscars to Slumdog Millionaire.

7 Comments leave one →
  1. Deepak permalink
    February 25, 2009 10:13 pm

    Though I have not watched more than 20 min of Slumdog (that itself was in bad taste) I agree to the the article´s views.
    This movie reminds me of Mira Nair genre of movies whose themes are to portray India´s social evils (most exagerated and often untrue) to international audiences. Ofcourse, all of them bashing hindu sensitivities. Can they dare to show the same about montheistic religions or hindus as victims.

    Wonder why we still watch this and discuss it.

  2. Sandeep permalink
    February 26, 2009 4:21 am

    There is art for art’s sake, and then there is art for a cause. Evaluating work from both these standpoints often results in drastically different and irreconcilable opinions, whether the work is in the form of music or a movie. I found that you argued your case for the latter here well.

    This is probably a never-ending debate. I think your discomfort is more due to Indian movies with an urban focus NOT making it to international film festivals and winning awards, rather than SM highlighting what it did. That meritorious Indians won awards at the Oscars proves that we are no less competent. So, the absence of such a killer movie, creates an uncomfortable void.

    I think SM should be categorized under “The Incomplete Truth” and not “Falsehood” group. Since we accept that the depiction of poverty in the movie is pretty close to the ground reality, we don’t have a problem with that. We only have a problem due to the fact that the other side of the coin was not shown.

    By stating that the movie is bad because the whole world will perceive India as a poor country after watching this movie, we are demanding the accommodation of people who do not understand that this is only a subset of reality. So the real question is – should such ignorant people be accommodated? I think not because art should not be bound by the taste of the audience. So, that is why the story is limited in scope and portrayal. No where in the movie is it stated that this is all of India.

    I hope this write up doesn’t make me sound any less patriotic than a regular fellow Indian 🙂

  3. Hari permalink
    February 26, 2009 8:28 am

    The article rightly speaks of the sentiments of a Hindu protagonist. I agree with your views Sam.
    However when it comes to their nation movies like Elizabeth make it to oscars but not movies which talks about drug abuse, women hatred or terrorism.
    The recent attacks on innocent ppl in Mumbai itself shows the horrendous creatures, our neighbors, as the culprits and its Hindus who have suffered enough.
    Why not make a Film on Chanakya, Shivaji, etc and show what India has given to the world.

  4. Samarth Nagarkar permalink*
    February 26, 2009 12:28 pm

    Thank you all for your comments.

    @ Deepak: India-bashing seems to many as the fastest way to an award. what with White Tiger winning the Booker’s with a similar line. and SM winning the Oscars.

    @Sandeep: Firstly, rest assured, no forum or nothing you say or do here can ever “judge your patriotism”! ha!
    You are very correct in saying this film shows the partial truth and not necessarily faleshood. I do agree with this. I made it clear in the article as well, that we have no problems with showing the dark unhappy truth, but its important to also show the brighter side when you are making it for a wide diaspora. fair enough? 🙂
    As far as dismissing the “ignorant audiences”, it is not for any body to judge the quality of audience you target. the film is for everyone to watch. Who decides how much of the audience is “ignorant” and what degree of intellect the rest possess? Its impossible. A film or a piece of art is for everyone. And it affects every individual who watches it, regardless of his level of ignorance or intellect.
    I would have loved to view this film as purely a film with no strings attached. But we live in a world that most certainly has strings attached. And to deny the fact that there could be more to this depiction of India than a purely artistic and aesthetic sensitivity is to be naive. You will undoubtedly agree.
    I have also lauded the individual Indians who won the award. Doubtless, they deserve an ovation.
    And you ask where the film states that this is the whole truth about India. Dear Sandeep, it doesn’t take a dialogue to state things in a film. right? 🙂
    cheers. Thanks for your comments, hope to hera more from you.

    @Shrihari: I fully second your views that Chanakya, Shivaji, Swami Vivekandand, etc need to be brought back from the dead, at least in spirit and ideology. Great Indians like Swami Vivekanand and Shri Aurobindo went on to turn the tide against the British attack on India’s soul, not by counter-attack, but merely by reviving awareness of our latent greatness.

    Thank you for posting comments. I hope to hear more from you guys.

    All readers are welcome to comment and share their views.

    Regards.

  5. March 1, 2009 1:41 pm

    I confess I haven’t seen the movie yet. However, irrespective of whether or not “Slumdog” represents an accurate and balanced portrayal, I fail to see why we should be so concerned with how others choose to portray us. If we are to develop, we need to look inwards, if necessary be self-critical and correct ourselves, and NOT distract ourselves with externalities. If China had taken seriously western accusations of its human rights violations, it would not have become the economic superpower it has today. And as far as human rights are concerned, let’s not forget it’s the US that is threatening to boycott the UN conference on racism – so much for democracy:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7916191.stm

    If there is anything I feel we need to be concerned with, it is how we have portrayed ourselves, in films made by Indians for Indians. For example, as individuals involved with Hindustani music (in my case, however tenuously), is it not more important that we take a strong stand about A R Rehman remixing Bade Ghulam Ali Khan with Shreya Ghoshal? If you don’t believe me, take a look for yourself:

  6. Tripti Paranjpe permalink
    March 4, 2009 8:49 pm

    Glad you felt the same , I could not sit beyond the first 10 mins of the movie. I am just glad that AR Rahman got the music award and recognition that he is due.

  7. Shashank Sanade permalink
    March 10, 2009 3:33 pm

    I completely share your views 100%.
    I’d have been happier if long ago “GANDHI” had won the Oscar as it rightfully deserved (it had lost out to a sci-fi movie called “E.T”!!)
    Keep it up ,boy !
    Take care,
    Shashank

Leave a comment