Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Hamara Forums _ Hollywood _ Is Slumdog Millionaire A Case Of Poverty Porn?
Posted by: parag_sankla Feb 21 2009, 05:57 AM
I have not seen the film yet, but have read many reviews. My conclusion based on them is that the western world (British director - the same people who ruled us for over 150 years) has made an excellent piece of poverty porn out of India. The projection of Mumbai and India as a whole is slum (as if there are no homeless people in the developed countries). Using the word dog (even if some one defends that its a newly coined word = slum + underdog = slumdog) is derogatory.
Views most welcome.
Jai Hind!
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 21 2009, 02:01 PM
Parag ji mujhe nahin malooom poverty porn ka kya matlab hai........: p haan magar yeah jaroor keh sakta hoon is movie aur Oscars ko lekar kuchh jayada hi halla bolla machaya hua hai.
Even I havent seen the movie but I feel no matter how good the movie may be , its getting attention because it was produced/directed by an foreigner . INDIANs or dusre subcontinient ke artist bhi aise kaafi achhi movies bana saktein hai. magar wo kabhi notice mein nahin ayengi. hum logon ke emotions, feelings, views etc alag hai Western filmmakers/viewers se . so no matter how much good the movie we might make they wont understand and appreciate our films. I fullly agree with few artists like Amitabh etc who echoed similar views.
Same is the story with Indian music artists. It took one Harrision to make them notice our Ravi shankar.
Ab wo Ravi shankar and company ke peechhe hi haath dho ke pad gaye hain. as if no other artist existed.
Ravi shankar is worldl class artist.....but dont we have many more such artists ??
Zakir hussain won both his Grammys for fusion work. so til you please these Westerners with their kind of music. they will appreciate and award you. but I dont think there are many takers of our music.
( check their reactions on HFM songs. they find them funny mix of diff instruments ! WA BS ! )
Zakir said very well in one interview " These awards dont matter much........biggest compliment I got was from my Guru(his Dad) when he praised my work. only two times in my life he praised my work " ( not verbatim)
So apoon ko koi tension nahin hai..oscars jeete ya nahin. Unki duniya alag apni alag !
......... I feel we People from SAARC countries should have one common Films/music awards !
regards
Sonu
Posted by: Ashraf Feb 21 2009, 05:14 PM
Hi paragji hope you r fine.How is GeetaDutt.com going?
I have seen the movie and I agree with Sonu that this film got attention just because of it's forign hands.But we should not deny that there are slupms,poverty,child labour,starvation in Our country.Let us accept the reality.As citizens of India it is our's responsibility too to contribuite in our own way or to formulate some solutions to the backwardness of our nation.See as a person coming from a village I don't deny that I have seen myself a lot of people struggling to build their lives.As Gandhiji told India's sole lies in villages.As long as lion's share of our rural population is struggling to meet their two ends it is stupid that we call ourself a 'super power' or 'economic power'.(Especially if you visit any Gulf country you can see yourself the plight of the middle class).
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 26 2009, 01:08 AM
I do not think that is the case, just my personal opinion. I have not seen the movie however.
Coming to word dog… well..How may times have you heard this "whats up you dawg (dog)".. I guess it's a cultural thing. Lots of African American population uses this word, uses frequently and all the time. Even we use the word … during such and such tournament of hockey, India was underdog. It's still the same word.
Agreed movie is made by someone who is not Indian, so do we not smack others with comments? Guess what sholay would have been outright banned for racial slur… aab tera kaya hoga "kaalia". Dang on it…. that famous dialogue would have gone down the drain in no time. Even though Kaalia (pundits) is a caste in India but hey … this can go as racial slur here in west. In any case Kaalia of sholey was named for his "color".
But come to think of it, huge mega hit.. "kaalia", yet another dang… mangel pandy had lots of racial overtones but that was ok since it did happen, its part of histroy. Well, so did "dharavi", one of largest slums in India or Asia may be? These are parts of India, we like it or not. We cannot force any one to show walkways of rashtra-pati bhavan.
Try watching a movie called "Party" (peter sellers - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063415/ ), it was banned in India. I never found that movie to be offensive, like I did not find green card fever (milk please @ MacDonalds
) offensive. Had someone from bollywood played role of hrundi, we would have been ok. Posted by: Marcilo Feb 26 2009, 01:11 AM
Oh I forgot our very own Dharam paaji, honorary member of parliament, god knows how many times he used "abe .. kutte mai tera khoon pe jaoonga" on our very own "Indian Janta"
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 26 2009, 01:24 AM
Sure why not, Film fare mai hi award lo na fir....
Read few lines below from wiki
The notion of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) began with Louis B. Mayer, head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM). He wanted to create an organization that would mediate labor disputes and improve the industry’s image. So, on a Sunday evening, Mayer and three other studio big-wigs - actor Conrad Nagel, director Fred Niblo, and the head of the Association of Motion Picture Producers, Fred Beetson - sat down and discussed these matters. The idea of this elite club having an annual banquet was tossed around, but there was no mention of awards just yet. They also established that a membership into the organization would only be open to people involved in one of the five branches of the industry: actors, directors, writers, technicians, and producers.[1]
After their brief meeting, Mayer gathered up a group of thirty-six people involved in the film industry and invited them to a formal banquet at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on January 11, 1927. [2] That evening Mayer presented to those guests what he called the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and it was open to those who had contributed to the motion picture industry. Everyone in the room that evening became a founder of the Academy. It wasn’t until later, when Mayer’s lawyers wrote up the charter, did the name change to "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences".
Unke awards hai…. unhone start kiyee.. hum kayoon chaudhry ban rahe hai?
Posted by: parag_sankla Feb 26 2009, 01:50 AM
Marcilo bhai
Ok, let us forget the word "underdog" here. I am not concerned about the Awards either, so let us keep the Oscars aside.
My simple question is : Does only India have slums? And is slums everything in India?
My honest answer is No for both. Then we have a reason to object when a foreigner comes and portrays India as a slum.
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 26 2009, 01:59 AM
Marcilo bhai
Ok, let us forget the word "underdog" here. I am not concerned about the Awards either, so let us keep the Oscars aside.
My simple question is : Does only India have slums? And is slums everything in India?
My honest answer is No for both. Then we have a reason to object when a foreigner comes and portrays India as a slum.
Answer is NO and NO.
You can tell freelance photographer what to shoot, independent film maker what movie to make or someone from Fourth Estate what to write. That is not it, we do not live behind iron curtains. Truth is even people behind those curtains are objecting to that.
He wanted to make a movie based on his opinion and he did. Not sure if that was money or some other factor.
Let's not forget it was Richard Attenborough, a brit, who showered laurels on father of the nation when he made Gandhi.
Posted by: HumTum Feb 26 2009, 07:29 AM
Parag bhai let us not see things with a negative view point. Let us face the reality. Despite having the richest people of the world living here in India slums are a reality, underworld activities are a reality, child labour, child abuse is a reality and many of our own film makers have made movies on slums and depressive side of the life.. How can you forget movies like Chakra and many such movies? Fine they were not nominated for Oscars or any of our own awards, does that mean only movies of Karan Johar kinds should be made by other country filmmakers? That would sux big time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
SDM has been given way too much hype. It is an average movie, but I liked the positive move to the movie. We do have many slum-dwelled-turned millionaires in our own country. The stars of the movie were actually the kids!
Marcilo bhai thanks for reminding us about Gandhi!
Posted by: parag_sankla Feb 26 2009, 09:36 AM
I wanted to be away from this topic, but this news item was too good to miss.
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Slumdog+just+reinforces+all+the+old+stereotypes&artid=xMKH2sag4V0=&SectionID=XVSZ2Fy6Gzo=&MainSectionID=XVSZ2Fy6Gzo=&SEO=Anil+Kapoor,+Slumdog+Millionaire,+Christian+Colson&SectionName=m3GntEw72ik=
There was no need to use the 50:50 option or phone a friend, as the issue was locked from the beginning, ever since Slumdog Millionaire was nominated for the Oscars. We all knew Danny Boyle would get the award, having portrayed India negatively, projecting the slums and drains of Bharat, the inhuman behaviour of the police and highlighting the brothels of Mumbai.
With goons flourishing in the slums of Mumbai, engaged in making big money and the mafia plucking out eyes of children, the film had the right mix of ingredients to make it to the top at the Oscar awards ceremony.
After all, it’s this aspect of India that’s been adored by phirangs in the past, who term India as the country of snake-charmers and elephants, refusing to believe that it is at par today with any other country in the areas of IT, science and technology, fashion and beauty care as well.
In the film sector, especially, we have been at the forefront always, having produced classics like Mother India, Mughal-e-Azam, Bandini, Barsaat, Awara, Mera Naam Joker and, more recently, Sholay, Lagaan, etc, but no one had any doubt that our films would never make it to the Oscars.
What if our songs Awara hun (Awara) and Pyar hua ikraar hua (Shri 420) are popular the world over and our cine stars, from Raj Kapoor, Nargis Dutt to the more recent ones like Amitabh Bachchan, Shahrukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai are loved and chased by everyone everywhere, Indian films were never considered for the Oscars.
Indeed, Danny Boyle deserves praise for showcasing our great Indian talent before the world. We had no doubt that Gulzar was a great lyricist and that A R Rahman has a great future. The gems of our film industry, however, would not have made it to the top, the Oscars, if a Britisher or an American had not produced a film called Slumdog Millionaire.
Is it not an irony that for greater exposure of the already known talent of our films, we needed Slumdog? Couldn’t we have managed it without exhibiting the negative-side of our story? The answer is “NO”.
So, when we are celebrating the laurels of our achievers, we should also ponder the negativity of the film.
Those who saw the film would think of India as a country of dirt and filth, ridden with poverty, where violence and deceit are the key to success and where girls are often taken to brothels.
For the recognition of a very few in the outside world, we have allowed outsiders to portray, not the other side, but the wrong side of Bharat.
So, there is nothing to celebrate if US President Barack Obama is expected to see the movie, and empathise with the plight of Indians.
Similarly, if the producer of Slumdog Millionaire, Christian Colson, is planning to stage a musical show with all the kids, it is basically to keep themselves in the limelight and to get as much attention as possible. This, any way, won’t be possible if the kids are not around. As for charity, it is for the Indian government to take the call on the plight of slumdwellers.
A senior officer of the tourism ministry confided that India has been shown as a country where youngsters are so crazy that they would not give a second thought in jumping into a pit of night soil just to see Amitabh.
“No, I don’t agree, with this idea,” he stated. Similarly, one comes across so many people who reject this image of India. Interestingly, every person in the movie, with the exception of Irfan Khan, is shown in a negative role, including Anil Kapoor, who mocks at the hero, Dev Patel.
No, this is not India. Interestingly, many of those who are singing paeans to the film have not seen it themselves.
These include the Congress and BJP spokespersons, who sang hosannas for the movie. I heard someone suggesting that Danny Boyle should be rewarded by India. Why? If not punished, at least, he should not be honoured.
He was projecting India as he wanted to. Similarly, we need not bow to a filmmaker, just because he made it possible. The credit goes to our technicians, musician and lyricist, who helped Boyle to the award. Had there been no inputs from them, Boyle would not have made a perfect film.
So, the Thank Yous should come from Boyle to our artistes and not the other way round.
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 26 2009, 11:03 AM
Sure why not, Film fare mai hi award lo na fir....
Unke awards hai…. unhone start kiyee.. hum kayoon chaudhry ban rahe hai?
Mere comment Oscars ko lekar huwa jo create kara ja raha tha usper tha. wo log jo pasand karte hian jaroori nahin wo achha ho. wo audience alag hai yahaan ki duniya alag.
koi Choudhary nahin ban raha. bas dosrein logon ko keh rahe hain ki oscars ko lekar jayda uchhlo mat. when we work in their movies. we get awards. and if we dont we never and our work is never recognised. so their awards should not be taken as criteria for judging our talent !in lil hurry !
Sonu
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 26 2009, 11:17 PM
Why even go there. we can't even judge our talent properly. Why do you think Aamir khan quit participating in these awards in India?
Posted by: parag_sankla Feb 26 2009, 11:22 PM
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Slumdog+just+reinforces+all+the+old+stereotypes&artid=xMKH2sag4V0=&SectionID=XVSZ2Fy6Gzo=&MainSectionID=XVSZ2Fy6Gzo=&SEO=Anil+Kapoor,+Slumdog+Millionaire,+Christian+Colson&SectionName=m3GntEw72ik=
There was no need to use the 50:50 option or phone a friend, as the issue was locked from the beginning, ever since Slumdog Millionaire was nominated for the Oscars. We all knew Danny Boyle would get the award, having portrayed India negatively, projecting the slums and drains of Bharat, the inhuman behaviour of the police and highlighting the brothels of Mumbai.
With goons flourishing in the slums of Mumbai, engaged in making big money and the mafia plucking out eyes of children, the film had the right mix of ingredients to make it to the top at the Oscar awards ceremony.
After all, it’s this aspect of India that’s been adored by phirangs in the past, who term India as the country of snake-charmers and elephants, refusing to believe that it is at par today with any other country in the areas of IT, science and technology, fashion and beauty care as well.
In the film sector, especially, we have been at the forefront always, having produced classics like Mother India, Mughal-e-Azam, Bandini, Barsaat, Awara, Mera Naam Joker and, more recently, Sholay, Lagaan, etc, but no one had any doubt that our films would never make it to the Oscars.
Those who saw the film would think of India as a country of dirt and filth, ridden with poverty, where violence and deceit are the key to success and where girls are often taken to brothels.
For the recognition of a very few in the outside world, we have allowed outsiders to portray, not the other side, but the wrong side of Bharat.
Sonu, Marcilo
Kind request. Let us keep the Oscars aside. How about the points highlighted above?
Parag
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 26 2009, 11:31 PM
Ok leaving Oscars aside
Does this not happen in India? Why there wasn't much of hue and cry when madhur bhandarkar made movie called traffic signal? I do not know who the writer of this article is but that person sure lives in ancient times. Walk along in USA and tell you are from India, they will ask, are you a doctor or an engineer. That is the reality and so are slums.
Wasn't ardhya satya and Maachis all about that?
Posted by: parag_sankla Feb 26 2009, 11:34 PM
There is no denial about existence of these issues, it is just that the film portrays only this side of India. That is exactly "Poverty Porn" IMHO.
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 27 2009, 12:16 AM
There is no denial about existence of these issues, it is just that the film portrays only this side of India. That is exactly "Poverty Porn" IMHO.
I do not think we can ask independent film maker what movie to make. Else it will look like state propaganda.
Also there are lots of processions against this. Well they can all pitch in money and make India shining part 2, that is how I feel
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 27 2009, 12:25 AM
There is no denial about existence of these issues, it is just that the film portrays only this side of India. That is exactly "Poverty Porn" IMHO.
hi
Parag bhai kuchh had tak aap theek keh rahe ho. Westerns hamesha kuchh hi topics ko touch karte hain jab India ki baat aati hai.
Jab unhe ( rich rich) western audience( aur jury) ke emotions ko ujagar karna ho to poverty se badiya kya topic. !!.
Magar iss baat mein sachai hai. the way we take US as v rich country, not knowing it too has many poors, they too have our image that of a Poor country, not knowing our other +ve aspects. so whenever a movie on poverty has to be made they will go towrds third world countres
Movie ke fayade bhi hue.- prove hua hamara talent.
Nuksaan - jinko nahin bhi pata tha , wo bhi Indian poverty ke baare mein jaan jayenge ! aur country ki image slums wali banegi !
Aur ab ek jhhadi lag jayegi Indian poverty aur slums per banane wali films per.
Magar isse hum bhaag nahin sakte. India mein poverty bahut hai. log exploit karenge. kya kar sakte hain !
regards
sonu
PS : Marcilo bhaji apoon ek naya thread shuru karela hai. on underated Indian artists !
http://www.hamaraforums.com/index.php?showtopic=72436
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 27 2009, 12:56 AM
Madhur bhandar ke bare mai aaisa mat bolo, he makes movies like corporate too.
What did "Gandhi" the movie convey?
aaisa nahi hai.. pichli post pado
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 27 2009, 01:19 AM
Madhur bhandar ke bare mai aaisa mat bolo, he makes movies like corporate too.
Maine madhur ko nahin kaha. westerns ko kaha tha.
Gandhii to yaad hai. Exceptions hai maine kab kaha nahin hai. overall picture dekho aap.
haan kaun keh raha 100% log ignorant hai india ke progress per. outsourcing achh eg hai . bangore etc.
magar overall image alag hai.
( I once met one USer on chat. he asked how you speak Indian( our language) !! )
Ye to US ki baat hui na ki US wale indian kya hain. Aur General masses kya image lekar chalte hain mainn uski baat kar rahe hoon.
Regards
in lil hurry
Sonu
PS : are discussion lamba nikala ja raha. apoon to ghooomta phirta agya madam ke bulawe per. my last post on it ! cheers !
Posted by: Sangeet Feb 27 2009, 01:23 AM
Parag Just my 2 cents here
Even though i did not like the movie but I don't think the movie shows India as slums & Indians as poor. The slum depiction in the first half of the movie is the story of early 80s/late 70s. Later when the movie is set in present day India ( when he goes to participate in the game show) they show that India has changed drastically... it has become one of the fastest growing nations... One of the protagonist (Hero's brother) even has a dialouge of something of that sort. The film paints modern india as hub for BPO and call Centers.. the lead even works in one of those places!
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 27 2009, 01:35 AM
Aur kaunsi .. rather kitni movies bani hai Indian slums pe? lets do a count
ok, what would you do? Hide it or try to change it, but you have to agree its a reality. If change it, then onus is on you not others.
Same here… times pass se full time ho gaya.. I agree
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 27 2009, 01:53 AM
[quote]
ok, what would you do? Hide it or try to change it, but you have to agree its a reality. If change it, then onus is on you not others.
Are they not Indians? Do they not represent India? come on man..... Why do you want to look at only negativity, when some positive thing comes your why why ignore it?[/quote]
Marcilo bhai uper wala reply pado jo maine uper diya hai. usmein bhi maine wahi baatein likhi hai +ves aur -ve etc. koi mana nahin kar sakta ki slums hai.infact maine to yeh bhi likha ki jaise hum US ko lekar ignorant hai ( they ve poors) waise wo bhi ignorant hai hamare baare mein. to isme koi haraane wali baat nahin hai agar wo yaahaan akar poverty per movie baanate hian. ( read post )
Magar, agar film totally slums per hai to ye definately india ki image ko effect karega. jaisa filmein aisa karti hain. yehi baat maine uper likhi hai !. haan main kabhi -ve aspect ko ignore nahin kar sakta.
Ya to koi +ve points ko galat kahe. waisa maine kahin nahin likha !
2 baje.....gaye ! 
......satyanaash thread ka
Sonu
[quote]PS : are discussion lamba nikala ja raha. apoon to ghooomta phirta agya madam ke bulawe per. my last post on it ! cheers ![/quote]
Same here… times pass se full time ho gaya.. I agree
[/quote]
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 27 2009, 02:32 AM
Sab log poverty pe banate hai kaya? Kitni bani hai? do you know? ek .. do.. 5 6... 12... 18.19…. ?? whats the count?
Its just a movie. Let it watch it like that, its not national Ad campaign. India's image is not variable to one movie. As I said earlier there are many here that say you have to be an engineer or a doctor when you are an Indian. So what image does that create?
Read this article. It's interesting read, below are few excerpts
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2009/gb20090220_330804.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
All these producers are not Indian companies, these are Hollywood banners and I doubt these are all slum movies.
I am not saying India is all slums, it's just that movie maker is an independent mind that wants to make a movie
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 27 2009, 02:46 AM
From the article
Sonu, you seen Village? Movie by shyamalan? That was shot in amreeka… had amreekan people.. that movie was not about, world class high rises or Mission impossible style superlative action nor it was about flashy race cars.
So India born guy made a movie that depicted amreekans are overly scared superstitious people, is that it?
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 27 2009, 10:22 AM
Mariclo bhai isme burai kya hai. Agar main movie ke +ve points ko appreciate kar saktoon hooon to uske kisi -ve point ko kyon nahin discus kar sakta. ??? I have already acknowledged whereever we are gaining from that movie or whatever is good abt that movie. so what is objectionable about discussing any -ve point ?? infact I have gone ahead and started a thread on another aspect of SDM- oscars- where does indian talent stand !
Few enngg doctors in amrica dont make all indians in india the same nor does it shows that india as the country of docs or enggs. instead they might be mocking on us saying all engg and docs have come to US to serve them.(brain drain !) . mera uper wala reply dekho usme mein maine aur bhi +Ves ginayein hain . Outroucsing, banglore - IT etc ! they know all !. magar over all image still still ek 3rd world country ki hai ! forgot hayden's comments ? did he called us country of engg and docs? or do the tourists who come here come to country of docs or engs?
This is totally diff case. hollywood companies financing indian masala movies.
we are talking about hollywood directors, producers doing projects of hollywood with indian topics or 3rd world issues !
Main nahin kehta ki kisi contry ki image "SIRF EK" movie se banti hai. but good movies do impact a country's image. good examples are awara or shree 420, ask russians who made it a point to visit the country of Awara or raj kapoor ! or bollywood movies in indonesia. where many make fun of bolly dialogue " bacho bachao"( indirectly shows how women are treated here !). or japanese who now wants to meet rajnikant !
I havent seen the movie. "but if" its totally about slums it will definatly effect India's image w r t slums etc. isme koi 2 rai nahin hai. 8 oscar winner hai log 10 baar dekhenge !
Haan agar aap ko lagta hai ki koi movies se effect nahin padta kisi country ki image ko tab mere hisaab se discussion ka itna fayada nahin hoga.
regards
Sonu
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 27 2009, 10:50 AM
Sonu, you seen Village? Movie by shyamalan?
So India born guy made a movie that depicted amreekans are overly scared superstitious people, is that it?
Hollywood to door........bollyywood ki koi movie nahin dekh paata ! !!
I cant comment much on it unless I have seen the movie.
Even then , this movie didnt won oscars, aur aisa bhi nahin hai ki ye unn kuchh movies mein hai jo US se India mein dekhi jayengi. Na hi ye Indian( non US) audience ke liye bani hai. na hi koi "known fact" ko glorify karke pesh kara gaya dusre deshon ke liye. ( US pple are not known to be superstitious ! )
SDM ne oscars jeete, impact will be more.. Its among those rare movies that is made on indian topic and that will be seen by most of the americans !. its target audience and approach is more western. and here(if) a known fact( poverty) is shown in movie.
so movie will definatly effect our image as a poor countryin that case !
Sonu
Posted by: parag_sankla Feb 27 2009, 11:27 AM
Parag Just my 2 cents here
Even though i did not like the movie but I don't think the movie shows India as slums & Indians as poor. The slum depiction in the first half of the movie is the story of early 80s/late 70s. Later when the movie is set in present day India ( when he goes to participate in the game show) they show that India has changed drastically... it has become one of the fastest growing nations... One of the protagonist (Hero's brother) even has a dialouge of something of that sort. The film paints modern india as hub for BPO and call Centers.. the lead even works in one of those places!
Sangeet ji
No one has the answer for this argument:
We all knew Danny Boyle would get the award, having portrayed India negatively, projecting the slums and drains of Bharat, the inhuman behaviour of the police and highlighting the brothels of Mumbai. With goons flourishing in the slums of Mumbai, engaged in making big money and the mafia plucking out eyes of children, the film had the right mix of ingredients to make it to the top at the Oscar awards ceremony.
After all, it’s this aspect of India that’s been adored by phirangs in the past, who term India as the country of snake-charmers and elephants, refusing to believe that it is at par today with any other country in the areas of IT, science and technology, fashion and beauty care as well.
Once again, there is no denial, it is the question of how something gets portrayed!
Regards
Parag
Posted by: Aditya Pant Feb 27 2009, 11:53 AM
Parag Just my 2 cents here
Even though i did not like the movie but I don't think the movie shows India as slums & Indians as poor. The slum depiction in the first half of the movie is the story of early 80s/late 70s. Later when the movie is set in present day India ( when he goes to participate in the game show) they show that India has changed drastically... it has become one of the fastest growing nations... One of the protagonist (Hero's brother) even has a dialouge of something of that sort. The film paints modern india as hub for BPO and call Centers.. the lead even works in one of those places!
Sangeet ji
No one has the answer for this argument:
We all knew Danny Boyle would get the award, having portrayed India negatively, projecting the slums and drains of Bharat, the inhuman behaviour of the police and highlighting the brothels of Mumbai. With goons flourishing in the slums of Mumbai, engaged in making big money and the mafia plucking out eyes of children, the film had the right mix of ingredients to make it to the top at the Oscar awards ceremony.
After all, it’s this aspect of India that’s been adored by phirangs in the past, who term India as the country of snake-charmers and elephants, refusing to believe that it is at par today with any other country in the areas of IT, science and technology, fashion and beauty care as well.
Once again, there is no denial, it is the question of how something gets portrayed!
Regards
Parag
Parag,
The argument you quoted above doesn't even deserve an answer, because this argument is inherently faulty and highly biased. See the film and decide for yourself if the film portrays India negatively!
Again, to reiterate my point, this film gained popularity because of its underlying theme of hope and winning against all odds and NOT because it portrayed India negatively.
Aditya
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 27 2009, 01:05 PM
The film paints modern india as hub for BPO and call Centers.. the lead even works in one of those places!
confusing
. jab tak koi film na dekhe to comment karna mushkil . khud dekhni padegi film nahin to andhere mein teer chaalne wali baat hogi in lil hurry !
sonu
Posted by: HumTum Feb 27 2009, 01:56 PM
Yes Sonu bhai, thoda time nikaal ke dekh lijiye..
Posted by: HumTum Feb 27 2009, 01:57 PM
I still love this part of our country!
Posted by: HumTum Feb 27 2009, 02:01 PM
A movie I would have recommended for foreign language Oscar awards would have been 'A Wednesday!' A movie perfect for all that is happening in our country. A thought provoking movie of what a common man can do!
Naseer-ud-din Shah 
Posted by: Sangeet Feb 27 2009, 07:03 PM
confusing
. jab tak koi film na dekhe to comment karna mushkil . khud dekhni padegi film nahin to andhere mein teer chaalne wali baat hogi in lil hurry !
sonu
Exactly! You need to see the film to judge it. I don't think the film said modern day India is full of slums and poor people.
Yes HT, I think even though Taare was a beautiful film " A Wednesday" was more topical globally. But kya karen, Jury even sent Jeans to the academy.. compared to that Taare was infinately wise decision!!
Posted by: HumTum Feb 27 2009, 07:08 PM
Jeans for Oscar!!!!!!!! 
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 27 2009, 08:29 PM
Parag bhai kuchh had tak aap theek keh rahe ho. Westerns hamesha kuchh hi topics ko touch karte hain jab India ki baat aati hai.
Sonu, This is what you said... I do not agree at all with this. You can give 1000 + points or 1 million negative points, that's not the point of my debate. My point is on what basis have you made this statement? Do you have any data to quantify your claim? How many movies were made on slums, I asked you the count too?
Have you taken into account making of "Gandhi" the movie when you made this statement?
Have you read the link I gave you? Here it is again
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2009/gb20090220_330804.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 27 2009, 09:52 PM
Where did this come from into our discussion?
Please do not get worked up. Its just a discussion.
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 27 2009, 11:14 PM
Parag bhai kuchh had tak aap theek keh rahe ho. Westerns hamesha kuchh hi topics ko touch karte hain jab India ki baat aati hai.
Sonu, This is what you said... I do not agree at all with this. You can give 1000 + points or 1 million negative points, that's not the point of my debate. My point is on what basis have you made this statement? Do you have any data to quantify your claim? How many movies were made on slums, I asked you the count too?
Have you taken into account making of "Gandhi" the movie when you made this statement?
Have you read the link I gave you? Here it is again
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2009/gb20090220_330804.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
Dubara se apni statement ko repeat kar raha hoon.
Parag bhai kuchh had tak aap theek keh rahe ho. .Westerns hamesha "kuchh hi topics"(not one ) ko touch karte hain jab India ki baat aati hai
Marcilo bhai maine +Ve points jayda kare honge...-ve kam. -ve bhi ek..ie...agar wakiye slum based hai to slum wali image banegi apni.
I have my own stand on every issue, so Iam not blindly following anyone or just to appease any frd or member.
Parag bhai had a point which I supported to "some extent" . "IF the movie" is based on slums it will effect Indian image ,as it is a landmark and very popular movie, future generations, movie libraries, etc all will stock and watch this movie and their image of india will be influenced by this movie. I stick to this stand even now !
Now read my statement above posts I said westerns have " few topics" not ONEwhen it comes to making movies on India( or 3rd world countries ). what was smile pinki about ? did you check The guru, the love guru or holy smoke or the city of joy etc
They rarely go beyond India of poors, cows or spirituality or maharajahs ( specially of Rajasthan !)
You show me other movies where they dared to take up good Indian issue for Western audience ?
(Iam not good in movies as I might have seen 1-2 movies in last 1 year on avg )
Bhaji I saw the link that you gave me. that was more about Indian _ US colloboration either in movie concpets or finances. Here we are talking about movies made exclusvely by Westerns for their audience. with theme on Indian like SDM. produced directed by Englishmen !
Iam yet to search the documentries they make on Buddhism, spirituality or kumbh or pushkar or the Red light areas of calcutta or the dibbawaalas , or how their aid is ustilised. Just two days ago Saw a documentry being made by japenese on one poor UP village which was producing taekawandoo champs.!!
(Even gandhi film had good glimpses of Indian poverty ! remember the scene of woman washing cloth underneath rail bridge ? But Iam not complaining abt it. but just shared for info.)
open to corrections !
Sonu
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 27 2009, 11:24 PM
Where did this come from into our discussion?
Parag bhai......... kisi ne koi bhi relgious issue ko raise nahin kara hai. to kisi relgion ka naam lena theek nahin hoga.
Aur koi aisa galat bhi nahin likha hai kisi ne India ke against bhi. hum to just SDB ke case mein hi India ko discuss kar rahe hain. ki long run mein SDB kya image banaati hai India ki ? itna sa hi mera discussion ka point hai !
Sonu
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 28 2009, 12:12 AM
Just a General comment not against or fav.
People might not support SDM as poverty porn but all over the net people are posting similar comments
Google :
http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=slumdog+poverty++porn&btnG=Search&meta=
Had this thread started just after the movie release or befor BAFTA awards or even few weeks bfor oscars.......views might have been diff.
Oscars made a lot of diff in people's views. not many are complaining now !
Sonu
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 28 2009, 12:24 AM
Le… statement hi change karti hun tu
. Few is a very relative term, you got to put baseline, now.. now you have done it with addition of "Not one". lokaan lai 1 million v few honda hai. , its all about money, SDM was made to make money not to flush money down the toilet. He thought it could sell so he made it.Wasn't this adaption of a book? Written by an Indian? Why is that an Indian choose to write about slums? Why he could not write about DLF, or Raheja builders
Ok, here… If you not seen Sicko? Watch it. You will know more about poverty in America and how people suffer. It's not a movie nor is it documentary, it's right in between. not sure what to call it though.
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 28 2009, 12:30 AM
Everyone has right of opinion but saying movies that only show flashy buildings and hip culture of India, should be made, that is not right. Problem is if someone made movie which had all that, all these Ram sena guys will burn theater down. "too much of western culture"….. "not an Indian thingy" ... "Pubs are not in india culture"…."valentine day should never be celebrated",...so what is real Indian thingy? aab bechara Danny kare tau kayak are.. idher koovan .. udher khai.....
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 28 2009, 01:00 AM
Bhaji......".not one " add kara tha ki wahan per maine " kuchh " likha hai na ki ONE. iske liye.
Yes genuine point.I havent been there you could be right. but stil cant believe till Iam convinced by other facts or people.
Pinki a documentry on a poor girl. Namesake was by Mira nair. She is NRI thats why I didnt quoted any of the works by her or amritraj or merchant ivory productions or jag mandhura ( including bawandar ) else I would have added salam bombay or Missispi masala( fleeing ugandian indians ),kamsutra, bawander and few other by merchant ivory.
, its all about money, SDM was made to make money not to flush money down the toilet. He thought it could sell so he made it.I felt you gave link of hollywood movies in India.
Dont know abt these channels. but I mean to say was the there are dozens of documentries made by foreigners on their fav subjects. including the above one.
I gave that example just for info knowing very well that Gandhi is not a poverty based movie. If their movies are solely for money I t hink no one shd care much for the essence of these movies
Wasn't this adaption of a book? Written by an Indian? Why is that an Indian choose to write about slums? Why he could not write about DLF, or Raheja builders
Indians in India usually write for indian audience unlike in case of SDM where foreigners took up the story to be shown to western countries. In india we take up any topic under earth where as they are selective when it comes to india !
good eg Ardh satya : om puri and samita patil are made to swim with their pigs in dirty waters. thank god no westerner cared to watch that movie
Sonu
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 28 2009, 01:10 AM
Everyone has right of opinion but saying movies that only show flashy buildings and hip culture of India, should be made, that is not right. Problem is if someone made movie which had all that, all these Ram sena guys will burn theater down. "too much of western culture"….. "not an Indian thingy" ... "Pubs are not in india culture"…."valentine day should never be celebrated",...so what is real Indian thingy? aab bechara Danny kare tau kayak are.. idher koovan .. udher khai.....
sahi kaha. dono taraf se fasega.Waise spirituality per baneyga to kuchh nahin kehenge
Sonu
Posted by: mmuk2004 Feb 28 2009, 01:13 AM
Everyone has right of opinion but saying movies that only show flashy buildings and hip culture of India, should be made, that is not right. Problem is if someone made movie which had all that, all these Ram sena guys will burn theater down. "too much of western culture"….. "not an Indian thingy" ... "Pubs are not in india culture"…."valentine day should never be celebrated",...so what is real Indian thingy? aab bechara Danny kare tau kayak are.. idher koovan .. udher khai.....
I agree with Marc...there are quite a few slides are happening here that make me uncomfortable. A few questions and thoughts:
Even if we assume that the film is about poverty, which, in my opinion, it is not, what are we arguing about?
1. Are we saying that the movie is only about poverty so we should protest/feel uncomfortable if foreigners make movies about India's poverty?
2. Are we saying it is all right if Indians make movies about India's poverty, but not right if foreigners make movies about India's poverty because they don't see/show the other side of India, or what India is all about.
3. Are we saying that if you are making a movie about poverty then you should show the other side also to balance the picture? (Indians and Foreigners?)
4. Are we saying that because a film about an Indian boy based in India, won so many oscars, it has a certain responsibility to show all aspects of India?
5. Are we saying that the director made the movie about poverty in India, because poverty sells? Did he anticipate that it would win big time at the oscars and hence just focussed on that?
6. In case we are not blaming the director for making a "one sided" movie, and incase we do take into account issues of artistic freedom, then are we blaming the Oscars for choosing it? Are we protesting that the Oscars went to the film because the selectors were fascinated with this aspect of India? So according to that logic, the oscar selectors are anti-Indian, or they look down or they stereotype Indians and hence chose this film to shower honors on.
Let us at least be clear in our minds about these questions because they represent complex issues that cannot be resolved very easily.
Sonu, I agree with your point that stereotyping happens, and in the case of India, and there has been an argument made about it being seen as the land of mendicants, mysticism and elephants etc. One can argue against this by saying that that image is very dated, modernization and globalization, see India occupying a very different position now in the 21st century than it did in the 20th. and though there are people who still might view India as this but they are a much smaller number and they need to be completely cut off from recent history to hold on to that view.
Secondly, we are talking about a movie about an Indian boy from the slums who makes it big, a movie that has an Indian/British Indian starcast and crew members directed by a Britisher that won 8 oscars. It does give the movie a visibility that other movies do not have. But does it make it a reference for those who do not know anything about India/want to know more about India? Well, my point is that that is not the director's problem. Why should he be held responsible? In my opinion, it is a fantasy, a cinderella tale, and if people choose to see it as a realistic representation of what India is then it is their problem and shorsightedness not the director's. Does the director claim that it is real or true to life? Why should the director compromise his or her artistic vision to tame a movie by being representative of all aspects of a country just because he happens to not belong to that country? Did he know that his movie would win big time at the Oscars?
The Oscars went to the film because the film was enjoyed by a huge foreign audience, there is no doubt about that. But let us give some credit to this "foreign" audience for being ready for "Indian"(read Bollywood) films, as they need a great deal of re-adjustment to enjoy something so different from theirs. I think we too need to re-adjust the way we look at the "western" world.
Posted by: parag_sankla Feb 28 2009, 01:25 AM
Since I am being questioned on my stand, I would like to clarify a few things:
1) This topic does not have any relation to "Hinduism" but the member in question has in the past created controversies about it and made personal comments/attacks against me when I tried to put my views
2) The question is about mis-representation and stereotyping. No one can ask an artist as to what to do.
3) Since the majority is of the opinion that the movie does not malign India, I have withdrawn my stand. I have no say until I see the film myself
4) No harm was intended to any one during this discussion (even though some preferred to ridicule my opinion and some made personal attacks)
Parag
Posted by: mmuk2004 Feb 28 2009, 02:11 AM
Parag,
Check out this much more complex analysis of Slumdog as "poverty porn" here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article5511650.ece
and I am saying that some are counter-arguing that too... 
Posted by: parag_sankla Feb 28 2009, 06:43 AM
After reading this blog (mentioned above) and the comments there in, I have decided not to watch this film and have decided to stop thinking about it. I will not be able to stand the kind of violence shown in the film (as described in the blog).
Posted by: mmuk2004 Feb 28 2009, 09:46 AM
Parag,
The key is to take everything critics say with a pinch of salt and pepper your own observations with some of their saner comments... that way everyone will be in the soup and like it too...
I'm outta here... 
Posted by: oye_sonu Feb 28 2009, 09:52 PM
Parag,
The key is to take everything critics say with a pinch of salt and pepper your own observations with some of their saner comments... that way everyone will be in the soup and like it too...
I'm outta here...
Madhvi ji nice suggestions. I agree with you. you tried in nice "polite", way to say your views. few members shd learn( myself included ) from your way of convincing people !
Got lil time but will like to write my last post. ( I swayer last one
!)No matter how wrong anyone is in his views, no one has the right to use harsh language against him or make any personal comments. specially if the concerned person has said nothing to them
Chhota sa topic tha - ek movie ka, koi relgion ka nahin, koi caste ya race ka nahin, aur na hi music idols ka. Agar ye topic hote to baat samajh mein aati, ki bhai gusse mein keh diya.
Magar ek ignorable topic ke liye bhi 1-2 members ne rude personal comment kare. wo bhi jab unko kuchh nahin kaha gaya.
please take care !
Cheers !
Sonu
Posted by: Marcilo Feb 28 2009, 11:57 PM
4) No harm was intended to any one during this discussion (even though some preferred to ridicule my opinion and some made personal attacks)
Who made personal attacks and ridiculous remarks please show me, with reference to this thread and only this thread. If that was some place else, do not let its spill to other topics, Please. If there are issues to be sorted, sort those. There was nothing wrong in this thread to divert attention to something that was said some place else or not even concerned with this thread.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)