The Slumdog Millionaire Debate article
What is it about Slumdog Millionaire that stirs up extreme reactions! From cravings such as ‘˜why can't an Indian filmmaker make such a film" to snide remarks like "Slumdog Millionaire could only have been made by a westerner", reactions to the film encompass an entire rainbow of emotions. Is it a nation's collective aspiration of Golden Globes-Oscars and an industry's repeated failure to get closer to it? Is it a submission to the "trickery" of a dexterous western director or a critical examination of his biases? Is this a victim's cry of being subjugated of yet another foreign gaze or it is the jubilation of an Indian cast and crew for getting the attention of the world that they think rightly deserve?
The debate also seems to have attained a rightist fervor, India's biggest film icon Amitabh Bachchan reportedly commented on the film ""if SM projects India as [a] third-world, dirty, underbelly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky underbelly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations."
A Guardian blog posted by Nirpal Dhaliwal, looks for a racial angle in the debate "Bachchan is no doubt riled, as many other Bollwood no-talents will be, about the fact that the best film to be made about India in recent times has been made by a white man"
All these allegations/arguments cover a wide range of issues and definitely deserve a critical scrutiny.
One of the basis of such arguments is "success" of the film that is defined by Golden Globes and various other awards that the film has won in the US and the UK. According to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) the film has won 31 awards apart from 4 Golden Globes and 37 nominations. Awards can definitely be taken as a parameter of critical success and 31+4 is an impressive score to begin with. Interestingly, most of the awards the film has won had been given by critics societies in the US and UK.
I do see a point in the arguments that the critical acclaim that the film has garnered is because of its western origins. Primarily because it reached those bodies which confer these awards.
This also makes us think if the film would have got such kind of attention, had it been made by an Indian director? The biggest handicap that I see is we don't have a tradition of critical awards here in India. Here each business house representing a publication organizes an awards night of their own, that turns out to be more of an exercise to boost their brand, or draw TRPs or strengthen ties with stars than critically evaluate cinema.
Yes, we do have national awards but firstly, they run behind the schedule. By the time our Golden Lotuses are announced a film has already done its commercial runs (if released) and the ones which don't get a release are forgotten. Besides, also lies the danger of awards being challenged in the courts.
We (except annual festivals) have no mechanism to screen, evaluate and reward a film independently and the ones that exist are either questionable or are too small to make a difference. Hence, the only means to judge success or failure of a film is its box office performance.
Isn't it a little too much to expect from a Chicago critic's circle or a critics association in LA to reward an Indian film for its intrinsic Indian qualities? They are bound to be better appreciative of a film if the director shares their sensibility. So yes, the fact that Slumdog is a film made and written (the screenplay) in English by westerners can make a difference in its critical evaluation, simply because the maker and evaluator share the same sensibility.
Isn't it more practical to expect from an Indian film to win Indian awards and leave American awards to American films! Earlier we've seen films on the theme of Indian slums made by Indian directors and they've won critical acclaims in the country. Sudhir Mishra's Dharavi won a national award and so did Mira Nair Salaam Bombay.
Things get complicated when we start thinking that American Awards belong to the whole world and Slumdog Millionaire is an Indian film. First leads to our craving for western awards especially Oscars and second leads to our claim of being victim of standardization.
2004, the year I came to Mumbai, I was amazed to see Shiva Sena, a right wing extremist nationalist party, collecting donations on the streets to support a Marathi film that was selected as India's official entry to the Academy Awards in the foreign language category that year.
We have had discussed here earlier if American Academy is a fair judge, however, the point is also that how can a purely American academy (consisting of only US citizens as voters) be just to films rooted in alien cultures? So arguably, Slumdog being a film from a western perspective does help here and it has a favorable chance of getting nominated.
Another argument against the film is related to the issue of representation-the imagery that the film presents. According to some it exposes "the underbelly" of our rapidly developing country. I don't subscribe to this argument either because I'm not unexposed to the underbelly of India. Firstly, its too manifest to be protected from anybody's gaze. Secondly, our very own filmmakers be it Mishra (Dharavi) or Nair (Salaam Bombay) reveal it. You also see glimpses of it in Black Friday, even No Smoking, Life in a Metro and Sirf to name a recent few. Since these filmmakers are Indian, they have a right to showcase slums and Danny Boyle doesn't, this argument doesn't hold the test of scrutiny in a globalized world.
Is the film a stereotypical portrayal of India? The question calls for further discussion on what's a stereotypical image of India and who decides that? If stereotype here means recurrent images of India in the western media and indophilic texts, then I would say that it has both Taj and Slums but neither hippies, snake charmers, naked Sadhus, veiled women, Maharajas nor elephants and hundred others. While the story is based in the slums of Mumbai, they can't be done without. Taj also is a part of the narrative and you can't deny Danny a chance to show Taj in his film only because it can be considered stereotypical representation of India and the director is a Briton!
Questions have also been raised about simplistic portrayal of the characters, who lack depth. I would agree that there were inconsistencies in the characters including the protagonist, however, the film was more concerned about the plot rather than taking us closer to the characters. I also believe the strategy of the director works because one gets hooked into the narrative as the film progresses. Though, largely remaining unsentimental, the film also manages to evoke sympathy if not empathy and identification with the central character. I know Indian mainstream (read Bollywood) conventions would have demanded little bit of more emotional appeal (like Chak De India) or an offbeat film (usually called "art film") would have delved too deeper into the character but Danny Boyle's narrative strategy can't be questioned as long as it works. I think it strikes a fine balance between providing facts and paving way for fantasy.
Yes, what is simplistic about the film is the way it defines success. In the rags to riches story of Jamal Malik, success simply means money (the millions that he wins) and honey (the girl for whom he does that). It also has a tendency to escape to fancy means to resolve the real issues of slums, communal violence and child beggars through the means of a reality show. Some ten-fifteen years back the Jamal Malik of Slumdog (had it been a Hindi film by an Indian director) could have turned into a vagabond seething in vengeance, who would have sealed the fate of the rioters who killed his parent, the beggar mafia who blinded kids and the local don who stole both his brother and beloved.
However, that would have happened at least a decade ago. Now even Hindi cinema has moved forward, don't you remember, recently we raved a film that realistically depicted a real issue and offered just a fantasy for a solution. Khosla ka Ghosla can't be trashed because it fantasizes the solution of the problem of land grabbing in Delhi in order to make us probably laugh and feel better.
Probably, Hindi cinema audience haven't gotten over our parallel cinema and still associate "realistic" (on location, hand held camera) approach of filming to issue based, cause oriented cinema. This cinema more often than not had a leftist leaning and was often overtly political. On the other hand, Danny Boyle is a new age, apolitical, post modern filmmaker, who known his craft well. Any similarities are just incidental.
Nevertheless, Danny Boyle's Slumdog is more realist and contemporary. Perhaps after winning millions, Jamal will simply move a rung up in the social ladder, come out of the underbelly to the surface where India is rapidly growing. If Bollywood offers escapist fantasies then only difference about Boyle's Slumdog is that his escape is fantastical!
Comments( 15 )
Let me be the first one to
Let me be the first one to comment...and there shall be many more......... Thought-provoking piece Bikas. Definitely something to be talked about. India is the country that produces more films than any other country each year, and yet "international recognition" eludes it. But that is as weak an argument as saying why cant a country of a billion produce more Olympic medals. Because quite obviously, quality matters more than quantity. And quality is what we lack sorely. If the discussion can be broadly divided into Bollywood and regional cinema, Bollywood has the budget, the resources and the clout to make it big. But the only films that seem to actually doing it are the multi-starrers. And of course, there is no one to check this fact too.
Its not a bad thing that they are making it big but for international connoisseurs of quality cinema who have seen it all, this kind of cinema would be the last thing on their priority list. The movies they would like to see and are prone to appreciate would emanate from regional cinema i.e. from the likes of Adoor G and Amol Palekar. Dunno how much of this actually manages to reach their cinema halls but obviously not much.
Let this simply be a starting point, the questions you have thrown up merit a much wider discussion. Will try to jump back in later.
Awesome post Bikas!! The want to watch
Awesome post Bikas!! The want to watch this movie has only grown bigger :grin:
Thanks Rushi, Devang, agree, to an
Thanks Rushi,
Devang, agree, to an extent winning foreign awards for cinema is like winning Olympic medals. However, one can't undermine the importance of that too. Agreed cinema is an artistic medium deeply rooted in culture, however, our films marginal presence at all important festivals, awards definitely indicate that something is terribly wrong.
Our festivals are losing significance, our presence is diminishing at international festivals!
Are we getting too preoccupied with commercial cinema? Is there a scope within mainstream commercial setup to present fresh ideas? Does the rising commercial importance of Bollywood, salvage our cinema? Do we have anything like our cinema or Indian cinema beyond Bollywood?
There are plenty of questions, no definite answers and that calls for a discussion.
Hi Bikas, This a very good piece -
Hi Bikas,
This a very good piece - excellent. I have had the opportunity, regarding the piece that is mentioned on Amitabh Bachchnan's blog. I think that he was being neutral and that it has been twisted. I also think that you are right in saying that the showing of "Taj" is stereotypical.
Hey Bikas, a piece that raises many
Hey Bikas,
a piece that raises many questions but it ended up confusing me on quite a few counts. "Danny Boyle is a new-age, apolitical, post-modern filmmaker who knows his craft well"? You've just thrown in those loaded words in the same breath as if they but ofcourse, coexist. Ofcourse, the film has been crafted well and a lot of Bollywood films lack that. They lack all the aspects of a film craft coming together seamlessly. But a filmmaker who has Trainspotting to his credit and The Beach and Life Less Ordinary (and we have to take that into account; can't see Slumdog only in isolation without taking Boyle's oeuvre into account), that is the least we can expect. But apolitical?
I think, the film, on several counts, is just a tepid gaze without getting the nuances. We can say that Boyle is concerned with plot progression and a kinetic pace only but how does that account for lack of characterisation or emotional depth? It is a film about heightened passion. Jamal's all about passion! And that doesn't come through the character or the actor or his chemistry with Latika (the character and definitely not with the energy-less Freida Pinto). The energy of the film comes mostly through the pacing, the shot-taking, the background score (Rahman ofcourse knows his job very well) which is not a big deal where a Danny Boyle is concerned. The film's just a simplistic depiction of what Boyle 'sees' (but then again Titanic won several Academy awards and Slumdog's already nominated for ten) around him and he just lays it on the platter without really understanding the subtleties beyond mere events. I loved Trainspotting and even The Beach to much extent but when you think back on Slumdog, there is nothing you've taken away with you. When you're watching it, it's a roller-coaster; you're hooked, you ride along. But after you've slept over and woken up and try thinking back on it, there's nothing to it. Can't help bringing up Bunuel's Los Olvidados, a film set in the slums of Mexico City in the 1950's. Even now when I watch some scenes, it gives me goose bumps. The craft's there, the story's there, the pacing is there and much more- the passion, the grime, the grind, the lust, the dreams all come alive- they all stay with you long after you've watched it. With Slumdog it doesn't. It's like those cheap thrills in those fair rides literally like those roller-coasters we went up on as kids and even later- once you were back on the ground and you had taken a deep breath, you just went your way without giving it a second thoguht.
Not bearing any grudges against Slumdog's success. Hope it gets all the Oscars et al (and Rahman brings home all three of them) but the problem is that it is being made out to be a benchmark film which it is not. Not of great cinema, not of good cinema even (it's a well-made film that you watch, have fun and move on), not of 'realism or realistic cinema' whatever the hell that phrase means, not of a creative person's personal touches (and Boyle has the reputation of being an auteur) and thoughts of a milieu he has captured that would make the film special (that made 'Trainspotting' special). Okay, it's a Brit gaze made for the western audience and critics, we can argue and say that let's take it for what it is. But why? The emotions are universal, the underdog fantasy is universal, the passion is universal, so why is it not connecting with so many people from the milieu where it is rooted. This could be any film made by anyone with a sense of the craft- yes, cliches work and there is nothing wrong with predictable plot-points but the world is hailing it as a film of the times, a film of hope etc- that hope here is just facile, as if the filmmaker was almost indifferent to the nuances and didn't have the time or inclination to understand them- the characters are all cardboard, the screenplay has no shades, not even of humour. It's not enough to just let it go with being a 'new-age, apolitical, post-modern' film. It's quite an indifferent film. Even news channels show events on a roller-coaster one after another, pace it up, leave a few goose-bumps for whatever they are worth...
As for Bollywood zing, there is little or no zing. Rahman's music is zingy but we know he's done better stuff before and is capable of so much more. But the choreography and song picturisation of Jai Ho is downright tepid and unimaginative. Bollywood has given far superior, energetic, imaginative song and dance sequences that have spelt more joy...
Slumdog Millionaire is an okay film, good for whatever it is worth (one is not even going into those accents of Jamal at various ages; the middle Jamal has a distinct convent-educated feel about him; as for Dev Patel, we can say it was all intentionally unintentional!). But since the film has taken a life of its own now and seems to be hailed as some sort of a symbol of joy, hope, cinema, art etc, it maybe interesting to discuss just why it's being hailed as a phenomenon of sorts when it clearly isn't. Or is it that present-day phenomena can be like this only- facile, packaged, hyped and we have to just take it for what it is and move on- what's the big deal then? It is inevitable that Boyle's filmic oeuvre and persona will be brought in too while discussing, hailing or ripping apart this 'phenomenon'...
Arindam, On throwing "new-age,
Arindam,
On throwing "new-age, apolitical, post-modern" in a single breath, I do think one is related to the other.
My idea is not to compare Slumdog to Bollywood in general. Since Hindi cinema is going through a period of change (primarily craft), it's difficult to have a definite opinion about it. Neither is my idea to investigate if Slumdog is better or worse than the existing body of work of the director.
Well, there can always be a debate on the politics of imagery, or the politics behind not delving deeper into characters and situations. In that sense no film can be devoid of politics. You can also argue the film does portray the communal politics responsible for the death of the protagonist's mother. You also see glimpses of politics around slums in Bombay. I don't mean that the film is non-political. I only notice a deliberate attempt on the part of the director/writer to steer clear of politics, take no stands on the issues. I don't have any issue with that either.
There is politics all around the protagonist in the film, however, you don't see them causing any political response within the text of the film. The protagonist's life is affected and shaped by the politics around him but he doesn't falls pray to it. He simply escapes. He bears no grudge against the rioters, he accepts the killings as a matter of fact...and moves ahead. It's his brother who gets embroiled into the politics of survival and he becomes secondary to the narrative. Jamal Malik's brother could have been a gangster hero of a Bollywood film, he is political. he engages with the actors of his environment. Jamal Malik has no affiliations except his love and aspiration. Isn't that apolitical!
Hi Bikas, I don't completely agree
Hi Bikas,
I don't completely agree but I get your point. I do feel the politics of survival does shape him to his present persona/demeanour etc and the poltics of religion shown in the film is too facile (also, the terms political and apolitical are not so black and white, I'd say, as in apparent non-engagement with your milieu is automatically apolitical). Anyways, it's supposed to be only a fable/fairy-tale of sorts, I am told (are fairy-tale heroes generally apathetic except when it comes to 'love'? Beats me). Hence, characters can speak in several English accents at various ages despite being from Dharavi or the like (in reality, apparently only if a film is in English will major Hollywood studios fund it, is also what I'm told, so to discuss issues vis-a-vis settings/ characters depicted in good or bad faith is not even a given to begin with!)... anyways, am majorly drifting here and this discussion on the 'apolitical' could keep going in concentric circles, so peace be...
I know Arindam, where you are coming
I know Arindam, where you are coming from. Do agree to your argument of the politics of apolitical. However, as you've noticed that it's too "facile" and that's intentional. I rather used the term in its literal sense of political neutrality but as you say being neutral is as much part of the politics.
I really wonder, how "Slumdog Crorepati" --the dubbed Hindi version, sounds, that's the only reason I want to see the film again.
[...] The Slumdog Millionaire Debate |
[...] The Slumdog Millionaire Debate | DearCinema: World Cinema, Film b…/b [...]
great piece boss....loved every
great piece boss....loved every bit
Thank you Sumit
Thank you Sumit :smile:
I have just seen SDM. It is a well made
I have just seen SDM. It is a well made film based on fantasy rather than pure reality. Fantasy in this film is rooted firmly on the optimism that exists among many who are desperately poor like the protagonist. I feel that many Indians are just being defensive about the film which depicts the ruthlessness of grinding poverty and social traumas that ordinary Indians grow up with. How can Dharavi or the slums of Calcutta exist in our "shining India"? Many of us would have praised the film to the sky if Jamal wore fancy clothes, drove elegant cars and courted women who dress and behave like the 'Indian girl next door"! Let us be real for a change. Just because the director is a westerner, let us not see racial biases which don't exist.If Danny Boyle is guilty of showing that face of India which makes us squirm in our seats, Ray was worse! Like Jamal, Apu and Durga belong to an India which we would very willingly disown.
Without a rich father to put him
Without a rich father to put him through the Family Business School, the poor Jamal Malik went through a life of "slums, open-air lavatories, riots, underworld, prostitution, brothels, child labour, begging, ....." and so on, and never became an economist, management consultant, educationist or a philanthropist, and obviously knew nothing about 'The Great Indian Dream'. For many of the genre of Arindam, dreams appear in broad day light, eyes closed to bring darkness, oblivious to the stark realities of life. No great wonder! There is in India such abundance of Nouveau riche and petty bourgeoisie, who refuse to think beyond their insulated world view of India.
I think India continues to be a myth
I think India continues to be a myth for the westerners. They are in constant search of a real india, which unfortunately they always misunderstand. That is the reason why they probably give away awards to works on India more on the reality parameter (their notion) and less on the quality parameter.
Even in the field of literature you will find works on India which have got Booker's are actually portraying a " dark side" of India irrespective of their literary flavour (The White Tiger).
The controversy over slumdog has arised mainly due to the fact that it showed "half-reality". In some places in the movie it also seemed as if the director was switching from reality to fiction for his own convenience.Dev Patel's character was a huge blot. Most Indian's couldn't even recognize him. His psychology just couldn't be that of a boy from a slum.
I have just watched an interview with
I have just watched an interview with two of the kids who star in this movie and the child artist, who acts as the boy Salim, who is now in the USA for the Academy Awards tonight, was in tears. He lives in a slum area near Bandra and he hates the life he lives - lives under a plastic sheet as a roof and as a house at the moment in India but at least the producers of this movie have made arrangements for him to go to school until he is eighteen. He was also paid for his work in the film but that money has now been used.The other child artist was the young kid who acted as "Latika." She is also in the USA for the Academy Awards and she also lives in a slum area. She was also paid for her work in the film and thanks to the producers of the movie, she is attending a school until she's eighteen. She's said that when she grows up, she wants to be something and that from what she earns, she would like to help the poor. When these two kids reach that age, they are expected to get some money and until then their parents will be given a house to live and move out of the slums that they are living in.
Going to the USA for the Academy Awards, should be an encouragement not only just to the two children who acted in this movie but to others as well that even they can work like this and make a life outside the slums.