Slumdog Millionaire

[Mujer Libre]

I'm really excited about this film, and I think you should be too!

It's directed by Danny Boyle, of Trainspotting and Shallow Grave. The latter is one of my favourite films of all time, and I highly recommend it. Very, very black comedy.

Anyway, Slumdog Millionaire is based on the book Q & A by Vikas Swarup, and is about a guy from the slums of Mumbai who goes on the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire (Kaun Banega Crorepati- which, incidentally, is MUCH harder than overseas versions) to find a missing loved one. He does really well, but because he's from the slums he's assumed to have cheated.

Aside from just the Danny Boyle-ness, the film appeals to me because it's one of the few films that's set in India, but not "about India" as such- it deals with pretty general themes, so it should be able to avoid those stereotypes that other films intentionally or unintentionally perpetuate about 'those brown people over there.'

Also, the soundtrack is going to be a ripper. It features M.I.A. and A.R. Rahman, the best-known composer in India, who is just genius.

It opens here on the 18th of December. Yay!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Slumdog_Millionaire_poster.jpg

[Mujer Libre]

So... I saw this last night and it was brilliant.

It's one of the first times I've ever seen Indian people presented by a non-Indian director as just people... not as some kind of amusing novelty.

Funny, sad violent and with an amusing latrine scene. And he soundtrack... Wow.

[chicanorojo]

Even Louis Proyect loves this film. :p

[Mujer Libre]

Even Louis Proyect loves this film. :p
Never mind that, David Stratton and Margaret Pomeransz- Australia's most brutal film critic duo both gave it 4.5 stars. :lol:

[Bilan]

Has anyone seen it?
I went and saw this the other night with my mum, and I thought it was really good.
The film discusses and highlights contemporary issues in India: Like inter-religious violence (one particularly graphic scene of Muslims being burnt and beaten to death), poverty (The main character Jamal, and his brother Salim, and another important character, Lakita, all grew up in the slums in India) and gang culture in India.
It's based on the book Q and A.

Wiki article.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slumdog_Millionaire)
http://www.mtv.com/movies/photos/c/cannes_posters_051908/slumdog_millionaire.jpg

[Pogue]

Isn't it one of those 'Look how wonderful capitalism is, even the poor get rich if they try hard enough" films?

[Bilan]

Oh, fuck no.
He becomes a millionaire by going on the Hindi version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?".
And alot of the plot revolves around how he knows the answers to the questions, because at the start he is in police custody, accused of cheating, because, as they say in the film 'How could an uneducated slumdog know anything?'
This is said after he has been tortured, mind you.

There is very little positivity in most of the movie. Most of it is really tragic.
For example, one scene shows his slum being attacked by anti-Muslims, and you watch people and homes being set on fire, and Jamal's mother being beaten to death.

The only positivity in the message is his own search to find Lakita, and the ending.

The rest, no, not positive. most of it is about him, Salim, and Lakita escaping death, mutilation, by the hair on their balls.

[Pogue]

Fair enough, I might go see it then. From the poster I assumed it was going to be some bullshit rags to riches tale which trys to represent poverty as something you can do away with on a personal level if you really want.

[ZeroNowhere]

Isn't it one of those 'Look how wonderful capitalism is, even the poor get rich if they try hard enough" films?
No, it's not.
Anyways, I haven't watched it, though I've heard that the book was decent. The reviews seem pretty good, so I may watch it after finishing my mock exams.

[ev]

It's definitely worth watching in the cinemas, also, I would say that this movie is the best to have come out in 2008.

[Mujer Libre]

I started a thread on this and like... nobody posted in it. Hmph.

Loved it. The upliftment in this film comes from Jamal's character, really. His perseverance in looking for Latika is so pure and hopeful, but also, as SoB said, tragic.So it's more bittersweet than "feel-good" as the poster seems to suggest.

I love Danny Boyle to bits.

[cop an Attitude]

a very good movie. I love the contrast between the two brothers and how they react to their poverty diffrently. It flows perfectly and is cinema eyecandy with its unique shots and credit video. Great message and an even better story. Watch it while its still in theaters! The crap scene is the best :laugh:.

[Invader Zim]

Isn't it one of those 'Look how wonderful capitalism is, even the poor get rich if they try hard enough" films?

You do realise this is a Danny Boyle film? I don't think he has ever made a film which conforms to a stereotype.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Has anyone seen it?
I went and saw this the other night with my mum, and I thought it was really good.
The film discusses and highlights contemporary issues in India: Like inter-religious violence (one particularly graphic scene of Muslims being burnt and beaten to death), poverty (The main character Jamal, and his brother Salim, and another important character, Lakita, all grew up in the slums in India) and gang culture in India.
It's based on the book Q and A.

Sounds like a depressing movie, but at least it addesses the reality of what so many people have to go through.

[cleef]

Fair enough, I might go see it then. From the poster I assumed it was going to be some bullshit rags to riches tale which trys to represent poverty as something you can do away with on a personal level if you really want.

Yeh that was the exact impression i got when i saw this advertised, it put me off going to see it straight away...

[DesertShark]

It was an excellent movie, I agree one of the best to come out in 2008. It was pretty depressing though. I've seen poverty like that 1st hand (not in India specifically) and it was hard to take in, I think the movie did a good job of capturing it. I think if I hadn't been exposed to poverty like that before, it wouldn't have had as much of an impact and I could've filtered through it like I do with violence; hard to really say though. I definitely cringed and felt uncomfortable a lot through the movie. The basic plot is your basic rags to riches love story, while the actual story is not. Definitely go see it while it's still in theaters.

[brigadista]

Loved It! the kids in it are fantastic

[eyedrop]

I've read the book it's based on about a year ago. Cant' remember that much about it though.

[Invader Zim]

I really enjoyed it too. Though I am supprised by the claims that it is racist, which have appeared from India. Sure it shows a dark and unpleasant side to India, but Trainspotting did the same for Scotland.

Incidentally, this thread should be merged with the other thread on this film.

[Dóchas]

i havent seen it yet but im going to read the book first and then go see it. it looks really good though

[muslim girl]

Thanx 4 the topic :):):)

[Mujer Libre]

I really enjoyed it too. Though I am supprised by the claims that it is racist, which have appeared from India. Sure it shows a dark and unpleasant side to India, but Trainspotting did the same for Scotland.

Incidentally, this thread should be merged with the other thread on this film.
That's just Indian nationalism for you, and believe me, there's a lot of it. I guess it's a backlash against colonialism and actual racist attitudes about India and Indians. But it's gone to the absurd lengths that to portray India in any negative light at all is to be racist- which is of course absurd.

I was actually talking to my dad right after we watched the film, and he predicted that it would go down extremely poorly in mainstream Indian circles because of this- which turned out to be spot on.

Also, will merge the threads in a sec.

[bellyscratch]

Isn't it one of those 'Look how wonderful capitalism is, even the poor get rich if they try hard enough" films?

I watched it today and thought it wasnt too far off that to be honest...

[Dimentio]

I cannot see movies like this without crying :(

[The Intransigent Faction]

I watched it today and thought it wasnt too far off that to be honest...

That's what I've been told.

[Vanguard1917]

This is one of the most over-rated films. It's a cheesy love story and I don't see what all the fuss is about. The ending is not even remotely convincing, with the girl going back to the guy once she's scarred for life and he's won millions.

[benhur]

Moral of the story: Little brown people are poor, filthy, superstitious and barbaric, and it's the white man's burden to save them.

[Mujer Libre]

Moral of the story: Little brown people are poor, filthy, superstitious and barbaric, and it's the white man's burden to save them.

You haven't seen the film, have you?

There are no white characters, and 'whiteness' plays no role in the story. The most humane character is Jamal, the "slumdog" himself, who grew up surrounded by deprivation and cruelty. I think the film does a beautiful job of showing the complexity of humanity, and how the same circumstances can produce people who are so different. It also doesn't fall into the trap of several other films (that one with Patrick Swayze comes to mind...) that assumed that te slums were places of only misery, and that white people were needed to uplift the brown people. So yeah, I think you're making an incorrect assumption.


And VG1917- I agee that there is a fantastic element to the story, but it's just that, fantasy. I see the whole thing as more an allegory about people, and humanity, rather than a verbatim 'story.'

[bellyscratch]

This is one of the most over-rated films. It's a cheesy love story and I don't see what all the fuss is about. The ending is not even remotely convincing, with the girl going back to the guy once she's scarred for life and he's won millions.

For once I think I more or less agree with you :D

[GracchusBabeuf]

Just as a small clarification, this film was characterized as "racist" not only by the right-wing nationalists in India, but also by bourgeoisie like the actor Amitabh Bachan. Apparently they want to see only the "bright shiny" side of Indian capitalism which has been on show in most of the Hindi movies churned out from Bollywood. I can't remember any recent Bollywood movie critical of the neo-liberal mess of India.

[Mujer Libre]

Maybe Amitabh was just pissed off about the latrine scene. :lol:

[GracchusBabeuf]

Maybe Amitabh was just pissed off about the latrine scene. :lol:Yeah.:) That must piss him off since the film depicts the condition of the Indian people. The number of "hero" CEO's, elites and capitalists shown in recent Bollywood films is nauseating.

[Module]

What a brilliant movie. I saw it for the second time this afternoon, and I was still really moved by it. The hype is totally deserved, in my opinion.

[Bilan]

Just as a small clarification, this film was characterized as "racist" not only by the right-wing nationalists in India, but also by bourgeoisie like the actor Amitabh Bachan. Apparently they want to see only the "bright shiny" side of Indian capitalism which has been on show in most of the Hindi movies churned out from Bollywood. I can't remember any recent Bollywood movie critical of the neo-liberal mess of India.

I can't say I'm too surprised by that. There are very few Hollywood movies which are overly critical of modern capitalism, either. You'll get the odd one, but not usually. The best are usually indepenent films. One that comes to mind is Three Dollars, which is an Australian film based in the 80's which personifies the impact of the economic reforms.

[Invader Zim]

For once I think I more or less agree with you :D

Then like Vanguard, you have utterly missed the point of this film. It is not suppsoed to be a true story, or even resemble a true story. It is supposed to be a modern day fable, somewhat removed from reality. If the story, and the the Bollywood style dance at the end didn't give that away, then you have to wonder what would. Danny Boyle making a speech at the end to spell it out?

[Communist Theory]

Moral of the story: Little brown people are poor, filthy, superstitious and barbaric, and it's the white man's burden to save them.
Is that a rascist statement?

[Anonymous]

Awful movie in my opinion. It falsely portrays India, the scene where Indians steal the tires of the American couple's car and the protagonist after getting hit by a policeman says something like "You wanted to see the real India? Well this is the real India" and then the Americans give him a 100$ bill and say "This is the real America" was just pathetic.
Also, the theme of the movie, which is destiny, is naive at best. I thought we are not living in the 12th century? Well, Hollywood still is.

The movie has all the cliches of the Bollywood films that critics destroy on a daily basis; the poor kid who makes it big in the end, the improbable love coming true, the evil brother turned good by remorse, the bad guys who make life hell for the overly-moral protagonist, fairy-tale happy ending, etc.
Just because it's made by a well-known director, the tehincal part is good and the action is fast it suddenly becomes good cinema? I don't think so.

Wow, Jamal, your life is filled with pain and suffering and awesome music.

I can't deny it has a few good points: it's entertaining, the portrayal of corruption is okay, soundrack is good but doesn't really fit; I give it a 5/10.

[Invader Zim]

It falsely portrays India, the scene where Indians steal the tires of the American couple's car and the protagonist after getting hit by a policeman says something like "You wanted to see the real India? Well this is the real India" and then the Americans give him a 100$ bill and say "This is the real America" was just pathetic.


The film criticises the Americans. Secondly You will lose your tires in many Western cities, you aren't trying to claim that India is immune to crime are you?


Also, the theme of the movie, which is destiny, is naive at best.

The film isn't depecting real life, it is as stated, and blatently a fable. Do you understand the concept of a fable?


Well, Hollywood still is.

It isn't a Hollywood movie.


The movie has all the cliches of the Bollywood films that critics destroy on a daily basis; the poor kid who makes it big in the end, the improbable love coming true, the evil brother turned good by remorse, the bad guys who make life hell for the overly-moral protagonist, fairy-tale happy ending, etc.
Just because it's made by a well-known director, the tehincal part is good and the action is fast it suddenly becomes good cinema? I don't think so.

Thats the whole point, the film is more than in part a tribute to Bollywood.

Your post 2/10.

[Anonymous]

So you like Bollywood movies? I don't.
If not, why would a tribute to them be good, just because it has good directing?

And stop the ad hominem, of course I know what a fable is, I loved Pan's Labyrinth, for example, but I find Slumdog Millionaire devoid of any substance.

Look, I have an entirely different perspective. I'll give you another example, a movie from my country, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days won Palme d'Or in 2007, but here it recieved very poor reviews by the respectable people because they/I say it's a mediocre film. What I'm trying to say is that westerners tend to be very sensitive with movies about harsh life in undeveloped countries, but we here KNOW they're just exploitation soap operas.

[benhur]

Awful movie in my opinion.

True, but most lefties here think it attacks capitalism in India, while in reality, most people in the west (and Hollywood directors at that!) won't relate India with capitalism in their wildest dreams. To them, India is just another poor socialist country, because it's the tendency of most people in the west to consider anything other than capitalism as socialism. It's a racist attempt to show brown people as poor, wretched and miserable, and their societies incapable of proper governance, prone to violence and bigotry, and that the western (read capitalist) way of life is the best. Let's face it, it's a movie glorifying capitalism, albeit indirectly.

[x359594]

I must respectfully part company with comrades who liked the movie. As a cinephile I found it stylistically weak and emotionally manipulative. I found it thematically regressive too, but like a Charles Dickens novel it can be read either way, as a condemnation of capitalism or as a celebration of same as is proved by the posts here.

There’s a defense of Slumdog by Alvaro Vargas Llosa (neoliberal son of Mario Vargas Llosa). This makes sense to me as Horatio Alger rags-to-riches mobility myths/fables are important for capitalist legitimation; and a key focus of Llosa’s defense is to argue that the film does not exploit poverty.

[ZeroNowhere]

True, but most lefties here think it attacks capitalism in India, while in reality, most people in the west (and Hollywood directors at that!) won't relate India with capitalism in their wildest dreams. To them, India is just another poor socialist country, because it's the tendency of most people in the west to consider anything other than capitalism as socialism. It's a racist attempt to show brown people as poor, wretched and miserable, and their societies incapable of proper governance, prone to violence and bigotry, and that the western (read capitalist) way of life is the best. Let's face it, it's a movie glorifying capitalism, albeit indirectly.

Anyways, decent movie, not great, but not horrible. Certainly, the crap about it being racist is... Crap... As has been remarked, the (obviously) unrealistic parts of the movie are those that show hope for becoming rich from the slums. Seeing as I'm from India, and used to live in Bombay, slums are practically everywhere, so claiming that portraying them is racist is silly. Oh, wait, perhaps the director should have cast white people as the slum-dwellers, because then it wouldn't be racist, just painfully stupid. Whereas your reasoning to show that it is glorifying capitalism is grasping at straws at best.

[x359594]

Salman Rushdie's view:

What can one say about Slumdog Millionaire, adapted from the novel Q&A by the Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup and directed by Dany 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.

[himalayanspirit]

Given the fact that I have been naturally surrounded by the "diaspora" of these retarded Bollywood movies always showing super rich protagonists (actors) as being some filthy rich business men who keep visiting the western developed world all the time, I consider Slumdog Millionnaire to be an awesome movie. Because it exposes the reality. Bollywood movies have a tendency to show dreams to people of getting filthy rich, owning lots of bunglows in the US or any other western developed country etc etc. All this is highly unrealistic for the average Indian.

The reality in Indian urban areas is poverty, uncleanliness, health hazards etc etc. That is why that moron Amitabh Bacchhan felt "ashamed" being portrayed like this to the west. And that is also why nowadays most of the Indian Bollywood movies are directed in opulent locations of the west. These people would rather simply love to portray either the Indian feudal royalty living in huge palaces, or the "successful" Indian businessmen who made it big in the western world.


As such, the story of the movie was okay. It was the cinematography, acting, drama etc that was good in the movie. I would compare it with the "City of God".

[ZeroNowhere]

That is why that moron Amitabh Bacchhan felt "ashamed" being portrayed like this to the west.
I heard that he actually didn't necessarily endorse that viewpoint.
Though he's a Bollywood actor, so I couldn't really care too much.

[himalayanspirit]

I heard that he actually didn't necessarily endorse that viewpoint.

He openly accused the director of the movie for showing the underdeveloped part of India to the western audience. If it exists, what's wrong in making a movie over it? His critique of the movie, along with the other elites of India like him, were actually an open insult to the poor and distressed people who have to live a life in the slums amongst all the discrimination, oppression and poverty. These people criticized the movie and almost refused to believe that such poor people do exist in India. His statements clearly showed the way a fascist Indian mind views the poor and the helpless. Because according to his statements, its clear that for such people these slumdwellers do not exist at all, and they have no right to become a part of entertainment/movie media.

What exactly that retard said was that the bad side of India, which is also more widespread and apparent, shouldn't be shown to the west; only the good side should be shown. By "good side" he meant the negligible part of India which is rich according to international standards. Its clear how much these morons are concerned about their image, especially in the first world.


If you see the Bollywood movies, the latest ones at least, you would realize the kind of standard they have and perhaps you might also infer the mindset of the movie-makers and such movie-goers. All such shit movies would be shot in the opulent and developed locations in the west as well as the east. Its very likely that the actors would be rich NRIs (Non-Resident Indians) in those movies. This clearly shows the "wannabe nature" of the Indian moviemakers.

Amitabh Bacchhan had no credibility to outrightly criticize the movie on the basis of its portrayal of reality. Till when are these morons going to shoot movies in New York, Paris, Korea, HK? One day they should come back to India and start making movies portraying at least the reality of the common man of India. Till then they have no right to accuse such classic movies like Slumdog Millionnaire.

[Invader Zim]

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?

Wrong. Rushdie has, yet again, missed the point.

[Mujer Libre]

I don't realy see how this movie is Bollywood-like at all?

Sure, it uses stylistic elements of Bollywood, but the overall theme is so different from masala flicks that making the comparison, to my mind, shows that annoying trend (that is especially pervasive among journalists in the west) to label ANY Indian film as "Bollywood" without realising that it's actually a specific genre (musical romance +/- a whole bunch of other stuff), made in a specific place (Mumbai) by a certain group of people ("stars" and possibly the Indian underworld...).

I mean, the crux of most Bollywood plot lines, is that when social convention is disturbed, misery follows, and when it is maintained, things end happily ever after. Some small. tokenistic deviations (marrying someone from a lower caste) are allowed, but only after much struggle.

What does Slumdog have to do with any of this? I don't really know.

[benhur]

Because it exposes the reality.

Everyone knows India is a poor, third world country. So what's there to expose? How can you expose something which everyone knows? You can only expose something that's hidden, how can one expose the obvious? It seems superfluous.

[himalayanspirit]

Everyone knows India is a poor, third world country. So what's there to expose?

Yes, everyone knows it already. This "everyone" includes the developed world and the people living in such condition of poverty, illiteracy and unemployment within India itself. But this excludes the few elite Indians like Amitabh Bacchhan and other urban Indians who criticized the movie. They, because of their own ignorance, inferiority complex and media, are made to believe that India is looked by the west as an emerging superpower. You would be surprised by the fact that such urban Indians feel really proud of those filthy rich Indians who figure into the Forbe's riches list, and who have businesses in the west. They feel proud about the thousands of immigrants who despise Indian citizenship to emigrate to the west and developed countries.

In simple terms, they have been brainwashed by the ridiculuous media and propaganda to believe that India is viewed as a very powerful and rich country by the other world. And because of living in this fantasy world, they forget the vast number of poor in India whose one day meal itself is a struggle, who have no shelter, who have no jobs and who live in slums. These elite group of people completely ignore the poor and oppressed Indians and do not like projecting this "image of India" to the world, which, although as you yourself said, is already well known by "everyone".

Therefore, when I said that the movie "exposes the reality of India", I was talking in the context of such elite groups who have accused the movie as being racist, "white conspiracy" etc etc. Watching this movie, they woke up from their fantasy dream of a "fast developing and soon-to-be-Superpower India", and felt insecure about their "new image in the west" (as if it was already too good:p).

Actually, more than the story of this movie, I was more happy because at least the poor people of India at last found any presence in the international movies. Otherwise, they would have always remained as a non-existent people in the world, and an ignored people in India.

[Invader Zim]

So you like Bollywood movies? I don't.
If not, why would a tribute to them be good, just because it has good directing?

And stop the ad hominem, of course I know what a fable is, I loved Pan's Labyrinth, for example, but I find Slumdog Millionaire devoid of any substance.

Look, I have an entirely different perspective. I'll give you another example, a movie from my country, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days won Palme d'Or in 2007, but here it recieved very poor reviews by the respectable people because they/I say it's a mediocre film. What I'm trying to say is that westerners tend to be very sensitive with movies about harsh life in undeveloped countries, but we here KNOW they're just exploitation soap operas.

I don't like Bollywood films, the ones I have seen are formulaic and tedious. But Slumdog is not a Bollywood film, rather it is a Western adaption of the Bollywood style of film making.


And stop the ad hominemNo. If you make idiotic criticism's of a film which clearly show that you have missed the point, then I am going to point that out.


of course I know what a fable isThen why did you describe a fable, exploring the theme of destiny, as being 'naive'? Either you don't know what a fable is, or you entirely missed the point of Slumdog.

My criticism of your post has nothing to do with the fact that you dislike the film, rather it has to do with the fact that your criticisms are obvously founded on a complete misunderstanding of what the film is actually about.

[Vargha Poralli]

I never understood why this movie was so much overrated that it actually was.

For one the movies portrayal of Mumbai's slums is really accurate but it was not certainly new. Mira Nair did it more powerfully in Salaam Bombay.

And in the screenplay too the childhood of the main characters is accurate but after a while in the later stages they look more like Middle Class teenagers rather than slum dwelling teenagers. And the story is also mostly fairytalish rather than portrayal of reality most slumdwellers do not have such oppurtunity to participate in Crorepati which is mainly targetted for middleclass audience who can afford to get Star Tv which is a paid channel.

Certainly with the lot of political confusion going around the ruling class and the middle class audience needed a diversion and this movie gave it.

[himalayanspirit]

I never understood why this movie was so much overrated that it actually was.

Perhaps because you are one of those elite urban class Indians who lives in dreams of "India: soon a superpower"? The movie was actually "overrated" and "over hyped" (and even "white conspiracy to portray bad of India") according to everyone of the middle class and ruling elites of India. Is it just a co-incidence? No.
The reason why the ruling elites and the urban Indians see this movie as overrated is because of the reason I elucidated in my previous posts; that they consider these people as non-existent and a burden to the nation.


For one the movies portrayal of Mumbai's slums is really accurate but it was not certainly new. Mira Nair did it more powerfully in Salaam Bombay.


I have not seen her movies so cannot explain why this movie was not as much a hit as SDM. Perhaps because the storyline wasn't interesting or whatever. But I do know that movies by Satyajit Ray were quite a hit worldwide and he also portrayed the poor of India very colorfully. And Satyajit Ray too, just like Danny Boyle, was criticized by the Indians for showing the poverty of India abroad. Even this isn't a co-incidence, is it?

If you combine all the movies of India from various languages and regions, it would perhaps excede the number of movies ever made in Hollywood by twice. There are rare movies which show this reality of India; instead, almost all the retarded movies revolve around the rich and is shot in opulent western or eastern locations outside India.

Poor people do exist in large numbers in India. And they have every right to have a presence in entertainment media that depicts the drama of their life.

[Mujer Libre]

himalayanspirit, please do not use prejudiced language- i.e. using the word 'retarded' as a perjorative.

This is a verbal warning.

[GracchusBabeuf]

I don't realy see how this movie is Bollywood-like at all?I don't think the director meant it to be that way. The Bollywood directors usually have some "formula" in mind when directing a movie.


Sure, it uses stylistic elements of Bollywood, but the overall theme is so different from masala flicks that making the comparison, to my mind, shows that annoying trend (that is especially pervasive among journalists in the west) to label ANY Indian film as "Bollywood" without realising that it's actually a specific genre (musical romance +/- a whole bunch of other stuff), made in a specific place (Mumbai) by a certain group of people ("stars" and possibly the Indian underworld...)Actually though it may seem that that most Bollywood movies are musicals, there are actually many movies that are not musicals at all. But on the whole, I think that Indian movies have for too long used musicals and must move on to other forms.


I mean, the crux of most Bollywood plot lines, is that when social convention is disturbed, misery follows, and when it is maintained, things end happily ever after. Some small. tokenistic deviations (marrying someone from a lower caste) are allowed, but only after much struggle.Thats a very good way of describing these movies. :) This is in addition to lots of direct plagiarization of Western movies.

[Mujer Libre]

Actually though it may seem that that most Bollywood movies are musicals, there are actually many movies that are not musicals at all. But on the whole, I think that Indian movies have for too long used musicals and must move on to other forms.
Yes, and those are Indian films, not Bollywood films... Which is exactly the point I Was trying to make!

[Vargha Poralli]

Perhaps because you are one of those elite urban class Indians who lives in dreams of "India: soon a superpower"? The movie was actually "overrated" and "over hyped" (and even "white conspiracy to portray bad of India") according to everyone of the middle class and ruling elites of India. Is it just a co-incidence? No.

It is quite rich calling me a member of ruling class/middle class elite while later in the post you say this


There are rare movies which show this reality of India; instead, almost all the retarded movies revolve around the rich and is shot in opulent western or eastern locations outside India.


Which shows that you have never seen anything other than Bollywood movies. It is you who needs to realise that India doesn't start in delhi and ends in Mumbai and Bollywood is not the only one representative of Indian Movies.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Which shows that you have never seen anything other than Bollywood movies. It is you who needs to realise that India doesn't start in delhi and ends in Mumbai and Bollywood is not the only one representative of Indian Movies.Have there been any leftist-oriented movies made in any Indian language? I can't remember any because these films seem so unbelievably commercialized. Please suggest them if you know any.

[himalayanspirit]

Which shows that you have never seen anything other than Bollywood movies. It is you who needs to realise that India doesn't start in delhi and ends in Mumbai and Bollywood is not the only one representative of Indian Movies.

No. I have seen movies in Telegu, Bhojpuri and other languages. All the movies revolve around the elite upper class, upper caste. The few that don't - which are not intended to be commercial movies perhaps - end up fairing very badly compared to these commercial movies (just like this UK movie SDM). In fact, some of the Telegu movies that I saw were even more funnier and had scenes which depicted open mocking of the poor.

Its the same everywhere in India. And this similar elitist and communal thinking in India is prevalent all over India (almost), spanning many states with different cultures and languages. This is because of religion, which is apparently the only thing common between all these people. The main religion of India - which is Hinduism - teaches people to consider themselves as different from each other and follow rules so as to maintain the "purity of bloodline". This disturbs unity disastrously, if at all there was any.

That is why you find so much disparity in India between rich and poor. On the one hand you have some of the Indians having one of the largest share in the "Forbe's most rich list", and on the other hand you have millions of people begging int he streets of urban India and sleeping on the roads.

This happens because religion gives justification for disparity and in fact creates laws to maintain and further increase the gap between the elite and the masses.

So, in the end, everything boils down to religion. I feel that religion should be banned in India; only then will there be any prosperity.

[GracchusBabeuf]

This happens because religion gives justification for disparity and in fact creates laws to maintain and further increase the gap between the elite and the masses.

So, in the end, everything boils down to religion. I feel that religion should be banned in India; only then will there be any prosperity.A good point on Hinduism in India. But I think education and increasing class consciousness will help more than banning it. By banning religion, it will give more fuel to religious fundamentalists. But its certainly a huge problem and we definitely need to look for other solutions too.

If we listen to the Indian media, it would appear that religion has made a "comeback", but the working classes are actually tired of religious bullshit. It is just the elites who are stuck in their little worlds who think religion has found favor with the masses.

[himalayanspirit]

By banning religion, it will give more fuel to religious fundamentalists.

Thats inevitable unfortunately. I guess banning religion will not be a feasible solution; instead, one can spread awareness among the people who are victims of the religion, so that they naturally leave it. If such a process is successful, eventually these "religious fundamentalists" (the elites) would end up being minority without any great power or influence on the other. Then they can be left to themselves to practice their oppressive religion.[:)]



If we listen to the Indian media, it would appear that religion has made a "comeback"

Indian media is a joke and just a mouthpiece of the elites. That is why they spread all this disinformation about India's growth and fame across the world; because the elites like listening to such news. They hardly bring any news without dipping it into the pool of their own biases.

[GracchusBabeuf]

If such a process is successful, eventually these "religious fundamentalists" (the elites) would end up being minority without any great power or influence on the other. Then they can be left to themselves to practice their oppressive religion.[:)]Actually, in a communist society, there will be no scope for religious fundamentalists to establish religious hierarchies. So, there would be reason to oppose religion only until a classless society is reached. The anti-religious propaganda would of course have to be part of larger communist propaganda as an effort to raise class consciousness.


Indian media is a joke and just a mouthpiece of the elites. That is why they spread all this disinformation about India's growth and fame across the world; because the elites like listening to such news. They hardly bring any news without dipping it into the pool of their own biases.As Chomsky argues in Manufacturing Consent (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730), this is the main function of media in democratic capitalist societies. They seek to manufacture consent for the authorities by brainwashing the people. This is in contrast to a dictatorship where people would be openly oppressed and violence perpetrated on dissidents. In so-called liberal democracies, the ruling class seek to oppress the minds rather than bodies of the proletariat.

[jeffturner]

Wow nice movie the music is simply awesome by A R Rehman, won many oscars. Great movie and specially am in love with Frida Pinto the actress

[cska]

Sorry to be gravedigging here, but I couldn't help noticing how many people thought that Slumdog Millionaire was a good movie. It was simply disgusting. It depicts the usual racist nonsense about the "third world" being completely un-civilized and barbaric. Perhaps you guys contrast it with the everyday bollywood movie and think it is good in comparison. Luckily, as an American of Indian descent, I have had the privilege of watching quality Indian films. Not the crap with Amitabh Bachan in it. I mean movies with say Naseeruddin Shah or Om Puri in them. They look at Indian society in a balanced manner, criticizing the injustice without making India seem like a hellhole.

[MarxSchmarx]

Thread closed.

cska, if you feel strongly enough about this that you have a point that hasn't been made yet, start a new thread along the lines of "the shortcomings of slumdog millionaire", summarize the earlier discussion with links to here. If it gains traction, we could merge the two threads.