I just heard that Slumdog Millionaire's (hereafter to be referred to as either 'Slumdog' or SM) got ten Oscar nominations, including three for Rahman, one of which he's been nominated along with Gulzar. Strange emotions actually engulfed me. I feel ecstatic for Rahman and Gulzar, really. Both are stupendous at their respective art. Not one to know much about lyrics (I have this thing, I know the song but never the lyrics), I do know a bit (a bit:)) more about melody and I personally think Rahman's made much better music in films like Dil Se, Roja, Yuva, Saathiya, Rang De Basanti, Guru... the list is endless. While 'Jai Ho' is nice, it just isn't the same as say 'Satrangi Re' or 'Fanaa' or well even a 'Mayya'. However since SM is a success, everything related to it is being noticed and so is Rahman's music. I'm glad nonetheless. Just read somewhere that Akon's asked him to do a song with him and even appear in his video :D While I hate his music (Mr. Lonely is top on that list), but never thought this day would come :D!
Anyway this post is more about the film itself. The film left me with this weird feeling. I've been in Bombay for almost 11 yrs now (2 of these have however been spent in B'lore now, and so will the next 3)... and I don't think Bombay's only about slums. I hence hated this aspect of the film. is a lot more to Bombay... and any news of the film's success made it sound to me like we were celebrating our own poverty. Surprisingly even Mr. Bachchan agrees! As usual, many have responded that he's just jealous of SM's success. He's obviously then said that he was 'misinterpreted' (on his blog, something which I plan to check out sometime). Some say it's the 'crab mentality' and how Indians can't wait to pull down an Indian who finally does well. Maybe it's true - I'd like to believe it's not.
Nonetheless a tiny bit of me kept on telling me about how Dharavi and slums like these do exist. As I've said this tons of times to my own friends, Bombay is a dirty city.. public sanitation is not one of its' plus points. I wondered if I was being overtly defensive? It is in so many ways such a typical reaction. It's similar to how I (and many of my friends) feel about law school - we criticise it endlessly amongst ourselves, but if any 'outsider' says anything even slightly negative, my claws are out! Besides, the film does have many other positive aspects - it's about hope and victory of, well, good over evil. The child actors are brilliant - I think they deserve more acclaim than anyone else in the cast. Dev Patel as the adult Jamaal is also good. Frieda Pinto, in my own opinion, is nothing great though :) The acting is decent, the music is good, there are many poignant scenes - overally, cinematically, the film is a treat. It is a total 'package' - drama, humour, dishoom-dishoom, romance, the Taj Mahal, communal riots and love transcending all religions, villainy and other barriers, the rags to riches story, the two brothers one all white (Jamaal), the other white to grey to black to grey to white finally (Salim); the poverty, the white tourists who are told what the 'real India' is... etc etc. Oh there's also a Bollywood dance sequence thrown in in the end, probably to satiate the tastes of Westerners wanting to see such a song and dance (I hated it). So it's full masala, something like Om Shanti Om (OSO) or Main Hoon Na (MHN) made by Farah Khan. It is in many ways very Bollywood-esque, yet that and not OSO is making the Oscar nomination list. Why?
Well for starters, admittedly SM is a decent to good film. It's moving and nice. Secondly, it is made by a Westerner, Danny Boyle of Trainspotting fame, of all people. So while some may only grudgingly admit that they 'okayed' OSO or MHN ('It's so corny ya, so Bollywood') SM's awesome. Maybe it's the white skin fascination or maybe I'm too much of a cynic (I still maintain that the film is pretty ok). Thirdly, the film does well abroad because 1. it's by Boyle, 2. it shows the 'real' India, shows the grime, the dust, the squalor - shows how a 'slumdog' overcomes all to succeed, 3. it's a decent film. My problem is with no. 2 (rather, 3.2). I might be wrong there... but I don't think so. And this is what irritates and saddens me. Boyle must be grinning away to glory right now - he's cashed in on our poverty and how. I agree that a large part of India is poor, I agree that we have zillions of slums...but it still saddens me that well our poverty is what is selling. Simultaneously I don't think this is a India centric problem. I'm sure other countries too are faced with this problem of cliched representations (simultaneously there is this thought jumping in my brain right now telling me that the essence of cliches is truth!). I haven't seen Amores Peres, but a friend has - she told me she loved it, but obviously Mexico (it's based there, right?) can't only be about that. I could also argue why an OSO can't win a Golden Globe if SM can - but admittedly, the idea sounds ludicruous. I could argue why Indian films which are more positive in their portayal of India can't win an Oscar - but save for RDB or Lagaan (and some other films), I can't think of brilliant Hindi cinema (I havent seen regional cinema, but have heard there are some gems there). Lastly, I could just say - why the hell should we care for an Oscar? Films are about entertainment, and if the audience is satisfied that is all - and maybe that indeed is enough. And finally, maybe I am being too much of a cynic - maybe SM is doing well because it is being perceived as being brilliant (I don't think the same personally... but well previous Oscar winners like Crash too have left me disappointed)... it is a nice film though... so maybe they do deserve all the accolades and acclaim.
However I can't help but sign off with two observations. One, I absolutely hate the scene where the adolescent Jamaal tells the American couple what the 'real' India is, and the couple respond by giving money and the line 'this is the real America'. So America is all benevolence and munificence and we are all corruption? Or maybe it's a spin on Americans and the American idea (is it?) that money is the solution to all problems (:D) (might be true, Boyle is not American, he's based in Britain!).
Two - Can anyone explain how Jamaal and Salim suddenly start speaking English when they land in Agra?! I know that commercially it would have been a bad idea for Boyle to make the film all Hindi, and I know we are supposed to suspend disbelief while watching films... but this was too incongruous to escape notice :D
Hmm, maybe, I should stop being such a cynic, and stop looking for conspiracy theories everywhere!
10 comments:
hey
okay, i was only reading this because you told me to, but there's a lot of really interesting stuff in there
and while it's true that SM is doing as well as it is because of the three things you've mentioned, i personally thought the movie was really really good (as was CRASH, HOW can you not like CRASH!!!)
I've read the book this is based on and i didn't like it, and so had reservations about the movie. And the english thing did stick out like a sore thumb (the America thing i think was satire, at least I took it to be. Boyle is brit, and they tend to take a dig at Americans). But i liked it because i liked the way it told a story that i didn't think was great. I liked the use of the soundtrack (which in itself i don't get the fuss about, Rahman HAS done MUCH better), i liked bits of the camerawork, i LOVED a lot of the acting (irfan khan is one of my favourites, and dev patel was really good, and the kids were AMAZING). Also, i don't get the fuss about the portrayal of India. I don't think it was trying to make the point that India is only slums, but it would have to be about slums given that it's about a slumdog. I don't think it's profiteering or becoming famous through our poverty any more than a million other things are (call centres and the cheap labour we pride ourselves on?) I think Amitabh Bachan has earned a lot of popularity for stereotyping India in the west, his daughter in law definitely has too, and I don't see him compaining about that. I think it's fine to make a movie like this, and I didn't feel insulted or anything when i watched it. I think it's probably doing better than it should, but that's also because it's been brilliantly sold
but AWESOME piece
I may be prejudiced, but i completely agree with vatty and disagree with yaman. agree completely with the rehman point, am glad an indian[well south indian :)]is winning awards and getting nominated, even if its for lesser work(it most definitely is not his best). danny boyle gave foreign audiences what they want to see,what they want to hear. and he made money and got 64 awards is it? 18.2% of India is urban, the rest.. rural. and he chooses to concentrate on a slum in urban india- communal violence et al. strange.
loved the post vatty:)
ooh also vatty, you left out how retarded anil kapoor's acting was.. which tv show host, leave alone indian,would insult a participant repeatedly and call him chaiwalla- the same syndrome also afflicted the call centre employees. the sudden leap from hindi to english may be for cinematic convenience, though it did leave me utterly confused.. umm so when the boy speaks to his brother in english we are to assume its in hindi and the educated accent while conversing with foreign tourists in english is what?? i sound confusing right now coz i am confused.
i leave off with one observation that megha made: i know india has slums and poverty and death and hunger and flies blah blah, but why is a britisher thrusting it down my throat. if it were an indian filmmaker id be still okay with it....
ye know
i think the movie is very overrated
i find it odd that indians would like it, because it is VERY regular bollywood fare, of the kind that is way too corny for me to take; so i dont see whats so earth shattering about it
but I dont care that they show only poor India, or poor Bombay- i think that anything which gets people to sit up and take the blinders off is fine. i think theres a bit of defensiveness (is that a word?) there when we seek to show the world that hey.. were poor, were corrupt but we have ratan tatas and we can speak english better than u can
a film like slum dog cant straddle both worlds
and i think as indians we should be comfortable with the reality of our poverty etc, shouldnt bristle because someone chooses the focus on the sad bits. and its not specific to india, i dont know SHIT about sudan's culture or history. all i know is taht people are dying, and im grateful to anyone who tells me that, even if its not a complete view of sudan because thats the part that u need to know about more urgently no?
what gets to me is foreigners taking pictures of beggars and NOT of say.. the taj and going back home telling people that this is the real india
thats a very myopic, biased view. but a film-maker cant be blamed for making a particular strata of society his focus. he did show the KBC set like it is, opulent type and he did show the streets of bombay full of huge cars. he showed big houses.. what else could u expect?
its sad that rahman got noticed for this movie. i dont even remember the soundtrack and i am a rehman fan. agree with u there, completely
Firstly, thank you all for reading and then commenting... it's so nice to finally see comments on this blog :D and thanks for the compliments on the piece itself.
So firstly, agree with Aq on the Sudan bit, I don't know much more about the country either - it's probably because only news of the strife and the poverty there is what we want to hear... why should i care to see a movie about love in Sudan when I can just see Jab We Met or some other good o'd B'wood flick?
So it's here that I say that there is a tiny element of 'profiteering' there Yam. It's in the fact, as Aathira pointed out, of the selection of subject matter. Why would Americans be interested in a std boy meet girl story in India, when the same can be done so much better in Amreeka? Instead Boyle chooses a story which is so Indian, with poverty, B'wood, communal strife etc as its' subject matter, it's perfect. So well yeah, this is what kind of saddens me. However it's not Boyle's fault, it's our fault that poverty (and so much of it) still exists in India.
With reference to Bachchan and Ash, lol I definitely don't think they're saints... but it was still a pleasant surprise to hear his reaction on this.
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/20192670/review/24013911/slumdog_millionaire
hey vatty read this. i think am throwing up on the inside.
to begin with, very well written vatness...enjoyed reading it and most of it does echo my views on the movie...ive read all comments and i cant but feel that the debate is a bit misdirected. my problem with SM is not limited to the portrayal of India and its people or the director's choice of the subject...my main problem is that i just do not thik it is a great film which deserves all these accolades. I am not being defensive abt the reality of India. I know there are slums and poverty and hunger like the rest of you and i dont mind a sensitive movie on the issue but sm just wasnt great cinmea. i judge a movie by its acting, script, direction among other things and SM did not really match my expectations...the kids were definitely the best actors and considering that sme of them are actually frm the slums makes it even more commendable (btw this is y they abruptly shifted to english in the middle coz the children were able to perform better while talkin in hindi)...dev patel and pinto were quite blah...irrfan khan in his limited role did a decent job...anil kapoor was being evil for god knows what reason...overall the movie was engaging but nothing spectacular...i hvnt seen most of the other movies which have been nominated but judging by previous oscar winners i don think sm stands a chance unless of course they are taken in by the "real india"...i don even have a problem with a brit tellin me abt the "real india"...its just that the movie itself was mediocre and nothin so different frm regular bollywood...i am happy for rehman tho he has definitely come up with better music
ps i disagree with the crash comment...i absolutely love crash and thought it was deserving but then again maybe it played to my stereotype of blacks in america :P
pps all this talk of the "real india" is making me fee like an optical illusion 0_o
@Aathira - I am gagging too after reading that - 'achingly lovely'? 'Even in the Bollywood musical number that ends the film, joy and pain are still joined in the dance'????? -_-
Oh and my stance is more or less like Megha's... It is an ordinary Bollywood movie, just directed by a Brit and that makes it noticable - and that is the sad part - there are movies which feature the sad parts of poverty, drug addiction etc. etc. all the time. Germany can't complain if people base the movie on the Holocaust and it sells! I just think that if this is what the Oscars were looking for, we have much more of it elsewhere and better quality. AND we have been sending it to them every year minus a Brit director.
Read it just as you asked me too. You'd already voiced out many of the tings over the phone, but still, well written.
Though i must say, you have gone real soft on the movie. Apart from the music and the child actors in the movie, everything else was not as great as it is being made out to be.
Though my reasons for saying this are not because it portrays Bombay as a slum! There was City of Joy, there was Amores Perros, there was Constant Gardener; all of them showing the squalid aspect of some city. So why not Bombay?
The difference is that the other three movies were really and exceptionally good. SM on the other hand is just your typical Bollywood blockbuster about two brothers, separating time and again from each other, reconciling thereafter and obviously with the girl coming in time again into the picture.
Frankly soundtrack and direction are the two things that are best about the movie.
Yet, thats my take.. you might have another.
Rahul
Read it just as you asked me too. You'd already voiced out many of the tings over the phone, but still, well written.
Though i must say, you have gone real soft on the movie. Apart from the music and the child actors in the movie, everything else was not as great as it is being made out to be.
Though my reasons for saying this are not because it portrays Bombay as a slum! There was City of Joy, there was Amores Perros, there was Constant Gardener; all of them showing the squalid aspect of some city. So why not Bombay?
The difference is that the other three movies were really and exceptionally good. SM on the other hand is just your typical Bollywood blockbuster about two brothers, separating time and again from each other, reconciling thereafter and obviously with the girl coming in time again into the picture.
Frankly soundtrack and direction are the two things that are best about the movie.
Yet, thats my take.. you might have another.
Rahul
Ok, thank you ALL for the comments, right now im not thinking about the post itself, just marvelling and rejoicing over no. of comments :D this self advertisement thing works!
Ok too self centred :D
Ok anyway coming back to the debate on hand;
Ok read the RS review Aathira - I cant get over it :D
See my problem was firstly the slum thing - I can't help it, it's irrational and a bit stupid - and yes it's all there in the city - but that disturbed me.
I thought the film was good, but as almost everyone here concurs on, it wasn't brilliant. Regarding the Oscars and their credibility, people who read TOI please read saturday's (24th jan) edit page! Have anyway posted link here:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/rssarticleshow/msid-4023031,prtpage-1.cms
Please read it :)
Post a Comment