Yet Another Note on Slumdog Millionaire

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!

Random question

Have you ever felt that you want to insulate yourself from everything? You know, enter a glass box...more like an opaque box... or have some shield around you (radiation shield is that it?), put on sheaths of protective gear and just hide, shield... just get away? Is it escapist? and is being escapist bad? then is hibernation escapist?! hibernating till the sun comes out?!

A few questions

1. There's this movie coming out, with the the tagline - 'When do you know it's love?'. My question - when do you know it's not love, or rather, when do you know it's no longer love? And does that then mean 'The End'? What is the end? No talking, forgetting everything, pretending it no longer existed? What if there is no 'end'? I don't know how many of you watch Grey's Anatomy (please do, it's super fun!) but well at the end of Season 3 there's this scene where Meredith screams to the world in general and to Derek in specific - 'It's over, it's so over.' - signifying to the audience that Meredith and Derek (the main couple) are finally off. Umm... but next season they're back at it again. Then I was reading the newspaper today, there was this news about a couple which has gotten back (and is probably re-marrying) after they got divorced way back in 1998. How does this work ya?
Oh and does one just 'give up' when the other is confused? Is it an 'insult' to one's 'self-respect', is it self-humiliating and degrading to not give up? Is an agreement to 'discuss' things after a certain time period, to keep everything in 'abeyance' - does that signify the end? During that 'time period' what does one do? Treat the 'thing' you had as the end? Again what does one 'do' if it's the end? And then again, what if it's not the end? What if there still is love and before you say it, there is love enough? Can someone please answer these questions?!

2. To divert a little, why o why does law school have to be endured for 5 long years?! I'm currently sitting at home, dreading going back and hence am in the phase where I don't like college. So well - isn't it inequitable that friends from school doing a Bachelor in Arts / Science / Commerce degree, get to graduate two whole years before me?! And even those engineering people graduate a year before! It's so unfair! I don't wanna go back? Why does such regimentation in education have to be endured?! Why can't I just educate myself by reading as many Somerset Maughams and other authors that I like?! (Ok such 'revolutionary' thoughts have to be read in context of the mood that I am presently!)

3. Is the key to 'living life' to not take things too seriously? How does that work out ya? Is it 'cool' to break rules and not take them seriously? Is it 'cool' to take law school academics 'un'seriously when in the process I might just lose more years and stay for more than 5 yrs in that place?! How does one fall in love and not take it seriously?! A fling is different but how does one treat a relationship 'un'seriously only because apparently one is 'young' and has a lot more to see?

4. Last question - rather, set of questions. How does one compartmentalise stuff in one's brain and not let one thing affect the other? Does one have to pretend that something never happened so that it doesn't affect the other stuff?

Ok, those are my list of questions. Could someone please answer them?! Oh and a disclaimer before I sign off, I LOVE law school, it's just that it's end of hols and I don't wanna go back : ( !