Slamming 'Slumdog'

Oscar nominations were announced earlier this week and the runaway hit of the year, "Slumdog Millionaire" walked away with ten nominations! However not everyone is as thrilled with the news as others. The movie opens today and the city that feature so prominently in the film, Mumbai, hosted the cast and crew that came to India to celebrate the premiere. Although there are people who have been very supportive and proud that the movie has won so much critical acclaim, there is a rather vocal majority that seems bent on looking only at the bad elements of "Slumdog Millionaire" and the supposed 'fallacies' that it attempts to depict.

Shortly before the furor on the movie began to pick up, there wasn't really much attention given to "Slumdog Millionaire". Most people figured that it would be a mediocre movie that would get some attention and then quickly die out but the appreciation of the film and the coincidental release shortly before the Mumbai terrorist attacks of November meant that it probably got more attention then it otherwise might have. At that time I remember that the movie was in very limited release and it was used by news programs as a way of letting people know that there was a movie that could help show people what the city of Mumbai is like. Critics had already shown support but the wave of people that went to see it after the attacks certainly helped boost viewership. And now people can't seem to get enough of it.

On the surface the story of "Slumdog Millionaire" isn't anything extraordinary. I mean the story of a down-on-his-luck protragonist who then has a chance to do something amazing that changes his life forever is nothing new. We've seen this theme in movies probably since movies were invented. What is different for a lot of Western audiences is that for a change they were able to see the movie in a very stylistic and more-or-less realistic light rather than the grandiose and often bombastic nature that most Indian films wish to portray and therein lies part of the problem that many in India have regarding the film. Everyone from the folks pictured at the top of this blog to Indian superstar Amitabh Bachchan has been weighing in with their opinion on the movie.

Bachchan himself has been criticized for his comments in which he stated somewhat indirectly that he didn't understand how a movie that explores the 'murky underbelly' of Mumbai garnered so much attention when even the most developed of nations has a murky underbelly that is just as bad. He also went on to wonder whether it was because the film was based on a book by an Indian author but made by a Western director. In hearing that and in seeing comments from other people with similar opinions, I can't help but feel that this is in part due to petty jealousy on the parts of some. Now before I get innundated with comments from raving Amitabh fans who feel I have accused the actor of jealousy, let me back up my remarks. I remember reading about how the movie "Gandhi" was viewed in India and elsewhere. It too was an award winning film that won many awards but the view that some held was that this film could have and should have been made in India.

That may be, but then why didn't anyone do it? There is no shortage of talented and highly capable Indian actors but then why didn't anyone say, "Let's make a movie about Gandhi-ji and the struggle for independence,"? As far as I know, no one in India has made such a film and while it's fine to be critical of westerners who seem bent in the eyes of some of glamorizing or showing India in a western light, what about Indians themselves? When someone tries to make films on the 'reality' of India then it is usually openly protested. What do I mean? Well recall Deepa Mehta's attempts to film the movie, "Water" which dealt with the treatment of widows in pre-independence India. The cast and crew were protested and attacked in India due to the mob's belief that the movie would depict India in a negative light and was dealing with issues from the past that no longer went on in India. Yet when the movie (which was eventually filmed outside of India) was nominated as the Best Foreign Film at the Oscars as an entry from Canada, there was sudden praise and applause for Deepa Mehtha? Duplicity? Hypocrisy? I think so.

While there are elements of Indian culture and life in India that some may find a little shameful, no one can deny that this is part of the reality of India. Of all the protestors shown in this film I'm sure that not a single one of those people has seen or will see the film. They have been riled up by hooligans who want the common person in India to continue to view their country through rose-coloured glasses only in the highly stylized films of Bollywood then the cinema from India will not ever be appreciated. Read the reviews of "Chandini Chowk to China" (the latest Bollywood film to hit the mainstream) and while there is an appreciation of the fun and frolic of the film, a common question is why there are sudden bursts of highly illogical or meaningless segments that seem to be thrown in at random? There is a difference between useless escapism and brutal reality.

What about one of the other best picture nominees at the Oscars this year, "Doubt"? That film deals with the controversial subject of abuse by priests in the Catholic Church. Sure there have been protests and complaints about the film but it was still made wasn't it? No one is standing around denying that such occurences are only the product of the movies. No one is standing outside the theatres in a mob threatening to burn down the theatre showing the film or beating up people who go to see it. This doesn't happen everywhere in India either but it isn't so uncommon either. People rush to defend this action by saying it's partially because Indians are a passionate people but isn't everyone? I don't think passion has anything to do with it. It's more often pride and ego. The saying in Hindi is "Hum Kisi Se Kam Nahin" which roughly translates to "we are no less than anyone else," and it seems to be the mantra that often pushes people to adopt this attitude.

If "Slumdog Millionaire" had been made by an Indian director or in Bollywood I don't think it would have made as big a deal as it has because there would have been endless songs and subplots that would have served as nothing more than justification about the motivation of every single character in the film. Isn't it enough to make assumptions? Do we really need to know the lifestory of everyone in the film so that we realize that even the most evil person is sometimes good? I mean sometimes Indian movies take it to the point that it's like watching the entire "Star Wars" trilogy in one sitting so that we know that while Darth Vader may be evil, we know why. If Indians have a problem with "Slumdog Millionaire" then what movie would the Indian masses feel is worthy of 'introducing' the West to India? "Chandini Chowk to China"? I think that's one of the worst mistakes they could ever make. Why introduce the west to the vibrance and truth of the country through a movie that is as fantastical as it is illogical? Is that India? Maybe these critics should see what "Slumdog Millionaire" is all about before jumping to complain.