Slumdog Millionaire - Avinomic Analysis

DISCLAIMER: The writer has taken every precaution to confirm the accuracy of facts presented in the article(s). But the writer does not hold responsibility if any fact turns out to be inaccurate.

Hi to every reader.Here comes another blog from a budding media professional======= This is going to be my first blog entry. I have been a media student and I love to read and write about many things including media.

In my first entry I am going to express myself on Slumdog Millionaire (SM). I do not intend to change or convince anyone. I only want to express myself and talk about things which are being seen by few people. Many of these thoughts have been expressed by other people earlier

but I am expressing them here as I feel that those people did not receive too much media attention, compared to the critics of movie.

Ever since SM gained popularity in the international cinema, people have been debating whether India should proud of it or ashamed of it.

Pride or shame is a matter of personal opinion. Some say that SM portrays India in bad light. Maybe true, but is there anything false about India in that film? No!

There were objections to the title. Some accused the film of abusing slum dwellers by calling them dog. Some Anti-white said that the term was coined by a white man and thus was abusive. People (including slum-dwellers) were on streets with placards reading, “I am not a dog.”We should get our records straight. It is true that there is no word like “Slumdog”. Slum habitant is known as Slum-dweller. In English, a man
who struggles to get on top is known as Underdog. As the movie is about rags to riches, “slum” was taken from “slum-dweller” and “dog” was taken from “underdog” to coin the term “slumdog”. Critics should wonder how odd and meaningless the words like “slum-under” or “dweller-dog” would have looked. So the title should not be considered as offensive. Unfortunately, most of our semi-literate or illiterate politicians did not understand that and in order to get the votes of slum-dwellers and to secure their 15 seconds of fame. As par news reports, one political party demanded the change in title and another political party sent goons (in Bihar) to vandalise the cinema hall screening SM.

Now we talk about the “exploitation” of kids. The parents of kids were happy with the payments kids received. Even Danny Boyle also signed a bond which declares that child actors of SM would receive a part of their payment when they turn 18. They have already received one part. This is a good thing. After turning 18, at least they would be able to take control over their money. Right now, the money children have already received is being controlled and possibly being used by their parents. The father of one actor slapped him only because he was tired after his return from US and not in a position to give interviews in media. Father wanted to be famous by cashing on the popularity of his son. Two women also wish to be famous and are trying to claim the girl as their daughter. Now who are the real exploiters of children? Danny Boyle or their parents?

Now we talk about poverty in depicted in the film. Mr. Amitabh Bachchan, one of the greatest Bollywood superstars and a man whose status in India is as big as a cricketer's status, probably far bigger than any God said that poverty exists even in developed countries. Very true. But Westerners do not care if anybody makes a film on that. They believe in free thinking and the theory of “let the hundred flowers bloom”. When 8 Mile, starring Eminem was released in 2002, nobody accused the producers of the movie for portraying Detroit as place of poverty and the land of Gangstas. Detroit is the motor-city of US and many people call it the heart of America. SM had a story set in Mumbai, the commercial capital of India. A survey of 2002 (which was the cover story of a 2002 or 2003 issue of Outlook magazine) showed that more than 54% of Mumbai's population lived in slums. Dharavi, the biggest slum in Mumbai is the biggest slum in Asia. When you talk about English Literature, you
can not ignore William Shakespeare. Similarly, when you talk about Mumbai, you can not ignore slums. Mr. Bachchan criticised the film for showing the truth.

Mr. Bachchan received criticism for criticising the film without watching it. He clarified in his next blog entry that he did not intend attack or malign the film. However, he did not want to be dubbed as someone doing a U-Turn. He said that audiences are the real judges and a movie that is liked by the masses should be seen as good film. He said that Bollywood has been entertaining masses for decades and is thus, greater film industry. However, media while reporting this did not talk about what Mr. Bachchan meant by the term “masses”. Usually this term has a negative connotation. Cheap film-makers who make films to titillate the audience, rubbish the criticism by saying, “Our films are for the masses. Not for high class critics who criticise us.” When their movie is flop, they say, “We tried to do something different but the masses did not like it.” If Mr. Bachchan also considers masses as people belonging to lower class, does he mean to advocate awards for cheap films like those made in 1990s? Examples are Coolie No.1, Anari No.1, Raja Babu etc. These films were liked by the masses and perhaps Mr. Bachchan feels that these films deserve awards. If that is so, he should recommend this suggestion to Filmfare jury to give awards only to such type of films as C-Grade films on titillating themes and racy titles like “Hawas” (meaning lust) as they are a huge hit with the “masses”. Movies similar to these also have songs like “Sarakai lo khatiya” (meaning pull the bed) or “Kurta faar ke” (meaning tearing the Kurta) which are also huge hit with
the “masses”.

Now we talk about awards. Criticism of SM by Big B (Mr. Bachchan) came when A R Rehman won the Golden Globe for his music in SM. Of course people like Big B would hate SM as their movie has never won Oscars or Golden Globe and can never win (considering the current standard and scenario). Grapes are sour for Big B. That is why he hates Oscars. A R Rehman became the first Indian to win Golden Globe and till date, there are three Indians who have won Oscars. Obviously this upsets Big B and people in his stable because now Big B can not become the first Indian to win Golden Globe and he is not in the list of Indians who have won Oscars. Many people say that SM was given so many awards because Westerners liked to see India in negative light. They are probably Indians living in 1960s and 70s. Decades ago, Mother India won award at a Film Festival and many people criticised the movie by saying that. Had Mother India failed to win the award, Indians would have said that it did not win because it was an Indian film. SM is not an Indian film but after its Oscar victory, many Indians (including my friends) are claiming it as an Indian film as it was shot in India and has Indian cast.

Some people say that a White man made SM and thus, it got award. But we should think rationally. Some Indians have the ability to be a part of global world and they made their impact at Oscars. Even people like Halle Berry have won Oscars despite being black. And there is a long list of Non-Americans who have won Oscars. Nicole Kidman, Kate Winslet, James Cameron and Heath Ledger are some of the names in that list. Even A R Rehman is not white. But he got not one but two Oscars. Some may say that Oscars gave them awards in order to prove that they were not racist. But those who called Oscars as biased still continued to do so and will still continue to do so. Thus, Oscars did not need to prove themselves to anyone.

SM depicted a reality which the rich class and middle class of India wish to ignore. Thus, protests were bound to take place and the makers were criticised. Many years ago, Steven Spielberg made Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom and Indians had cried foul about India being depicted as a land of cannibals. Everybody wanted to make Spielberg his punching bag but nobody criticised late Amrish Puri who had played
the character of an evil cannibal sorcerer in the film. Nobody said that Amrish Puri played a character that depicted Indians in negative light.

Even Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) were up in arms against it, ignoring the fact that they had left India for the reasons that were shown in the film. While coming to India on vacation and meeting their Indian relatives, they might be describing India on the basis of that film in order to show their superiority complex. But in West, they decided to show their “loyalty” to India by criticising the film. Thus, we can say that Spielberg had faced and Boyle is facing the bias for being white.

A R Rehman won Oscars for SM but our Bollywood was smart enough to understand that it could not claim SM as their own. That is why; he got Filmfare for his music in Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na (meaning either you know it or you don‘t know). The film did not have any story but it was a hit with the “masses”. This year, most awards went to movies which aim only at entertaining and are popularly known as “masala films”. Movies that are sensible and convey a social message did not win. For example, A Wedesday had a brilliant direction and its success had proved that Indians are now ready to accept “little bit different films”. It also conveyed a relevant social message. But it was not entertaining enough in the opinion of Filmfare jury. It did not get any award. Only entertainment oriented filsm like Rock On won the awards. This is a difference between Oscars and Filmfare that Oscar jury gets impressed with the films which either have a brilliant construction (in terms of sound, lights, editing, background score and sometimes the factor that makes the movie, content-wise interesting) or a film that depicts some sort of reality which conservative people might want to sweep under the carpets. Brokeback Mountain is an example of that. On the other hand, Filmfare give award to that film which has performed well at Box Office. Indian movies like Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, Kuch Kuch Hota, Dil To Pagal Hai are examples. Taare Zameen Par (TZP) was India's entry for Oscars and it won many Filmfare awards, even if due to Aamir Khan's star power. However it was more sensible movie than the movies that usually win Filmfare Awards. Everybody would agree with that. Danny Boyle watched TZP and he was impressed to see a “unique film” made on dyslexia.

Content factor and Entertainment factor are poles apart. Thus, it is not possible right now for Filmfare to adopt standards like Oscars. Otherwise, most films would not make it into their final five of any category. Amitabh Bachchan asked media whether they saw any foreigner winning Filmfare, ignoring the fact that a foreigner had won it for Krrish. He meant that Filmfare were only for Indian films. Had some
Hollywood actor said something like that about Indian movies not winning Oscars or they did not deserve Oscars, Indian sensibilities would have got offended. Then Indian media, Indian people and Indians living in West would have branded him/her as racist.

Even Ghazal singer Jagjit Singh challanged A R Rehman to sing Ghazals in order to prove his talent after the latter won Oscars. Mr. Singh did not issue such challenge to commercial and pop singers like Kumar Sanu, Udit Narayan, Sonu Nigam etc. Probably because they have not won Oscars yet. If Mr. Singh believes that only a Ghazal singer is talented, does he intend to downsize the talent of Indian classics like Mukesh,Sehgal etc?

Now we talk about the debate started by some people who said that SM would not have got so many awards if it was made by an Indian. Some said that as it was based on a book written by an Indian, some Indian film-maker should have thought about making it. But many tend to ignore the fact that Indian film-maker would not have made it the way Danny Boyle made it. A well known Indian director said that Indian
film-makers prefer to copy from already tried formula rather than trying something new. They prefer to copy from already tried ideas of Hollywood. Had an Indian film-maker have received the script of SM, he would have just thrown it in the dustbin. He said that among Indian directors, only Anurag Kashyap could make SM the way Danny Boyle did. I don't know why did he say that but it may possibly be due to the fact that Kashyap's movies are different from typical Bollywood movies. That is why, not to mention the problems created for him by Indian censors.

While writing a column in Daily News & Analysis (DNA), Sameer Jain had said that if SM was to be made by some Indian, then YRF camp would have shot Jai Ho as a dream sequence in Switzerland. Sorry to borrow this Mr. Jain, but I feel that what you said is very right and should be discussed. Mr. Jain continued by saying that Bhatt camp would have ensured that Latika cheated on Slumdog. Abbas Mustan would have created a lot of twists and turns to make it a suspense film. Mr. Jain also suggested the title of Slumdog Puzzleaire. To this, I want to add that Karan Johar would have made it a romantic film, by adding a love triangle or square or rectangle that would have reminded us of Kuch Kuch Hota Hai or Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna. Ignoring the needs of character, Bhatt camp would have cast their homegrown hero with useless
kissing scenes and the movie would have been such that the most appropriate title would be “Slumdog Serial Kisser”. Sunny Deol's camp would have shown some more corruption and would have made it an action film, showing Sunny shouting his lungs out or Bobby (Deol) bashing up hooligans. Not to mention some pointless, meaningless and useless item number by some actress like Shilpa Shetty where the camera would
focusing again and again on her thighs and navel. Coming back to YRF, after Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (meaning God made the pair), Yash Chopra is no mood (currently) to make film with newcomers and this decision had created a argument between him and his son Aditya (according to news reports). Thus, in their version of SM, the lead characters would have been played by people like Shah Rukh Khan, Rani Mukherjee, Aishwarya Rai etc. None of them can look like a slum dweller despite any make-up as their popularity has made them so glamorous that people might ignore the character they are playing and just see their favorite star. The movie would have had just stars, not actors. Also, Bhatt camp would have signed their home-grown hero and the title of the movie would have been “Slumdog Serial Kisser”.

So how could Indians expect Oscars and Golden Globes for SM if it was just another Indian film? Now that it has won Oscars, many people are saying that Anil Kapoor's best acting performance is in this film. Mr. Kapoor’s appearance in that film is very brief. Again, trying to claim SM as an Indian film. However, the truth can not be changed that it is a British film.

I need to stop now but I want to point out that these views should be considered by those criticised the film. Indians do not like realistic films.

Even Satyjit Ray made films on the poverty of India. Should Indians abuse him the way they are abusing Danny Boyle? I don't think so. We often criticise Indian fim-makers who make unreal movies where hero bashes up 20 goons. When reality is made in the form of SM, we criticise it. We ourselves' don't know what to like and what to hate. Anybody listening? I do not intend to attack anyone for his views. Everybody is entitled to his/her opinion. But being public figures, people like Mr. Bachchan should have been considered following facts before criticising SM.