165
The prolific Priyadarshan is shocked and disgusted by the importance being given to Danny Boyle’s desi slum-n-trim saga Slumdog Millionaire.
“Slumdog Millionaire is nothing but a cheap trashy mediocre version of those commercial films about estranged brothers and childhood sweethearts that Salim-Javed used to write so brilliantly in the 1970s. And please quote me clearly on this. If the Golden Globe and Oscars committees have chosen to honour this trashy film it just shows their ignorance of world cinema.”
Priyan whose much-acclaimed film on the silk weavers of Kanjeevaram was shown alongside Boyle’s bewildering busty tale at the Toronto Film Festival last year feels we Indians are exercising prideful property rights over a film that denigrates Mumbai.
“I saw the film with a mixed audience at the Toronto Film festival. The Westerners loved it. All the Indians hated it. The West loves to see us as a wasteland, filled with horror stories of exploitation and degradation. But is that all there’s to our beautiful city of Mumbai?”
Priyan is surprised that Mumbai is celebrating a film that shows only the city’s underbelly. “Why are we taking this treatment? Just because a whiteman has made Slumdog Millionaire, we’re so happy with it? I’ve read Vikas Swarup’s novel Q & A. It should have been made by Mani Ratnam. Then you’d have seen what he would have done with Mumbai.”
The angry director wonders why there isn’t a single shot in Slumdog that shows the more aesthetic side of Mumbai? “Why has Danny Boyle not taken one shot of Marine Drive? Do his slum dwellers exist only within their slums? And look at the absurdities…A boy becomes a national hero on a game show. One cop takes him under arrest and interrogates him relentlessly. Where is everyone else? Is this kind of confinement possible in this age when television cameras enter your bedroom? If one of our filmmakers had made the same film we would have blasted him out of business.”
“Let them give as many Oscars as they like. We don’t need to be impressed,” ends Priyan angrily.
There Are 165 Responses So Far. »
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Correction: Srk said he was a bigger star than Tom cruise!Remember the OSO days? :D 
Manoj - Hrithik may think Kites will make him international star ... similarly SRK thinks he is a bigger star ...
intezar kab tak hum karenge bhala
May be some Hrithik bhakth singing hoping Kites to release soon 
lol Shetty. And yes sounds like Jay visited lots of places. 
'I am going to support it till the end of my energies!'
LOL...manoj i am with you. I think movie will ...
jayshah 31 January 2009
04:49:17 am
ROFLMAO – chill out!
arbit 31 January 2009
04:52:19 am
i’m really glad that at least one person from our esteemed film fraternity besides bachhan had the guts to say this openly..over the last few weeks i’ve been really pained to see so much being written about such a mediocre effort! 4.5 stars from TOI..my foot! it was almost as if, if u passed a negative comment about this movie u wud be branded a fanatic or unpatriotic. all bcos it’s garnering international attention and some of our choras cud end up winning oscars for this..
in fact, it looks like the way forward for our film makers- at least those dying for an oscar recognition- would be to make a regular RNBDJ and then pay some danny boyle to use his name in the credits.
Kaveetaa Kaul 31 January 2009
05:45:25 am
Besides exhibiting a fair deal of spunk, he has made some remarkably valid points. SDM is either ‘fated’ to have won the accolades it has, much like the ” It is written’ philosophy promulgated in the film or then a major game is underway. Oscars ..totally undeserved. IMO cinematography was the truly outstanding part apart from Dev Patels performance as much as the younger counterparts, which have gone more or less unsung.
Tango 31 January 2009
05:50:10 am
“Just because a whiteman has made Slumdog Millionaire, we’re so happy with it? I’ve read Vikas Swarup’s novel Q & A. It should have been made by Mani Ratnam. Then you’d have seen what he would have done with Mumbai.”
Tango 31 January 2009
05:52:32 am
“The angry director wonders why there isn’t a single shot in Slumdog that shows the more aesthetic side of Mumbai? “Why has Danny Boyle not taken one shot of Marine Drive? Do his slum dwellers exist only within their slums? And look at the absurdities…A boy becomes a national hero on a game show. One cop takes him under arrest and interrogates him relentlessly. Where is everyone else? Is this kind of confinement possible in this age when television cameras enter your bedroom? If one of our filmmakers had made the same film we would have blasted him out of business.”
Kaveetaa Kaul 31 January 2009
05:56:45 am
Tango tell me what you think of this :
http://sachiniti.wordpress.com.....and-india/
Tango 31 January 2009
06:16:31 am
Great write up Kaveeta ji “Would this film have been nominated in a single category had it been made by an Indian…even if it were a frame to frame replica of the present ? NO way!!! You see we are the slumdogs in the eyes of the world. It is when a Danny Boyle validates our existence when he trains is brilliant camera on us that it becomes worthy of acceptance. Nothing gives them ecstatic orgasms than to view the underdog from a country which boasts of spiritual wisdom. It makes them elated in a space they won…that of materialism. they cannot win over us in their non existent philosophy.
Do you think Shekhar kapoors Elizabeth was any less a masterpiece ( in fact more)? If you are a student of cinema youd dare say NO. But he was ignored. Because you see, Indians are best acknowledged in their torn attire, dishevelled with pangs of hunger, grisly with the madness of deprivation. Stand up to their area of expertise, show them that you know your craft and they make you scamper back home.”
I have always said critics in India go by reputations rather than merits and demerits of the movie.
jayshah 31 January 2009
06:31:12 am
This is a bit harsh IMO. This India vs the rest of the world attitude. I think the fact is the whole of the world has found Slumdog Millionaire to be a good film overall – most countries, have liked the film…irony is in India the box office looks near pathetic.
And my experience is they are not liking the movie for the slums or the way India has been portrayed. The film at its core is a love story, a feel good film and a rags to riches story and the concept of using Who Wants to be a Millionaire as a backdrop is smart since this is a universally understood gameshow. I think these are the things people are enjoying and liking about the movie. Not the slums, the deprivation or the grissly way India is portrayed.
It’s a movie first.
What is so different in Slumdog Millionaire that is in Lagaan? Lagaan has indians bashed, the poor shown in torn attire, a human spirit to fight back and another feel good theme essentially?
Maybe its not good enough to be winning all the awards – but its pretty hard to dismiss the film completely into the trash can bucket. Its not THAT BAD.
sandy 31 January 2009
06:33:51 am
True, the more I think about it, the more I’m sure that Slumdog…is a very average film and if the Oscars honors it, it’s not because it’s a masterpiece but rather because they seem to have scant understandaing of what a good ‘Indian’ film is.
satyam 31 January 2009
06:40:11 am
As someone who’s made really trashy Hindi versions of his own Malayalam films (or those of others) I guess Priyan knows what he’s talking about.
There can be criticism of Slumdog on certain grounds but this bad tempered response is just over the top.
Som 31 January 2009
06:42:46 am
“There can be criticism of Slumdog on certain grounds but this bad tempered response is just over the top.”
Yup! This is one way of remaining in news as the release of Billu Barber is just around the corner.
jayshah 31 January 2009
06:43:10 am
“There can be criticism of Slumdog on certain grounds but this bad tempered response is just over the top”
Exactly, its just too much venom misfired. Critisise the film for flaws or cinematic liberties, but calling it pure junk or trash is just over the top. A film that is globally appreciated, by critics and audiences, complete trash? Without any redeeming factors? It’s such a one-sided view.
satyam 31 January 2009
06:44:08 am
My initial thoughts on the film here:
http://www.naachgaana.com/2009/01/19/bachchan-270-i/#comment-165820
and then in my exchanges here:
http://www.naachgaana.com/2009/01/13/bachchan-265/
jayshah 31 January 2009
06:44:20 am
“Yup! This is one way of remaining in news as the release of Billu Barber is just around the corner”
LOL – in sick way, this is probably exactly what it is. We can all be as cynical as Piyadarshan…he’s doing this for Billu Barber publicity!
Kaveetaa Kaul 31 January 2009
06:49:12 am
jay I assume you are talking to me. .also since your first reaction to Priyadarshan had you ROFLMAO .
I have not trashed the film.. as yet
simply because I have not reviewed it. I attempted to critique the intention behind making the film that way it has been. Priyadarshan has commented on parts of the film. I seem to agree with his points.
Rocky 31 January 2009
06:56:59 am
Kaveeta- I just read your writeup on SDM and My god it is fantastic, It gave words to my thoughts. I would like to seek your permission to email it to my friends.
Just Yesterday- A White guy in my office asked me whether I had seen SDM with a twinkle in his eyes and I said I have and it has been made for people like you.
sandy 31 January 2009
07:00:07 am
There are giant loopholes in the script which I felt.
1) For starters, Brit import Dev Patel does not look like a slum dweller from any angle
2) Also, is this film based in 2008 or a little earlier. Because there is no way a young Jamal – a kid of the mid-90s can go so ballistic over Amitabh. This is clearly the era of the Khans. Yes, it could make sense if the assumption is that the action takes place in the early years of this decade but then again, that assumption takes away a lot from the topography and timeliness of the film, as Mumbai has changed in 10 years.
3) At least two of the questions – ‘who invented the gun?’ and the ‘Who is on the rupee’ queries are ridiculous and contrived. Who roams in the country with dollars and why would the begging child know it? Also, for a guy who can read and write (he types on the computer at the call centre and in any case, Dev Patel doesn’t look like he is uneducated), wouldn’t he be aware that a 100 rupee note has Mahatma Gandhi on it! Also Patel’s expression at his own ignorance is all wrong here. He comes across like a supercilious rich kid than a man from the slums.
4) My biggest beef is of course that without any warning, the two characters start to talk in high flowing English. And it’s not only about the language, their whole body language, mannerism, attitude everything drastically changes.
5)Also, I really wonder which anchor (Anil Kapoor) would behave like shown in the film? Fine, you’re not aiming to be realistic but Boyle’s larger point about the country’s inherent racist tendency is not even true! They say, India is one country where no matter how poor someone is, the level of depression is lower compared to other places, because the country’s democratic make-up – where rags to riches is very, very common – gives every one hope! Which is why Danny’s film – which shows other Indians pulling down the guy from the slums – lacks any irony or resonance.
The film is made by a Westerner for a western audience, which is why it makes too many compromises and in the end, the experience is just not uplifting.
jayshah 31 January 2009
07:00:58 am
Kaveetaa – I was not talking to you! I was responding to a paragraph in Tango’s comment starting “do you think…” but really I am responding to Priyadarshan’s one sided view. Not you at all.
I don’t even mind people disliking this film. But bankrolling that hatred through the prism of “India is a slum” is not a debate in my opinion. Dis the film on its merits and demerits. What about mentioning the interesting concept of wieving the who wants to be a millionaire concept and graphing a kind of biograpghy of important points in a childs life. Is this not a bit of smart filmaking? Or Rahman’s musical score? Or the love story? Or the child performances? I see plenty of qualities in the film, Priyadarshan has ignored all of this.
“The Westerners loved it. All the Indians hated it. The West loves to see us as a wasteland, filled with horror stories of exploitation and degradation.”
Is this comment not a slap in the face to westerners?!?! Is that what an “indian” thinks? Its a deplorable comment IMO. Seriously, the whole of the western world wants to see eyeballs plucked out, children in poverty ranches, prostitution etc etc? Ridiculous.
Can you imagine if the Indian PM said this comment (!) It would be a political shambles!
Rocky 31 January 2009
07:03:10 am
Kaveeta I also read the reponses at your blog- Shaitaan Khan has only one agenda- To bash Amitabh Bachchan. Ignore IT!!
sandy 31 January 2009
07:03:48 am
“Yup! This is one way of remaining in news as the release of Billu Barber is just around the corner.”
This is a very unfair comment Som. The guy has a view, let’s not attach wile intensions to it. This is like how our India TV and Aaj tak are reacting to Bachchan’s and Priyadarshan’s comment on Slumdog Millionaire. One channel said, Priyan is upset because his films never got Oscar nominations! huh!
And then someone else, Bachchan was upset because Eklavya got rejected by the Oscars. What nonsense is this?
The higher a film scales in prestige, it’s going to be more and more open to criticism and praise. Why view this as a smear campaign?
Kaveetaa Kaul 31 January 2009
07:05:07 am
Hey Rocky..Thanks..and certainly no permission needed. Pl go ahead..
That twinkle in your friend’s eyes does lead to stardom for Danny.
jayshah 31 January 2009
07:08:55 am
“The higher a film scales in prestige, it’s going to be more and more open to criticism and praise.”
Sandy this precisely why I ignore Priyadarshan comments. The film has scaled high heights and his view is a narrow minded extreme view. There is no balance here at all. He has his right to be so extreme, maybe passion is leading him to such an opinion, but its not balanced.
BTW I agree with 1), 4) and 5). I found Anil nasty as a host. Unlikely, he was just too much.
Kaveetaa Kaul 31 January 2009
07:10:18 am
Rocky:”Kaveeta I also read the reponses at your blog- Shaitaan Khan has only one agenda- To bash Amitabh Bachchan. Ignore IT!!”
If you notice Rocky, beyond a couple of comments I have ignored it.
Som 31 January 2009
07:14:57 am
I am being very cynical, Sandy.
Priyadarshan has made it sound like as if SDM is the worst film ever made.Few have already made up their minds to rip apart Slumdog on the ground of poverty and showing India in a bad light just because It has been made by an Westerner.
sandy 31 January 2009
07:15:11 am
“ji “Would this film have been nominated in a single category had it been made by an Indian…even if it were a frame to frame replica of the present ? NO way!!! ”
Agree with you 100 per cent Tango!
satyam 31 January 2009
07:17:16 am
Kaveetaa Kaul: I disagree quite a bit with your piece. I’ve addressed these points in the comments referenced above though, specially a longer one in the second link here.
On Elizabeth I actually find both Shekhar Kapur films quite mediocre even if these were engaging in a masala sort of way.
But I find it deeply troubling that the representation of poverty seems to fall under the category of ‘aesthetics’. Even if Slumdog is guilty of this the critics of the film are not less so. I make this point in one of the longer comments in those links but I think the ‘classes’ in India continue to regard poverty as an aesthetic issue as opposed to an ethical or moral one. Hence the representation of such invites a great deal of criticism. All these years when Yashraj relocated India in Blenheim Palace no one complained. Not one word of criticism. It is all part of the same ‘thought’. ‘India’ to the extent that it does not match the aspirations of the ‘classes’ or the newly empowered segments of such must be ‘aesthetically’ wished away.
I would recommend Suketu Mehta’s Maximum City, his recent widely acclaimed book on Bombay. compared to the representation of the city here (which I had issues with for certain reasons) Slumdog’s seems like a paradise!
We are just more sensitive to these things when the ‘colonizer’ speaks as we should be. But we shouldn’t be frozen in time either. The ‘colonial’ view of 2009 is hardly that of 1920.
Finally the ‘classes’ of India are always happy to speak for those ‘poverty stricken masses’ (this is like the ‘common man’ of cinema who consciously enjoys everything we are ashamed to admit we do too!). But who ‘authorized’ the former? Do those at the margins of society really confer such a right? Could it be that those residents of India (who might have doubts about their inclusion as full citizens in the nation) might actually prefer a Slumdog that at least bothers to represent them as opposed to a Bollywood that completely ignores them and wipes them out of memory?
jayshah 31 January 2009
07:20:23 am
There are two issues here, how the film is percieved and the awards part. The latter is of course potentially a murky area and Tango could have point. The former…well lets spin this one.
“Would this film have been percieved in better light if it been made by an Indian…even if it were a frame to frame replica of the present” – I bet it would have…in fact, if it was an indian director winning the Oscar I bet a number of opinions could change. Look at the euphoria around Rahman getting the Oscar nod. Imagine an Indian did direct this. Imagine it was an Indian production. Imagine the west loved it. I bet Priyadarshan would not even dare voice his opinion.
sandy 31 January 2009
07:20:33 am
Also, another thing — Q & A, the book that inspired SM is quite different from the film. In the book, it’s explained how Jamal and his brother learn to speak English – they work for a professor.
Also, the book tell you why the protagonist wants to desperately take part in KBC. The film does not a good enough reason!
sandy 31 January 2009
07:23:04 am
And I am seeing some genuine merit in the argument that Westerners like to see films about poverty in the third world countries. The two films to strike a chord at the Oscars have been Mother India, Lagaan, Water – all three in small and big ways peddle the idea about abject living in India.
sandy 31 January 2009
07:24:33 am
If this continues and if only a ‘certain’ kind of films have a chance to be awarded at the Oscars, India and other countries will send film keeping that in view and this is dangerous in creating stereotypes.
jayshah 31 January 2009
07:24:34 am
Lagaan shows the British rule as a bunch of scumbags. The “west” still embraced the movie.
sandy 31 January 2009
07:26:41 am
Jay: Yes, Lagaan is the ‘happiest’ movie among the three but it didn’t get there finally. Is SM better than Lagaan? It’s deplorable!
jayshah 31 January 2009
07:27:22 am
The Brits in Lagaan are swarmy, nasty, arrogant, egotistical buffoons except for Elizabeth. The west still “dealt” with it and embraced the overall movies theme.
sandy 31 January 2009
07:30:19 am
Jay: Why didn’t they give it to Lagaan then? It was very hard to ignore Lagaan which is why it came in the top 5. It was a near masterpiece. No Man’s land was no patch on Lagaan IMO
Again, I think Hey Ram managed to come in the top 9. Wasn’t that a very good film?
sandy 31 January 2009
07:34:36 am
My point is that if SM can win the ‘Best film’, then all our films right from Omkara to Lage Raho Munnabhai should have a go at it. Because these are authentic, well-made Indian films.
Please don’t sell SM as more ‘Indian’ than many Indian films because Dany’s film is merely the reinforcement of the westerner’s ‘perception’ of India. A small improvement from being percieved as a country of snake charmers and sadhus.
jayshah 31 January 2009
07:37:50 am
Sandy I don’t know why Lagaan did not get it…does it matter? It got nominated…which is itself a massive achievement.
Why didn’t Scorcese win best director for years till finally he got it for The Departed?
The winning aspect of awards in the end is a bit of luck, timing, performance and potentially a political element. For me a nomination is a big recognition. Fine Lagaan did not win. If it did, some film critic in Bosnia will say No Man’s Land was better. There can only be one winner.
jayshah 31 January 2009
07:39:00 am
“Please don’t sell SM as more ‘Indian’ than many Indian films because Dany’s film is merely the reinforcement of the westerner’s ‘perception’ of India”
I never would. I’ve said from the beginning, this is a British film about India, not an Indian film. There is a big difference between the two.
Som 31 January 2009
07:39:42 am
There was a movie titled “Chop Shop” directed by Ramin Bahrani tried to show the dark underbelly of New York City, the deplorable reality of third-world existence in the land of plenitude and It was received very well. It’s a misconception IMO that Westerners always want to see/show the poverty sicken India in films.
sandy 31 January 2009
07:41:16 am
I want A R Rahman to get an Oscar – not because I think SM is his best work (and he might have never got it without an international film uthe way things work) but I’m not going to cheer for SM as a film.
sandy 31 January 2009
07:44:18 am
Som/Jay: But don’t you think a precedent has already been set about what ‘kind’ of films appeal to the Oscar jury. Poverty, exotica, what else?
Som 31 January 2009
07:46:46 am
In the year Lagaan was nominated I found No Man’s Land better than Lagaan.Lagaan getting nominated in the top 5 was itself a huge achievement. The competition in the “Best Foreign Language Film” category is just too tough.
Som 31 January 2009
07:48:55 am
Yup Sandy. More than SDM, I would be glad if Rahman manages to win an Oscar.He deserves it.
sandy 31 January 2009
07:50:18 am
I found No Man’s Land strictly okay. It won because of one major reason— it was timely – Bosnia was in news at that time and America was involved deeply with that country. Believe it or not, these things matter.
Also,just because that film got the Oscar does not make it the better film by any means. SM’s possible winning should make that amply clear.
sandy 31 January 2009
07:51:59 am
This whole SM business has made me lose a little respect for international awards to be honest.
jayshah 31 January 2009
07:55:21 am
Sandy, I really don’t know. I would need to research on such a conclusion. Because I’d need to understand the kind of foreign films that are doing well from other parts of the world at the Oscars. If the “theory” is for India we want only poverty, exotica films, I seriously doubt that.
First the access of Indian films is atrocious worldwide. None of them are going mainstream. If a Japanese film can get a full advert on british or us tv, why can’t a Indian film? This is a major financing and accessibility hurdle. I just don’t see non-indians embracing hindi movies where I live. There is some ignorance and stereotyping but also there is a distinct look/feel to indian films. Heck I know indians here who are embarrassed to admit they like bollywood films! This is the kind of “opposition” indian films are dealing with.
Lagaan’s success if gone now. What was needed was a replicated success in quick succession. The gap is already 7 years. I don’t see any change or improvement in accessibility for hindi movies in London. Maybe few more theatres, but the “crowd” is just the same.
The Warner Bros and Sony and Disney invasion has backfired. CCTC is such a hyped machine in the west and such a disaster – what kind of after taste will this leave? Imagine Lagaan getting all that exposure in 2001 – maybe a case of wrong film, right time in CCTC’s case.
Basically, there is a lot more to this then just “kind” of films West like. The whole “concept” of Bollywood is maligned with a ton of stereotypes which not only stops the non-indians from embracing the films, but even our own indians in some cases! This is the harsh reality that I have experienced at least.
sandy 31 January 2009
08:08:57 am
“First the access of Indian films is atrocious worldwide. None of them are going mainstream. If a Japanese film can get a full advert on british or us tv, why can’t a Indian film? This is a major financing and accessibility hurdle. I just don’t see non-indians embracing hindi movies where I live. There is some ignorance and stereotyping but also there is a distinct look/feel to indian films. Heck I know indians here who are embarrassed to admit they like bollywood films! This is the kind of “opposition” indian films are dealing with.”
I tend to agree with you on this point Jay. Indian films have not really managed to penetrate into the non-Indian markets and that remains a major issue in us being acknowledged at awards.
Jay, I think it all finally boils down to commerce. If our films start to make an impression globally, that automatically will lead to more business and therby it becomes difficult to ignore films which are major commercial propositions.
This is what exactly happened in the late 90s when we suddenly started winning one international beauty pageant after another. India was starting to emerge as a major consumer for international products given that the spending power was increasing. Which explains why we were hot favourites year after year. Surely we had Indian beauties earlier too
Qalandar 31 January 2009
08:27:33 am
personally I don’t thing it’s an amazing movie, but I quite liked it and I think some of the outrage it has provoked in some quarters is disappointing. in that the likes of Preity Zinta don’t seem at all embarrassed or shamed by the presence of great deprivation in the country — but TALK about it, and OMG then the sky falls in
Kaveetaa Kaul 31 January 2009
08:29:25 am
Satyam..your prerogative to disagree. My prerogative to respond or not to your comment ..especially in thlight of your last para”Finally the ‘classes’ of India are always happy to speak for those ‘poverty stricken masses’ (this is like the ‘common man’ of cinema who consciously enjoys everything we are ashamed to admit we do too!). But who ‘authorized’ the former? Do those at the margins of society really confer such a right?”
It doesnt please my sensibilities to argue with those who speak in this tone and choose on this line of argument. When you opt to attack the messenger and not the message for me it simply deduces to ” I wish not to interact”. Getting personal seems to be the habitual tone of some on the blogosphere and also on NG. . Since I NEVER ( hate to use that word but is applicable here) indulge in it myself..I dont appreciate it in others. Forgive me if I have been rather pert. But I was given no choice.
Qalandar 31 January 2009
08:29:28 am
Priyadarshan’s point that this is basically just a trashy film from the 1970s is itself infuriating: is he saying that it was unjust NOT to honor those films, or is he saying that those films were indeed trashy and this one is no better, and hence does not deserve an award? Sounds like the latter, in which case, whatever Slumdog’s nomination shows about the Academy’s ignorance of world cinema, Priyan himself needs to bone up on Hindi cinema…
jayshah 31 January 2009
08:33:39 am
Sandy agree..the commerce aspect is the main one. If a mainstream hindi commercial film was making $5-10M in US and £3-5M on a regular basis it would automatically suggest a wider audience. You look at K3G’s gross and look at OSO’s, there has really been hardly any “growth” in the two major markets. If there is, it is merely a function of more expatriates from India, Pakistan or South East Asia living in these countries.
It will take a confident film maker, who knows exactly what a gem of a script he/she has on hand, has the finance backing to boot to just kick start something in the overseas markets to just “attempt” to penetrate this market. And the first few opportunities one might lose e.g. CCTC, but if one hits the bulls-eye it can make a difference.
The other question simply is does the Indian film faternity even want this global recognition. If they did, nothing is in place to make it happen. We know from US based NGers, they have to travel miles out of town to watch movies in shitty theatres for example. A genuine fan would do this, would a non-indian, who see’s no promos of the film on tv, just a couple of posters even be bothered? Heck no…who would?
You need to spend money to make money. The day I see a promo of an indian movie on terrestial tv is the day I will know its on the cresp of globalisation.
Heck even indian artists, music ones, in UK haven’t had a single reach #1 in the charts here. The music is so popular, but the main listeners are still just asian people. More and more are becoming prominent, but the burst of talent happened well over 10 years ago. It’s a long process.
Tango 31 January 2009
08:37:52 am
Q- “Priyadarshan’s point that this is basically just a trashy film from the 1970s is itself infuriating”
I guess you have not read the Priyan piece properly. He says “Slumdog Millionaire is nothing but a cheap trashy mediocre version of those commercial films about estranged brothers and childhood sweethearts that Salim-Javed used to write so brilliantly in the 1970s.”
“that Salim-Javed used to write so brilliantly in the 1970s”
Also, Priyan has been magnanimous enough to say “I’ve read Vikas Swarup’s novel Q & A. It should have been made by Mani Ratnam. Then you’d have seen what he would have done with Mumbai.”
sandy 31 January 2009
08:39:47 am
I am with Priyan on his comments.
Tango 31 January 2009
08:42:29 am
Kaveetaji I want to relate my monotonously repetitive story.
Two people were arguing about whether 2+ 2 = 4 or not.
A- No it is 5
B- See 2+1= 3 add one more it becomes 4, so what is your problem in accepting that?
A- It will be 4 only if I accept it (do aur do char to tab hoga jab main manoon ga!).
Qalandar 31 January 2009
08:42:55 am
There is also the aspect of cultural difference: India is not the only “different” culture out there of course, but the fact is that Chinese (for instance) films are quite westernized. So in a sense for the “crossover” to happen either Western audiences will have to become more accepting of the Indian idiom, or Indian films will have to become more Westernized. With the latter, I would mourn the loss of cultural “difference”; I might also add that so far 99% of “Westernized” films the Hindi industry has made are utterly mediocre and derivative, and don’t stand a shot in hell of getting a crossover audience. The more rooted kind of desi film has a far better shot.
Second, when we speak of “crossover” the obsession is with “the West”: but taken in the sense of being watched by people other than “native” desis, Hindi films are patronizd by large groups of non-desi populations, in the Arab world, in Africa, and in Eastern Europe. Doesn’t mean these are watched by the majority, but they certainly have a non-trivial footprint in those countries. Our own colonial hang-up means that even in the Indian media there is no discussion or acknowledgment of this, while simultaneously impact in “the West” is exaggerated.
Third, Patience is key. “Crossovers” don’t just happen: even in the case of Chinese films, it took several decades of films being screened in forgotten hole-in-the-wall cinemas in Western cities that paved the way for the wide acclaim and acceptability of contemporary big budget Chinese films. This ties into Sandy’s point: the acceptability of first, Japanese films, and subsequently, Chinese and other East Asian films cannot be divorced from the economic rise of those countries. To the extent India achieves significant economic growth, the same might happen with Indian films (not sure if this is necessarily a good thing, to the extent it means the loss of a distinctive “local” idiom in favor of a generically global tongue)…
jayshah 31 January 2009
08:43:13 am
I’m not with Priyan at all. No balance at all here. It’s a one-sided frustrated view as much as someone who would rank SM as the greatest movie ever.
There were a couple of nicely written “critical” pieces on SM which had much better takes and more importantly, more balance.
Tango 31 January 2009
08:43:40 am
I am with you Sandy
Qalandar 31 January 2009
08:44:20 am
Tango: the perils of commenting in haste! You are correct, now that I have read the piece I see what Priyan was saying.
Rocky 31 January 2009
08:44:38 am
I am with you Tango !!
Som 31 January 2009
08:45:03 am
I would stick to my earlier comment on Priyadarshan.
Tango 31 January 2009
08:45:14 am
Q- Never once has Priyan said that the 70s films were trashy.
Tango 31 January 2009
08:46:03 am
Rocky hi. Good to see you here mate!
Rocky 31 January 2009
08:48:36 am
Aadaab Tango,
Ya – Tax Season, so I have to work Saturdays too till April 15.
rockstar 31 January 2009
08:49:56 am
so its out in indian media
http://www.naachgaana.com/2009...../#comments
my earlier comments
jayshah 31 January 2009
08:50:44 am
What are you lot agreeing to here with Priyan?
That SM is trashy?
Or
The West is just rewarding movies with this kind of theme?
Or both
Because if the support is for the latter it is not a ground to critisise the movie itself, unless of course one disliked the movie.
Priyan seems to think both…
Tango 31 January 2009
08:52:11 am
Rocky tum ko woh sher yaad hai
“Roz kehte the aadap….., Ek din….o bura maan gaye”
Rocky 31 January 2009
08:53:40 am
Never heard that one Tango, Vistaar se batao !
Kaveetaa Kaul 31 January 2009
08:54:09 am
Indian film sent to the Oscars have IMO been head and shoulders above SDM if one is to for the benefit of a debate set aside the ‘Indian viewer’ bit. Munnabhai, Paheli and even Eklavya were superior products compared to SDM. Munnabhai in a light frothy way did expose the underbelly. But clearly ..too unpalatable for Western palates.But how could they not have seen the Universal message beneath it all? In SDM the beaten to death childhood love, implausible situations, underworld Dons, which Bollywood has mastered over the decades and Indians have long since rejected, gets lapped up merrily by ‘the world over’ simply because the backdrop is a sure shot winner. It was a fairy tale pretending to be real..
Rocky 31 January 2009
08:55:09 am
Jay, read Kaveeta’s Blog for details as to what we are agreeing or disagreeing with.
rockstar 31 January 2009
08:56:12 am
jayshah movie like this has been made in past infact better movies where done on this subject if u look in history which where ridiculed as masala stuff by same west
Tango 31 January 2009
08:56:37 am
Yeh sher kewal vyaskon ke liye hai tatha yeh nrityagayan Rohit ne family ke liye banaya hai…
Vistar ke liye Tango ko mail karein, Dhanyawad
Tango 31 January 2009
08:58:20 am
Ok, Roz kehte the aa daab, Ek din …. diya to bura maan gaye”
sandy 31 January 2009
08:58:31 am
Agreew with Kaveeta that India itself has sent more worthwhile films? Don’t you think Lagaan deserved to win hands down?
Tango 31 January 2009
08:58:43 am
Got it?
rockstar 31 January 2009
09:00:08 am
infact it will be much better if other speak out
amitabh started it but frankly i was even very disappointed when he backed out due to criticism of media
infact a lot of indian audiences after watching this movie are amused how it makes to oscar
Rocky 31 January 2009
09:02:01 am
Ya now I did. !! good one !
Tango 31 January 2009
09:02:03 am
Amitabh did not back out, he just elaborated.
I too would love an Oscar for one of the Indians, most likely Rahman, criticism aside.
jayshah 31 January 2009
09:02:21 am
Kaveetaa/rocky – looks like a long read, will give it a read later on for sure…
kaveetaa – I liked LRM more but not Eklavya
I understand the awards piece is over the top, not many I know would call it the best movie of 2008, by some distance. But overall, labelling it trash, mediocre is also a very harsh and frail position. I am just talking about the film…not the “politics” around what the West like and reward…
Rocky 31 January 2009
09:02:39 am
I agree Rockstar, I was disappointed as well with Amitabh here.
Tango 31 January 2009
09:02:40 am
Kaveetaa Kaul 31 January 2009
09:03:31 am
There is a scene in the film when the adolescent Jamal is robbed while at the Taj.. which leads to this precocious quip to his foreigner friends ” You wanted to see the real India.. this is it”. To which the benign American couple respond with ” “We will show you what real America is ” or some such and magnanimously hand him a hundred dollars. So Boyle apart from all the other implicit insinuations also means to infer that we mostly are a bunch of thieves while America is philanthropy personified?
But apparently that worked. America heard that ..so did the Oscar jury.
And we are supposed to quietly clap in the darkness of the theatre at this ‘real’ depiction of the land of our birth.
sandy 31 January 2009
09:05:08 am
“) Also, is this film based in 2008 or a little earlier. Because there is no way a young Jamal – a kid of the mid-90s can go so ballistic over Amitabh. This is clearly the era of the Khans. Yes, it could make sense if the assumption is that the action takes place in the early years of this decade but then again, that assumption takes away a lot from the topography and timeliness of the film, as Mumbai has changed in 10 years.
”
Can someone explain this or am I not making any sense?
Rocky 31 January 2009
09:07:13 am
You are right Kaveeta, I completely forgot about that scene.
rockstar 31 January 2009
09:07:23 am
if other bollywood movies on same subject and theme are trash as labelled by western media then surely its a piece of rotten shit judging by same standards
rockstar 31 January 2009
09:11:29 am
sandy its a fantasy there are many instances like that
infact hell lot of tragedy happens on same boy is what that defines typical indian melodrama
even research is not upto the mark but i forget its a realistic movie right
i am not a fool who will go by the article in guardian or western stuff saying only westerners can make a movie on same subject
my middle finger is always ready for them
ILG 31 January 2009
09:12:01 am
Sandy,
I dont think anybody will jump thru shit to get near SRK and it would be plain unbelievable. So, it had to be Amitabh. I dont think a film has to cofirm to a real life timleine. I think this is a liberty a film maker is allowed.
sandy 31 January 2009
09:12:20 am
How would SM have been judged had it been made by an Indian filmmaker? As Priyan says, Indians have seen stuff like this in Bollywood so it’s not novel to them and the BO performance tells the story. There’s a good chance of SM being labeled archaic and implausible had it been made by an Indian filmmaker.
What makes SM interesting is the narrative structure and the sound. But the content again is very questionable.
ILG 31 January 2009
09:12:46 am
Or any other Khan for that matter. Or any other star past or present.
Qalandar 31 January 2009
09:13:47 am
Kaveeta and Rocky: I think you are misinterpreting that scene about the “real america”: I interpreted that as mocking the american mindset that everything can be solved with money). In fact, both times when I watched the film the americans in the audience guffawed loudly at the scene, suggesting that they got the joke.
sandy 31 January 2009
09:13:52 am
I don’t agree with you ILG. The period detail is important because ultimately the film intentionally or otherwise ends up making several presumptions about today’s India.
Rocky 31 January 2009
09:16:33 am
Q – Either I am stupid or Boyle was making a Satyajit ray kind of movie where we have to interpret things.
The american audience may have been guffawing on the condition of the poor tourists.
sandy 31 January 2009
09:17:42 am
It’s laughable if Danny Boyle has based the story in 2006-7 and shown a 5 year old going ballistic over Bachchan. The time frame is just wrong then. See, these are things that show a filmmaker’s ignorance. He must be like, ‘Bachchan is the biggest, so let’s make the kid his fan’ But that’s an unrealistic generation leap, which puts into question in what year the film is based. the film showcases poverty and makes a sociological comment, so how can the story be divorced from time?
Qalandar 31 January 2009
09:18:44 am
sandy: not sure I agree. I am myself proof of this: I was 10 when Shahenshah released, thus clearly I did not “grow up” with amitabh but with the likes of anil kapoor’s, jackie’s, and aamir’s, salman’s and later SRK’s, films. Yet nevertheless the Bachchan footprint was so large that any day I find his films from the 1970s and even 1980s more memorable, and in fact I have seen them many many more times than the films of the later actors.
In any event, I don’t think Slumdog is intended to be “naturalistic”: that scene illustrates the gulf between “the slum” and the ultimate in privilege, iconicity, etc. — which is symbolized by one man alone.
I heard a great story about that scene (third or fourth-hand, so take it with a pinch of salt); apparently Boyle said that he knew only two things about amitabh: (i) he is left-handed; (ii) he would unhesitatingly sign that autograph.
rockstar 31 January 2009
09:20:39 am
great observation kaveeta ji that taj mahal scene was one i will name u other one after the rights
jamal proclaims if there has been no ram or allah his family would have been alive and after blaming them in next sequence we see w whole sequence of nuns and some christian sermons
its an idiotic question but what was the significance of that
Qalandar 31 January 2009
09:22:02 am
Rocky: it’s not a deep film, but I am quite frankly surprised that anyone who has seen any film by danny boyle would think that he is saying there with a straight face that americans are being generous and philantropic. Yaar that is NOT Boyle’s style at all. He is IMO obviously mocking those who would salve their conscience, and remove themselves from any responsibility, by paying some money. In a sense they are clearly “buying” a clean conscience! It’s a pretty standard (by now) critique of “tourist complicity”, so much so that one can hardly even give Boyle much credit for it — i.e. the notion of the complicit tourist/”ugly american-loaded-with-cash” is itself a cliche…
It was a bit like the great scene in Bunty aur Babli where Amitabh is questioning the American couple who have been scammed by abhishek…
Tango 31 January 2009
09:23:07 am
Sandy I am with Q on that. There is a young lecturer in my University (surprisingly with a surname Khan) who is a die-hard Amitabh fan.
He is barely 25 !
Qalandar 31 January 2009
09:23:29 am
rockstar: what christian sermon/nun scene?
Rocky 31 January 2009
09:26:39 am
Q- aap kehete hain to Sochenge..
Filhaal- Bolo Dilli- 6 kee jai !!!
Later guys…..
rockstar 31 January 2009
09:27:10 am
q
just a qustion for u in last thread u bashed bhandarkar and bashed page 3
how slumdog is any different from it?
ILG 31 January 2009
09:27:14 am
Sandy,
Film is not making any social commentary. And there in lies the ruse. It is a film originating from a cutesie idea and reasoably well narrated. It strongly capitalises on Western notion of India and its poverty and I have been critical of it.
A film maker when making a film of this ilk is in my opinion allowed some liberties which he has availed of. Your criticism about it not confirming to a realistic timeline is not unjustified. I am willing to let it pass while remaining critical or realistic about the portrayal of poverty.
I agree poverty is there and it is anybodys’ right to portray it on screen. But the motives behind the portrayal and reason for it striking a chord amongst foriegn audiences too are very obvious to me.
A lot of naive and clueless people have overlooked it or tried to justify it like Anik K, a lot of reviewers, some strars etc, etc.
Kaveetaa Kaul 31 January 2009
09:27:30 am
Rocky :” You are right Kaveeta, I completely forgot about that scene.”
Hangover of Ghajini ?
Qalandar..that does seem to be an interesting interpretation but it didnt seem so to us. We were about seven of us and all of us responded with ” There goes another one of Boyles ‘liberties’!”
Sandy.technical values of SDM were something..really.. Especially cinematography, editing and sound.. although even at the risk of opening a can of worms would like to state that this certainly not the best of Rahman. All this praise being conferred from all quarters simply means that previous to this the Wise Ones( u know who) have been flippantly disregarding our films or refusing to see them with any seriousness.
The song and dance routine came to be the signature of BW which they condescendingly looked at once in a a way to please AB or SRK. But we were according to them a bunch of amateurs who are incapable of churning out ‘look worthy’ stuff unless we make something that makes their stomachs churn. So when Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy borrow( note ..I havent said copy) our themes, formats, actors, music, suddenly all of its appears Oscar worthy.
In all fairness, purely as a cinema enthusiast I think the first half was good while the second half was terribly disappointing.
sandy 31 January 2009
09:28:12 am
Q, I understand the film does not attempt to be naturalistic. But do you see that this aspect makes the film’s time frame questionable. Dev Patel is 18-19 in 2006-2007 according to the film. The guy would be a 5 year old in 1994! This was clearly the era of the Khans, so it wouldn;t have taken much for Boyle to be realistic about it, therby giving the film the right period flavour. When I see Jamal shouting for Amitabh, i thought I got confused for a minute, wondering if this is the 80s!
Absolutely, I understand the point about slums verus privilege but that didn’t need a bachchan. Any star would have sufficed. My point is that scene holds only if it was the 80s, not 90s. Least because it is unauthentic, but mostly because it’s a confuses you about the time frame.
Qalandar 31 January 2009
09:34:19 am
rockstar: on the Ram/Allah thing, I think we see Boyle’s “straight liberalism” at work (religion is to blame, etc.) rather than any endorsement of Christianity. I have grave doubts as to whether the likes of Boyle have any truck with Christianity over other religions — they probably are more of the “they all suck” school of thought. But that is a guess on my part, your guess is as good as mine. [Of course, one might be just as offended by non-believer denunciations of religion as by denunciations by believers, but that's a separate story.]
And don’t get me wrong, there is plenty that is problematic about the film, but not the bit about the foreign tourists. In fact all the tourists come across as dimwits in the film (remember the European coupe who are rushing to catch the train so they want to see the Taj very quickly — no real knowledge of or interest in the history underlying the Taj, but they want to “have seen it”; they are basically begging to get the scam version of history). Then we see the opera at the Taj, which has no connection with the lives and culture of the people of the region, or even with the history of the Taj — it is an utterly irrelevant spectacle, and hence the camera is focused more on the shoe stealing than the opera itself; finally we have the american couple who don’t want to feel guilty — so hey let’s just hand over $100! Remember that bit where the wife glares at her husband and he hurriedly hands over the cash, enabling them to wash their hands of the whole affair)…
Qalandar 31 January 2009
09:37:22 am
Slumdog is certainly not ARR’s best, but no one is saying that it is. It has only been nominated because it is associated with a film that has also been nominated. I mean surely we cannot expect the Oscars to nominate ARR for Iruvar, Sangamam, Alai Payuthey when they have never come across those films, albums, whatever! Heck, how can we point fingers when India’s own official entries for the Oscars increasingly focus so much on Hindi films, to the exclusion of regional films?
rockstar 31 January 2009
09:37:43 am
film does not appear to be naturalistic
ok i takr that comment for a while
now someone tell me the same logic can be given by our makers to support their lame products right
isn’t we indians faces to much reality in real life so why to show them on screen
why to criticize akki for his comedies or srk for his romantic movies
rockstar 31 January 2009
09:38:43 am
*take*
jayshah 31 January 2009
09:39:15 am
“So when Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy borrow( note ..I havent said copy) our themes, formats, actors, music, suddenly all of its appears Oscar worthy.”
This is a fair point. But this is not Danny Boyle’s fault or the team of SM’s fault. It is the “system”. The reason SM has got so much eyeballs, one of the main ones, is Danny Boyle as director. He is well known. It is natural for juries, the film public in west to have great curiosity and intrigue in his film. This is harsh but true that no current mainstream hindi film director can achieve this in the west mainly because the “names” are just not known. This is an issue with the “system” but it is not Danny’s or SM teams fault. They’ve only “made” a movie. Everything that has happened after is the media, film critics and public.
Lets say a Shekur Kapoor who has a “brand” made this film. It would definitely have got soe exposure in the west. Or a Mira Nair. Because the latter has a “history” and “tradition” with western audiences, the non-indians, a kind of “critics” favourite.
I fully agree that if an Indian made this, lets say a Santoshi, the film would not have seen the light of day. But this is an issue with the system, and also as discussed hindi films just don’t have the leverage with overseas audiences (yet)
Qalandar 31 January 2009
09:41:18 am
rockstar: my complaint with bhandarkar is that ALL his films are the SAME film, they always follow the same structure. Under the guise of an expose they actually simply re-affirm certain highly bourgeois values — while enabling its audience to feel good that it has watched a “different” film when actually the film peddles that which the audience believes anyway. The problem with Slumdog is a different one: the film has a kind of “naturalistic packaging” but is NOT naturalistic at all — but if so, why not just go the usual glam/B’wood route? The suspicion is raised that the latter might not be “recognizable” to the global audience, which associates India with poverty/squalor, etc. So the film is problematic, but not in the same way as Bhandarkar. I prefer Slumdog to Bhandarkar, largely because Slumdog is better made, shot, more cinematic, etc. It’s a better FILM IMO, whatever one thinks of the politics.
ILG 31 January 2009
09:42:41 am
Jay,
Ofcourse it is a more of a systematic problem but it is more bothersome when some pantyclad sissy like Khalid M goes into orgasmic raptures about the film.
rockstar 31 January 2009
09:44:11 am
ok i understand opera in taj is a great visual spectacle in a reality movie
Qalandar 31 January 2009
09:44:29 am
Re: “now someone tell me the same logic can be given by our makers to support their lame products right”
Right: but that question is for others to answer, NOT me. because I have always defended popular Hindi cinema, against precisely these sorts of charges from idiotic mediapersons and others (including, sadly, many of the younger generation of Bollyfilmmakers), who confuse “naturalism” with “the good”. A film is never bad BECAUSE it isn’t realistic; it is bad for other reasons (e.g. if the whole film is trying to be realistic and suddenly something out of the blue happens, that would be a fair charge)… I mean given that I adore films like Okkadu, Tamil masala films, or the 1970s Hindi films, I can hardly be accused of this.
Tango 31 January 2009
09:45:53 am
ILG bhai at his best.
Qalandar 31 January 2009
09:47:52 am
ILG: the response of people like Khalid M. shows the bankruptcy of the Indian filmi media. [To be honest, we didn't need to wait for his review of slumdog for that.] The fact is that many in the so-called intelligentsia have a very condescending attitude towards popular Hindi cinema. To watch THESE people go ga-ga over slumdog irritates me far more than boyle representing india any way. because these people are so bankrupt they will only appreciate B’wood once it becomes cool in “the West” to do so (not understanding that its consumption in the West is also under the sign of kitsch)…
jayshah 31 January 2009
09:47:55 am
ILG look at all.bollywood.com.
SM has 81% with indian film critics. Every critic barring a few have lapped it up.
jayshah 31 January 2009
09:49:34 am
“ILG: the response of people like Khalid M. shows the bankruptcy of the Indian filmi media. [To be honest, we didn't need to wait for his review of slumdog for that.] The fact is that many in the so-called intelligentsia have a very condescending attitude towards popular Hindi cinema. To watch THESE people go ga-ga over slumdog irritates me far more than boyle representing india any way. because these people are so bankrupt they will only appreciate B’wood once it becomes cool in “the West” to do so (not understanding that its consumpotion in the West is also under the sign of kitsch)…”
Well said.
rockstar 31 January 2009
09:50:00 am
lol all ur criticism apart from movie on same subject can be easily applied to slum dog
so slumdog is better shot and cinematic right
well script is week nothing ordinary about it ….boy on lead is wooden at best …its again a fake drama…. characters are not defined …research is not proper
thought again same criticism can be applied here to
Qalandar 31 January 2009
09:50:53 am
Sandy: I agree with you on the casting of Dev Patel; his whole persona, even his English accent, was all “wrong”.
jayshah 31 January 2009
09:52:50 am
The child artists were way better than the lead pair. But confession time, Asin is out and Freida is in – for now
ILG 31 January 2009
09:53:08 am
Q,
Agree 100%. In spite of my criticism, I enjoyed the film. It is just that it is getting undeservedly glorified. Am also pleased as a punch at one of the outcomes of its glorification which is a sure shot Oscar for ARR.
Qalandar 31 January 2009
09:55:56 am
Yeah, it’s the ARR angle that thrills me. Baaqi sab — I mean I don’t see it as an Indian film so could care less if it doesn’t win the Oscar for best film, as long as ARR does. But the reality is that often oscars like “best sound design” “best score” go to films that also win best picture, and in other main categories. So for purely cynical reasons wish it well, as that will maximize ARR’s chances
Kaveetaa Kaul 31 January 2009
10:01:19 am
“To watch THESE people go ga-ga over slumdog irritates me far more than boyle representing india any way. because these people are so bankrupt they will only appreciate B’wood once it becomes cool in “the West””
For the very reason that savvy film makers who wish to gain a strong hold in the shortest time possible adopt the route of:
make film for festivals> try darnedest to get some award or another>release In India with the awards hogging the ad more than the name of the film>get lauded as an award winning intellectual maker, critically acclaimed, approved by the West> Indian critics hypnotised, begin to look for meaning even in a 40 watt bulb over a table> suddenly bracketed as top Film maker> signs on Khans and Kumars…
we audiences get another dud wonder where exactly was the talent hidden..or begin to doubt our sense of cinema.
rockstar 31 January 2009
10:03:16 am
if rahman gets it i will be really happy because he deserves for his past work ( not jai ho)
agree its not an indian movie as aptly told by mr aamir khan
S T R E E T 31 January 2009
10:03:51 am
The questions Priyan raises cuts both ways… “Just because a whiteman has made Slumdog Millionaire, we’re so happy with it?” one could similarly ask “just coz a whiteman made, we’re frowning upon it?” Let’s face it.. had it been made by a Bollywood filmmaker of today, we’d have Jamaal become a business tycoon when he grew up… living in a 10,000 sq foot bungalow… The girl he loved would have become a top model.. driving the latest BMW sport sedan. And honestly, what part of the film is it that makes Indians cringe? Yes Danny did show the slums.. so what? Not only were they captured in beautiful cameraworks.. he also showed the developed India. If he showed the Mamman of India who’d scoop to lowest levels to make money, he also showed a grownup Jamal who could care less about the money and was in it the whole way for his genuine love. In fact, for a change Westerners would see an imagge of an Indian does’t have a nerdy outlook. And I am with jay on the merits of the movie itself… story, the screenplay.. and most importantly a series of QnA on a gameshow transcending the biography of an eventful life of a young boy…SDM may not be the best film of 2008 and maybe it doesn’t deserve all those awards and nominationns .. buthey it doesn’t deserve to be called trashy either. If anything.. I’m looking forward to the sequel.. lol
But yeah.. the main actor.. was dreadful to say the least.
ILG 31 January 2009
10:09:34 am
A valid point, Street.
Except for the little fact that I have said I have enjoyed it quite a bit and the narrative is very skilled. As Q has sai and Satyam and Goodfella. Its just that we are going gaga over it.
rockstar 31 January 2009
10:12:02 am
indian filmakers is not the right term they have made the movie on same subject which are ever better in content and i am not talking about commercial bollywood movie makers
lot of tamil ,bengali and marathi movies on the same subject are better in content so do some of the past art movies as we call
S T R E E T 31 January 2009
10:17:17 am
And I am glad Q mentioned about Bollywood’s crossover in the non-Western world.. which is essentially the non-White world.. and how we either undermine its importance or just underplay or undermine its magnitude. It seems like Bollywood is totally disinterested in crossing over in the Arab world and the African continent. Unlike the US and UK, these places have the original natives watching Bollywood films.. and a fairly wide section of them. However, these audience go and watch the Hollywood film on the big screen but a Bolly flick on some pirated DVD from a local Indian store. It’s not they don’t want to spend the bigger bucks on our movies, but its the accessibility factor. The industry is not interested in investing here… Instead of vying for dominance in these markets, it celebrates an entry in top 50 charts in the US.
Even the Chinese film industry gained complete and utter dominance in the Far East and significant incursions in the rest of Asia before it found a way in the West. Bollywood has yet to conquer India in its entirety.. forget about stepping outside. What was the last time a single Bollywood movie bowled over all the states of India?
rockstar 31 January 2009
10:17:33 am
*film makers*
ILG 31 January 2009
10:20:45 am
Again a valid observation, Street.
Whats the world coming to?
S T R E E T 31 January 2009
10:23:31 am
rockstar..
maybe there are better movies on the subject. so what? is that what makes this film “trashy” then? Or is that because, there are better films than SDM, it shouldn’t get an award. As someone mentioned above, a number of factors, outside the movie’s merits, come into play where awards and Nominations are concerned. Was Departed Scorcese’s best work?
S T R E E T 31 January 2009
10:26:03 am
I hate it when ILG agrees with me.. you are an abhi fan and I am a srK fan .. we should play our roles accordingly here.
S T R E E T 31 January 2009
10:32:31 am
btw.. I didn’t like that scene at the Taj either…
jayshah 31 January 2009
10:33:50 am
If Jamal was african and the film was based in africa, I don’t think we’d even be talking about the film…
rockstar 31 January 2009
10:35:59 am
no departed scorcese was not
i din’t call it trashy just i mentioned different yardsticks to measure a movie
suddenly a different stand to be honest slumdog is another masala movie the same stuff which was criticised by the west in past (priyam names here to some salim’s movie of the past which where on same theme )
there are few more to one has to accept the fact since a westerner has made it suddenly its a masterpiece
there are some more
well these stuff where criticised in past
S T R E E T 31 January 2009
10:41:16 am
jayshah.. lol .. also if Jamal was black and movie based in US.. I don’t think we be talking about it either.
As much evidence there is about Academy’s preference to see the poverty in India, there’s 10 times more evidence of them rewarding movies that portray the ugly side of the West as well. .. racism-based or for that matter movies on Holocaust have always been front-runners at the Oscars.
satyam 31 January 2009
12:03:51 pm
KaveetaKaul: I didn’t mean anything personal by the ‘classes’ reference but I do think that your comments fall within such a ‘discourse’. But also I am a bit puzzled by your sensitivity here. Your own response to the film is extremely passionate for want of a better word. My response to yours is the same in some ways. I think you are arguing against an ‘attitude’, I am too. I don’t think your piece is ‘anti-Boyle’. My response isn’t ‘anti-KaveetaaKaul’ either! In any case my apologies if you felt there was an insult there. I stand by the comments though.
satyam 31 January 2009
12:16:44 pm
Sandy: I agree with most of Jay’s comments here. There is ‘politics’ at all levels when it comes to the OScars. Certain subjects, certain actors, certain setups and so forth are privileged. Certain years belong to specific kinds of cinema. There is faddishness. Certain actors and directors are not recognized ‘forever’ or very late in their careers. The foreign film nominations are also often predictable in some ways. But there is nothing so pronounced about the SDM deal in terms of the reception that would set it apart from every other film that is nominated or that wins. Award functions whether at the OScars or at Cannes are not objective judgments. But also let’s not forget that this film has really been loved by the audience. yes, the awards and all the nominations will take it to 100m probably. But the audience was reacting very warmly to it anyway. And it’s not that the audience was celebrating poverty because Monsoon Wedding was also loved around the globe. When I saw SDM soon after it’s release in Dec people clapped at the end. Clearly there was something ‘universal’ about the story that really appealed to these audiences. And the audience I saw it with was incidentally a very politically correct one (based on where I saw it). This doesn’t mean there cannot be a criticism of the film but I find that many of the criticisms being offered about the colonial imagine it’s 1940 and not 2009! Getting to Bollywood films most of the releases are not good enough to really stand up internationally. When they are India doesn’t send them as official entries. Films like K3G get sent most of the time! Who’s going to take such films seriously? We don’t send out great regional cinema either. This is a country where Ray was completely ignored in this sense! A lot for foreign films that win are unworthy too but they’re up there in terms of certain technical standards and so forth. Bollywood isn’t for the most part. But yeah send in a Black Friday or something of the sort. A history has to be created. The Chinese for example have been at it for decades. Lagaan’s great achievement was the fact that it was an authentic film, not apologetic for its length or song and dance or whatever. And it had those ’standards’. And went far. Again this wouldn’t happen every year but this holds for every other industry as well. There are so many great European filmmakers who would never win an Oscar.
S T R E E T 31 January 2009
12:32:19 pm
“Films like K3G get sent most of the time! Who’s going to take such films seriously?”
true.. they should be sending Aag and Drona type movies..
btw wat r u referring to when u say K3G? r u pointing at Paheli?
julie 31 January 2009
02:17:50 pm
Lol. SDM is unnecessarily coming under this kind of flak. The movie is definitely not an Oscar worthy nominee, but is a slick, well made film on a unique theme and concept. The cinematography and screenplay is superb. Our BW movie makers could do a lot in learning how deftly a movie is made without star studded appeal and on a thin borderline budget. It was truly an enjoyable experience compared to the kind of trash one has seen being churned out of BW of late. There are only a few small budgeted movies which really risen to the occassion and delivered quality cinema.
The British cinemagoers absolutely loved SDM and lapped it like no man’s business. Personally I hardly found any condescending or racist treatment being rendered at any point, but it is fair to say that it is hardly a classic, and there are many BW films which have been made in the past which far excel, but then the international audience has lapped it because of the Danny Boyle factor and the way the British media has gone ga ga over it shows a certain element of ignorance in their depth of knowledge of BW films.
satyam 31 January 2009
02:21:11 pm
agreed on all counts Julie.. I certainly don’t have a problem with anyone finding this film problematic on many grounds.. I just find some of the hysteria puzzling.. or at least misplaced..
Shahid 31 January 2009
04:27:52 pm
There has always been this criticism of portraying India’s poverty. For example, Nargis didn’t like Satyajit Ray because she thought he made films that showed India in a poor light. I find such attitudes rather bizarre and very “anti-film” in the sense that such flat critique begins to look at films as advertisements or publicity tools rather than an actual piece of creative work.
Kaveetaa Kaul 31 January 2009
05:40:30 pm
I recently saw a film called ‘ A matter of faith’ Ben Stiller. The story has as its core three childhood friends a girl and two boys with both in love with the girl and the three often referring to themselves as the Three musketeers! Ring a bell? Obvioulsy Swarup/Simon Beaufoy found this a nifty little nugget to include.
And This three musketeer bit being taught to them in slum schools was Bizarre!
“Our BW movie makers could do a lot in learning how deftly a movie is made without star studded appeal and on a thin borderline budget” Thin borderline budget? you must be joking.
And if you think this is the kind of cinema that Indians ought to learn to make then its a bit like a son teaching his father how to produce a kid. For whatever its worth no country can manufacture masala potboilers as well as India..although we have rejected them outright.
There is plenty of talent in India..we lack patronage of the kind Boyle has received. When true creativity is met with empty ticket counters, which BTW is the fate for SDM in India, then talent has to mould itself to create what sells.
For anyone who wishes to honestly comment on this discussion, it would be advisable to read the book first, take a stock of the changes included and then react. When the intention gets to be amply clear and crystallised perhaps some will understand the how this film can hurt the sentiments of sensitive Indians. Nobody is questioning those who didnt find SDM objectionable.Therefore those who did and there is a vast majority, hold the right to nurse their grievance without being held culpable of sorts.
@Julie the second part of your comment explains the first, moreso the first line…which is why the ‘flak’ gets more pronounced.
neelu 31 January 2009
06:55:47 pm
From SB:
31 Jan 09, 18:54
HardikG: i think people r missing the point here . People are targetting awards here more than the film . If the film was genuinely fantastic no one would have bashed it saying putting india in bad light . but since Film is medicore and its getting awards its hard to not ask the question on Westerners mindset .
Kaveetaa Kaul 31 January 2009
07:34:46 pm
“If the film was genuinely fantastic no one would have bashed it saying putting india in bad light . but since Film is medicore and its getting awards its hard to not ask the question on Westerners mindset .”
Exactly..which is what I meant when I told Julie that her last statement explains her first
“but it is fair to say that it is hardly a classic, and there are many BW films which have been made in the past which far excel, but then the international audience has lapped it because of the Danny Boyle factor and the way the British media has gone ga ga over it shows a certain element of ignorance in their depth of knowledge of BW films.”
That is why it is also under flak which she terms ‘unnecessary’.
If we were to go sequentially, first the depiction of gore ad nauseum in a heavily agenda’d ploy, then the poor second half finally the straw that broke the camels back was the Golden Globe and Oscar nominations to a film which was mediocre, undoubtedly.
It had the chance to achieve greatness had they not eyed the Oscars and kept to the story line and sense of balance in portraying India. Danny boyles previous flick ‘Trainspotting’ had me leave the room within half an hour of viewing. It brought up my lunch..without exaggeration.It was that puky. If Priyadarshan claims then that perhaps Mani Ratnam would have made a better film of the book, one tends to agree.
chipguy 31 January 2009
09:15:58 pm
Priyan’s oeuvre is filled with trashy and mediocre movies so he’s hardly one to talk but that aside, SDM is no classic but an extremely enjoyable and well made movie. Even if it did win the Best Picture Oscar, I don’t think it’s any worse than other underdog movie winners of the past like Rocky or Chariots of Fire. I personally enjoyed this far more- and more power to ARR.
neelu 31 January 2009
10:41:33 pm
I agree with Hardik and Kaveeta here. Like Kaveeta I was extremely put off by the dive into the toilet in Trainspotting; strangely it was an even more extreme dive in Slumdog. Someone mentioned Lagaan and how come it was appreciated at the Oscars and nominated. The west is not one uniform entity, and the US has no particular findness for the British. Showing the British is bad light could be quite appreciated at the Oscars – a US institution. Attacking Priyan seems a little weird. When Big B spoke against Slumdog we were not holding his mediocre films up to trash his opinion. Big B did many fine films too, as did Priyan.
The film is uplifted by ARR’s music – and that is worthy of the accolades it is getting.
julie 1 February 2009
12:41:10 am
Kaveeta I think I was responding to the criticim by Priyadarshan more than anything else where he calls the film medicore and trashy. It was hardly that in my view considering the genuine trashy stuff that we have seen being churned out by BW of late.
I did add the caveat that it does not deserve an Oscar nomination and to that extent yes people have the right and are at liberty to question it’s entry into the Oscars.
Kaveetaa Kaul 1 February 2009
04:18:05 am
“Attacking Priyan seems a little weird. When Big B spoke against Slumdog we were not holding his mediocre films up to trash his opinion. Big B did many fine films too, as did Priyan.” True Neelu, as alos the bit about lagaans hurried acceptance, which incidentally was a wonderful film as was Jodha Akbar. Would have loved to see that sent for the Oscars.
I somehow cannot relate to the mentality which disallows people to express their opinions and questions on the flimsy basis of authority, criteria etc. Irrespective of whether someone is a film maker or a shoe maker, why is his right to expression under the scanner? If only successful makers are anointed with freedom of expression then how and why can one validate the reviews of critics who may have never set foot on a film set and perhaps cannot differentiate the front of the camera from its back, leave alone have any knowledge of the finer nuances of film making?
RAJ 1 February 2009
05:23:04 am
I agree to most of the points Sandy have raised about SDM movie wise….I dont think SDM is a masterpiece of any short.Having said that i dodnt agree to Priyan also about it being a thrashy movie.
julie 1 February 2009
05:23:42 am
Kaveetaa I see your point in the larger context. I guess SDM makes it to the Top 5 category becasue it is an English film made on a foreign subject. The theme was unique and the treatment was good. The fact is that Lagaan and JA even though technically superior products by far do not make it in this category because they are not pan Anglo American films. They qualify only in the foreign film category where I do believe that the competition is stiff. In 2008 itself there were a number of foreign films which were technically better than Jodha Akbar so again unlikely it would have made it to the Top 5.
The fact that there are a few undeserving nomniations in the main Best Film category, goes to show that there is a dearth of really good and classic films even in HW and the UK as of today.
SDM may have made it to the Top 5 list but is unlikely to win as Frost Nixon and Benjamin Button should outscore SDM.
Am a bit surprised not to find TDK on the list amongst the Best Film 2008. Reader was an Average film in my view. Again not deserving of an Oscar nomnation.
Am glad that Heath Ledger has been nominated in the Supporting actor league for TDK. Should win hands down.
Kaveetaa Kaul 1 February 2009
06:39:16 am
Julie when we talk of Top 5 and no mention of Dark Knight is made then this years Oscars lose credence for me on that note itself. That they chose SDM over it is the nail in the coffin.
Competition is stiff and better be in any category. Winning is not that essential. For me personally it is the niggling question ‘How proud am I of the film that represents India’? I would have been happy had JA made it.
julie 1 February 2009
06:55:10 am
Kaveeta SDM is several notches down Jodhaa Akbar. Forget Jodhaa Akbar even Guru was a better cinematic representation. Irony is the lack of literacy level amongst the British and HW media of India and Bollywood films.
When I came out of SDM the only feeling I had was well that was an enjoyable well made masala film but the caveat is that it hardly deserves an Oscar nomination. I do believe that our BW movie makers like Gowarikar and Ratnam need to showcase their talent to a wider audience base but how is the big question? Till that happens, BW films will be relegated to the alien category of foreign films where the competition will be far too fierce.
TDK not making it to the Top 5 definitely puts a seal on the credence of such awards. In my view The Dark Night was the film that comes closest to getting a 10/10 in it’s genre.
neelu 1 February 2009
08:08:25 am
The ultimate irony here is that the Oscar Jury found somethign unique and interesting in Slumdog Millionaire which I (and many) consider to be a full out Bollywood masala film (albeit a bit tones down), but that same jury is not really willing to accept regular BW masala in the best foreign film category!
I think we should celebrate – BW is not winning the overt war, but it is winning is some kind of stealth warfare! Now we just need to get foreign directors to direct a few films here and thus push the genre to the forefront.
satyam 1 February 2009
08:51:10 am
As some of us made very clear in this thread early on no one’s taking away Priyan’s democratic rights (!) and hence his opinions but the very ‘bad tempered’ nature of these remarks. They’re excessive in tone, not content.
satyam 1 February 2009
08:52:21 am
At the same time I find it hard to accept objections by some on the politics of SDM when they’re never as concerned about the same in any other film! Certainly not ones starring their favorites!
rks 1 February 2009
01:08:06 pm
LOL
We have dissected, trisected, quadrasected…
I see alignments which I normally don’t see in normal NG discourse.
Most of time, I give some music related opinions, which is based mainly on melody and some part lyrics. Does that make me music expert? No. There are too much that goes into music creation and I don’t even have an iota of knowledge to give one. Can I have an opinion? why not.
ps: I haven’t seen SDM.
satyam 1 February 2009
01:18:17 pm
Rks: If you ask me I just don’t see what the huge fuss here is!
satyam 1 February 2009
01:30:04 pm
“We have dissected, trisected, quadrasected…”
And your sentence captures this very well.. the intensity of passion this film has generated seems quite disproportionate to any of its merits/demerits. The reason (at the risk of offending some is) that the film is wounding for the self-image of Indian ‘classes’. I’ve long felt this. And to repeat an earlier point ‘poverty’ is an aesthetic issue for people belonging to this segment, not an ethical or moral one. If it were the latter we would be objecting to all those Bollywood saccharine dreams that we’ve been happily consuming for the longest time.
It’s not about an ‘escapist’ cinema per se. Note what happened in masala escapism. There was an imagining of better ’social’ results keeping in place the essential social configuration. So you had the basti and the goons and the kothas and what not. You just had happier outcomes (not universally of course as a lot of masala cinema incorporated the notion of the ‘irreparable’.. the parents who were killed, the separation lasting 20 years, so on and so forth). But with the 90s Yashraj universe the basic social configuration (keeping very much in line with the ‘desires’ of a newly ‘liberated’ India and the beneficiaries of the new ‘economy’) was presented in very perverse fashion. here entire orders of society were simply wished away and ceased to exist in the worlds of those films. Much as ‘India’ itself constituted the ultimate ‘vanishing’. This latter ‘fantasy’ was therefore a much more dangerous one than the first since of course within actual ‘life’ nothing vanished. All sorts of ‘politics’ was taking place but for those vacationing on Swiss slopes this became just a rude awakening… reality became bothersome.. something to be endured in between multiplex oriented consumption!
Again one tips one’s hat off to Lagaan where in addition to so much else Aamir also risked everything on a film that took place in the ‘rural’ other.
rks 1 February 2009
03:45:26 pm
Slumdog 1, Bollywood 0
satyam 1 February 2009
04:56:34 pm
Good piece here..
satyam 2 February 2009
07:15:05 am
“SDM is several notches down Jodhaa Akbar. Forget Jodhaa Akbar even Guru was a better cinematic representation. Irony is the lack of literacy level amongst the British and HW media of India and Bollywood films.”
This I cannot go along with…
“I do believe that our BW movie makers like Gowarikar and Ratnam need to showcase their talent to a wider audience base but how is the big question?”
Don’t think Gowariker and Rathnam inhabit the same universe. But of course the former did make it to an OScar shortlist!
Qalandar 2 February 2009
07:42:38 am
We must also bear in mind the extent to which many great Indian filmmakers never had the opportunity to be nominated for any international award because they were never sent. Had Ray’s or Gopalakrishnan’s films been India’s official entry more times, surely the odds would have been better (if I remember correctly, Ray is the only Indian to win an Oscar — a lifetime achievement one). In terms of more commercial fare, not sending a Rathnam film like Kannathil Muthamittal was a mistake (it might well not have won, but its odds were better than what was sent in).
ILG 2 February 2009
08:37:47 am
The problem with the piece that RKS posted the link to is the common one which is most commentators find it hard to praise SDM without putting down BW. Which is uncalled for and unnecessary. And unfair too.
rks 4 February 2009
12:40:53 pm
CNN – Anil Kapoor: Bollywood’s Mr India
rks 4 February 2009
01:53:40 pm
Warts, we worry? – Vir Sanghvi,
rks 5 February 2009
04:34:29 pm
Has Oscar lost its box office?
Who’s the Best of the Best Director Nominees?
VIEW: Slumdog paradox —Sadanand Dhume
Arun 6 February 2009
04:04:43 am
AR Rahman lashes out at critics, dares spoilsports to make another film rivalling Slumdog