Who’s the Best of the Best Director Nominees?

VIEW: Slumdog paradox —Sadanand Dhume

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

The film is uplifted by ARR’s music – and that is worthy of the accolades it is getting.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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?

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

But yeah.. the main actor.. was dreadful to say the least.

agree its not an indian movie as aptly told by mr aamir khan

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.

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

Well said.

SM has 81% with indian film critics. Every critic barring a few have lapped it up.

ILG bhai at his best.

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.

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)

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

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)…

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.

just a qustion for u in last thread u bashed bhandarkar and bashed page 3

how slumdog is any different from it?

He is barely 25 !

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…

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

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.

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

Can someone explain this or am I not making any sense?

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.

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…

I too would love an Oscar for one of the Indians, most likely Rahman, criticism aside.

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

Vistar ke liye Tango ko mail karein, Dhanyawad

“Roz kehte the aadap….., Ek din….o bura maan gaye”

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…

http://www.naachgaana.com/2009...../#comments

my earlier comments

There were a couple of nicely written “critical” pieces on SM which had much better takes and more importantly, more balance.

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)…

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!).

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.”

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Again, I think Hey Ram managed to come in the top 9. Wasn’t that a very good film?

“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.

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?

Agree with you 100 per cent Tango!

If you notice Rocky, beyond a couple of comments I have ignored it.

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.

That twinkle in your friend’s eyes does lead to stardom for Danny.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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!

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/

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.

Yup! This is one way of remaining in news as the release of Billu Barber is just around the corner.

There can be criticism of Slumdog on certain grounds but this bad tempered response is just over the top.

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.

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.

http://sachiniti.wordpress.com.....and-india/

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.