What's new

Slumdog Millionaire

Status
Not open for further replies.
y is everyone saying slumdog millionaire is an indian film when its actually a british film? :what:i mean it didnt even release in india until recently after 2 months releasing officiallyonly the actors are indian as well as some of the cast but the director, the producer, the distrubter, and most of the cast are british.

the film belongs to the bollywood school of film-making.
M Night Shyamalan's movies are not considered Indian or Bollywood, in a similar vein Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire is not a British film.

good movie, maybe indian directors could learn a few pointers from hollywood.

Danny boyle is not a "hollywood" director. Though "Indians" could learn marketing and lobbying for American awards from Hollywood.
 
Danny boyle is not a "hollywood" director. Though "Indians" could learn marketing and lobbying for American awards from Hollywood.[/QUOTE]

srry meant to say britian, but it is a british film.
 
the film belongs to the bollywood school of film-making.
M Night Shyamalan's movies are not considered Indian or Bollywood, in a similar vein Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire is not a British film.



Danny boyle is not a "hollywood" director. Though "Indians" could learn marketing and lobbying for American awards from Hollywood.

Actually, its a quintissential Danny Boyle film, infused with certain Bollyood-esque elements.

Its definitly not a hollywood film. You could all it an Indo-British joint collaboration.
 
A very good movie..I actually wanted to read the novel it was based on.
 
Indians don't feel good about 'Slumdog Millionaire'

The story of an impoverished street child in Mumbai, which has won 10 Oscar nods, is a stereotypical Western portrayal, Indians say, that ignores the wealth and progress their country has seen.

By Mark Magnier

4:03 PM PST, January 23, 2009

Reporting from Mumbai, India -- Even as American audiences gush over " Slumdog Millionaire," some Indians are groaning over what they see as yet another stereotypical foreign depiction of their nation, accentuating squalor, corruption and resilient-if-impoverished natives.

"Slumdog," which earned 10 Oscar nominations this week, including one for Best Picture, is set in Mumbai, is based on an Indian novel and features many Indian actors. Yet the sensibility is anything but Indian, some critics argue. They attribute the film's sweeping international success in large part to its timing and themes that touch a chord with Western audiences.

"It's a white man's imagined India," said Shyamal Sengupta, a film professor at the Whistling Woods International institute in Mumbai. "It's not quite snake charmers, but it's close. It's a poverty tour."

The story of an orphaned street urchin, Jamal Malik, overcoming hardship to win a fortune on a game show and walk away with his childhood sweetheart -- capped by a Bollywood ending of dance, song, love and fame -- provides a salve for a world beset by collapsing banks, jobs and nest eggs, some here say.

The film, which bagged four Golden Globe awards this month, was released in the United States days before Mumbai came under attack by a team of militants. That may have strengthened its connection with foreign viewers, analysts said.

Mumbai was an ideal backdrop for the international production, wrote Vikram Doctor, a columnist in India's Economic Times, since it is a "cutting edge, if rather crummy, place" that has slums along with the sort of posh restaurants favored by the global glitterati. "Who after all is interested in unremitting squalor, sameness and sadness?" the column said.

"Slumdog's" mix of Indian and foreign talent, and English and Hindi dialogue, has sparked a debate here over whether it's an Indian or foreign film. It was based on a novel by Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup, directed by Briton Danny Boyle, best known for "Trainspotting," adapted by British screenwriter Simon Beaufoy of "Full Monty" fame, and acted by Indians and foreigners of Indian descent. Fox Searchlight and Warner Bros. are handling distribution in India.

"These ideas, that there are still moments of joy in the slum, appeal to Western critics," said Aseem Chhabra, an Asia Foundation associate fellow and culture critic.

Others, such as Shekhar Kapur, who directed "Elizabeth" (1998), argue that for all intent and purposes it's Indian. "What's most relevant is that 'Slumdog' is the most successful Indian film ever," he said. "It was directed by a British director and funded by a European company but so what?. . . . Foreign crews are very common in Indian films now."

"Slumdog" cost $15 million to produce but has already earned more than $50 million in the U.S. and other countries abroad. It saw its Indian premiere Thursday, in Mumbai, and began screening in English and Hindi [dubbed] on Friday in 400 theaters in 81 cities.

At the star-studded premiere Boyle responded to criticism here that the film focused too much on prostitution, crime and organized begging rackets, saying that he sought to depict the "breathtaking resilience" of Mumbai and the "joy of people despite their circumstances, that lust for life."

For some, the underdog theme is not so much irrelevant as passe. Rags-to-riches tales dominated Bollywood from the late 1950s through the early 1980s as India worked to lift itself from hunger and poverty.

With India's rising standard of living and greater exposure to foreign culture, Bollywood has increasingly turned its attention to relationships and other middle class concerns.

"Within the film world, there's a desire to move beyond the working class and lower sectors of society," said Tejaswini Ganti, an anthropologist and Bollywood expert at New York University.

The ambivalence some Indians feel toward the movie doesn't preclude it from becoming a roaring commercial success in India, experts said. "There is still a fascination with seeing how we are perceived by white Westerners," said Sengupta, the Mumbai film professor. "It's a kind of voyeurism."

Many in Bollywood also have transferred onto "Slumdog" their hopes for an "Indian" Oscar after homegrown favorite "Taare Zameen Par" failed to garner a nomination. "Taare," about a dyslexic child who finds an outlet through art, was the latest in a string of Oscar letdowns dating to 2002.

Between rolls of their eyes, critics here point to other foreign depictions over the years they consider inaccurate, distorted or obsessed with poverty and squalor, including "Phantom India," "Salaam Bombay" and "City of Joy," in which a Western doctor played by Patrick Swayze arrives to save India.

Some add that the criticism of "Slumdog" may be less about getting it wrong than its focus on issues some in India would rather downplay.

The world's second-most populous country after China has seen enormous benefits from globalization. But "Slumdog" raises questions about the price paid by those left behind and the cost in eroding morality, seen in the portrayal of Salim, Jamal's gangster-in-training brother. For India, this hits a nerve, after a top Indian IT outsourcing firm, Satyam, reported this month that it had faked profits.

"A lot of people felt it was bashing India, but I disagree," said Rochona Majumdar, an Indian film expert at the University of Chicago. "We're too quick to celebrate 'Incredible India,' she said, referring to an Indian tourism slogan. "But there is an underbelly. To say we don't have problems is absurd."

Salman Ali, 12, lives those problems. He's been on his own as long as he can remember, he said. Dressed in a ragged T-shirt, ****** pants and bare feet, he sleeps under Mumbai's Mahim pipeline, a local landmark featured in "Slumdog" amid the Technicolor water, toxic electronic waste and petroleum sludge. He earns a few dollars a week recycling garbage or begging from cars on the nearby overpass.

Sometimes police beat him up, he said. And several times gangs have attacked him and stolen what little he has. Sure, he'd love to appear on a game show like Jamal did in the film and become a millionaire.

But however hard he tries to make money, Salman said, he never gets ahead. His dream is to become a Bollywood star one day. And whenever a film crew shows up to shoot amid the squalor, he tries to get their attention. But he said they never pick him. "Who wouldn't want to be a millionaire?" he said.

A few miles away, in the maze of alleys that make up Dharavi, Asia's largest slum and another backdrop for the film, some said the plot sounded too close to real life and therefore not interesting while others said they wanted to see how it depicted their neighborhood.

Housewife Lakshmi Nagaraj Iyer, 26, said that she had troubles with the get-rich quick premise. "I feel it's a wrong route," she declared. "We barely get by, but the answer is education and hard work, not a quick fix."

Indians don't feel good about 'Slumdog Millionaire' - Los Angeles Times
 
Some say it's poverty **** - but not many

Here in India, films about poverty used to cause great offence. But not Slumdog Millionaire



A foreign director comes to India and shoots a film that in part depicts considerable cruelty, poverty and squalor. The Indian government is outraged when the BBC broadcasts the film. There are official protests; severe restrictions are imposed on the BBC and any other foreign organisation that wants to film in India; the director never enters the country again. Forty years pass. Another foreign director shoots a film in India in which the cruelty, poverty and squalor are even more horrid. It wins four Golden Globes and 10 Oscar nominations. Most of India is delighted; domestic film-makers are chided for the timidity of their vision and mindless escapism of their output.

The first director is Louis Malle, whose documentary series, Phantom India, examined some indisputable truths about so much of Indian life. The second is Danny Boyle, whose Slumdog Millionaire, pictured below, takes some of the same truths, dramatises and exaggerates them inside a fantastical story - which slum boy is going to jump into an oozing latrine, even for the autograph of Amitabh Bachchan? - set to Bollywood melodies. Something has happened in the years between these films, to western as well as to Indian sensibilities. The reasons are complicated, but perhaps the main ones are that Indian society is a thousand times more confident, that the word "vulgar" has vanished from the critical lexicon, and that the world has grown very small.

India has always had a difficult relationship with its easily observable poverty. Thirty years ago, the government's PR departments would express a sullen disappointment that foreign writers were so "obsessed" by it. Its depiction abroad was seen, with just a little justice, as a plot against national ambition.

In the 1920s, the American writer Katherine Mayo had been helped by the British administration to research a book, Mother India, which demonstrated how unfit India was for self-government. Child marriages, hopeless sanitary habits. Mahatma Gandhi famously described it as "the report of a drain inspector", but while it may have been inspired as a work of imperial propaganda, many of its facts were true.

In the 1960s, another foreigner, VS Naipaul, made squalor more vivid. His Indian ancestry offered no protection against unpopularity. Indians stood accused of selling the country short. Satyajit Ray's Pather Panchali put Indian cinema on the map and is now considered a monument to humanism. But in 1955 its account of an impoverished family in Bengal drew a hostile response in some government circles and Ray was accused of "exporting poverty".

The same charge is now levelled against Boyle. His "poverty ****" is damaging the image of a country on the brink of becoming a superpower. So far as I can tell, that's a minority opinion. Bachchan, the great Bollywood star, made some mild remarks implying that the world took notice of Indian cinema only when a foreigner hijacked its techniques, and he was widely condemned for what was taken to be spite. Fewer people now believe that a single film can represent the Indian generality - supposing such a thing exists - to a foreign audience, who knows, or should know, of India's tremendous variety and compelling social change. And there are now so many ways to know - mass tourism, business travel, the web, hundreds of satellite channels. And anyway, who cares? It's only a film, and not a serious one at that, dealing as it does in the bestselling cliches of the Mumbai film industry. Poor man makes good, finds lost love, gets rich, lives happily ever after.

The more interesting question is: whom do we trust to best describe the experience of the poor? Ideally, the answer should be the poor themselves, but even in much more equal societies than India's that has always been a rarity. Dickens spent some of his childhood in a blacking factory, DH Lawrence's dad worked down the pit, but usually descriptions of the poor come from higher social castes. Writing is essentially a middle-class activity for a middle-class audience. In India, very few accounts of poverty have come from the people who know what it means. Literacy, opportunity, time, inclination: these are formidable barriers. Almost every Indian novel heard of in Britain has come from the Anglophone elite.

The author of Slumdog is no exception. The film was adapted from a first novel called Q&A (now retitled as a film tie-in) by Vikas Swarup, an Indian diplomat. This week I met him at the Jaipur Literary Festival, where he was one of the week's big events. Schoolgirls queued to get his signature, displaying all the grave and intelligent deference ("Thank you, sir, please put 'To Priya'") that will one day be put to use ruling the world. He was modest and polite. In the evening, among the large audience gathered on the lawn to hear him speak, a deferential questioner asked, "Sir, you have become a very famous writer. Many of us wish to write. Can you tell us, sir, how you did it?" And Swarup replied that he just sat down and wrote, and if he could do it, anybody could.

He was born into a distinguished legal family and entered the foreign service in 1986. He had no great ambition to be a writer. What struck me was his immense practicality. He grew up enjoying James Hadley Chase and Alastair Maclean and ignored India's fashionable new generation of novelists until his early forties. They were all very "literary". He had spotted a gap in the market. He would write an Indian thriller.

While posted in London, he was intrigued by the story of Major Charles Ingram on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? He sat down to write. Several agents turned him down, but one took him up. The novel was finished quickly - "20,000 words in one weekend", he said. And a year before it was published, there were rejections here, too, the film rights had been bought. Five years later, it has been translated into 36 languages.

Swarup has never been inside a Mumbai slum, but poverty in India was impossible to ignore. "The brown arm snakes through your car's open window and asks you for alms," he said. "No man is an island in India." This contradicts my own experience. Many people are islands, joined in an archipelago of social position. Becoming island-like offers you best hope of enduring sights that seem impossible to alter, and prevailing against the consequent despair.

Still, even as I write that sentence I see in it an old-fashioned attitude, dating from the time when India was filled with conversations about what could be done, when the poor were fretted over and documentarians such as Malle put anger into their work. Much good did it do. As objects of pity, the poor were one-dimensional. Swarup and Boyle show instead what they call the triumphant human spirit of the slums, and there are now trips around Dharavi, the Slumdog slum, to show tourists that feistiness at work. It certainly shows they are human, as imperfect as us, but could it be that our new approach also reveals self-interested pragmatism? Some facts can't be changed. The poor will always be with us, and we may as well make the best of them.

Ian Jack: Some say Slumdog Millionaire is poverty **** - but not many | Comment is free | The Guardian
 
Wrong again..!!!!
It is Truth and Determination that wins..!!!!!:yahoo:

Not really - the film is about fate and luck, not about success by hardwork and determination.

"It is written".
 
Not really - the film is about fate and luck, not about success by hardwork and determination.

"It is written".

Success. Luck.. Fate.. Favours the bold and in this case the determined. Being truthful and determined to get what you want would ultimately lead to what you want..!!! Jamal mallik never wanted the millions and he went on the show knowing that latika would be watching, he wanted to have the love of his life.. for this he encountered and overcame all the odds.. Which reitrates my argument.. "Truth and Determination Wins"..!!!!:cheers:
 
Success. Luck.. Fate.. Favours the bold and in this case the determined. Being truthful and determined to get what you want would ultimately lead to what you want..!!! Jamal mallik never wanted the millions and he went on the show knowing that latika would be watching, he wanted to have the love of his life.. for this he encountered and overcame all the odds.. Which reitrates my argument.. "Truth and Determination Wins"..!!!!:cheers:

Ah, well....depends on your perspective.
 
The film had very poor reviews in India. It was criticized for protraying India in poor light and neglecting the strides India has made recently . No less than Mr Bachan said that SM portrayed India as a "Third World dirty underbelly developing nation".In India it was thought as western view of India . But picture abhi baqi he mere dost ...... SM wins golden globe , It gets most nominations for oscars and suddenly SM becomes Indian Film and guess what No less than Mr bachan is forced to concede that he didn't criticize picture he only wanted to initiate a debate .

Moral of picture : INDIA CAN GO TO ANY LENGTH TO GET WESTERN AWARD .EVEN IF IT MEANS TO CLAIM A MUCH CRITICIZED (BY THEM) AS THIER OWN . :coffee:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom