Instead of exhulting in showcase projects like rocketry and nukes , we must make a vow to upgrade our physical surroundings and root out corruption and sloth from our public life.
Its not guns or butter , butter and guns it is .
Unless we do so , our elites are likely to be wiped out in a reign of terror when (not if) the deprived masses get power ;its only a question of time.
The entire slum plot was depicted as it was in 1980's. I'm sure India was more poorer than the y showed in the movie. Most of indians dint knw wht is a computer (whc he use now to differ)..So lets face the true
Sample this from The Independent (UK) : "it has taken a foreigner to force some middle-class movie-going Indians to look at the poverty that persists here". Comments like this in the western press are supercilious, condescending and completely racial in content and spirit. Nobody denies that India is poor, is corrupt and has many warts - contrary to what the average westerner blithely assumes. It is just that the average Indian does not like this darker side be glorified ad infinitum. They hate it when foreigners shout from the rooftops about how glorious the poverty in Mumbai is! The inane statements dished out by Boyle about how this is a tribute to the spirit of Mumbai is complete balderdash. I suspect that deep down inside, this stark portrayal of the dark underbelly of Mumbai gives a warm feeling of racial superiority to the western world, particularly after having to eat humble pie to some of the good aspects of India.
The author seemed to have forgotten the commercial intent behind the movie. He seemed to have confused it with a documentary portraying India / Mumbai. A movie is supposed to touch upon a certain aspect / subject of a society and portray a story which is "different" from normal situation. A movie is always taken with a pinch of salt and people understand that it probably is somewhat far from reality. There are numerous instances where Hollywood movies have celebrated filth in American and other societies. That does not make anyone believe that whole of America is filled with such a filth. There have been instances where Bollywood movies have depicted even worse picture of our society. I have seen BBC / Discovery documentaries about India, probably never aired in India, which were hard to digest even for me. There is so much happening in different parts of India which we do not know. But that does not make anyone beleive that the whole of India is like that.
This one sided article arrives at a conclusion first and then tries to justify that based on weak one sided analysis. It would have been nice if author would have analyzed first and then arrived at a conclusion. There is no absolute good or absolute bad. All societies and people have their part of goods and bads.
Re: Its a movie, not a documentary
by Darshana Kalyanaraman on Feb 19, 2009 01:12 PM
True, but is it a mere coincidence that of all facets of India, of all possible stories to tell in our fast-changing country, the Westerner chooses exactly the one of a poverty- and slum-ridden India? Isn't it strange that when India is growing at an unprecedented 6/7% economic growth rate and everybody is talking about it as a BRIC country, the movie that is praised most is the one where India is shown as a place where people have no dignity in their life?
I am not saying that poverty, slums and the like are not a realistic part of India. I am just saying it is not a random coincidence that it is exactly this facet that Westerners choose to enjoy the most.
Ask Danny Boyle to make a movie on the thriving Indian software industry and how middle class families are now able to afford more and more and are living better lives. I am sure that IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Re: Re: Its a movie, not a documentary
by anand natarajan on Feb 19, 2009 03:17 PM
Ms.Kalyanaraman,
Please dont confuse a commecial venture with a films division documentary of the yore!Why Danny Boyle? Why dont you ask the Bollywood Baadshahs to produce movies on the subjects of "thriving middle class of India" which are authentic and belivable without resorting to sundry formulas/pelvic thrust as dance and iced with crass comedy! I would love to know you success ratio in this quest!I think what is galling to the so called opponents of SM is that a Englishman has exposed the underbelly of India. I am sure had some Indian made the same movie the bile level would have been much lesser/nonexistant!(Mani Ratnam/Nayagan pls note)
Exploitation!!!! As if it does not exist in India! Let us all stop living in denial. Afterall wasnt it another Englishman Sir Richard Attenborough who actually introduced Gandhi to us all over again and go beyond lip service to ahimsa and public holiday on 2nd october!!!
Re: Re: Re: Its a movie, not a documentary
by Darshana Kalyanaraman on Feb 20, 2009 07:29 AM
Go check your facts Mr. natarajan. Bollywood films portraying the thriving middle-class and their urban lifestyle not only exist; they are no longer a novelty. Life...in a Metro was one of the first to set the trend, and was followed by films like Saas Bahu aur Sensex. These are sensible, realistic movies without the 'pelvic thrusts' you describe.
Mr. Natarajan, rather than explaining why Boyle doesn't make a more balanced film, you respond by asking 'Why Boyle? Why not the baadshah's?' etc.
What you've given me is not an ANSWER to my question, but a counter-question.
Why indeed, can Western directors like Boyle make a film on the growth that is witnessed in India? Simple; it would mean accepting that a third-world, 'slumdog'-country may actually become as good as them if not better, and that too in the next century itself. And that gives most Westerners an uncomfortable feeling.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a movie, not a documentary
by Adrian Matthews on Apr 01, 2010 05:40 AM
Can't speak for Mr. Boyle, but it is commonly accepted at least amongst the parts of British society I am a part of that the future belongs to China and India (hopefully not in that order).
