A WT# question comes in another one of those endless debates about poverty and ‘Slumdog Millionaire’.
Sagarika Ghose to the panelists in Face The Nation : But would the film have been such a success had it not been set in a slum and say, in a university?
Well, the title wouldn’t have made any sense firstly.
The debate has other gems by an unknown sociologist Sherry Sabharwal : My request to Danny Doyle is next time concentrate on something like a university.
So I propose we draft a list of must-have-scenes for all Western directors aspiring to make a movie in India.
Did I mention that all the panelists haven’t seen the movie yet ?
Edit : Thanks to Anorak for pointing out the missing URL.
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 20, 2009 at 12:53 am
Anorak
Hi Deepak,
Sorry to pick your brains, but where do I find a link to this Face The Nation debate?
And yes:-), the debate still continues…
January 20, 2009 at 5:59 am
Anorak
I have just seen this pointless debate. As for sociologist Sherry Sabharwal, I am going to completely dismiss her comments. Hers were typical Indian protectionist responses and she didn’t particularly come across as someone who knew what she was talking about. All I want to say to her and the likes of her is this: Poverty dekhne se spread nahi hoti!!
I am more surprised by the Rhodes Scholar and Rajdeep’s wife Sagarika Ghose. Very immature interviewing/ questioning, I thought. Also I wish she didn’t shout so much:-)
January 20, 2009 at 6:16 am
Deepak Iyer
Yeah I don’t understand why they have to shout louder than the person who is on a line from a remote location. Don’t you have the volume control with you ???? Just shut the person and continue.
This was observed a lot even during the Mumbai coverage. Everyone shouting and adding to the terror.
As for content, how did they even think of a debate between panelists and an interviewer, none of whom has seen the movie !!
January 20, 2009 at 6:49 am
Anorak
You are too right about the sheer pointless-ness of interviewing people who haven’t watched the movie yet. Same goes for Big B’s rant on his blog. He hasn’t watched the movie either, so should’ve kept his mouth zipped up. When will these people learn?
I don’t have a very good feeling about the way SM is going to be received in India. I hope I am wrong.
January 20, 2009 at 7:05 am
Deepak Iyer
I am betting all my money on protests against the movie.
Firstly, the poverty thing, then slums, then eye gouging, amputated beggars; way too real to be in our comfort zone.
And if we go past all that, we have a kid dressed as Rama amidst communal riots. This movie is doomed to run into trouble [:)]
January 20, 2009 at 7:11 am
Anorak
Well, well…we will soon find out. It comes out in India on Thursday evening to coincide with the announcement of academy awards nominations. And you bet. SM has ‘Ouch, you’ve hurt my sentiments’ written all over it!!;-)
January 20, 2009 at 11:42 am
docmitasha
I think indian journalists idolize papa bear aka bill o reilly…they should watch some colbert and get a dose of how ridiculous that loud questioning and answering really is. in fact, there’s one dude on ndtv who tries so hard to be a cross between nancy grace and bill oreilly, but i dont remember his name. he probably said it loud enough but i didnt catch it.
regarding the movie…firstly, Ha! to your comment on the title
)
secondly, I’ve about had it with the protective comments and arguments and debates and how its painting india in a bad light and what not. because, yunno, in reality of course…there are no slums. there are no beggars, forget child beggars! there are wonderful universities everywhere! and all children get educated! they are clothed and fed! how dare danny boyle portray a world that DOES NOT EXIST (lets say it loud so it masks the cries from the slums being bulldozed in delhi).
you’re right, the movie is doomed to be in trouble, to be unloved and discarded, just as salaam bombay was (at least that was made by an indian!), just as maachis was, just as so many movies that try to courageously show the underbelly were. because the easier way is to say: i wont even watch this movie because it feels like its too real but based on what other people have told me i will say that its unsuitable. how dare anyone talk about things we dont like to even think about!
I am no fan of bachchan, and seriously his arguments got me even more incensed. yes, all countries have underbellies. america does too. what is he trying to indicate…that american movies don’t show the underbelly of it society? that’s nonsense. just because there’s no big fuss and banning, and protests and panels with people who don’t watch the movie arguing against it, doesn’t mean that those movies don’t get made, are not watched, and are not appreciated by americans themselves.
i dont know if the general population in india is mature and honest enough to deal with SM, but the critics who throw this kind of protective argument definitely are not. this exists. we all live side by side with it. why don’t we face up to it and if we’re so incensed, do more to change it instead of censoring the truth?
sorry about the long post and the lack of capitalization.
January 20, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Deepak Iyer
Thanks for the detailed comment. I myself wanted to write a long post about all the ridiculousness going on in the name of SM before it released in India. You have covered most points.
Strangely a lot of the people creating the ruckus are the ones sitting in their offices in the US or India and having an opinion about how someone else should make a movie.
If I were Danny Boyle and someone came up to me and said that I should have also shown this and that in the movie, I would have smacked him in the face.
I heard someone saying on that program that SM is getting rave reviews while other movies by Western directors like Bend it like Beckham which are non-slum movies are not getting the same reviews.
Of course, it does not matter how good or bad the movie is.
January 21, 2009 at 8:29 am
docmitasha
yep, ive seen that whining about ‘why arent movies from indian directors getting the same treatment’ going around. To be honest, bend it like beckham was lapped up by the western world, and i really found that it perpetuated stereotypes much more and in a worse manner (traditional sikh family to the point of ridiculousness)…and I was no fan of it. But while it was pretty appreciated and got the lead actress big places…it was not worthy of awards. The one movie I’d say that should have gotten more than it did was Monsoon Wedding, but it was actually seen/appreciated pretty widely and I’m sure it was because of the same kind of narrow mindedness that Indians won’t proclaim it widely (since it touches on molestation etc). People are just not getting the idea that this is not about slums and no slums, its about a beautifully done movie which doesn’t shirk from a central issue…and its about HOW it was made that is getting the applause. Danny Boyle really must be just ignoring all this rubbish. ‘Selling poverty’ indeed…because Lagaan was selling cricket, of course. Just like movies like Syriana were selling terrorism and negative stereotypes about half the world. Because, you know, forbid anyone using the media as a tool to increase awareness or talk about issues! That would be travesty.
Danny Boyle really should be smacking ‘em
I think above all the media and film industry in India is just really jealous because they can’t claim any rights except with Rahman. They’re just so incensed that no one famous like Bachchan or a director they can claim hold on will benefit. Maybe Boyle even approached Bollywood but they probably shunned him away, and now they’re slapping themselves in the head. Ha!
January 23, 2009 at 8:00 am
Anorak
Deepak,
Please read on:
http://www.indopia.in/India-usa-uk-news/latest-news/485467/National/1/20/1
I TOLD YOU SO!!
January 23, 2009 at 10:56 am
Deepak Iyer
Yeah expected. As far as I know, there are 3 cases against SM.
January 23, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Nachiket
The movie in which a slum dweller chaiwallah knows Benjamin Franklin, Three musketeers and doesn’t know Satyameva Jayate!…
Its a movie in which all thats wrong in India is crammed in 2 hours and modified to suite western tastes… the quality of humour was also too cheap…the typical you-steal-our-jobs jokes played by Americans on Indians for being the call center agents…very cheap…but thats what makes a white man happy…cant help it…and yes…the most hillarious thing…a gangster who eats sandwitch with mustard sauce!
January 23, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Deepak Iyer
This is also a movie where each of the questions on a show relate to an incident in his life. Get the connection ?
Wrong but real. I could quote a million other things that are wrong with India. And a lot of positives that are shown in the movie which most ppl missed. And this is a movie whose tagline is “It is destiny” so adversity has to be present.