If you haven’t seen Slumdog Millionaire yet, I urge you to see it, either now at your local art house movie theater or eventually on DVD. It is a great movie by one of my favorite directors, Danny Boyle (28 Days Later, Sunshine, Millions). It is one of my favorite movies of 2008 and is the favorite for winning the Academy Award for Best Picture.
That being said, since Slumdog has been nominated for Best Picture and it has received almost universal acclaim from critics nationwide, a few dissenting voices have arisen, calling the movie exploitative of India’s poor and blaming it for the perpetuation of negative Indian stereotypes in the west.
Jamal, the main character, rises from the poverty-stricken slums of Mumbai and there are depictions of police torture, child mutilation and exploitation, and Indian gangsters. Some Indian critics have accused Boyle of taking these negative images of India and using them to his advantage to play on the heart strings of a western audience, to excite their emotions improperly.
Although it is true that some of the power of the movie derives from the depiction of Jamal and his brother’s surroundings as they face a hard life of child labor, crime, and fear of Hindu violence against Muslims, it is also true that the movie focuses on Jamal’s struggle to overcome these circumstances.
Personally, I don’t see a lot of Bollywood movies. In fact, I have never seen a Bollywood movie—unless you count Bend it Like Beckham, which I don’t. As a result, I don’t know what kind of image Indian filmmakers are trying to portray to western audiences. As well, I’ve never been to India, so I can’t testify as to the truth of Boyle’s depiction of India. But I do know that Boyle has said that this movie is a “love letter to India.” And in interviews, I’ve seen he has been nothing but respectful of Indian culture. (Let me note that Boyle is British.) In fact, because India does not have the strict child labor laws that are enforced in the UK and US, Boyle decided to use western-style child labor laws while shooting the child actors in the movie, in order to avoid even the suggestion of impropriety.
When was the last time you saw an American movie that depicted a person rising above their station? A victim of child abuse or poverty who grows up to make something of him or herself? This is a very common theme in western cinema, especially American cinema (In fact it is a key American mythological archetype). Maybe part of the problem lies in the idea that Indian critics do not appreciate the archetype that resonates so well with western audiences. To back this up, I have heard that at screenings in India the movie has been perceived as boring and confusing by the general population.
I don’t know. I would like to say that the film transcends time and place because it is really about the triumph of the human spirit and the will to rise about your circumstances. It is a celebration of life (both the good and the bad) that just happens to be set in India, but could have been set anywhere. But am I being culturally insensitive when I say I don’t think the movie was exploitative of Indian society?
Come Oscar night, sitting among the bowls of dip and chips on my couch, I’ll be rooting for Slumdog Millionaire to win Best Picture, for Danny Boyle to win Best Director, and for Simon Beafoy to win Best Adapted Screenplay, because—in the end—I think Boyle’s film is a superb example of what movies should be: uplifting, unflinching, visually beautiful, well written and well acted. But a small part of me will also be wondering if I’m a perpetuating cultural ignorance. I hope this is not the case.
Trailer posted below.
Have you seen Slumdog Millionaire? What did you think?
Posts
4 comments:
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I plan on doing so. And while I do live in India, I couldn't possibly tell you how accurate is the portrayal of life in the slums. But I do compliment you on looking at the movie in a positive way.
I really do want to see this movie and unfortunately I probably won't get the chance before the Ocars, but I heard nothing but positive reviews for this movie and how motivating and inspiring it is for the main character to rise above the circumstances he is in. Plus, well written article James. It was intriguing and great to hear your opinion and partisan views on this subject.
We saw this movie and really liked it as well. I had heard some of the reports about people in India being upset about it. I'm back and forth on whether I think any outrage is justified. When I came out of the theater, I didn't think the movie represented THE Indian experience/identity, but rather AN experience, and probably a conglomeration of characters and experiences rolled into one fictional depiction. I have seen other Indian films and read novels and poetry by Indian and Indian-American authors, so I took this as one of many representations. I think there are problems that arise, though, in so-called multi-cultural literature and films, just by virtue of their creation for and interaction with other cultures. One, it's hard for an artist to please both the people being represented and the people the subjects are presented to (really difficult to survive in a postcolonial world, artistically). The other problem is that it is easy for those receiving the art to become literary or cinematic tourists, thinking the "get" a culture based on one or a few limited artistic exposures to it. So if we Westerners watch the film and think, "wow, that's what it's like to be Indian and now I understand their world," we've missed the point and have too easily stereotyped the culture. But if we take it as one among many experiences and let it be the story that it is, I think we get closer to a respectful interpretation (though I think it's always hard to not jump to conclusions a little about a culture when we are exposed to it through art over personal connection). I can relate somewhat to the outrage--whenever I see Americans depicted in British television or film of the last six years or so (for the most part), I cringe and want to tell them we're not all like that. (Or worse, when I see my religion depicted so inaccurately in either mainstream media or it's own little media subculture, I cringe again, thinking people will assume that this is what I think, believe, etc.) Maybe because Slumdog is one of the first films of this proportion to come from India (getting an Oscar nod and such), people are afraid that this will be the West's first and maybe only perception and jump to the conclusion that that is what everyone is like.
You make a good point, Annalisa. I wouldn't want someone basing their entire opinion of me on one movie, I guess that's what Indian critics are afraid will happen, especially because this is the biggest Indian-based film to hit the west since the movie Ghandi. I would hope that more Americans would take your stance about the movie, that it is only one portrayal and doesn't reflect India as a whole. But I'm betting that most people who see this movie will walk away thinking that this is an accurate and complete portrayal of the entire country, which is exactly what the Indian critics are afraid of.
Post a Comment