Why do indians hate slumdog millionaire

The criticism is very appropriate. I think two out of three isn't bad. The audience is on the edge of their seats when watching it and it does give people a jolt when they see the poverty and violence in the movie.

Purely for those 2 reasons - its a brilliant work of artistic expression. I really hope Rahman wins the Oscar. The world will then finally take interest in his other, much more enjoyable soundtracks. Bombay Dreams has been the only representation of his work to the western world, which is quite a tragedy!

The movie is just not as great as it is made out to be. The portrayal of a British accented English speaking former slum kid spending most of his life in search of a girl he met for a few days when he seven year old is laughable. Sandeep Chandra, Buffalo, USA I am amazed at the varied reactions ranging from good to bad to ugly to apt to excellent.

Soutik you compare it Satya, but have you seen Aamir? One could identify more with the underbelly of Bombay in this film. I do hope there is some mechanism the financers will put into place to give the slum dwellers more opportunity and a chance to improve their lives.

Both bad and good publicity only contributes to jingling cash registers. They now owe a debt to that society. I watched the film yesterday with a friend and both of us were looking at our watches half way through the film! A complete disappointment. Anna, London Why is the assumption that Boyle is trying to imitate Bollywood?

He is telling a story that the vast majority in Bollywood ignore, but in his own style - that is why he is nominated and not anyone in Bollywood. Also I don't think the point was to sell slum children as happy-go-lucky, but that people in constantly dire circumstances do whatever it takes to survive both physically and mentally. Can you imagine if these people never had a moment of joy esp children? The human spirit must find whatever small amount of joy it can, else the mind will wither.

Rocky, USA I agree the critical praise this film has received is perhaps beyond the expectation of even the makers themselves, but I don't see how anyone could watch it and not feel gripped and satisfied. The pace is perfect and avoids the sense that it is a series of vignettes that it in fact is. On political level, perhaps the film should have gone one way or another- exploring the daily suffering which quite patently exists in poverty stricken regions the world over, or alternatively portrayed a fantastical world much like the traditional Bollywood epic; but this is only on reflection, well after the stewards have cleared the empty popcorn cartons.

I know some Indians have criticised the "west's view of Indian poverty", which is a shame given the need for India to answer these questions and not to presume that gentrification benefits all.

When all is said and done, watch the film and you will enjoy every minute. I also thought the movie was very mediocre in its presentation of an otherwise great story. The script and dialogues were very erratic and something about the casting and performance left a sense lets me to believe it was a half-hearted attempt.

The film exposes our billion rupee "panhandling business" or industry , if I may say so, however Soutik makes a fleeting reference. Soutik does miss on Indian accent".

Dev Patel kudos to his performance did not have a typical Indian accent, which Dan Boyle should have had ensured, in case he was hoping for an Oscar. Saurabh Shukla and Irfan Khan was at their usual best and needed a mention.

Soutik conveniently forgets them. Finally, what is wrong if a Caucasian wants to benefit from India's poverty when "intellectuals" like Satyajit Ray could do it and get away with it In the past, Mira Nair and Deepa Mehta have shot to fame, having successfully dealt with some of the "best kept secrets of a year old culture" namely child abuse, treatment of widows, racial discrimination, without being denigrated by the Indians.

I fail to understand Soutik's vilification. Does it stem from the fact that a "firinghee" , instead of an Indian, has successfully portrayed life in 21st century Mumbai and India where poverty, hope, aspiration, gangs, lack of basic sanitation and technology cohabit successfully?

Probal, Canada I am not sure that Mr Biswas makes a coherent point here. He seems to be saying, only Indians can make kitschy Indian films, and then ends on a nationalist rant where he lists Indian movies that are better then Slumdog.

While I do not disagree that Slumdog is an inferior movie, in this article Mr Biswas completely fails to explain why he believes that this is the case. To be honest, I cant seem to understand the 'greatness' of the Slumdog Millionaire as I and many other Indians can any day confirm that there are at least a hundred Bollywood films that are much better and more Oscar or globe' deserving.

One just has to follow the elder brother and his friends to see what a more likely outcome for a slum dweller is. The younger brother's story is just Cinderella to draw in the audience. If that gets the escapists to see the girt of the slum, even for a few moments, so be it.

Ray et al for all their film craft are not seen by the multitude. Harry Coomer, USA The answer is simple, its a good movie not great and not a masterpiece, its not even in the top 20 movies of the year, much less best picture. Gautam , USA Thank you! I have been making the same point with my friends. Either way you look at it, it's a mediocre movie. Hindi cinema has so many better movie than this in last two years itself. From Hollywood's point of view, the film simply have too many factual and plausibility issues that it shouldn't even be considered for an award.

They seem to be giving the movie a handicap that it does not deserve. I was struck with unwanted GG and now Oscar nominations. If it was not made in English nobody would even think of nominating it for a Foreign Film Oscar because most Indian have seen these scenes over and over again in Bollywood.

I have lived in Bombay and frankly poverty has never been so stylish! Mufaddal Photographer, India That's entertainment I am certain the same could be said for India. Poverty is a spiritual condition Sorry you did not like the film, but I am certain that this will give the developed world a better feel of the poverty in India.

After all, what is wrong with a film that shows hope? Bollywood has made much better movies portraying poverty and the Underworld. I hope Benjamin Button wins best picture, as it truly deserves. Adnan, Pakistan I recently spent a week in Mumbai, for the first time, the images in Slumdog Millionaire are eerily similar to what I saw.

Boyle was only depicting what an Indian writer had put on paper, so what is the problem. I think it is unfair; probably sour grapes an Englishman can depict realism of slum life of Mumbai. The review is unfair, I enjoyed the film and the images had lasting impact on me. Why cant Indian film maker make this kind of film.

Basically Bollywood is nepotism, only untalented star sons and daughters get break. Mannie, UK I get the feeling that its not a fact of "poverty selling", more the fact that Danny Boyle showed it as it is. The facts are facts, there are an astounding number of impoverished people in India, and hiding them from the camera lens will not do anything to help rise them out of their situation. As an Indian-American, I've had to answer to friends and tell them, yes, there are poor people and yes there is a level of religious and ethnic discord in the country; however I also mention that with economic progress, the situation is improving exponentially.

In the movie, the main character even says "Bombay had become Mumbai," and showed the large amount of development that had taken place where the old slums used to be. If anything, he showed the progress that was being made, and where as a society India could improve. It doesn't shirk the reality of Mumbai, nor does it dwell on it - it is a fairytale - but a well told one.

And as for "stereotypes of Read Simon Beaufoy's essay following the Mumbai terror attacks in the Guardian. A movie is meant to dramatise. The need for commercial success requires slickness.

But isn't this a reality? Isn't India's middle and upper class grossly apathetic of the poor? This movie reminds us of gory realities in an entertaining way and should be mandatory viewing especially for Indian children from middle and upper classes. Dr Archana Raheja, United Kingdom I think this is the only 'positive' film I've seen so far on the slums in Mumbai, and makes me proud as an Indian that the film has received so much recognition. Growing up in Mumbai, you cannot help but notice the plight of the people living in these poverty-stricken areas.

I loved Slumdog for showing me the light, colourful, romantic side of being a slum dweller. Soutik Biswas, unfortunately, belongs to the now more popular category of Indian journalists who believe in hiding all ugly facets of Indian society. As much as it hurts, we need to rid India of poverty and confront this issue, rather than ignore it completely.

It is just a movie and not a social documentary which you seems to be imagining. What is wrong if the western movie makers want to depict poverty. Don't forget they also show India's palaces. They show what is novelty for them just as Indian directors show the gloss of West making movies in Switzerland, London, Miami etc. Just enjoy the movie for what it is. Rajeev, USA Soutik Biswas makes very tendentious conclusions from a subjective starting point; that his failure to be 'moved' by Slumdog Millionaire is evidence "that globalisation has largely failed to make cultures understand each other better".

Fine, Mr Biswas did not like the movie, but to conflate his own personal lack of 'being moved' with such sweeping generalisations reflects more on his own prejudices than the strengths of the movie as a piece of cinematic art, or the ability of cinema to cross cultures and be a natural cosmopolitan form.

Soutik Biswas, in playing the 'culture' card displays a provincialism and insularity that is at odds with the reality of the movies origin. It is, after all, based on a novel by the Indian writer Vikas Swarup, and has been adapted by a screenwriter and director who saw the universal narrative contained in it. Is Mr Biswas saying that every film maker must live in a box of his own nominal culture? Danny Boyle's movie is shamelessly romantic and populist, but it is also a movie informed by the reality and tensions of modern day Indian society and it does not flinch from training its gaze on them in the way that the most escapist Bollywood fare does regarding some of these issues.

Furthermore, Ritwik Ghatak and Satyajit Ray were both lauded around the world for their movies, so to claim that 'the West' did not recognise their work is simply wrong. Ray was lauded in Cannes and Venice and received a lifetime achievement award from the Oscars.

Jay Singh I really agree with Mr Biswas. This movie is just another Bollywood movie! Rahman certainly did an excellent job in his composition of music. The story appeared to be unrealistic! I was amazed by the awards from Golden Globe. It is exactly what my brother and I thought of the film. Wonder what the response will be like by India's public after the film's release there tomorrow. Procheta Mallik, UK Just could not agree more with you. You hit the nail on the head.

Mudit, United Kingdom Not only was the film banal, but Danny Boyle shows some very weird scenarios with the character of the TV show host- that character which is cruel without purpose in the film and a very unrealistic portrait.

You have the audience of this TV show who laugh at the contestant for being "just a chaiwalla" DB is trying to get away with portrait of common Indians as social morons. Diappointed, UK Agreed. This film is not any better than Satya. I guess the title of the film is very demeaning and demoralising. I wonder if Danny has even been to the slums in Bombay or Mathare Kenya.

Vishal Patel, UK I agree with Biswas on many points especially "AR Rahman fully deserves his Globe - if the film can deserve so many - but Slumdog is obviously not his greatest soundtrack.

Had this movie not been a English movie, I bet my life that Rehman would not have got an award at all. That shows how Golden Globe or Oscars treat real talent. Satya Gorthy, UK Its a film that shows the true face of India and conditions that the majority of its population live in. Its a problem that the new middle classes of India want to ignore. I probably would have enjoyed it more if not for all the hype and the fact that it was so predictable. I am easy moved by sentimentally in films, yet by the end of this film, I found I didn't have any emotional attachment to any of the characters.

The first half of the film was excellent, but the second half dragged to the point I couldn't wait for the film to end. Like Titanic, this is a film where you know what's going to happen in the end and by the end you don't really care who it happens to. Also, like Titanic, it's received awards it doesn't deserve. Its laden with hyperbole and irrelevance mostly for positional posturing while exploiting the easiest view a critic can assume, the 'hip to hate' view.

When other hype, drag it down. For me its just a film, well made and not the 'feel good movie' we are all told it is. If the critics go overboard have a go at them not the film maker. Scott Fitzpatrick, UK Soutik, thanks for the article. But personally I think this writing is rather spawned from bitterness, that perhaps it has taken the work of a northern Englishman, rather than an Indian to unite both Western and Hindi audiences.

Your comparison between this piece and City of God is majorly flawed, as the two films are entirely different genres. At the end of the day Danny had to compromise over certain issues, due to the fact he knew his secondary audience would have an emotional attachment to the locale. Had he hammered Mumbai in the same way as the locations used in 'City of God', there would be uproar and alienation.

Ten Oscar nominations!? The story is ridiculous, implausible and improbable. Mumbai looks a dreadful place, and despite the colour and the accomplished editing, acting especially the young children and film-making, I can't believe people live in this awful way. As a feel good film it fails - rape, murder, prostitution, racial hatred, greed, child torture, the solution to problems through death and mutilation are hardly feel good. The pantomime like dance routine at the end lifts the spirit but fails to hide the fact that the film is complete tosh.

Don't believe the hype. Richard, UK Interesting comments, but I take issue with the fact that you are squarely pinning the problem on Boyle. What about the screenwriter? He actually visited the slums and inhaled in all its ingredients to come up with something that he felt was authentic.

I thought the script was wonderful despite the minor contrivances. Simon Beaufoy did a marvellous job with it. Dharmesh, England I'm a journalist who has been all over the world and seen a lot of poverty. Your review is thoughtful and well-written--and I've seen the other movie references you refer to--but calling this heartfelt film "a slick, uplifting MTV docu-drama" goes too far. What you forget is that the vast majority of film goers in these precarious times aren't interested in "gut-wrenching portrayals of the horrors The editing in this film is excellent and keeps the watcher entertained.

And the movie shows enough of the realities of the Indian slums to stick with filmgoers who will remember it afterwards. Down the road they will continue to be conscious of others' misfortunes rather than pushing what they have seen out of their minds.

THAT is an accomplishment while the other movies you mention will languish in the archives of film history A stunning epic like Mughal-e-Azam hardly made news, while a boring Satyajit Ray was trumpeted as an all-time great! Slumdog Millionaire is being hyped because it shows the stereotypical image of India in the West - a dirty, poor country with naked people, where the common man lives in inflated hope.

I am not denying that these things exist in India, but what would you think if a string of Indian film makers made films on the USA and only focus their cameras on drug abuse, robberies, prostitution and the rough-sleeping homeless, while consistently underplaying the positives of its wealth, technology and freedom?

The very use of the word Bollywood that is popular in the West has an intrinsic demeaning slant. The truth is, proper Indian films are still not recognised in the West!

Anurag Pathak, India "But a clever telling of the story cannot hide the banality of it. The clever retelling of an old theme 'love conquers all' is rare and difficult. Throw in other commonplace themes like 'destiny', 'loyalty', and 'morality' and that's pretty much any great film in the history of cinema. The author is completely entitled to his opinion. But, as a student of film, I'd have to voice mine - it is ALL about the story telling.

These common themes will always be explored in films, forever. But, it takes a great filmmaker to carry it off as fresh and new. No need to be a snob, Slumdog is not a threat to Bollywood! This film is all about fusion; I feel very strongly that it opens doors and builds bridges across cultures, which is never a bad thing. Art without evolution is dead. As for the music, I think it's exceptional. But perhaps, as a year-old, that's a generation thing? Rosalyn, UK Excuse me? Why do we go to the cinema??

To be entertained Isn't James Bond without a story line?? But it was still enjoyable How many Europeans or Americans watch Bollywood films? Almost none Those I've seen, I've enjoyed tremendously. This film is also entertaining, enjoyable all the way through and not made to represent a comparison with Bollywood If we wanted to watch a documentary, we would choose a different film. Surely that's what cinema is all about?

Funky story-telling cannot hide banality. I guess the sensation lies in the fact that a brilliant story-teller like Boyle Trainspotting was quite brilliant has tried to get his hands dirty in mainstream Bollywood. That already strikes a chord in Western media, more so for focussing on poverty and slum-life which the West relishes to see devours ravishingly.

Sometimes police beat him up, he said. And several times gangs have attacked him and stolen what little he has. 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. Homemaker Lakshmi Nagaraj Iyer, 26, said she had trouble with the get-rich-quick premise.

All Sections. About Us. I liked it for it reminded me of what I myself had seen hazily, while passing through dharavi, or while travelling by local trains or yeah while landing in mumbai. Oh yes, I still recollect the stench. Yes, some of the scenes may have been been over-emphasized, the plot contrived, and the twists hard-to-digest, but then how else would an underdog triumph? My sentiments exactly. Boyle is not obliged to be politically correct and have his characters make statements about how great the rest of Mumbai is, right?

Although, as sirensongs points out, he does show the call centers and the new real estate developments.. I agree. Why this sudden urge to show all possible angles of Mumbai? Have even people in Mumbai seen all angles or lives lived in Mumbai? Where was the poverty angle of India in those movies? But that was because I though the lead actors were stiff as hell. I think the other disconcerting aspect of the movie is that english speaking bit — as an indian you watch and you get a mental disconnect right there.

I think also there is an element of outside-in portrayal which one will not find in movies like say, chandni bar or salaam bombay — which again jars. India just like China is a big rabbit club expecting the world to sing songs of praises about the complexities and uniqueness of India.

How many foreign movies and not Hollywood movies based on realities of life do Indians watch? Every country will have something they are not proud of. India has poverty. Face it and deal with it. Promote family planning or better still have a one child policy which will minimise poverty which in turn will make sure that India will have less chances of being shown in the wrong light. A lot of Indians feel the same way about foreigners knowing about our slums.

Hey, to be fair, the movie does not tag all Indians, or even all slum kids as slumdogs; it is just an epithet that one Indian character uses on the hero..

However it is true that you need to treat really serious themes holocaust, bosnia etc to win awards. Boy meets girl themes rarely fetch awards. The movie did depict modern, middle-class, glass-front India- I remember finding the scenes in the flat-screen TV bungalow with security guard such a contrast with the slum scenes. The film does show that India has and is changing. The call centre scenes were also filled with educated, well-dressed middle class youth.

The usually well-meaning artist is unfairly expected to redress every mis-representation of the topic that has occurred throughout the centuries, all in one two-hour film, 30 minute sitcom or page book. You are right, Boyle does show the call centers and high rise apartments, the bungalows with security guards and whatnot.

You are right that no Indian director would face such an expectation if he were to make such a movie.. An Indian Director would in my opinion be more focussed on the storyline and would be more concerned with the message and would not focus unneccessarily to show the trash and dirt in the Slums!

The truth however, is that the people of dharavi didnt find it great to have their life portrayed on the screen. That is what counts. It doesnt matter what middle class indians think about it. The slumdogs didnt like it- oscar or otherwise. Even if some people in dharavi protested, I doubt they spoke for all of Dharavi. No, no one stops you from saying it but i guess cinema is all about entertainment isnt it? After all it is not the fault of the people in Dharavi that the infrastructure is so bad out there.

I totally agree with the Fact that the people of Dharavi Must have not at all liked the Movie as this was not them and it was more like danny boyle was trying to justify the name! Pingback: Why does everything have to be about poverty? Sounds like a plan, no? I too have mixed feelings on the patriotism that verges on jingoism I see in some young Indians. Rather than railing at people for daring to point out what needs to be fixed? I also thought you will find this a tangential but amusing read.

I think we like democracy and free market only as long as our own preferences are reflected in the outcomes. As far as the broader global market is concerned, it is a stellar piece and so be it. I remember reading that WaPo article last year? Revathi that is simply not true.

This is just one article that explains how much kids who have lived in slums enjoyed the movie. I have read several articles identical to this. Ok I was wrong then. I heard that it simply didnt have the same kind of reception like say, a bollywood winner.

As you already said, SDM is nice movie but we had much better in past or present. But never the less, I will never understand why people are so blind and mad for oscars. As already discussed above, its a nice movie….. No matter what, Life works in India. Plus, movie can easily be framed as biased if one has read the book. Reference to: Real India and Real America comment scene. I agree too — why do Indians feel the need for an Oscar nod? Why do we believe the Oscars are the last word for every film in the world, instead of just American films?

It is natural. Like winning the nobel prize. Even super powers like america would love to have the nobel — given by a nobody like the king of sweden. So if a certain prize has a reputation, it is natural that everyone aspires for it.

A filmmaker is not responsible to showcase a city. Get over it people. Your post made me finally break and write a post on this over-discussed movie!

Could you please let me know whom do you refer to as Indians in the title of this topic? As far as I know I hv not seen any body disliking the movie and I am pretty sure they are Indians….. Well, then, let me point you to this news report and this one. As far as I can see, the box office collection just goes to prove that Indians dislike Slumdog Millionaire. Yes, Indians clearly dislike Slumdog. When have box office collections determined Oscar winners? So your example is not a good rebuttal to a valid point of the chasm that sanjay mentioned.

Some stories are about poor people, some stories are about rich people, some stories are realistic and others are utter fantasy.

I thought Slumdog Millionaire was thoroughly entertaining, inspiring…and fictional. We have poverty and violence here in the United States, too; such injustice is not unique to India.

This can be a sensitive subject. Thanks for your comments. Who would take a picture of a slum child, whom they do not even know? Perhaps some do it, but I find that to be extremely inappropriate! As a western American Telugu speaker. I have stayed for a long time in Hyderabad and briefly visited parts of north India Agra, New Delhi,Jaipur, Amritsar I only hope that most western people can see how this movie is not representative of India as a whole, but only parts of India are like that.

Certainly Mumbai is a beautiful city, besides the slums. I feel like some ignorant people will take away a negative stereotype, but hopefully this movie will spark another Indian inspired movie that is more like Chak De India or even Bommarillu. I do agree that poor sells in America, which is sad. Perhaps after this movie, someone will be inspired to show a different side of India. So that the ignorant do not take a way a skewed typical third world image.

I know somebody from Europe who passed out at the back of the taxi when driving through Dharavi. He still goes to India regularly on work but avoids slums as far as possible. Just because some outsider decides that he wants to hold up a mirror, Indians are not obligated to look into it.

Nobody bought it. I guess Madhur Bhandarkar or Vishal Bharadwaj were never invited to the national mirror holding meetings. The outsiders,as we call them, will then not be able to show us whats not there!! I hope this will be a positive step towards eradicating poverty.

In Mumbai, you have the richest man in the world and the poorest person in the world co-existing side by side, which is a shame.

If we think we make good movies, why do we need the Oscars to validate them? Oscars are taken seriously by the film fraternity and i can undestand why. The key is services, technical services in the film industry.

Huge money defintely capable of increasing the standadrd of life of many of the technicians in our film industry. Like somebody said in a earlier comment, Slumdog is a fast paced slickly edited film which uses some the harsh realities of india as a backdrop to tell a story with a positive outcome.

Personally I feel Danny boyle used the back drop that would sell the most to his target audience and he hit bulls eye, it generated enough controversy and along wth it pulled the audience to see the film, he is laughing all the way to the bank.

It is foolish to think that he had an agenda greater than making a good film and he used all his creative juices to come up with a relaistic story. That does not mean everybody should necessarily like it, My issue is, there seems to be a common thread that anybody who does not like the film is denying the harsh realities of india, which is the B.

S that i take offence with. I dont deny the existence of such harsh realities but why pay good money to see something that is right there in front of you.

When i go to a movie i dont want to see any body jumping into a shitpot , indian, caucasian or otherwise. It simply adapts Bollywood formulas for a western audience.

If you want to see a piece of true Indian genius, watch the Apu Trilogy by Satyajit Ray, the first movie especially. It easily surpasses SM in its eloquent depiction of poverty. SM has covered ground that has been covered before. In SM we see Jamal being tortured by policemen and given shocks, his mother killed by Hindus in riots, him eking out an existence at a huge garbage dump living under a tent, gangsters masquerading as running an adoption center picking up vulnerable children and forcing them to beg, blinding them and selling them into prostitution, the elder brother getting into a life of crime, getting drunk on power….

I find this potrayal of India rather negative and worn. Talking about poverty and India is old. Yeah, it sure does have some positive, fun parts like Jamal and Salim making money by being tour guides and this and that, and Jamal ends up being a chai-wallah and then he wins the game show.

But is the story or even just the last bit plausible? The film was melodramatic, and uses Bollywood formulas to tug at heart strings. Look at all these emotional, crazy twists and turns in the plot, like Jamal finding the love of his life, his brother Salim doing one last good deed, and her falling into his arms at the end of the film. The whole good things-bad things twists and turns is, atleast I feel, a sort of formula.

Also, for Indians the slums and the life there is nothing new, but for the West its novel. This is minor, but it feels rather weird, when the film suddenly shifts from Hindi to English. Hearing perfect English from Jamal and Salim feels odd. I also dislike the title. My point is, the film is ok, its average, but whatever it is, it definitely does not deserve the attention and awards it has garnered. I agree the film is average, and there have been many better Indian movies more deserving of awards and attention.

He was very offended by the portrayal of the slum and viewed it as a racist depiction of India. A few years back, I visited a family friend in Bangalore, a cardiologist.

He told of being quite upset when a young Indian-American journalist, the daughter of another friend came to do a story for the Wall Street Journal about the plight of the poor of Bangalore in the face of the high-tech boom. He wanted to know why she was more interested in their story than the positive story of Bangalore. Another thing I wonder about is whether those who resents the movie were educated to believe in their heroic nation-saving qualities and feel that these kinds of movies quite graphically shovel their failure in their faces.

But my point is, unless we even start with accepting that there is enormous poverty in our midst, how are we going to do anything about it?

I liked the movie. I did not think it was Oscar-worthy, although I am sure Americans found the experience quite exotic and fascinating. I think on the whole Indians those who are complaining are jealous and cannot withstand the fact that a film on India made by a foreigner has garnered such tributes.

If there are any people so ignorant and impressionable as to come away with an opinion of an entire country based on parts of one movie, I wonder why we have to worry about the opinions of such people?

Great post. I think Danny Boyle hit it on the head in his recent Time interview. The poverty is there in the movie, sure, but it is not the theme of the movie. The theme of the movie is the vitality of the Indian people, and that screams through. The colors, the music, the gorgeous kids. I believe thats what made this movie a winner last night. Instead, it captured the essence of the country in a way Lagaan never did. I agree, it is certainly perceived at least in the US as a feel good movie, as a positive spin on what someone even from the lowest economic strata can achieve…and there is the exotic Bollywood appeal..

I am less sure of whether Slumdiog, or any movie can capture the essence of India, but certainly this tries to make sense of India. Slumdog is the worst movie to represent Indian film industry. Infect it was foreign film shot in India with use of some Indian baggers as a cast. Western world always want to see India as a poor country and all they came to India for focusing poverty. Even baggers in India has their OWN slum Zopda but in developed country, govt give them houses and support them.

Excellent piece of music he gave. I live in outside India from last 4 years but still I support Indian film industry not British film based on just Indian poverty shot in India. Hume koi certificate nahi chaiye ki hamari films acchi hai. We knew it anyway.

I wonder why we have to care so much for an Oscar seal of approval anyway? Why do we believe that any single movie represents all of Indian filmdom? Why do we feel that Slumdog represents the Indian film industry, even while refusing to consider Slumdog as an Indian movie, calling it a British movie instead?

They could have just said they asked 3 Indians for their opinion. Calling them experts spoils the whole article..

I was passing through these blogs and i found this interesting discussion. Majority of them do agree that the film is good, but do believe its over the top about the potrayal of poverty. Although there are many real deserving poor people who needs help.

No one who has grown up in India or been in India for an extended period of time, can escape it. I mean as you touch down the runway you see all the JJ colonies besides the airport. Give me a break. I seriously think we need indians need to stop this whole INdia shining, india gaining thing and gird our loins and get to work. Mukundan, I agree we are de-sensitized by our constant exposure to poverty in India; that is the only way we can survive without falling into depression.

I also agree that while we have made some progress, we still have a long way to go, so the patting ourselves on the back is very premature.

No, no, no! This did not happen, did it? Slumdog Millionaire winning Oscar is a one, big, awful nightmare. There was a dozen of better movies made this year that beat Slumdog in a face. Why was it chosen? Because some American criers were deeply moved by a image of blind child. Wow, so lame. That is it, and that is all. Thx for reading. If you read, of course.. The issue as I see it is that Indian fans who are raving over realistic portrayal of India by a Brit, are not much knowledgeable about Indian movies that have portrayed reality.

What makes it so worthwhile? So the whole plot device of Latika watching it live on TV and hearing the phone ring and running to the car falls apart. So much for portraying reality. The redemption comes in the form of a British TV game show. As for those talking about inequality in India, maybe they should check out the wealth distribution in the US and what top percent owns what percentage of wealth. I agree, the plot has numerous holes, it is as cliched as any Bollywood movie, and poverty is not unique to India either.

Why, then, are we so touchy about a film that depicts a Mumbai slum for what it is? I think it comes down to it — the fact that the film was set in a slum, instead of showing middle class India. Thats why the movie just focussed on the Dharavi slums and not on the real Mumbai or India. Yes we admit that poverty is the big problem in our country, but there are more greener sides of India too. How dare they call them as dogs, One scene that I remember was completely shocking.. This is how it shows what the Americans really think of us.

Movies like this will eventually cause more of the Indians being victims of racisms in foreign countries. I think its completely insane to applaud this movie for winning the Oscars. Just the only good thing is Indians bagged two Oscars, thats it. In India the movie is doing not really good. So that is one good news. Is a movie supposed to show the complete India? All any movie tries to do is tell a story. Pingback: Slumdog, Indian-American movies and do we need Oscars?

The Imagined Universe. To me this story is not about the whole country but an individual for the slums made big by wining the show and over coming whatever obstacle; if let say the movie scene where not shot in India but US or UK it would mean the same because poverty is everywhere even in the UK people are suffering, but this story is about human spirit and triumph. Pingback: Slumdog Millionaire « Stuff. I do accept the poverty shown in the movie because its there. I did not like it because its not worthy of winning 8 oscars.

This movie is just like another Bollywood masala movie…. The only reason the Indian critics are hailing it is because it got the pat and approval of the west……who do not want to think of India as an upcoming nation. They just want to stereotype us and make themselves beleive that we are poor and will always remain under their shoes…. As a European, I think this focus on stereotyping as a form of indirect subjugation is silly.

What nonsense. It was a very enjoyable, entertaining film which I felt captured the complexity and diversity of experience that is India and no way tried to paint the country in a negative light. I think what makes Indians uncomfortable is that the image of poverty depicted in the film is not a fabrication — it is reality. The problem is that there is a major inferiority complex on the part of India at the moment — which is quite understandable given the relative youth of India as a modern nation-state.

I say good luck to India in its development. It is this third social aspect of advancement that India has yet to master. I completely agree it was not worth all those Oscars. It was a palatable, unchallenging film for the masses in the west — like an attempt to format bollywood elements in a hollywood structure.

Novel idea, a bit formulaic and nothing too deep. There were MUCH better films around at the time. The hero and heroine were 2-dimensional, but it was a film made for popularity, not really for any deeper artistic reasons. Also, I wonder if the director will actually make a much deeper film about India in the future. Post-colonial countries are not under the illusion that they have much power now, because its all determined by economics and china and india are massive economic power-houses that lead to large numbers of job losses in the west.

With more travel national identity is really beginning to dissolve and people are moving to where there is work. They have praised far worse. They just want to stereotype us and make themselves beleive that we are poor and will always remain under their shoes. West depicts India the way it sees it not the way it wants it to be.

India is insignificant. Sure, Africa would have brighter sides too, but they are not as visible. And why should I care? And why should I? Africa might have made some progress somewhere, but where does it stand in comparison to India? Africa is insignificant to me. That does not mean I have anything against Africa. If an African Diplomat had written a racy work of fiction about brighter side of Africa I would have made a movie about that. You contradict yourself Particle…scroll down into my comments….

I think you were a different person while writing these comments…because the others you wrote are so much more sensible…. India is insignificant?

About the consumer market of hundreds of millions: Arabs are significant because of the oil. Does that mean westerners have stopped depicting them as the medieval creatures they are? Should they? Yea that was just one example. I was just flabbergasted by your comment everywhere about how India is insignificant, India does not count etc. I am just saying India is not as insignificant as you seem to think.

I must say though that everybody like poverty porn, not just westerners. I agree with alot of people out here. Its not worth all those oscars. It was like watching a movie that went straight to a DVD. It didnt capture India and the feeling of it. It made Indians look like violent people. Which is far from the truth. When i went to India everyone was so friendly and hospitibile. That book is believable and is a more accurate version of the story.

I must admit certain things do happen in India and no one is ignoring it. Its a growing country, problems will occur but it was potrayed in a very bad light far from the book. I think the screenwriter hated India. Its a typical movie where a british person makes India look stupied and brought his colonial ways back as he made millions out of this movie.

Exploiting Indian weaknesses. Oh Poor Sarah, Feeling guilty about the past? My country IS stupid. Boyle should have concentrated on the brighter aspects of India and made something more sensible like a documentary on Indian culture or something.

If Jai Ho can win Oscar, Rehman should be bagging at least 50 oscars by now. Did you see Shwaas? The child actor was brilliant though. Interesting, entertaining, technically superb, but not oscar material. I guess i can perhaps tell what this Boyle fellow thought of.

He begged Anil Kapoor who was waiting for an international fame to come his way, got some rag pickers to work in a meagre amount in a documentary wherein he will show India in the best of light. The film started and by the end all the Indian crew just couldnt back out when they realised what was actualy happening.

And alas the film released in America …and the fairy just flicked the wand and this horrendous film became a hit. And then you could see Anil kapoor promoting his film. What else will he do apart from takin a lions share in the film or perhaps dancing at premiers. And then came the Baftas and the Oscars where all you could hear was Jai Ho. Well the question realy is that is this film really worth what a film worth being even in the category of what Titanic or Gone with the winds was of?

It is an outrageous film showing India in the poorest of light. It is like a noose around the Industry that produced films like Sholay or Deewar waiting to be hanged to death.