“Man bites ‘Slumdog’”

March 12, 2009 at 2:18 pm

On the way to see “Slumdog Millionaire” in Kolkata, I had my cabdriver pass through the slum district of Tangra. I lived there more than 35 years ago, when I was in my late teens, but the place has barely changed. The cab threaded a maze of narrow lanes between shacks built from black plastic and corrugated metal. Scrawny men sat outside, chewing tobacco and spitting into the dirt. Naked children defecated in the open, and women lined up at the public taps to fetch water in battered plastic jerry cans. Everything smelled of garbage and human waste. I noticed only one difference from the 1960s: a few huts had color TVs . . .

I think it’s safe to say that I’m obsessed with any kind of writing related to “Slumdog Millionaire.” More than two weeks after viewing the film, I still haven’t developed a full argument on what I thought of it, but in the meantime, read this great piece written by Sudip Mazumdar for Newsweek.

Related Posts

Posted in film/television, sociology 101
Tags: ,
Comment (RSS)  |  Trackback
  • http://nycseoultokyo.com Nia

    I think the most interesting thing about the film is the way it’s been received. People are over-estimating it too much and it calls for frequent responses. Slumdog is a film and simply that. It’s a fairy tale, movie magic at it’s best, and audiences are confusing that with reality.
    I really like Mazumdar’s piece it reminds you that a movie is a movie so don’t get it twisted.

    Reply

    Amy Reply:
    March 16th, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    I differ vastly with you on this point. Just because it has all the essential story-telling elements does not mean at all that there is no reality to it. I don’t know what Danny Boyle and co. have said about what their purpose of the film is, but if all they want to do with this really sad story about the slums of Mumbai is to fairy-tale it up, then they’re glorifying things that they have no right to be glorifying.

    I don’t buy that “Slumdog is a film and simply that” because that’s an irresponsible statement. It diminishes all the problems that are at large with the poverty that goes on in India and the millions of lives that it affects. It may not be a completely accurate representation of reality but it for sure represents some part of it, and to neglect that is condescending.

    Reply

  • http://nycseoultokyo.com Nia

    P.S.
    I think it’s safe to say I’m obsessed with any kind of thing regarding Slumdog as well. Could it be Dev Patel? Could it be Danny Boyle? bwahaha

    Reply

  • http://nycseoultokyo.com Nia

    I think you’ve misunderstood what I was saying and I’m resenting being called irresponsible and condescending.

    I think you see the film as something that I clearly do not. For me, It is not a portrait of slum life in India. It is not an encyclopedia entry on the growth of Mumbai. As much as it may disturb, the film is about a boy named Jamal and how he becomes a millionaire for the love of his life, the rest is prominent but not what the movie is about. Of course, there is a reason that the film is set where and when it is, we could ask the author of Q and A about that, but Slumdog is not the be all end all of films depicting slum life in India.

    My saying that Slumdog is a film and simply that is not neglecting in anyway the fact that slums in India exist, it doesn’t deny the partial reality of the film, it doesn’t diminish the strife of the poor in India, nor does it lessen the anger at the fact that these things are, as Mazumdar mentioned, allowed to exist. It did, however, push me to do actual research on the reality of what was going on, not depend on Slumdog because that would be irresponsible. The response to the film is the most interesting thing because it produces arguments like this one. I stand by my statement that the film is simply a film, because I don’t feel that recognizing that erases the fact that the world Slumdog is based on is very real.

    Reply

    Amy Reply:
    March 16th, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    You’ve lost me. Maybe our takes on what “the film is simply a film” means is very different. To me, by saying that a film is just a film, it means that the viewer doesn’t have to look deeper into anything that the movie is saying. They should just take it as a form of entertainment and not question anything that the film is presenting.

    But with the example you’ve given — the fact that you’ve been driven to research on the realities of what’s going on — is already an instance in which it’s not just a film. I’m not saying that DB and co. are some sort of social motivators and they, by some power of their artistic vision motivated people to do research, but if they only wanted their film to be any regular ol’ film, they could have produced something else that wasn’t as thought-provoking.

    And how would the film not be a portrait of slum life in India? Because it’s glorifying slum life? What I most definitely did get away from watching the film is that yes, it is a story based on one fictional boy who has one fictional love and who had one fictional brother and had a load of fictional luck. But the backdrop of all those fictional elements are ABSOLUTELY key to his existence, and to ignore it just for the sake of storytelling is not something I can do.

    I’m really, really sorry for insinuating that you were irresponsible or condescending because I know you’re not. But I stand by my argument that anybody who comes away from this movie thinking NOTHING of the social backdrop than it as being a pure piece of entertainment are being irresponsible and condescending, even if they don’t mean to be. Because if they get nothing of social importance from this film, then they can afford to be in a position to not care. They don’t feel that the elements in this movie affect them.

    I’m not saying that in order for someone to “care” about the film they have to go and research the historical and political implications of the poverty of the Mumbai slums, but to laugh heinously at jokes that are not meant to be funny or to diminish the problems in the movie because they’re in a position to deem the problems as “less real” is fucking condescending and it is something that goes against what I live, breathe, and believe in as a student.

    Reply

«
»