Thursday, January 15, 2009

The Indian slum wins, again!

Yet another movie made about India by a western film-maker. This one of course wins an award: - if my memory serves me right, and the western news channel that I sometimes watch has got it right (they don't often get it right, especially social and political news concerning 'exotic' countries), the award was the "Golden Globe."

In what category did this particular movie win? There! you got me! This I can't say - the news channel I happened to be watching at that particular moment ran through the list of winners, and soon after, I entered a narcolpetic state and revived just in time to hear that a certain movie called the 'Slumdog Millionaire' had won the award under a 'certain' category.

Apparently Mr. Amitabh Bachchan, the noted Bollywood actor, and who is considered by some in India as an Indian relic far more valuable than a pottery or sculptor excavated from the Mohenjo Daro site, rankled quite a few nerves by criticising the Slumdog Milionaire's (henceforth referred to as 'Slum' ) win in his blog. How do I know this? Because it said so in the Times of India (TOI), January 14, 2009. And who would know the Bollywood and Hollywood news better than the TOI.


There are many newspapers and news channels in India that hold distinction in specific categories - just like there are so many categories under which a movie can win a Golden Globe or the Oscars. I peruse these channels for their specific strengths. For example, when its a Sunday, and I'm feeling particularly Christian, and would like to take a swipe at other faiths, I visit the CNN-IBN. When its news on how India's elitist are entertaining themselves, and whether the Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie is planning to eject another child out into this already resource-starved planet, its the TOI. When I want to irrate the spouse with hysterical, high-pitched, ear-grating sounds, that sound like something emitted from a far-away galaxy, I switch to Barkha Dutt from the NDTV.

But I digress. Back to Mr. B's criticisms, purported to be in his blog, as reported by TOI. [No one can say that I haven't given due credit to the sources].


If 'Slumdog Millionaire' projects India as Third World dirty underbelly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky underbelly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations," Amitabh said in a posting on his blog on Wednesday from Paris, France. "It's just that the 'Slumdog Millioanire' idea authored by an Indian and conceived and cinematically put together by a westerner, gets creative global recognition," he added.
There have been overwhelming response from the TOI readers to his comments. Well, to the many that defend 'Slumdog Millionaire' and attack Mr. B's criticisms, on the grounds that the 'bad and bleak' exist in Mumbai and thus deserve to be exposed to the outside world, I say, the 'good and bright' also exist in Mumbai (and whole of India), but how come these NEVER get portrayed by western film-makers? Every western film-maker is only interested in typecasting India, and the Indian, in a narrowly constrained role - perpetually one of the lovable Beggar! I'm frankly tired of this rehashing of the same (exotic, poverty) 'junk' by western film-makers. The western film industry has been doing this for the last 50 years, and shows no sign of abating. Can we now see some real creativity from the western film-makers please?

It's no wonder I stick mostly to watching Cary Grant, Rock Hudson & Doris Day movies from the fifties and sixties from Hollywood. At least, no one can say these movies were made deliberately with one eye on an award. They were simply good old fashioned entertainment that, none too surprisingly, continue to survive to this day, and end up as collector's item on every movie buff's shelf. Despite all the 'slumdogs' surrounding these classics, and inspite of them.

My consolation is that, a few years from now, no one will ever know, or remember, or care about the 'Slum', nor bother to pick up a copy even when the DVD is marked down to a dollar and a half. It will remain sadly buried deep in a pile of DVDs, at the electronic section of your local department store, among the Claude Van Damms and Steven Segals, and those inexhaustable BBC adaptations of the English classics, begging to be yours at a throw-away price. But even you, who is known for shopping thriftly and generally will wait patiently for a couple of months for the movie to be released in DVD, and a few more years after that for it be marked down to one-fourth price, will give it a pass as you reach instead for Beethoven 3, for a laugh at the humongous dog that drools and slobbers at everything.