Slumdog+Millionaire



==

As if the film “Slumdog Millionaire” hadn’t already managed to step on the toes of many of India’s inhabitants, the media had to step in and broadcast what was already a brewing controversy. Immediately following the release of the film, Indian people displayed how discontented they were by the portrayal of their culture, as they felt that the film was derogatory. The January 26, 2009 Time Magazine article “Slumdog Millionaire, an Oscar Favorite, Is No Hit in India”, focused on how the movie was portrayed negatively in the eyes of Indians. They did find some people that were open to seeing the movie for entertainment purposes; however it focused on the negative reactions that the Indian people had, as well as the controversies that arose following the release of the film. Indian’s didn’t want to see the movie because they felt that it portrayed the country and people in a negative manner. Many of the great sights and cultural lifestyles are not portrayed within the film. Many Indians felt that the film took a small sample of the life of low income Indian people and did not display any of the rich and beautiful images that India has to offer. Instead, the movie was shot in a slum of Mumbai called Dharavi, and was almost made to seem as if all of India was one giant slum. In reality, this slum stretches only about .67 of one mile in a city that stretches a span of one hundred and sixty seven square miles. The fact is that this city has a population of over twelve million and a gross domestic profit of 183 million dollars, which sheds light on just how easy it is to distort the image of a culture that we are not all that familiar with. Many think that the media film has casted a false light on the slums in India and is an attempt to promote slum tourism in an extremely poor section of Mumbai society, which will give tourists a false impression of India’s society in its entirety. Chitra Divakaruni//,// an author and board member of Pratham, a nonprofit literacy project for children living in slums in India, stated that many are antagonizing British director Danny Boyle, for creating a film about slum life which “ignores India’s recent economic prosperity”. Divakaruni tells the New York Times in their article “The Real Roots of the ‘Slumdog’ Protests”, that much more exists beyond the slums of India, and creating a film that focused solely on the slums gives a false look into the life of Indian culture; not to mention, portraying kids who live in the slums does not exactly promote modern India’s recent move toward working on its credentials as a major superpower and it certainly cannot be expected to sit well with the majority of India’s one billion citizens. The article states that most people in Mumbai see the slums on a regular basis and that they do not desire to see it again in a movie; rather, the people want to escape real life and go out to //enjoy// some entertainment. The overall emotion of the people portrayed in the Time Magazine article was that of disappointment. They understood that people around the world would be seeing the Indian culture, perhaps for the first time, and coming away from the film with a negative feeling about Indians. The other controversial part of the movie was the term “dog”. The word dog, “Kutte” in Hindi, is often used in a derogatory context and the people of India find it highly offensive. There were many protests at the opening of the film and one slum lord took the Indian cast and crew to court for offending slum dwellers. He stated that he didn’t expect much from the British, since they’ve called Indian’s dogs in history but he did expect more from his own people. In an effort to reveal the true intent of the film, Director Danny Boyle and Screenwriter Simon Beaufy filmed a short documentary. The first thing they touched upon was the word Slum Dog. In the documentary director Boyle states that the word “slumdog” is a word the represents a child who comes from the slums. He says that slums of India are not a place that should be looked down upon, but instead a thriving metropolis of people who communicate and supply each other with goods. Boyle says that the slums consist of people who are “cheating each other and helping each other like all communities”. To many people the word slum dog is very offense. In the eyes of many Indians, the movie somewhat insinuates that all Indians are “SLUM DOGS”. After seeing this movie it doesn’t show any positive aspects of India at all. Why would you even go to India to visit slums? Media outlets like movies and newspapers not only try to portray a factual image on topics but they also try to attract everyday people by creating a bias viewpoint of a particular topic. This movie exemplified this in many ways, from its corny dialogue and underdog image. Producers don’t simply think of how to produce a film stating just the facts, they also think about how to make it more appealing to people. Based on various movie reviews people simply loved the movie but based on people with a background in Indian culture, they simply saw the movie as a fake depiction of the Indian lifestyle. Overall, the media did not accurately depict the slums of Mumbai and ultimately, the film was inaccurately perceived by major media networks as being the greatest movie of all time. At the end of the day, films are used as a source of entertainment and at times to educate people about lifestyles that they are not accustomed to, but very rarely are they an accurate image of a culture. They simply exaggerate aspects just to make the film more interesting to viewers; I guess this is what they refer to when they say it is strictly movie business.

Sources: http://www.rediff.com/movies/2009/jan/29is-slumdog-worth-it.htm

http://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/slumdog-millionaire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seyMfX1145A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9ckmsPl654&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIHTl8WpqV0&feature=relmfu http://www.mumbainet.com/template1.php?CID=15&SCID=3 Time Magazine//: Slumdog Millionaire, an Oscar Favorite, Is No Hit in India// 26 Jan. 2009. Print. The New York Times: //The Real Roots of the ‘Slumdog’ Protests// 20 Feb. 2009. Print.