Is Slumdog Millionaire A Case Of Poverty Porn? Options

[parag_sankla]

I have not seen the film yet, but have read many reviews. My conclusion based on them is that the western world (British director - the same people who ruled us for over 150 years) has made an excellent piece of poverty porn out of India. The projection of Mumbai and India as a whole is slum (as if there are no homeless people in the developed countries). Using the word dog (even if some one defends that its a newly coined word = slum + underdog = slumdog) is derogatory.

Views most welcome.

Jai Hind!

[Marcilo]

People might not support SDM as poverty porn but all over the net people are posting similar comments

Everyone has right of opinion but saying movies that only show flashy buildings and hip culture of India, should be made, that is not right. Problem is if someone made movie which had all that, all these Ram sena guys will burn theater down. "too much of western culture"….. "not an Indian thingy" ... "Pubs are not in india culture"…."valentine day should never be celebrated",...so what is real Indian thingy? aab bechara Danny kare tau kayak are.. idher koovan .. udher khai.....

[mmuk2004]

People might not support SDM as poverty porn but all over the net people are posting similar comments

Everyone has right of opinion but saying movies that only show flashy buildings and hip culture of India, should be made, that is not right. Problem is if someone made movie which had all that, all these Ram sena guys will burn theater down. "too much of western culture"….. "not an Indian thingy" ... "Pubs are not in india culture"…."valentine day should never be celebrated",...so what is real Indian thingy? aab bechara Danny kare tau kayak are.. idher koovan .. udher khai.....

I agree with Marc...there are quite a few slides are happening here that make me uncomfortable. A few questions and thoughts:

Even if we assume that the film is about poverty, which, in my opinion, it is not, what are we arguing about?

1. Are we saying that the movie is only about poverty so we should protest/feel uncomfortable if foreigners make movies about India's poverty?

2. Are we saying it is all right if Indians make movies about India's poverty, but not right if foreigners make movies about India's poverty because they don't see/show the other side of India, or what India is all about.

3. Are we saying that if you are making a movie about poverty then you should show the other side also to balance the picture? (Indians and Foreigners?)

4. Are we saying that because a film about an Indian boy based in India, won so many oscars, it has a certain responsibility to show all aspects of India?

5. Are we saying that the director made the movie about poverty in India, because poverty sells? Did he anticipate that it would win big time at the oscars and hence just focussed on that?

6. In case we are not blaming the director for making a "one sided" movie, and incase we do take into account issues of artistic freedom, then are we blaming the Oscars for choosing it? Are we protesting that the Oscars went to the film because the selectors were fascinated with this aspect of India? So according to that logic, the oscar selectors are anti-Indian, or they look down or they stereotype Indians and hence chose this film to shower honors on.

Let us at least be clear in our minds about these questions because they represent complex issues that cannot be resolved very easily.

Sonu, I agree with your point that stereotyping happens, and in the case of India, and there has been an argument made about it being seen as the land of mendicants, mysticism and elephants etc. One can argue against this by saying that that image is very dated, modernization and globalization, see India occupying a very different position now in the 21st century than it did in the 20th. and though there are people who still might view India as this but they are a much smaller number and they need to be completely cut off from recent history to hold on to that view.

Secondly, we are talking about a movie about an Indian boy from the slums who makes it big, a movie that has an Indian/British Indian starcast and crew members directed by a Britisher that won 8 oscars. It does give the movie a visibility that other movies do not have. But does it make it a reference for those who do not know anything about India/want to know more about India? Well, my point is that that is not the director's problem. Why should he be held responsible? In my opinion, it is a fantasy, a cinderella tale, and if people choose to see it as a realistic representation of what India is then it is their problem and shorsightedness not the director's. Does the director claim that it is real or true to life? Why should the director compromise his or her artistic vision to tame a movie by being representative of all aspects of a country just because he happens to not belong to that country? Did he know that his movie would win big time at the Oscars?

The Oscars went to the film because the film was enjoyed by a huge foreign audience, there is no doubt about that. But let us give some credit to this "foreign" audience for being ready for "Indian"(read Bollywood) films, as they need a great deal of re-adjustment to enjoy something so different from theirs. I think we too need to re-adjust the way we look at the "western" world.

This post has been edited by mmuk2004: Feb 28 2009, 01:24 AM