As I watched last night’s Academy Award presentation, I couldn’t help but think back to the 2009 awards nostalgically, a time where Slumdog mania was in full force, Bollywood stars were taking the stage, and saris were seen on the red carpet. At last night’s ceremony, though the one shoulder dress was the trend, not a sari was to be seen. Nor a desi person in the crowd. Who woulda thought – there actually was an end to the Slumdog Millionaire madness.
But there was one film. I hadn’t heard of it till last night, but as I saw the nominees scroll for short films, I saw Kavi scroll by. Though the film did not win last night, I was still curious to see what it was all about.
‘Kavi’, American director Gregg Helvey’s short film about an Indian slave boy has lost out the Oscar in the Best Short Film (Live Action) category to the Danish entry ‘The New Tenants’…The 19-minute-long fictional film in Hindi, was the only India connection at this year’s Oscars, as opposed to last year when the Mumbai based potboiler ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ bagged eight golden trophies. [ptinews]
I’m not usually a fan of shorts, but I may have to check Kavi out. I do find some of the language on the movie’s website slightly problematic though, and I wonder if the film has a similar undertone. Has anyone out there seen the movie? Also, thoughts on last night’s Academy Awards in this post Slumdog era?
That is why it is called poverty porn. In a porn movie, the sexual act in itself is fairly accurate and anatomically correct. The milieu, environment, backdrop etc. is ridiculous, unrealistic and often degrading. Likewise, this movie may have a partially accurate depiction of slum life when the parts are viewed in isolation. When viewed as a whole and as a part of an (attempted) coherent narrative, it is an exoticised depiction of the worst aspects of slum life cherry picked and strung together for maximum impact, and maximum viewing pleasure of a western audience. The warm and fuzzy love story is of course the perfect foil.
katiekateQNS, thank you.
“When viewed as a whole and as a part of an (attempted) coherent narrative, it is an exoticised depiction of the worst aspects of slum life cherry picked and strung together for maximum impact, and maximum viewing pleasure of a western audience. “
What’s a typical Bollywood movie then? Love Story Porn?
“What’s a typical Bollywood movie then? Love Story Porn?”
yea. basically what a typical hollywood movie was 60-80 yrs ago.
“I assumed that the movie was never supposed to be realism, or that realistic in the first place”
In what way? there’s different types of realism / unrealism.
One type is two people walking, busting out into a song and dance, and 50 other dancers showing up to back them up. This does not require “suspension of disbelief” it in fact RELIES on disbelief. These filmmakers are just looking to entertain you plain and simple, not make you think that this is actually happening.
Another type of unrealism is unrealism with verisimilitude, which requires suspension of disbelief – to take you “into the story” which slumdog definitely was shooting for. Which is why they didnt have sinatra pop out of a birthday cake singing new york new york in the middle of the movie. Movies are unreal, they exaggerate, they compress, and they take the most exciting bits of what might actually occur and juxtapose it al together, but these movies don’t want you thinking “oh right but this is completely unreal” while watching it. They want to lure you into a sense of belief, hence the phrase “suspension of disbelief”
“Another type of unrealism is unrealism with verisimilitude, which requires suspension of disbelief – to take you “into the story” which slumdog definitely was shooting for. Which is why they didnt have sinatra pop out of a birthday cake singing new york new york in the middle of the movie. Movies are unreal, they exaggerate, they compress, and they take the most exciting bits of what might actually occur and juxtapose it al together, but these movies don’t want you thinking “oh right but this is completely unreal” while watching it. They want to lure you into a sense of belief, hence the phrase “suspension of disbelief””
Yes, definitely. But I think with movies like SDM you are supposed to suspend your disbelief while watching the film. It’s like watching an M. Night Shyamalan film. We suspend our belief, enjoy the film, but we don’t go home thinking “wow, I wonder who can see dead people?” or “when are the trees going to start killing us?” Instead we might be thinking “damn that Zooey Deschanel was looking pretty hot” or “what a clever twist ending! (maybe)”.
The only time we should be like “wow! that’s just life real life!” is when it was specifically designed as such– like a biography of a real person. Or a historical movie depicting an event. Even then you kind of have to take it with a grain of salt. Even a documentary can’t show everything– it will still be limited.
“Yes, definitely. But I think with movies like SDM you are supposed to suspend your disbelief while watching the film. It’s like watching an M. Night Shyamalan film. We suspend our belief, enjoy the film, but we don’t go home thinking “wow, I wonder who can see dead people?” or “when are the trees going to start killing us?” Instead we might be thinking “damn that Zooey Deschanel was looking pretty hot” or “what a clever twist ending! “
You’re missing my point. I’m not saying the realism presented in slumdog means you’re supposed to walk out of slumdog thinking, “Wow, I should go on the game show, because every event in my life is going to map to a question. and Im gonna win”
All movies (except for those that are obviously breaking all bounds of logic – ie bollywood film dances) require a suspension of disbelief. In the sense, they require you to “sink in” with the characters. in the 6th sense, you’re not supposed to believe that people can talk to dead people, you’re supposed to believe that COLE SEAR (in the framework of the movie ) believes he can see dead people.
In this sense, the setting is supposed to assist in that, and provide a sense of realism. ie, philadelphia, present day, etc.. And to most westerners the “backdrop” of SDM (ie poor india) fits cleanly with their version of realism. They could have had elvis impersonators pop out and start singing hound dog in the call center, or the guy who made money off the kids – could have taken off his mask to reveal he was tom jones, and start singing this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0s_LirKfWM
or everyone could have driven bentleys and been wearing gucci
It would be equally “unrealistic” in your book – but why didn’t they do that? because they are trying to build a sense of realism, from which story can “pop out” from. So it’s very very understandable why slumdog has these criticisms levied against it. the filmmakers gave westerners the reality they were most comfortable with.
When you watch a bollywood dance, you’re not meant to believe the CHARACTER actually thinks that he walks around with 50 of his friends just in case a music track comes on. It’s a clear departure from even a logical reality. Both are entertainment and require suspension of disbelief, but in different ways, do you see the distinction?
And trees killing people is equally a logical unreality, but within the framework of the movie, its completely logical, because the phenomenon happens and the characters react how WE THINK WE might react (shock, confusion, fear, etc…) And that’s why we get “lulled” into a suspension of disbelief, and again that’s what I mean by it’s a different kind of “unrealism”.
“In this sense, the setting is supposed to assist in that, and provide a sense of realism. ie, philadelphia, present day, etc.. And to most westerners the “backdrop” of SDM (ie poor india) fits cleanly with their version of realism….
It would be equally “unrealistic” in your book – but why didn’t they do that? because they are trying to build a sense of realism, from which story can “pop out” from. “
Well that’s exactly my question. A lot of people here are saying “the movie was awful/evil/etc” yet I am still trying to figure out why. I get Yoga Fire’s opinion– the characters sucked, there were lots of cliches. OK.
But what I don’t understand the the complaints about showing poor India as a backdrop. People were saying it is an “unrealistic” version of poverty in India. My question was WHAT ABOUT the poverty backdrop is unrealistic. No one seems to be able to address that question.
So my thought was– I don’t think people are annoyed because the backdrop of poverty is unrealistic, but rather simply because it is a backdrop of poverty in India.
“So my thought was– I don’t think people are annoyed because the backdrop of poverty is unrealistic, but rather simply because it is a backdrop of poverty in India.”
I haven’t read the opinions in detail further up, but, perhaps its just an inherent characteristic of the story that was picked, ie slumkids in India (because, really thats what India is all about.. right?)
Concievably the same story could have been done with kids living a middle class life.
Linzi, I agree with the following statement you made in post 107.
But my question is why people are annoyed with it? Poverty was just one aspect of the movie.
My 28 years old white all American female Physical Trainer summed up the movie as “Chick Flick”. That is the opinion of a lot of people I know.
What I personally found offensive about the movie was the color and levity attached to life in the slums. The oversaturated stylings of Danny Boyle seemed to be a vision of India that seemed like it had come from the start of the 20th century, “the colorful orient”. It wasn’t all bad, in some ways, Boyle managed to convey some sense of dignity to the people of slums. If Slumdog was purported to be a out an out commercial flick then I would have no issues with it. However, at the height of the hype cycle, the movie was spoken about as if it represented an element of truth, which is fairly offensive. A less empirical yet personally pertinent observation, I abhor going to a bar and have people start conversations with me with Slumdog-centric banter.
“I abhor going to a bar and have people start conversations with me with Slumdog-centric banter.”
True, but it’s going to be something or another. if not, it’ll be whatever “in” having to do with India.
I did not the movie offensive since I liked the story of a Muslim in contemporary India. I am Muslim and though the film is fiction, I thought it was bold to depict to a Western audience the sectarian violence which plagues the nation from time to time.
“I did not the movie offensive since I liked the story of a Muslim in contemporary India. I am Muslim and though the film is fiction, I thought it was bold to depict to a Western audience the sectarian violence which plagues the nation from time to time.”
That just happens to only show one side of that “sectarian” violence.
As an African American, I can sort of understand the indifference or dislike some Indians expressed about Slumdog. It’s a reaction similar (in my opinion) to the discomfort some African Americans (including me) have expressed with the depiction of the lead characters in “Precious”. A Black colleague of mine, when asked about “Precious”, just rolled her eyes and said, “Yeah, yeah, same old, same old”. And yet this is the same film that has been critically lauded, won a ton of awards, and has some prominent African Americans backing it. I think that the concerns expressed are similar: fetishization of the “other” by films that seem to be aimed at a predominantly white audience and present a picture of the way these “others” live their lives in a manner that just perpetuates the same tired stereotypes.
Sue, thanks for the backup. Due to India’s 1000 year bout with British Christian and Islamic colonialism, a lot of Indians have internalized an inferiority complex. Even outright abuses seem to be praises to high heaven.
If you really felt slumdog was a slur, you’d call yourself s*****g is a slur, or at least slmdg is a slur. Since you proudly display the word “Slubdog” in your handle, it proves you have no real opinion about it and are just striving for attention. Now, get back into your tenement, cur!
@cc: I lol’d.
1000 year bout with British Christian and Islamic colonialism..a lot of Indians have internalized an inferiority complex
Your opinion…i believe the Brits were in India for about 150yrs and Islamic colonialism? I wouldn’t call it that…we know Islam “colonized” Iran, others parts of the Middle East, Africa, many indigneous religions wiped out. That’s quite sad to me. I see a lot more “inferiority” complexes in other areas of the world, which reflects the state of the country’s institutions since their hegemonized or colonial past. Islam is part and parcel of India and alongside Islamic rulers were also Hindu and Sikh rulers…no biggie. All of Europe is like that as well as South America – the way you put it you act like India is one of the few regions of the world that have had come under an empire lol. But maybe many of those indigenous religious didn’t have 1000 year old writings, have not been heard about since the new cultural powerhouse overtook them.
[quote]Your opinion…i believe the Brits were in India for about 150yrs and Islamic colonialism? I wouldn’t call it that…we know Islam “colonized” Iran, others parts of the Middle East, Africa, many indigneous religions wiped out. That’s quite sad to me. I see a lot more “inferiority” complexes in other areas of the world, which reflects the state of the country’s institutions since their hegemonized or colonial past. Islam is part and parcel of India and alongside Islamic rulers were also Hindu and Sikh rulers…no biggie. All of Europe is like that as well as South America – the way you put it you act like India is one of the few regions of the world that have had come under an empire lol. But maybe many of those indigenous religious didn’t have 1000 year old writings, have not been heard about since the new cultural powerhouse overtook them.[/quote] The British did colonize India first, so they were still conducting some experiments in how to govern the country. As a result they did have men like Lord Curzon there who built some schools and a civil service and attempted to create infrastructure to the benefit of the Indian people (even if it was partly misguided and mostly overshadowed by the overall mercantalist attitude of the Parliament and racist attitudes of the Brits themselves.) By the time they got to Africa, though, they concluded that the whole “White Man’s Burden” thing was more trouble than it was worth and anything they did build was primarily and solely to facilitate the orderly extraction of wealth and natural resources.
So while colonialism in India did suck, it sucked less hard than it did for the Africans.
So everytime a slur is discussed it must be written with !@#$, or else it is not a slur! What reasoning! That means that anyone can write out a slur and that it will thenceforth cease being a slur! Or was it a freudian slip on my part and I do not really consider that slumdog to be a slur? hmmpph……..
Please search jindal and slumdog and see common usage of the term/slur/whathaveyou “slumdog.” Or do I need to post examples on this august board?
Why not? You have nothing else to do.
I don’t think Slumdog is a slur, but if you post a few more times I’ll be convinced that “Slumdog is a slur” is a slur.
Slumdog is a slur,
Although Islam came to India via conquest of the Sindh initially by Arab armies that invaded adjacent Iran (Baluchistan was not part of India historically, but Iran). Throughout Indian history, subsequent invasions of the subcontinent followed. However, the bulk of the Muslim population of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are indigenous converts to the faith of Islam. While some converted by force, the majority converted by choice. Islam for some was a means to escape the Hindu caste system, in the same way that some convert to Christianity or a means to join the mores of the dominant culture of the day.
The Indian Ocean was known by some European explorers as the “Muslim sea” because Islam was the dominant cultural force from East Africa to Indonesia. Islam served as a cultural conduit that changed and shaped what we now define as “Indian” culture from henna being imported from the Middle East, to the present form of the kathak incorporating Persian dance moves and Central Asian dress, to the Perso-Arabic script of Urdu, to dome construction as exemplified by the Taj Mahal, to Muslim innovations to the sari by introducing the petticoat for women and groom wear for Indian men. Even contemporary Hindi has numerous loan words from Arabic, Farsi, and Turkic languages which bears witness to former Muslim rule.
Not all Muslim rulers of India were enlightened, but Buddhism in India was largely driven off the subcontinent by belligerant Hindu reactions to the Sakyamuni’s challenge to the Vedic traditions.
Culture changes and Indian culture is no exception.
To me Slumdog Millionaire was a excellent means of representing India and its complexicities to a Western audience. India is no perfect society, in a society of 300 million middle class consumers, India is still home to a large concentration of poverty, child labor, corruption, sectarian violence, social dislocation, uneven distribution and concentration of wealth, and social biases against a chai walla.
Indians seem defensive about their country and how it is portrayed. This is really no different from Muslims in Pakistan who are unwilling to confront the issue of terrorism in their midst. The Taliban was created by Pakistan’s ISI to control neighboring Afghanistan. Now the policies of supporting jihadi groups has backfired as recent bombings in the main cities of the Punjab and Sindh have proven deadly.