My 2 cents
To be honest, I don't know what the fuss is about this movie. Probably I was disappointed with it as I went with high expectations. But even stand alone, if I discount my expectations and the fact that it shows India in bad (some would argue correct) light, I think it is a very average movie. Not worthy of awards for sure, and definitely not of Oscars, if one considers them to be the pinnacle of movie awards. Personally, I think the awards are about marketing/hype- and to an extent they are because the westerners don't see such movies often. But comeon- AR Rehman getting a nomination for Jai Ho- Does it even compare with the masterpieces he has given in the past? At its core, Slumdog is a bollywood movie with all sorts of masala and the feel-good factor of underdog coming up tops. This kind of thing is new to the west and hence they liked it, but we have been there and done that and done it much better. You take any theme or scene- you can find a much better parallel in Indian cinema- brothers' conflict (deewar,etc.), underworld (Satya,company), prostitution (chandni bar, etc.), conning foreigners on Tajmahal (Bunty and Babli), riots, romance,etc. (too many to name). For me the test is this- would I like to watch Slumdog again? Never. While I can and have watched the better made movies a number of times.
On the issue of portrayal of India, personally, I didn't like it. Though I don't think it is any tamacha on our face. Lots of it is probably real or realistic. There is no denying the poverty or the conditions of people in slums. But if you see the movie as a whole, they have taken each and every stereotype about India and put it in the movie- garbage, slums, beggars, riots, child trafficking, brutal police, underworld, poverty, arrogant super-stars, tajmahal, conning foreigners at tajmahal, prostitution, minority persecution, call centers and what not- you name it and they have it in there (though to be fair, I didn't see an elephant and a snake charmer). It is that particular Western view of India, where nothing right can ever happen here, which gets to you. Actually, they could have named the movie "How to rediscover India again and again and come up with the same stuff yet again". I won't have had any issues if they had taken a particular or some particular negative themes and did justice to them. But it is the skimming through issues just to deliberately touch on everything negative that put me off. It is as if the director made a laundry list of all the bad stuff he had ever heard of and then just laid it down one after the other. You start feeling the stereotypes when the slumdog is shown as Jamal whose mom gets killed by hindu rioters. And you have had enough when the game host show introduces Jamal as a chaiwallah and then constantly mocks him as chaiwallah through out the show. Which game show host in India would go so horribly politically incorrect on reality TV? Again, my contention is not that nothing wrong happens in India. And I don't have an issue with the director showing 'wrong' things about India. But I have an issue with him selectively showing wrong things and generating an impression that nothing right happens in India.
To be honest, I don't know what the fuss is about this movie. Probably I was disappointed with it as I went with high expectations. But even stand alone, if I discount my expectations and the fact that it shows India in bad (some would argue correct) light, I think it is a very average movie. Not worthy of awards for sure, and definitely not of Oscars, if one considers them to be the pinnacle of movie awards. Personally, I think the awards are about marketing/hype- and to an extent they are because the westerners don't see such movies often. But comeon- AR Rehman getting a nomination for Jai Ho- Does it even compare with the masterpieces he has given in the past? At its core, Slumdog is a bollywood movie with all sorts of masala and the feel-good factor of underdog coming up tops. This kind of thing is new to the west and hence they liked it, but we have been there and done that and done it much better. You take any theme or scene- you can find a much better parallel in Indian cinema- brothers' conflict (deewar,etc.), underworld (Satya,company), prostitution (chandni bar, etc.), conning foreigners on Tajmahal (Bunty and Babli), riots, romance,etc. (too many to name). For me the test is this- would I like to watch Slumdog again? Never. While I can and have watched the better made movies a number of times.
On the issue of portrayal of India, personally, I didn't like it. Though I don't think it is any tamacha on our face. Lots of it is probably real or realistic. There is no denying the poverty or the conditions of people in slums. But if you see the movie as a whole, they have taken each and every stereotype about India and put it in the movie- garbage, slums, beggars, riots, child trafficking, brutal police, underworld, poverty, arrogant super-stars, tajmahal, conning foreigners at tajmahal, prostitution, minority persecution, call centers and what not- you name it and they have it in there (though to be fair, I didn't see an elephant and a snake charmer). It is that particular Western view of India, where nothing right can ever happen here, which gets to you. Actually, they could have named the movie "How to rediscover India again and again and come up with the same stuff yet again". I won't have had any issues if they had taken a particular or some particular negative themes and did justice to them. But it is the skimming through issues just to deliberately touch on everything negative that put me off. It is as if the director made a laundry list of all the bad stuff he had ever heard of and then just laid it down one after the other. You start feeling the stereotypes when the slumdog is shown as Jamal whose mom gets killed by hindu rioters. And you have had enough when the game host show introduces Jamal as a chaiwallah and then constantly mocks him as chaiwallah through out the show. Which game show host in India would go so horribly politically incorrect on reality TV? Again, my contention is not that nothing wrong happens in India. And I don't have an issue with the director showing 'wrong' things about India. But I have an issue with him selectively showing wrong things and generating an impression that nothing right happens in India.