Slumdog Millionaire - Excessive Poverty Show Or Reality?

Slumdog Millionaire, far-reaching feel good rag to riches, blockbuster emerging of age and an impressive love story has finally fetched 8 Oscars. The motion picture took home awards this time of year at the BAFTA, Screen Actors Guild, Critics Choice, and Golden Globes, and was the odds on choice to win. It is the first Hollywood film based technically on Bollywood to be acknowledged globally. But the film has its share of controversies, lets explore how just, is the perception of many who have raised their voices
| Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Countless voices and opinions have been raised opposing the Danny Boyle directed movie. Some are of the opinion that it's nothing beyond poverty filth. While others have raised a voice against the usage of the word "Slumdog", condemning Boyle of offending people residing in slums.

A cluster of the city's slum dwellers, together with kids, disputed against the word "dog". A social protester filed a slander case in Patna followed by hundreds of slum dwellers in Bihar's capital rummaging through a movie hall, demanding the name be altered.

So, does Slumdog Millionaire depict excessive poverty meant for the foreigner's amusement? Are thrashing, torment, and the defacement of street beggars a pathetic form of mature exotica? Let me rephrase the question: does a morose allure with the anguish of others discovers a place in cinematic art and is "Slumdog Millionaire" are a remarkable exemplar of this? Let's explore the answer.

Poverty and slums are a part of India
                 ...As much as its culture and rich heritage

Poverty, slums, dearth and deficiency are all acceptable facts of India as much as its rich heritage and vivid culture. Then what is the shame in admitting it after all? Beyond the slummy background, there was a very fine narrative to tell and it has been directed tremendously and in appealing way. In addition, it's an absolute transformation of taste for the outer word cinema viewers, who have more often than not viewed sci-fi, action, animated movies up to now and therefore it's a runaway success sweeping most of the awards in US, with a new platter served differently on their dining table.

Most people who oppose the film believe this was the most unworthy Oscar nominee. Previous year the same sentiments were echoed for Juno. "Adolescents don't get pregnant! Teenagers can't split clever!" cried the obscure, amorphous multitude. The film's success shut their mouths forever. This year, their prey is Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire. And what's the amorphous multitude crying now, arms creased and brows wrinkled? "The poor aren't alluring! In India, the poor can't converse in English! Why, the poor don't ever finish up looking so attractive, either!" All correct. Some of these foolish multitudes are even asserting that Slumdog Millionaire is nothing more than straightforward poverty porn. However they're just being unwisely reductive. Maybe deliberately naïve!


The film doesn't benevolently lurch in the muck and dirt of Mumbai. Rather, it sheds illumination onto the passageways, walkways and everywhere else of a busy Indian metropolitan area. That, much and dirt is the realism of this city.

In the movie, the director Danny Boyle uses a clutch bag of identifiable Indian cryptograms - the Taj Mahal, cricket, Big B - with which to make his film reachable and enjoyable to Westerners. The Dharavi slum as portrayed in the film, indeed the very concept of paucity itself, is purely one of these tropes.

Critics emerge out of nowhere!

What's even more demoralizing is that a famous editor-in-chief declares aloud, "Don't see Slumdog Millionaire. It sucks!" It's the kind of naive declaration someone might make if they knew they were caught in false facts, or shoddier, trapped trying to gauchely cover up a lie. Among his strident issues is Boyle's nationality. His being a foreigner .As per this editor-in chief Boyle's nationality makes him completely powerless to comprehend the multifarious political psychology of a country as slowed down as India. All these opposing views are just a mere example of how these emerging- out -of -nowhere critics try to get into the news by generate a bit of stimulation. At a time when masses are busy admiring Slumdog Millionaire, anybody "significant" who condemns the film will obviously get media attention. I have seen Slumdog Millionaire without even being aware of the fact that it was directed by an overseas director. In fact when I got to know that Dan Boyle directed the movie, it was not easy for me to accept it as true. Only someone who has observed the slums of India closely for a long time can get such an insight for directing the movie. I am sure that these "influential" people driving around in their Bentley can never value that.

If the hullabaloo over the film's heading can be directed towards humanizing conditions of Indian slums, then perhaps "Slumdog Millionaire," clichéd or not, will have been a triumph worth extolling.


More largely, for everyone sacking the movie as a detached effort at pragmatism - Folks, take it easy! At its heart, Slumdog Millionaire is a fine example cinematic art. It's a feel-good fable whose glitches we can pardon with enjoyably generous leaps of hope.

Slumdog Millionaire may be viewed as an endeavor to put India's best foot ahead, an emotion that goes hand in hand with Bollywood's lustrous view of realism.