Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Movie Mix

"Slumdog Millionaire": A Hollow Message of Social Justice

By Mitu Sengupta, AlterNet. Posted February 23, 2009.


Despite all the hype, "Slumdog" delivers a patronizing and ultimately sham statement on social justice.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Danny Boyle's "Slumdog Millionaire", perhaps one of the most celebrated films in recent times, tells the rags-to-rajah story of a love-struck Indian boy, Jamal, who, with a little help from "destiny," triumphs over his wretched beginnings in Mumbai's squalid slums. Riding on a wave of rave reviews, "Slumdog" has now won Hollywood's highest tribute, the Academy Award for Best Picture, along with seven more Oscars, including one for Best Director.

These honors will probably add some $100 million to "Slumdog's" box-office takings, as Oscar wins usually do. They will also further enhance the film's fast-growing reputation as an authentic representation of the lives of India's urban poor. So far, most of the awards collected by the film have been accepted in the name of "the children," suggesting that its own cast and crew regard it (and have relentlessly promoted it) not as a cinematically spectacular, musically rich and entertaining work of fiction, which it is, but as a powerful tool of advocacy. Nothing could be more worrying, as "Slumdog", despite all the hype to the contrary, delivers a deeply disempowering narrative about the poor that thoroughly undermines, if not totally negates, its seeming message of social justice.

"Slumdog" has angered many Indians because it tarnishes their perception of their country as a rising economic power and a beacon of democracy. India's English-language papers, read mainly by its middle classes, have carried many bristling reviews of the film that convey an acute sense of wounded national pride. While understandable, the sentiment is not defensible. Though at times embarrassingly contrived, most of the film's heartrending scenarios are inspired by a sad, but well-documented reality.

Corruption is certainly rampant among the police, and many will gladly use torture, though none is probably dim enough to target an articulate, English-speaking man who is already a rising media phenomenon. Beggar-makers do round-up abandoned children and mutilate them in order to make them more sympathetic, though it is highly improbable that any such child will ever chance upon a $100 bill, much less be capable of identifying it by touch and scent alone.

Indeed, if anything, Boyle's magical tale, with its unconvincing one-dimensional characters and absurd plot devices, greatly understates the depth of suffering among India's poor. It is near-impossible, for example, that Jamal would emerge from his ravaged life with a dewy complexion and an upper-class accent. But the real problem with "Slumdog" is neither its characterization of India as just another Third World country, nor, within this, its shallow and largely impressionistic portrayal of poverty.

The film's real problem is that it grossly minimizes the capabilities and even the basic humanity of those it so piously claims to speak for. It is no secret that much of "Slumdog" is meant to reflect life in Dharavi, the 213-hectare spread of slums at the heart of Mumbai. The film's depiction of the legendary Dharavi, which is home to some one million people, is that of a feral wasteland, with little evidence of order, community or compassion. Other than the children, the "slumdogs," no-one is even remotely well-intentioned. Hustlers, thieves, and petty warlords run amok, and even Jamal's schoolteacher, a thin, bespectacled man who introduces him to the Three Musketeers, is inexplicably callous. This is a place of evil and decay; of a raw, chaotic tribalism.

Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Dharavi teems with dynamism and creativity, and is a hub of entrepreneurial activity, in industries such as garment manufacturing, embroidery, pottery, and leather, plastics and food processing. It is estimated that the annual turnover from Dharavi's small businesses is between US$50 to $100 million. Dharavi's lanes are lined with cell-phone retailers and cybercafés, and according to surveys by Microsoft Research India, the slum's residents exhibit a remarkably high absorption of new technologies.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, movies, india, social justice, slumdog millionaire, slums

Mitu Sengupta is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Politics at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada.

email: mitu.sengupta@gmail.com

 


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sweeping the Oscars
Posted by: politicky on Feb 23, 2009 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have not seen the movie. Something tells me that it swept the Oscars for a very different reason. Do you think the homeless in Los Angeles go unnoticed?

"The banking system has defrauded most of the population and is now foreclosing on its victims, hardworking families who only wanted a part of the American dream. Because of the current level of foreclosures we are witnessing Encampments of tent cities -- many of them home to once middle-class families fallen victim to the economic downturn. Tent cities have formed in or near large urban areas including Reno, Los Angeles, Chattanooga, Columbus, St. Petersburg, Seattle and Portland."

http://www.worldstockwire.com/viewpressrelease/prID/805/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Return of Berkley..ack!
Posted by: Drclaw on Feb 23, 2009 1:20 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the great depression, escapest Buzby Berkley fantasies were quite popular-it's natural that this movie won since we have a hard time acknowledging reality-we'd rather sanitize it instead. (It's also too bad, since Frost-Nixon and Milk were far far better). What makes me mad (and why I won't see this movie), is that many people are happy to feel sympathy for the movie's characters, while continuing to do the things they do that help create the situation. At the risk of pop-psychologizing, I wonder if seeing the movie substitutes, in people's minds, for actually caring about the marginalized. I haven't heard much that indicates this movie will help any of the people who were the unwitting inspiration for this bit of fluff, and feel the 8 dollars spent in the theatre would be better off going to charity.

As an alternative, I suggest City of God. This movie, about the favellas (of Rio, I think) was made by an independent film maker, using people from the community, and the proceeds have gone to support development work for the folks living in this, rather unhealthy, environment. You may not come out with a smile on your face (although it's a fine flick), but it seems a lot less hypocritical than "feeling" the pain of the Indian slums for the 90 minutes spent in a dark theatre, and tossing your empathy away the moment the popcorn is finished.

I supsect I'll get flamed for taking this all too seriously, but wth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eturn of Berkley..ack! Posted by: Drclaw
» I might be prejudging Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: I might be prejudging Posted by: JERSEYDAN
» RE: I might be prejudging Posted by: JERSEYDAN
The real issue at hand
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com on Feb 23, 2009 3:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real issue at hand is the disconnect between Western and traditional Indian culture. What we see as an underdog story filled with hope and passion, in this setting is seen by them as something disrespectful and demeaning. Even the title created outrage amongst the most traditional people in India. Why? Because it was interpreted literally -- That they were being called vile muts of the slum.

While the movie wasn't perfect in its portrayal, it did an amazing job at highlighting the general aspect of the Mumbai Slums. The fact that it wasn't all lights and dazzle, keeping from the traditional Hollywoodfication of stories, kept its genuine intent intact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Review misses the point
Posted by: shrike13 on Feb 23, 2009 4:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The film is a fantasy, a work of fiction. Danny Boyle's objective was to tell an entertaining story. It has a side benefit of exposing a shocking existence to Western eyes, the vast majority of whom have never witnessed these conditions common to many parts of India. Rather than blast readers with righteous indignation and reacting to perceived patronization, this critic should be analyzing news coverage, documentaries, text books and the like. Not feature entertainment. You cannot hold feature films to the same standard as The Economist or the Wall Street Journal. What a total waste of my time. Now I will buy the film.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» very well stated, Jayzer Posted by: eviltwit
» RE: eview misses the point Posted by: roxanne09
» RE: eview misses the point Posted by: MobileSucks
Perspectives from the slums of Dhaka
Posted by: DrBrian on Feb 24, 2009 1:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a slumdog doctor, intensivist to the poorest of Bangladesh's slum dwellers, I agree that the film is improbably cheery. The vast majority of the children I care for are severely malnourished and deprived of educational opportunities, reducing the chance of genius to nil, even if they survive. It's rarely, if ever the case that if they apply themselves, fortune will smile upon them.

In a sense I treat the symptoms, but the underlying causes of social and economic injustice are worsening as neoliberal theories wreck the world economy.

Slum life is Hobbesian: poor, nasty, brutish and short.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Politics is why Slumdog won Best Picture award.
Posted by: Jay Randal on Feb 24, 2009 1:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hollywood as usual played politics for its awards again. India is being heavily invested in by our US wealthy Elite so they threw a bone to India to hype it for them. American workers have lost jobs to India and Indians are being brought here to take jobs at less pay than Americans. I do not recommend the film to anybody.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Its just a film...
Posted by: cordas on Feb 24, 2009 1:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
its meant to be escapist drama, rather than a realistic factual documentary.

It bugs the hell out of me when people make arguements like the ones made in this article, why is it that some idiots are such killjoys that they can't realise that this is a work of fiction and not a factual socail commentary. Also why don't these retards realise that their arguements actually do their cause more harm than good with the vast majority of people?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Its just a film... Posted by: John Annis
» RE: Its just a film... Posted by: maestra
» Educate yourself Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: ducate yourself Posted by: cordas
Neither Hollywood Nor Bollywood Could Make a Film Like This
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Feb 24, 2009 2:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hollywood wouldn't have the imagination or courage to finance such a high risk provocative project. There is no way that this would get past their focus groups. The decision would be based on the assumption that virtually no American would want to see such a film outside of an Art theatre.

Indian Bollywood wouldn't have done it - because it is much too embarrassing to Indian National pride.

The British producers of this film should be congratulated to have taken an enormous risk to finance this film themselves entirely from British sources.

I knew it was a masterpiece within 10 minutes of the start and was completely engrossed. I knew absolutely nothing whatsoever about the film. My wife just said come and watch this. We took an Indian friend with us - who went to college in Mumbai. She too was stunned.

Sure it doesn't portray a pretty tourist picture - and will definitely put off some potential tourists if they have never actually visited India.

But that's not the point. The film does betray a basic truth with regards to the massive difference between extreme wealth and extreme poverty which is endemic in India and many other Asian countries.

It should shock Government to attempt to do something about it.

The World is not how Hollywood portrays it. This film may have taken some artistic liberties to entertain and shock - but it is just a film.

My own experience is that I have always felt perfectly safe even in the poorest parts of India. There are other parts of the World where I would fear to tread.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mitu Sengupta should publish this in elite Indian newspapers
Posted by: outlook on Feb 24, 2009 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
like Times of India or Outlook India. The outraged chattering classes, who took umbrage at this film, need a reality check. This article is an unsentimental and detached appraisal of reality in the Mumbai slums. The Delhi-centric mob, in power, need some sense knocked into them; this would do the trick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Best critique I've seen
Posted by: indudutt on Feb 24, 2009 3:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the best, most intelligent critique of the film I've seen. Those who're complaining that the film is a work of fiction, and therefore the critique has no merit clearly have not read the article. The author clearly states that she has no problem with the film as a work of fiction, but that it being promoted as much more than that - as a message of social justice (and she is right!). It is films like this that do more harm than good. I think people who're angry are just upset that someone's insulted their taste and Polyanna worldview. The critique is bang on. Congratulations!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Best critique I've seen Posted by: patsy6
alternative website
Posted by: indudutt on Feb 24, 2009 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i should also add that i am surprised there's been such a negative reaction to this critique on a "progressive" website. it made me think that this critique challenges people's own ideas about how progressive they are, or that they are progressive because they liked this film! you aren't progressive because you just appreciate watching slum children and feel sorry for them from your armchair, or because you visit India or some other Third World country once or twice and buy a few things there. this article gave me a deeper appreciation of what this film is about, and how it can actually end up being a disservice to those it speaks for.
And again - it is unfortunately NOT being seen just as a work of fiction, as the author points out. The parading around of those children at the Oscars was self-serving and opportunistic to say the least. In the end SM's makers are getting the last laugh, with their millions of additional dollars! what a joke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: alternative website Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: alternative website Posted by: gps1234
» RE: alternative website Posted by: DaBear
» RE: alternative website Posted by: BreeMass
It's a love story.
Posted by: Hovey on Feb 24, 2009 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get over it, the movie is a fictional love story. Too bad if you don't like how people are presented. Write and make your own version.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what darwinism?
Posted by: HelperMonkey on Feb 24, 2009 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have seen the film. I've even been to the slum in question. And I didn't get this sense of darwinistic free-for-all hellhole that you're talking about. What did you want to see, an edutainment work where they showed you the potters in action, the leatherers, the plastic recyclers? I saw a slum that actually had a school, a lot of people would not have thought there'd be a school let alone anything else organised in such a place. In comparison to having actually been there, the depiction seemed pretty much the same. I'd give the filmmakers some credit, I'm sure they spent time there and wanted to convey a realistic sense of the place.

And as for the slightly contrived, destiny-driven sense of the film... well that was the point. India is a spiritual place, people believe in that kind of thing, so what a great vehicle to drive the plot I say. Many indian stories are driven by destiny, and this film dares to break the hollywood mould by giving them a nod (without being bollywood). By the way, I think destiny and spirituality are a pile of crap, but that doesn't mean that a film which honestly uses that approach is bad.

What I saw was a film unlike most that you see, with a cast of unknowns; a feelgood flick which shows the brutal reality of such a place at the same time; a film which used a relevant cultural vehicle (destiny) honestly (so much so that 'destiny' appears in the tagline for the film). It didn't need to be, and isn't, a political statement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what darwinism? Posted by: DaBear
Jamal kisses Latika's scar.......
Posted by: Allstar Cookie on Feb 24, 2009 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....pretty cool......and he was never concerned with money. It was a love story and the slums were just a backdrop. Although Mitu Sengupta praises the movie, she seems to think that most of us can't see it for what it really is.......a fictional story. It's only here on Alternet and Mitu's article that it becomes more than just a movie.

Alternet, of course has the sub-head "Despite all the hype, "Slumdog" delivers a patronizing and ultimately sham statement on social justice."

Lighten up Alternet!!! It's just a movie.
It's a love story and it was a fun movie to watch. It's not supposed to be a social commentary about the poorest conditions in India.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is the feel-good Movie of the Year!
Posted by: AJR Journal on Feb 24, 2009 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I loved it!
You mean Bombay is not really like that? You have to be kidding me.
But this AlterNet, everything here is catastrophic, criminal, exploitative, etc.
Go see Slumdog Millionaire, you will love it, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No no Posted by: 113121
There is no such thing as a true picture of India
Posted by: Deep on Feb 24, 2009 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
India is a country of one billion people, that's around four times the population of sub-Saraha Africa. Bombay is a city of 14 million-slightly fewer people than the entire population of the Netherlands. India is a multi-cultural, muti-religious, multi-lingual, mulit-whatever way you want to classify people nation. Every view point that a human being can have on anything, is currently being held by a substantial amount of Indians. It is utter naivety to make any kind of singular comment on Indians, other than that we have brown skin. And even that is subject to debate. It is truly moronic to make a blanket statement about Indians.

The reaction to Slumdog Millionaire, by Indians(both on the subcontinent and in the diaspora) is the rest of the world's introduction to the diversity of India. You're going to get a billion different viewpoints of the same thing. You had people in Dharavi protesting the movie, because of the connection to dogs. For those of you who have not been to India, there are stray dogs everywhere and are considered very dirty. And then there are people in that same slum who are very excited about the movie and see it as a source of pride.
Same with wealthy Indians. Some see it as an attack and a mocking on their fragile ego. Other's see it as a way of showing the rest of the world of how India is changing to an economic power.

What I hope that non-brown people and even my fellow brown people, get out of this movie, is that the places like Dharavi are far more dynamic than people could ever imagine. They're not sitting around crying for pity. They are not waiting for Bono to come by. People live their lives, day to day. Making the best out of what they have. Like Salim-Jamal's brother-in the movie, many enter gangs and mafia outfits who fill in the gaps where the system had failed. Many however are small-time entrepreneurs who are simply exploiting opportunities they see, relying on their wits and instincts. Bearing the traits they preach at Harvard Business School.

Slumdog Millionaire is mainly a feel good movie, and is entertainment. There are million different messages one can take out. It can be a reinforcement of whatever you think about India. What I, as an Indian-American, is that non-desis see Indians as more human than they are used to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cultivating a Taste for the Future!
Posted by: arun.jacob on Feb 24, 2009 9:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe the reason this movie has scooped up all these accolades is Reliance Big Entertainment.

If we agree on the premise that the message is hollow - let us ask about the medium. Why focus on the Indian Film Industry? Anil Ambani has been investing billions that's why. High profile Hollywood production companies have been roped in. If Nicolas Cage, Jim Carrey, George Clooney, Chris Columbus, Tom Hanks, Brad Pitt, Jay Roach,Julia Roberts and Brett Ratner are putting their names and production companies on the line - they expect you to watch the movies that are going to be made. Slumdog Millionaire winning the Oscar is not any indication of the quality of the production itself rather it is about opening the floodgates to the outsourcing hollywood movie production.

Let us wind the clocks back 15 years ago to 1994 and ask the question - Why did Aishwarya Rai and Sushmita Sen win the Miss World and Miss Universe contests respectively? To jumpstart the cosmetic industry in India. The commerce of beauty products can directly be attributed to the accolades won by beauty queens.

If that is the case in cosmetics why can it not be case in the film industry?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Loved this movie.
Posted by: 113121 on Feb 24, 2009 11:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And so did the Indians in my family but then again we all love movies in general and Bollywood in particular.Bangara!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SLUM DOG
Posted by: pfm on Feb 24, 2009 12:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, lighten up ... enjoy the moment the thrill of victory even if fictitious it appealed to one's heart....the underdog prevails

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

more owning-class kool-aid coming your way via hollywoood
Posted by: DaBear on Feb 24, 2009 1:23 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yay. I had the same reaction to this film as the reviewer. Slumdog's a classic owning-class presumptuous look at "Other" and doing what the owning class does best, judge Other as non-human and that the only solutions that can be put on the table are those that come from their own palatial halls of delusional grandeur. Surely the poor cannot have any good ideas... they're... they're... well, they are poor, afterall.

But for the Owning Class, be they Indian or Amerikaan, people might be able to solve poverty once and for all.

Oh but wait! Slumbdog's fiction... therefore it is absolved of all responsibility... classic Owning-class kool-aid tactics. Just drink more of this and you too will become rich and famous....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OOoh, this just in..
Posted by: DaBear on Feb 24, 2009 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was just talking with someone who was at the parties Sunday night. A well-heeled producer was saying to my source, "Thank god that Slumdog movie did so well. Now we don't have to waste another damned dime doing god damned poor-people films!" My source nearly threw his drink in the guy's face. But since his job depends on that well-heeled owning class asshole, my source bowed and scraped appropriately and excused himself from the conversation.

But hey, Slumdog Millionaire is fiction... a real feel good, happy happy.. the underdog wins... yay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» mhmmmmm Posted by: Drclaw
Slumdog Millionaire is a Bollywood Film made by a British Team
Posted by: dulali.nag on Feb 24, 2009 11:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recommend shrike13's comments to readers. I am adding here what I think is not covered in that.

It seems to me too many issues are getting confused in the reviews. Are we reviewing SDM the film or are we protesting all the hype around it, or are we rating it for its documentary excellence or are we debating here the relation between films and reality? If we could be careful about separating these issues in our comments, I think we can avoid both the excessive outrage at the alleged "patronization" as well as the completely non-critical stance by dismissing it as a "fiction". I myself want to limit my comments to SDM as a "film", regardless of the national origin of the team that produced it. Because it seems to me that that is where the confusion rises. Mainstream popular Hindi films are no less "patronizing" than SDM is, the only difference being that they are produced by teams of Indian origin. Here I think some Britishers have tried to make a "Bollywood" film, only since they were also targetting the Western market they had to mix English and Hindi in the dialogues so that Western viewers would be able to follow the story line. Though that very fact has taken away a great deal from the quality of the filmic representation of India, for English spoken in a police station in Mumbai simply feels absolutely unrealistic to Indian audiences. But other than that, there is nothing in the film that is either better or worse than mainstream Hindi films. Why it got so many awards is another story again, which is cultural-political and economic to its core.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Holly(Bolly)wood Ending
Posted by: jim_altman on Feb 25, 2009 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reviewer misses a salient point. What this film suffers from is the same affliction that curses just about every American made movie, the closed narrative loop. What makes most movies numbingly boring and irrelevant is the structure: premise, plot, sub-plots, a protagonist, one or more antagonists, climax, resolution, and the warm-happy sunset to ride off into. As Neal Gabler might say, "Hollywood teaches us to deny reality." Contrivance is the necessary tool to fit reality into a neat 2-3 hour narrative package. What might "Slumdog Millionaire" look like in the hands of a John Sayles? Why can't microfinance be the crux of this story instead of fantasy? Why is the USA the most ignorant major industrial nation on earth?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why are the child actors still dirt poor?
Posted by: Beagle17 on Feb 25, 2009 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Haven't seen it yet, but this fact bugs me. It's all on Wikipedia, or try this this link on this one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

absorbing new technologies...not a healthy idea
Posted by: brianct on Feb 25, 2009 6:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This should be worrying:

'It is estimated that the annual turnover from Dharavi's small businesses is between US$50 to $100 million. Dharavi's lanes are lined with cell-phone retailers and cybercafés, and according to surveys by Microsoft Research India, the slum's residents exhibit a remarkably high absorption of new technologies.'

One of those new technologies ,cell phones, means using cell phone towers, which have angered communities in Uk andrest of europe...why? because they can cause brain and other cancers:

mast victims

Who will pay for their treatment when the cancers become evident?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what did you expect to see?
Posted by: pitipua on Feb 28, 2009 1:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a movie about India's poor made by white and middle/upper class people. What kind of portrayal did you expect to see? I saw it and enjoyed it, was entertained by it, but did not believe for a minute that there was supposed to be any redeeming or thought provoking message in the movie. it is just a "feel-good" movie where of course, we, the relatively well to do westerners who consume it, are the ones feeling good. I'm sure the Jamals of Mumbai couldn't care less about the film and have every right to feel misrepresented, just as Latinos, Blacks or Gay people are misrepresented every day in the entertainment media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GADFLY PAT
Posted by: pest on Mar 1, 2009 4:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE JUST TOUCHED ON A DEVASTATING CONDITION OF THE POOR IN INDIA. THE MOST HYPOCRITICAL PART IS THE FACT THAT ABOUT 50% OF INDIA'S PEOPLE LIVE IN THESE CONDITIONS AND, IN SPITE OF GHANDI, THE UNTOUCHABLES STILL EXIST AND THE GOVERNMENT AND THE BRAHMINS PREFER TO IGNORE IT
. HOWEVER, THIS CONDITION CAN ALSO BE SEEN IN THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD-THE USA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not about winning Millionaire...
Posted by: barnabypage on Mar 3, 2009 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think if you read it as a work of fiction rather than a comment on India, it's quite clear that salvation comes to Jamal not "in the form of an imported quiz-show" but through that time-honoured movie standby, True Love.

The thing that I do find rather ironic is that a more realistic portrayal of the slums, acknowledging that they are often hives of economic activity and not always as deprived as we in the West might think (except of course in terms of housing), would probably have been rejected by Western audiences as rose-tinted...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement