First reading - Sociological - How the film was received by Western audiences compared to Indian audiences
One of the really interesting things about Slumdog Millionaire was how differently the film was viewed but the Western audience compared to the audience in India. Most of India felt like the film portrayed a negative image of Mumbai, and it didn't show all the city had to offer. The term "slumdog", from the title of the film, was one of the main causes of outrage from people living in slums. A social activist, Nicolas Almeida, organized a protest against the term, and many slum-dwellers came out to protest, holding signs reading "I am not a dog".
The script writer Simon Beaufoy said the term was created merely because he thought it sounded like an interesting title. He did not take into consideration that dogs are considered unsafe and unclean in India, and the slum-dwellers thought they were, in turn, being labeled the same things. Director Danny Boyle said the term was like a combination of the word "underdog" and the obvious fact he was from the slums. It is understandable that the people who live in slums felt offended by the title, but it seems like the Western viewers wouldn't really have given it as much thought. It is just a catchy title. Another thing that bothered many people in India was the fact that it seemed to view India from a Western perspective - it was an Indian-focused film from a very Westernized director. The idea was stated very well by a Mumbai-based newspaper - "The miserable existence of the average slum dweller, which we in India know so well, is novel to the Western viewer." The people in Mumbai felt that the film exploited the slums as a means of creating a great film, and what was a harsh reality for them was being used as a source of entertainment. Danny Boyle does not think of the slums as a static place, all gloom and doom - he loves the fact that they are their own community, a "thriving, bustling mini metropolis".
Overall, the film didn't do very well in India. Boyle included many symbols of India that were recognizable to Western viewers - such as the Taj Mahal, Amitabh Bachchan, cricket - to make them feel included and make it more enjoyable for THEM to watch. But for the people in Mumbai, the film did not get a big audience, and it did not get positive reviews.
Other then the slight hint of Bollywood in the credits, it wasn't really the type of film India overly enjoyed. They preferred Bollywood, which projected the idea of the "impossible dream". So although the film was well received in America and other Westernized countries, the movie was not appreciated in the place it was filmed - India. 
One concern that came from Mumbai was the image the film projected of their city. They argued that it only showed the negative side, the slums, whereas they wanted their city to be known for the great economical strides they had made. 
The Indian viewers were uncomfortable with how the slums were depicted - how badly children were treated and how the police treated a boy from the slums. The focus seemed like it was on the negative side of Mumbai, so it felt like it was portraying overall a bad image for them, and the country. They felt that it was attempting to make all the Western viewers see all the problems in India, and they wanted to be seen for much more then that.
Danny Boyle responded that what he wanted people to take from the film was the "breathtaking resilience of people and the joy of people despite their circumstances." So for him, even though Jamal came from these situations, he was showing the journey he made out of them, not making the main focus all the problems in Mumbai. This is generally how the Western audience felt. It was seen as a "wonderful rags to riches tale" (Sydney Morning Herald), and a very uplifting movie, because of the way Jamal overcame the odds. So yes, we did see the suffering and pain that was felt, and these problems and issues in Mumbai, but the main thing was how Jamal overcame them, and triumphed. A.R. Rahman, composer for the film, said "For me it's not about India alone, it's about the human spirit which triumphs, and this could have happened in China or Brazil or anywhere else."
I can see where the people from the slums and Indian people are coming from, and why they would feel offended by the portrayal of their country, but maybe the truth is although it is a film based in India, it was really made for the Western audience. They can remove themselves from the situation, and see the creative camera work and clever storyline, so it was a much more enjoyable movie for them. It was less enjoyable for people who knew about the harsh reality of these things, things that really do happen in India. Made in India, yes, but made for India? Maybe not.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_issues_surrounding_Slumdog_Millionaire http://www.travelblog.org/Topics/16241-1.html
http://asiasociety.org/style-living/popular-culture/slumdog-millionaire-loved-everywhere-india
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/634708
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5511650.ece http://www.upiasia.com/Society_Culture/2009/02/02/film_stereotyping_india_is_a_mistake/7188/
http://www.rediff.com/movies/2009/jan/29is-slumdog-worth-it.htm http://www.filmjunk.com/2009/01/21/danny-boyle-responds-to-slumdog-millionaire-backlash/ http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Make-your-own-film-Rahman-tells-Slumdog-critics/420128/ http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/the-real-roots-of-the-slumdog-protests/
One concern that came from Mumbai was the image the film projected of their city. They argued that it only showed the negative side, the slums, whereas they wanted their city to be known for the great economical strides they had made. 
The Indian viewers were uncomfortable with how the slums were depicted - how badly children were treated and how the police treated a boy from the slums. The focus seemed like it was on the negative side of Mumbai, so it felt like it was portraying overall a bad image for them, and the country. They felt that it was attempting to make all the Western viewers see all the problems in India, and they wanted to be seen for much more then that.Danny Boyle responded that what he wanted people to take from the film was the "breathtaking resilience of people and the joy of people despite their circumstances." So for him, even though Jamal came from these situations, he was showing the journey he made out of them, not making the main focus all the problems in Mumbai. This is generally how the Western audience felt. It was seen as a "wonderful rags to riches tale" (Sydney Morning Herald), and a very uplifting movie, because of the way Jamal overcame the odds. So yes, we did see the suffering and pain that was felt, and these problems and issues in Mumbai, but the main thing was how Jamal overcame them, and triumphed. A.R. Rahman, composer for the film, said "For me it's not about India alone, it's about the human spirit which triumphs, and this could have happened in China or Brazil or anywhere else."
I can see where the people from the slums and Indian people are coming from, and why they would feel offended by the portrayal of their country, but maybe the truth is although it is a film based in India, it was really made for the Western audience. They can remove themselves from the situation, and see the creative camera work and clever storyline, so it was a much more enjoyable movie for them. It was less enjoyable for people who knew about the harsh reality of these things, things that really do happen in India. Made in India, yes, but made for India? Maybe not.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_issues_surrounding_Slumdog_Millionaire http://www.travelblog.org/Topics/16241-1.html
http://asiasociety.org/style-living/popular-culture/slumdog-millionaire-loved-everywhere-india
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/634708
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5511650.ece http://www.upiasia.com/Society_Culture/2009/02/02/film_stereotyping_india_is_a_mistake/7188/
http://www.rediff.com/movies/2009/jan/29is-slumdog-worth-it.htm http://www.filmjunk.com/2009/01/21/danny-boyle-responds-to-slumdog-millionaire-backlash/ http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Make-your-own-film-Rahman-tells-Slumdog-critics/420128/ http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/the-real-roots-of-the-slumdog-protests/
No comments:
Post a Comment