Slum Voyeurism?

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Ginnyx @ 01/31/2009 9:18:57 AM

    I have not seen the film but i intend to. What strikes me from what I have read is what the film company is doing for the child actors. I think their approach is the best one for the future of the children. They are making sure t he children get an education as well as meeting theiir needs. makes sense to me.

  • Posted By: jbz7879 @ 01/31/2009 4:55:44 AM

    i do not have any problem with the theme it is the poor execution and the flawed script which is so monotonous and i have already pointed the flaws out too many times to be repeating the same stuff which is actually made from the perspective of an anglo amrican view of the thirld world in a disjointed badly acted movie

    why did boyle give anil kapoor a blond mouche -lolz was he missing his blond actors so much and the way taj mahal crops in the poor script was a real cliche and a cheap antic
    and the mobile which rang across half of mumbai like a air raid siren
    lolz
    even technically it is a pooe shot
    who cares about the morality as there is none left in the world to expect any in hollywood or bollywood
    that is rather a luxury we cannot afford in this recession

  • Posted By: 'Cada @ 01/30/2009 9:29:13 PM

    I have lived for several-month periods in Srinagar, Delhi, & have worked in Mumbai. While I have no Indian ancestry, I'm married to a Kashmiri. We can vouch for India???s diversity; there is NO way you could begin to capture all of India???s nuances in anything less than a 1000-part miniseries. We both felt the film was a bold, accurate depiction of an often-overlooked sector of society. While Jamal???s story was fictional, being forced to view the world through his eyes was both illuminating and humanizing. The movie serves a greater purpose as it shouts loud and clear that all people-- even slum dwellers-- have inherent value and stories well worth listening to???whether or not more affluent Mumbaikers wish to acknowledge this. (The Dickens parallel fits so aptly, especially when you consider that Dickensian England was also blighted by a lack of mandatory childhood education or enforced child labor laws.) India is rightfully proud of its many accomplishments, and this film triggering such a mixed response there feels only right for the land of nonviolent protest. A billion-plus people are bound to have a billion-plus opinions! It???s too bad a lot of people out there didn???t get the obvious satire of the scene with self-righteous American tourists handing Jamal a $100 bill. A good-natured jab from the British filmmakers to their American counterparts (who were not involved in the making of this film in any way)??? this scene cracked us up! (We reside in the U.S.) So many people who post commentary don???t seem to realize that not all moviegoers view the film from a narrow-perspective lens. I???m particularly fond of the previous post from the guy who has yet to see the movie yet feels compelled to comment. For those upset by ???Slumdog Millionaire,??? I challenge you all to create films with perspectives more to your liking. Get them out there-- no excuses! (???Slumdog??? almost went straight to dvd due to the financial collapse of its main backer???) I???m sure your story is worth telling as well; we look forward to watching it!!!

  • Posted By: Bon-Bon @ 01/30/2009 6:09:55 PM

    I was in Mumbai for a week in the early part of this past Nov--no words or pictures can convey the appalling poverty nor the way the populace ignores and accepts it. It made me heartsick.

  • Posted By: Kyle Berg @ 01/30/2009 5:57:23 PM

    F.Y.I. When you say F.Y.I. you are automatically an arrogant prick... assuming our ignorance and your lack there of.... of some fact as simple as "India is diverse." F.Y.I. the film is not an expose on child poverty/abuse in India, it's this thing called fiction. So the film is about the three children and the horrors they experience, and if their story gets people thinking about the realities- the real stories- of children facing poverty then isn't that just wonderful? Productive? Socially progressive? Maybe one of the intrinsic values and objectives of art? (F.Y.I. It is not "exaggerated," its called hyperbole.) And if you think that the kinds of horrific things that take place in this film never happen, F.Y.I. worse things happen than even these.

  • Posted By: ANALYSIS @ 01/30/2009 5:48:46 PM

    First and foremost it is just a movie. Many Indians are well aware of pathetic conditions that these slum dwellers live in. India is up and coming but, it has many problems to tackle also. Grinding poverty, poor sanitation systems and lack of decent infrastructure are at the the root of it. If India can manage to attack these problems and attempt to cure the ills that afflicts it's poor only then can India become a true emerging power.

  • Posted By: hy_there @ 01/30/2009 5:20:48 PM

    I don't understand why Indians are so after this movie. And everyone of them have same unanimous reason "oh India is not poor blah blah blah. Such a nationalist B.S. Everyone knows that there are richest of riches and poorest of poors in there. Where there is such a huge social/economic disparity, abuse and exploitation are bound to flourish, and India is not out of this loop. One does not have to be Chanakya to figure that out.
    If only this movie had couple of songs and dances shot in Europe or America by beautiful actresses, it would have been super hit there.

  • Posted By: hy_there @ 01/30/2009 5:11:27 PM

    I don't understand why Indians are so after this movie, and the reason for that is such an nationalist BS..."Oh India is not poor blah blah blah". Everyone knows that there are richest of riches and poorest of poors there. And where there is such a huge social/class gap, abuse and exploitation is bound to flourish. One does not have to be Chanakya to figure that out. If only this movie had couple of songs and dances shot in Europe or America by gorgeous actresses, it would have been super hit in India.

  • Posted By: rchanderetc @ 01/30/2009 1:13:25 PM

    The director mentions Indian movies like Sathya and Black Friday. These were indeed extraordinary Indian movies. but have anybody in America have heard about these movies or other great recent Indian movies like Wednesday and TZP. The only comment you hear about Bollywood is that it makes "escapist movies", (like Hollywood movies makes "realistic movies like "Spiderman", "ET", "Pirates of Carrabean"). It is not a language barrier because Enlish movies made by Indian directors like "Bend it like beckham" and "Namesake" did not merit a single Oscan nomination. The sad truth is this movie, which is good, but not extraoridnary, is becoming popular because it is make by a Western director and it shows the stereotypical image of India (ignoring the tremendous progress that has been made). My problem is not with showing poverty, but an exagerrated version of violence - which for many Americans is the "real" and only image of India.

    • Posted By: Ronacrone @ 01/30/2009 1:54:10 PM

      Yes this may be the only image Americans have of India, but this is a real image. Sets were not contstructed to show India's slums; people actually live in the scenes that were shown throughout the movie. Just as the world sees America through its entertainment products, any country in which a movie is made will suffer from stereotyping. If citizens of a country don't appreciate the view of their country as depicted in a movie, there is not too much to be done. The real answer is making the stereoptype completely false. Will the citizens of India ever choose to end the poverty in the slums of Mumbai? Or will they protest the director's choice of showing the slums as they actually exist?

      • Posted By: rchanderetc @ 01/30/2009 4:48:03 PM

        F.y.i. India is a very diverse country. there are people traveling in bullock carts and people traveling in private jets and everything in-between. There are tribals wearing no dress to people wearing Gucci and everything in-between. Which is the real India? how can one form a view of such a diverse country by just one movie?
        Again the problem is not showing poverty but showing an exaggerated amount of cruelty and child abuse and an American coming and rescuing the child. This is a true feel-good movie but only for Americans
        F.y.i. Read wikipeidia, the poverty in india has decreased tremendously. Some 200 million Indians have come out of poverty in the last two decades. As you know things can not change overnight in a democratic country. It will take time but it will happen.

  • Posted By: Jacks @ 01/30/2009 3:59:23 PM

    It is a movie! It has shined light on what is going on there, why make it more than it is. The movie is great, take it for it's for...A MOVIE!

  • Posted By: Vaks @ 01/30/2009 3:46:56 PM

    I have not seen the film. So, my comments are based on my being from Mumbai. I believe the main issue with the name Slumdog is a phrase in mumbai "Galli ka Kutta". Translated it means "Street Dog", which is an insult as the street dogs in India are the ones that have nowhere to go, eat garbage, and live a horrible life. Having said that, the theme of the movie is not any different from hundreds of hindi movies that show rags to riches story. A little bit of research on the name would have saved a lot of heartache.

  • Posted By: YELLAMATY @ 01/30/2009 1:53:30 PM

    IF DANNY BOUYLE ANY FEELINGS FOR THE PEOPLE LIVING IN SLUMS OF MUMBAI , HE SHOULD GIVE THE ENTIRE MONEY HE EARNED THROUGH THIS FILM FOR THE DEVELPMENTMENT OF SLUMS IN MUMBAI AND FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN SLUMS AND THE PEOPLE WILL REALLY APPRECIATE HIM. IF NOT WE CAN PUT HIM THE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF POOR PEOPLE IN MUMBAI.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse