"Slumdog- Millionaire depicts India's gloomy picture"

dfjhvkjhfkjfkdjkfjvk,mvkjfmfgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
 
yes . It does.
but that is because it is based on a novel. the story is based in slums of Mumbai. there is a bit os of exaggeration. but that is what films are about.
 
LOOk it is good film ..real depiction of our country..many american or british film director hav shown real hardcore problems of their country, so it doesnt mean their country name was degraded..its all abt ur preception and how we can see things
 
it is not roght. whatever it is showing is real portrayal of ppl who live in mumbai slums. ppl think that hollywood is more interesting in showing darker side of India, but it is not completely true. it shows darker side of theor own cities too.
 
no offence meant but you should leave your analytical abilities when you go to watch a movie... we're very proud that you have them but movies are meant to entertain not potray or showcase countries in good or bad light.

if you think that slumdog stereotypes india into a bunch of snake charmers and slum dwellers you might want to take a walk through rural india where as aptly quoted by Gandhi is where the real India lives.

I agree bout the one track potrayal of india in the west could be possible but then those who matter know what India's all about ... no country is perfect and the movie has picked up one of our greatest drawbacks and turned it into an experience , i think the movie's been brilliantly made and all the hype and hoo-haa around the movie is completely justified. I'll be rooting for them during the oscars ...... why ? cuz i liked the movie , it made me smile , end of story , dont dwell very deep into something that's quiete shallow or you'll hurt your nose. again.. no offence intended .
 
The film, Slumdog Millionaire depicts the sorry state-of-affairs in our country: extreme poverty, communal carnages, ‘children left to moral and material abandonment’, gangs operating forced beggary, mafia underworld, torture in police custody, arrogance of the elite, insensitivity of the middle class …. In short, it paints the horrendous reality and the ugly face of the Other India and also the dreams, aspirations and heroic struggles of those inhabiting therein. Plausibly, the depiction of the day-to-day heroic struggles of the underdogs in our country looks exotic for the audience from affluent countries (quite like the thrill of an adventurous trekking!) which might explain the reason why the film was a greater success in those countries than in our own country. It depicts the underbelly of the fast-growing economy leaping forward with 8-9 per cent growth even in the midst of the global financial meltdown – the only country, other than China, with impressive growth rates today. For all the criticisms of portraying the gloomy side of the Indian reality, hardly anyone contests the veracity of such a depiction. The film, of course, ends giving illusions of a millionaire’s life even to the slumdogs, an illusion of social mobility that characterises the liberal democratic social order. In other words, a way-out is shown within the bounds of the system itself.
 
Of course, the upwardly mobile classes in India detest projecting a grim face of India to the world outside because it is thought of as a slur on the image of an India globalising. It took Danny Boyle, a foreigner to paint this ugly face of ‘India shining’. The film reminds us of the statement by B.R. Ambedkar, “Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on the Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic.” The age-old Indian system of multi-layered oppression ensured that most individuals and groups find themselves more privileged with respect to some others, leaving their moral bases for challenging oppression weak. Is it simply that we, the Indian middle and upper classes have ourselves, become too complacent or indifferent towards the day-to-day existential struggles of our ‘long suffering people’, struggles, probably much more severe than in any other Third World country? Or is this cunning of silence to be explained with reference to the fact that the existence of a vast population of have-nots ensures the comfort of the elite. After all, do not the elite of the affluent countries have to take care of their young, cook, wash and do other mundane things by themselves when the elite in India do not have to do any of these? However, the sustainability of this level of comfort is suspect since the existence of a vast population of the underdogs can lead to social upheavals and increased levels of violence in society, an aspect not left untouched by this film. Or is it that we are trapped in the snare of our own patriotism, guided by the mindset that we shouldn’t wash our dirty linen in public?
 
President Pratibha Patil congratulated the artists of Slumdog Millionaire for “making India proud”. Congress President Sonia Gandhi felt that the team of this film “have done India proud”. Shall we, indeed, become proud of the achievements of these individual artists or put our heads down in shame on the sorry state-of-affairs in our country on the 62nd year of ‘independence’? With the Oscar recognition to the film, “Jai ho” is the new fashion of greeting that is going rounds among the so-called patriotic Indians. But just a minute, please. Jai ho what? Jai ho this sorry state-of-affairs? Jai ho our country, excluding its luckless millions? Let us face it: If only this film leads to serious efforts especially by those in positions of ‘doability’ to undo the evil of unprotected childhoods – a condition of children being left to ‘moral and material abandonment’ could the yells of Jai ho have any meaning or relevance. Can the State, the policy makers and all in positions of ‘doability’ initiate sincere efforts to remove this curse? It is the election year, after all. Let us have serious efforts for the implementation of at least one of the Directive Principles in our Constitution, Article 39(f): “The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.” Along with the infamous horrors of Nithari near NOIDA, 7,912 children, mostly from very poor backgrounds, gone missing in Delhi during the one and half years from Jan. 2007 to June 2008 and 2210 children gone missing in Delhi during 1 June 2008 to 12 Jan. 2009 (Indian Express, ‘ExpressNewsline’, 3 March 2009, New Delhi) is no mean context for initiating these efforts. Listening to the unthinking yells of Jai ho, one is reminded of two lines from the Telugu poet, N.K.
 
Slumdog millionaire dipicts the true picture but it depicts only one side of the coin which shows all the depressing things . The cliche continues in the story line too . the only commendable aspect of the whole movie is the background score by AR Rahman
 
Slumdog millionaire depicts the true picture but it depicts only one side of the coin which shows all the depressing things . The cliche continues in the story line too . the only commendable aspect of the whole movie is the background score by AR Rahman
 
Wow Imagine ...had it been otherwise we would have had Pompous dog millionaire....Danny Boyle did what he had seen.........Just by closing your eyes you cant fake reality.He had shown a rather romanticized version of poverty ...in truth Slum life can be worse.Hats off to the man...who had the sense to make a movie out of it,an in your face movie of human triumph against all odds
 
the movie is good.... its about hope n love... but es the fact that it en cashes upon the bad state of the people in the slums is shameful....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top