A rebuff to "Slumdog: 'Poverty porn at its worst' "

On the eve of the 81st Oscars, Rediff has published an opinion article by a former diplomat (a cheap journalistic ploy in pitting against the author of the novel Q&A), Mr. T.P. Sreenivasan, which in essence accuses the now mass-favorite Slumdog Millionaire of being exploitative and hence the paraphrase "porn at its worst". While Mr. Sreenivasan's credentials may be outstanding as a diplomat, his opinions expressed in the article about this movie miss the point: the movie is not about India; a part of India forms the backdrop for a fictional story of Hope (albeit heavily masalafied). The movie is more believable because of India and not the other way round. And, to date, I haven't really met anyone who thought this was a real story. Had the article been one dissecting the plot of the movie (like another Rediff article ) I wouldn't have had too many issues.

The article claims "... the film is exploitation of the novel, of Dharavi, of poverty, of Rahman, of India itself to titillate foreign audiences. It is the exploitation of the new curiosity about India's success. The curiosity today is not about maharajas and snake charmers, magic or rope trick, but about the market and the malls, the computers and the cell phones. " Well, the movie is about hope - for popcorn lovers; if the plot was set in a poorer country which has no access to the riches floating in front of the poor and a Who Wants to be a Millionaire show, would it be even as convincing as a movie ? (given that the plot is wafer thin already) The novel and the movie take the existing realities of India and spin a fictional tale. Leaving aside these purely cinematic liberties, the article accuses the filmmakers of exploiting everthing portrayed in the movie as everything-India. Why so touchy? Come on! the western world is not as naive as the author makes it out to be - people know that it is a movie...and yes, many visitors (NRIs included) do direct a lot of focus on the dirt and filth in India, but they also know that there are terrific cultural aspects and and a deep history that really are why they are interested (if they aren't interested in these, then is it really India's fault?). And, just because AR Rahman won international acclaim through this film neither makes him the only symbol of India's success based on a story of a slum boy nor should portrayal of Dharavi and poverty be the only image of India that stays in world audience's minds. Rahman didn't have to do the movie, he did it because he wanted to do it not because he would be exploited what would we call Lord of the Rings Play, Warriors of Heaven and Earth then? exploitation would be when he accepts a Karan Johar movie). Think of it more like a culmination of events which finally showcase ARR as a true world class composer that he is. (BTW the music is only so-so for this movie --- it just works well as a part of the movie, not as an album).

And the theme of equating everything in a movie with India continues... " The police officer mentions Amnesty as the disaster, not the possible death of the victim of torture. The police man appears to enjoy torturing and even insulting the victim. He provokes Jamal by referring to Latika as the 'bitch of the slum.' The torture scenes do not add much to the story, but denigrates India even more than the slums do." Oh oh.. 'cops beat youth to death' is probably an oft repeated headline... where's the reality check? We were proud and not so proud about India inspite of all the crap we had to go through growing up. The slums are no more denigrative to India than our superefficient court/police system...(which by the way sentenced an old man for a few years for accepting a bribe for an absolutely paltry sum, some 20 or so years ago and lets our ministers roam freely). But then is that all there is to India?

And it goes on through the entire article "

It was not necessary to rake up the dirt in India to create a film to bring Oscars to India. India rejoiced at the Gandhi Oscars, but Slumdog Oscars, if any, will only highlight how India became a victim of exploitation. (poor Danny Boyle didn't even think it would be widely successul. If Oscars pick this movie is it the film's fault?)

But the celebrated song at the end of the movie sounds like a parody of the national anthem with the use of the phrase, Jai ho! (Please, give me a break!!! )

The fact remains, however, that the novelist and the makers of the movie have brought to light the horrors of Dharavi. If the passion it has aroused could be directed towards a mass movement to combat the evils of the slum and to eliminate the slums altogether in stages, that would be an appropriate response to the movie. ( had I read it in any other context I would have appreciated this call for support)

The fact is, we are really touchy people when it comes to (or not) anything remotely Indian.... and what do we do about it all? You won't have to guess if you read this article in Yahoo...and certainly not if you watch a news channel in India (which by the way is far more denigrative to India than an innocuous masala Indie film). Oh well, like someone said, I need to find more bugs in my numerical code...