|
| Of slums and millions | |
| NETERATI | | Jai Arjun Singh / New Delhi December 20, 2008, 0:37 IST | |
I still haven’t read Vikas Swarup’s debut novel Q&A — which inspired the film that’s dominating the news these days, Slumdog Millionaire — but I didn’t think too highly of his new book, The Six Suspects. A fictionalised treatment of the Jessica Lal murder, this novel was so interested in so many different issues that it might easily have been subtitled “A Checklist of the Social Problems Facing Modern India”, but its use of caricatures precluded any real insights into the workings of a very complex society.
Still, one had to admire the sweep of Swarup’s storytelling, and it was easy to see that this material could engender a solid film. Which, by most accounts, is what happened with Q&A when it came into the hands of director Danny Boyle (best known for his breathless Trainspotting) and screenwriter Simon Beaufoy.
Discussing Slumdog Millionaire on the blog Ultrabrown (http://www.ultrabrown.com/), Manish Vij says, “This kinetic movie vastly outstrips its source material, a collection of linked short shorts, less a book than an outline.”
With Slumdog Millionaire getting a Golden Globe nomination for best picture-drama, the chances of an Oscar nomination — possibly even a win — look bright. In online discussions, both professional critics and casual movie buffs agree that the film has picked up momentum.
There is also the touchy subject of its supposed depiction of “real India” and how this will affect its award chances — especially at a time when India is very much an object of sympathy in the international community.
Cautioning viewers that Slumdog’s depiction of Indian poverty and slum life is “searingly real”, Shashi Tharoor writes on the Huffington Post blog ( http://tinyurl.com /5mj2la) that “the mounds of garbage, the cesspits, the overflowing drains are all very present… But this is not an exercise in the pornography of poverty.
Slum life is depicted with integrity and dignity”. In a more reserved assessment on Vanity Fair.com (http://tinyurl.com/6e3nnq), author Siddhartha Deb says the film is at its most appealing “when it abandons gritty realism and gives in to its taste for fantasy — all the more since last month’s bloody events [in Mumbai] have shown us just how bizarre the real can be…I wish Boyle had focused not on discovering the real India but on finding his inner Bollywood.”
“Do we ever see the ‘real India’ in Slumdog Millionaire?” wonders blogger and critic K Bowen (http://tinyurl.com/5zomfb) “The film never advances beyond a ripped-from-the-headlines level of Indian experience. Anti-Muslim riots, child exploitation, call centre culture. One wonders who cut the tragic tsunami.”
“Yes, you see the slums, but the image of India that emerges is that of a powerhouse on the rise,” goes one patriotic comment. Another retorts: “Go check the slums... People are not bothered about being a powerhouse, they want their next meal.” This space should be worth watching if the film actually wins an Oscar.
Meanwhile the familiar question of authenticity — and the insistence on documentary-like believability — has also reared its head. “The main flaw of this movie,” pronounces a commenter on Tharoor’s blog, “is that the lead actors mouth dialogues in a non-Indian, non-slum accent.” Personally, I think this amounts to asking for saphead realism, but what do I know? On Rediff.com, there are less lofty concerns.
“Why Anil Kapoor’s performance has been ignored?” asks a poster on a news item about the Golden Globes (http://tinyurl.com/6fu732) “Why britisher taking all credit?” When a flame-baiter replies that Kapoor has never given an award-worthy performance, a full-on war ensues and much slumdog language is used.
|
|
Content Guide