“There is a Jamal or a Malik in every “slumdog”... but it is sad to know that most of them cannot show their talent of being a “millionaire”.
The other day, having watched Gautum Ghose’s, “Kaalbela – Calcutta My Love”, I was subjected to the darker insights of the Naxalites and how the revolution actually arose. Of course there were certain patterns of truth very positively nurtured on celluloid and certain aspects which could have been further researched and then presented in the light of its knowledge. Now having watched the movie, “Slumdog Millionaire” and having an individualistic opinion the main protagonist is not India, unlike what Arindam Chaudhari had mentioned in his blog, “Don’t see Slumdog Millionaire. It sucks!” I find no reason why such a movie would have to be subjected to a comparison with Salaam Bombay or City of Joy, since the main aim of the movie is not just projecting India’s darkest insights; instead it takes the audience through the journey of how an individual fights for his love and in this process moves on to become a millionaire. Both the movies only aim is not to mock at any era of India’s worst times, rather it is an effort made to introduce the new generation of what “those times were and where we stand now!”
Chaudhari is of the fact that he is well versed with the facets of Indian poverty and its “real statistics”, then on what basis does he argue that the film is a caricature of India. Is he trying to debate the fact that slums are not part of the poverty still existing in India or is he trying to be one of those “shameless fools” for not supporting the truth that has been projected? The film has taken an effort to present its audience to the minute areas of a developing India without an intention of hurting people’s sentiments. People living in the city have never been subjected to the life led in slums and that is where the film provides a face to the “dark world” still persisting in India. The real slumdog are those citizens of India who still continue to live their lives in this “dark world” because they are not born as being a “slumdog”, circumstances force them to be one.
It is over 60 years of post independence and it seems that India has just worn a new dress but what has not changed is its intricate piece of needlework. Can the writer question himself as to why a Western writer/director has found a reason to caricature India? The reason is us. We have not changed with time and neither have we tried to clean the “dirt that has been hitting India since Independence”. The truth is not that Chaudhari is sad about the caricature made of our country, he is sad or probably a helpless Indian like most of us and hence does not want to be subjected to the prevailing ruins in India. Since Chaudhari thinks that a Mona Lisa is away from being made a caricature of then I believe he should go ahead and read The Da Vinci Code and The Angels and Demons!
It is quite surprising to note that Chaudhari does not find anything positive about the film, which makes even more sceptical about his knowledge about the unearthed facts of developing India. If he is of the fact that the film has projected shades of the underworld, slums, prostitution, brothels, child labour, begging, blinding and maiming of kids seems illogical to him, then I am of the fact that he needs himself to be a “Jamal” or a “Salim” to experience every phase of these areas.
The story is not just about a slumdog or about a game show; instead it is about those unknown stories of so many families who have a certain hidden talent in them of which are unaware of. So whom do you blame this on? – is it the individual, his background or the system of education that is so limited. Nominations, Oscars or any sort of awards is not the sole identity that can express that a movie winning that is the best. It is a way of recognizing upcoming talent and hard work from a film – maker in providing the world with a subject still unravelled.
On a final note, there are certain interesting points that Chaudhari has quite diplomatically presented, yet we have unearth how much truth or precise proof is expressed between those lines. On a personal note, I am of the fact, that Chaudhari has limited his boundaries for the sake of argument, since every film has its virtues and vices. But that doesn’t mean that a film would “suck”. It is very unfortunate to know that there are still intelligent and practical individuals who have not completely comprehended the intricate messages that the movie has projected. If people think that Boyle has created a “phony poseur” in order mock India from the First World’s perspective (as thought by Arindam Chaudhari), then let me take the stance of spreading the message, “This movie is not for all audience”.
Chaudhari is of the fact that he is well versed with the facets of Indian poverty and its “real statistics”, then on what basis does he argue that the film is a caricature of India. Is he trying to debate the fact that slums are not part of the poverty still existing in India or is he trying to be one of those “shameless fools” for not supporting the truth that has been projected? The film has taken an effort to present its audience to the minute areas of a developing India without an intention of hurting people’s sentiments. People living in the city have never been subjected to the life led in slums and that is where the film provides a face to the “dark world” still persisting in India. The real slumdog are those citizens of India who still continue to live their lives in this “dark world” because they are not born as being a “slumdog”, circumstances force them to be one.
It is over 60 years of post independence and it seems that India has just worn a new dress but what has not changed is its intricate piece of needlework. Can the writer question himself as to why a Western writer/director has found a reason to caricature India? The reason is us. We have not changed with time and neither have we tried to clean the “dirt that has been hitting India since Independence”. The truth is not that Chaudhari is sad about the caricature made of our country, he is sad or probably a helpless Indian like most of us and hence does not want to be subjected to the prevailing ruins in India. Since Chaudhari thinks that a Mona Lisa is away from being made a caricature of then I believe he should go ahead and read The Da Vinci Code and The Angels and Demons!
It is quite surprising to note that Chaudhari does not find anything positive about the film, which makes even more sceptical about his knowledge about the unearthed facts of developing India. If he is of the fact that the film has projected shades of the underworld, slums, prostitution, brothels, child labour, begging, blinding and maiming of kids seems illogical to him, then I am of the fact that he needs himself to be a “Jamal” or a “Salim” to experience every phase of these areas.
The story is not just about a slumdog or about a game show; instead it is about those unknown stories of so many families who have a certain hidden talent in them of which are unaware of. So whom do you blame this on? – is it the individual, his background or the system of education that is so limited. Nominations, Oscars or any sort of awards is not the sole identity that can express that a movie winning that is the best. It is a way of recognizing upcoming talent and hard work from a film – maker in providing the world with a subject still unravelled.
On a final note, there are certain interesting points that Chaudhari has quite diplomatically presented, yet we have unearth how much truth or precise proof is expressed between those lines. On a personal note, I am of the fact, that Chaudhari has limited his boundaries for the sake of argument, since every film has its virtues and vices. But that doesn’t mean that a film would “suck”. It is very unfortunate to know that there are still intelligent and practical individuals who have not completely comprehended the intricate messages that the movie has projected. If people think that Boyle has created a “phony poseur” in order mock India from the First World’s perspective (as thought by Arindam Chaudhari), then let me take the stance of spreading the message, “This movie is not for all audience”.
I totally believe that the movie is a masterpiece in its own style and after having watched the movie I think that there is a Jamal or a Malik in every “slumdog”... but it is sad to know that most of them cannot show their talent of being a “millionaire” for not being able of getting noticed. Not an endorsement made at the imperial background of the West, instead a delicate subject presented on celluloid with utmost sense of knowledge and dignity which has surprisingly come out from an English master, because Indian masters are busy making commercial brands and politics!
No comments:
Post a Comment