Slumdog makes its debut in India

Slumdog Millionaire, the Mumbai-based movie nominated for 10 Oscars including best film, has finally opened India.

The rags-to-riches tale, which has already won four Golden Globes, is being given as big a release in India as any major Bollywood film.

The film has won much praise in reviews in India but has also earned some criticism for exploiting poverty. A fully dubbed Hindi version of the film has also been released to reach rural and small-town audiences.

Slum fund

The film, which was made on a budget of £7m ($9.6m), has already raked in nearly $50m at the box office in the US and Britain.

The film's music director, AR Rahman, has become the first Indian to get three Oscar nominations.

Rahman told the Times of India: "I'm at the top of the world. Everything is a blur."

The film has created discussion in India about whether it exploits "poverty chic".

But the Times of India said film-goers should forget "the twitter about aggrieved national sentiment" and enjoy "a piece of riveting cinema".

Indian readers of the BBC News website have sent in mixed reactions

"Danny Boyle's camera does not reach the face of the India of today. He misses the two main aspects of the country - the progress as well as the rampant consumerism," writes R Mukherjee.

"He seems to have willfully restricted his film to either gaze lewdly at the navel or condescendingly at the dirty underbelly; both of which sell well in the West."

But Tina Verma from Mumbai writes: "I think this is the only 'positive' film I've seen so far on the slums in Mumbai, and it makes me proud as an Indian that the film has received so much recognition."

Slumdog Millionaire makes clever Marketing.

The greatness of an artist lies in what manner he presents is art.

The greatness of art does not lie in its esoteric form; it lies in its ability to understand reach out and communicate far and wide.

Art must aim to be inclusive; rather than exclusive. And there lies the success of Slumdog Millionaire; with being dark and real, it is quite entertaining. Good background music, tight screenplay, fine balance of reality and fantasy and great performances.

Along with a great product; it is also great marketing. The sort of senrio that has been generated for this film (sans any major star cast) has brought it to the league of big budget films in India.

In a lot of ways, the film is like the city it portrays – Mumbai – full of dirt and grime, yet teeming with enterprise. Crime infested to the core, yet resplendent with hope. A paradox in itself – very Mumbai.

Coming back to why it is fantastic marketing. I believe the way Boyle has managed to position his work. He notched up nominations at the big league, and along the way, created a huge buzz for his content.

He realized that there is a bigger audience and decided to dub his film in Hindi and Tamil. The film got unprecedented media coverage (helped also by the Oscar nominations); and opened to packed houses across multiplexes in the country.

ART SHOWS CLEVERNESS OF ARTIST. ARTIST SHOWS HIS ART BEHIND HIM.

Should India really Celebrate Slumdog Millionaire Achievements?

Critcisim plays an important part of our film knowledge, which increases and also expands levels of thinking.

In what sense India should celebrate the Slumdog Millonaire?

1)Because it recieved eight Oscars.
2)Because it has shown reality.
3)Because it has a pinpoint on Poverty-Porn.
4)Because it potrays a different picture of India ( Mumbai) audiences, especially for westerner's and those who had never been to Mumbai or India.
5)Because you have seen and you liked it.
6)Because it is worth seeing.

My Voice

I believe that Danny Boyle was privileged to make his film in India. He enjoyed it and has said that the experience of making it was amazing. If this had been a genuine, home-grown Bollywood project, would it have been enjoyed by Westerners?

It does show Hindus killing Muslims (although this wasn’t in the original book) but I emphasise these point out that this did actually happen. To become angry because a Westerner has shown this unfortunate blip in our history is no worse than when Muslims go out rioting because someone has the nerve to call them violent!

Although the original text on which this film is based DOES NOT show Hindus killing Muslims, that text was changed by Danny Boyle to show Hindus in this horrifying role - one which most people in the world associate with Muslim fundamentalism. Why did Mr Boyle do this?

The two Muslim children offer protection to the Hindu-sounding girl Latka, thus showing Muslims in a compassionate light. What does the Hindu girl do to repay Jamal’s obvious infatuation for him? She has sex with Jamal’s brother Salim and further on in the story she abandons Salim for sex with a rich crime boss.

Nevertheless … SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE CAN NEVER APPROACH THE BRILLIANCE AND THOROUGHNESS OF RICHARD ATTENBOROUGH’S GANDHI.

Why Danny Boyle choose India for his movie?

In Media studies, it is said that to understand Director,producer and writer need to think in a specific way in order to reach the roots of the matter and thinking. People who want to criticise often don't see this, and judge far too quickly.

During Danny's interview in IBN7 ( Indian News Channel). He expressed his view on his film.
He also expressed that it was his priveledge to make the film in India, since that's where it is set, and wanted to make it feel more real than filming it in a studio.

Rather than telling you everything he said, here is the man himself.

Part One


Part Two


Part Three

The Indian press reaction: Slumdog Millionaire

It is true that more the eyes more the opinion. Some says that Slumdog Millionaire emphasis the poverty porn , some says that it reflects slum tourism and some writes that it shows real India. Where I believe that it is mixture of all that what other says because it has got all th others are saying, criticizing, commenting etc. On my Personal opinion all other countries has got the slum and slummy area, then Why Danny Boyle choose India for his movie?

Let ask The Indian Press,

Nikhat Kazmi writing in The Times of India:

Forget the twitter about aggrieved national sentiment. For Slumdog Millionaire is neither poverty porn nor slum tourism… No Slumdog is just a piece of riveting cinema, meant to be savoured as a Cinderella-like fairy tale, with the edge of a thriller and the vision of an artist. It was never meant to be a documentary on the down and out… And it isn't.

Subhash K Jha writing for the Indo-Asian News Service:

This isn't the 'real' India. This is India as seen through the eyes of a Westerner who's selling desi [local] squalor packaged as savvy slick entertainment...

Yup, this is a film on a mission. It wants to exploit the Mumbai slums as a hotbed of tantalizing images conveying the splendour of squalidity… And to think every prominent of the cast and crew went around proclaiming Slumdog Millionaire would do wonders for Mumbai's tourism industry! Yeah, right...

Mike Myers does it far less self-consciously in The Love Guru.

Anonymous in the Economic Times:

Overall, Slumdog Millionaire is a brilliant and entertaining portrayal of a urban slum urchin, who is on the way to bag a jackpot in the TV show. Considering the fact that over 250 million in India still live below poverty line, the film also gives a shots of urban Indian slum life, which is especially appealing to western audiences. Made with a budget of just $15 million, not even half of Bollywood blockbusters, SlumD, succeeds in strongly conveying its message - no dream is too big. A must watch.

Shubhra Gupta in the Indian Express:

One look at 'Slumdog Millionaire' and you know that its spirit and soul is flagrantly, proudly India: the Empire has been finally, overwhelmingly trounced. It's not about poverty pornography. It's not about a White guy showing us touchy Brown-skins squatting by the rail-tracks. In the end, it's just about a film, which sweeps you up and takes you for an exhilarating ride on the wild side.

What do real slumdogs think of Slumdog Millionaire?

As the films is becoming more and more popular it is reaching deep rooted and the realistic story of poor slum residents. Whereas it also had lots of controversy where people and other society had said in front of Indian Media that it was insulting movie.

Anita,poor girl in dharvi,Famous slum area in Mumbai, says,"we are already clothes less and why others are still on removing our clothes by using humiliating words for the film like 'SLUM DOG'? These rich and literate people doesn't see any difference in human beings and dogs. They have no right."

Meanwhile, in the northern state of Bihar, one of India's poorest regions, a slum-dweller has taken the Indian stars of the film to court, alleging that Slumdog 's graphic portrayal of Mumbai's shanty towns has offended millions of his peers. Tateshwar Vishwakarma, a social activist, later organised a protest that resulted in a mob ransacking a cinema showing the film in Patna, the capital of Bihar.

His biggest complaint: the use of the term “slumdog”. “Referring to people living in slums as dogs is a violation of human rights,” he alleged. There have also been a few rather thinly attended demonstrations in Mumbai's slums.

Cynics will note that firebrand activists, most of them championing dubious causes, regularly attack cinemas in India to garner cheap publicity. But it could be argued that Slumdog's controversial title does not fit the film.

Though there were many exceptional cases, where many asked if they find the film insulting, the children reply with a bemused “no” - it shows real things, they reiterate: poverty, prostitution, murder, theft, blackmail, religious violence, the exploitation of the weak. Its “heart” is entirely authentic, they say, and it's good for outsiders to see how they exist. This endorsement appears to undermine the criticism that Slumdog has attracted in India and in the West. India's English-language media has, for the most part, embraced the film and celebrated its successes, but there have been high-profile backlashes against its depiction of India's urban poor. Last month, Amitabh Bachchan, the Bollywood star, took a swipe at the portrayal of the country as a “Third World, dirty, underbelly developing nation” - a characterisation that he said had caused “pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots”. In the UK, newspaper columnists have branded the film voyeuristic “poverty porn”.