Wednesday 11 March 2009

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.


No comments:

Post a Comment