Guest dada_rocks Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 I have not watched the movie but if what he claims is true that they are showing India as thrid world hinterland and winning prizes then these guys are no diffrent from this year's booker prize winner some Balinga or malinga ..I forgot the name.. He too basically heaps abuses after abuses on indian culture in that novel. Yes that book lost to book based on Opium war ( which showed Uk's ugly face in india/china) anyway here is the article http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Big_B_slams_Slumdog_Millionaire_on_blog/articleshow/3979601.cms "If 'Slumdog Millionaire' projects India as Third World dirty underbelly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky underbelly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations," Amitabh said in a posting on his blog on Wednesday from Paris, France. The commercial escapist world of Indian cinema had vociferously battled for years, on the attention paid and the adulation given to the legendary Satyajit Ray... and not a word of appreciation for the entertaining mass-oriented box office blockbusters that were being churned out from Mumbai. "Ray portrayed reality. While, the other — escapism, fantasy and incredulous posturing. Unimpressive for Cannes and Berlin and Venice (film festivals)," he explained. He further wrote: "But look how rapidly all that is changing. Dedicated TV channels running Hindi cinema on prime timings. Premieres at Leicester Square (referring to 'Chandni Chowk To China'), the home of all Hollywood royalty, thronged by hundreds on the street in cold biting weather."
Sachinism Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 As much as we all love India, you can't deny that many parts of it are 3rd world
sandtest Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 A BIG THANK YOU AMITABH JI This is what I have been saying in Movie thread last week. They have protrayed Mumbai in particular and India in general as a place for Slum dwellers. Even while protraying Slum dwellers they are not honest. They have conviniently added evil Hindus rioting. Any Slum, Tribal area portraying should never miss the evangelical missionaries busy in soul harvesting like vultures on helpless poor children. How come goras miss this to include in movie??:giggle:
cowboysfan Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 geez-cmon its a movie which is based on a book written by an indian.its useless getting bent out of shape over a movie or a book-we are not iranians afterall.
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 As much as we all love India' date=' you can't deny that many parts of it are 3rd world[/quote'] invaribaly when you put that bad part upfront you get recognised that's the beef bachchan has..
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 geez-cmon its a movie which is based on a book written by an indian.its useless getting bent out of shape over a movie or a book-we are not iranians afterall. nobody issued fatwa mate but criticism has merit
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 A BIG THANK YOU AMITABH JI This is what I have been saying in Movie thread last week. They have protrayed Mumbai in particular and India in general as a place for Slum dwellers. Even while protraying Slum dwellers they are not honest. They have conviniently added evil Hindus rioting. Any Slum, Tribal area portraying should never miss the evangelical missionaries busy in soul harvesting like vultures on helpless poor children. How come goras miss this to include in movie??:giggle: now it's confirmed why it was recognised
flamy Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 um................ :dontknow: I've seen this view purported elsewhere too, and while I respect where you are coming from, there is no need to lose sleep over this. Personally, I thought the movie was dhengin entertaining and LOVED it. Touchy much?
triam Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Why are we so sensitive? Dont americans take movies depicting poverty and racism etc, in essence showing the bad side of american cities? Dont europeans do the same?
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Bachchan's point is indian movie industry gets recognition by west only when it indulges in self-flaggelation. It's not indian movie but still the award certainly has a lot to do with depiction of negative side of india with some unrealistic prejudice thrown for good effect like blood-thirsty hindu extremists roaming around in the slum.... Nobody is losing sleep but criticism is called for and has a lot of merit..
vroomfondel Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 hahahahahahah...mere bete ko golden globe nahin mila, aur ye saala anil kapoor kya cheez hai? amar singh bachchan is the last person to be talking about portraying India in a bad light.
Lurker Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Hahahaha. All the fellows who laughed at AB now get credit. Be it SRK or Anil Kapoor. He must be one crazy zealous elderly senile person who has issues with success of SM when everyone from Aamir Khan to Road chaap mawaali from Bhandup seems to be celebrating. Also mighty funny to see bhagwa loony jumping on the SM bashing brigade even if it means raking up AB, someone who they hate with a passion. Also explains why these morons went missing from SM celebration thread!! :hysterical:
Ram Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 To begin with, I dont know why so many of us are excited about 'Slumdog Mi...'s performance. Its not an Indian movie made in India. Its a British movie made in Indian setting. Us celebrating this movie's performance is like the Germans celebrating a movie made on the Nazis. The only thing we should be proud about is Rahman's contribution. And reg. the portrayal of India in bad light, thats just a load of bull. The movie makers have the creative licence to highlight whichever aspect of the society they think is required for the movie's script. Slumdog was not meant to be an ‘Incredible India’ tourism ad in the first place.
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Hahahaha. All the fellows who laughed at AB now get credit. Be it SRK or Anil Kapoor. He must be one crazy zealous elderly senile person who has issues with success of SM when everyone from Aamir Khan to Road chaap mawaali from Bhandup seems to be celebrating. Also mighty funny to see bhagwa loony jumping on the SM bashing brigade even if it means raking up AB, someone who they hate with a passion. Also explains why these morons went missing from SM celebration thread!! :hysterical: Dude don;t hide behind names if you have anythign to add to the obvious and real criticism add don't throw names and character assassination by calling him senile.. If you have cajones which i seriously doubt you have given your warped inconcsstent views which finds sanjay dutt saint and others guilty , then try to critic the criticism raised.. jeesuss there is limit to retarded point-scoring through fallacious logic
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 hahahahahahah...mere bete ko golden globe nahin mila, aur ye saala anil kapoor kya cheez hai? amar singh bachchan is the last person to be talking about portraying India in a bad light. Ever heard of attacking the perspon when you have nothign to add to the point he/she is raising:--D man this seems to be epidemic here
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 To begin with, I dont know why so many of us are excited about 'Slumdog Mi...'s performance. Its not an Indian movie made in India. Its a British movie made in Indian setting. Us celebrating this movie's performance is like the Germans celebrating a movie made on the Nazis. The only thing we should be proud about is Rahman's contribution. And reg. the portrayal of India in bad light, thats just a load of bull. The movie makers have the creative licence to highlight whichever aspect of the society they think is required for the movie's script. Slumdog was not meant to be an ‘Incredible India’ tourism ad in the first place. well that's fair point and it's valid btu we indians are like that begaani shaadi mein abdullah diwana.. par yahan to apni barbaadi mein ( india being run down) abdullah diwana ka case hai:--D Yes and people have licence to criticise it particuallry when people selectively recognise only thsi negatice aspect with some negative fantassy thrown in ..
Lurker Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 To begin with, I dont know why so many of us are excited about 'Slumdog Mi...'s performance. Its not an Indian movie made in India. Its a British movie made in Indian setting. Us celebrating this movie's performance is like the Germans celebrating a movie made on the Nazis. The only thing we should be proud about is Rahman's contribution. Whether SM is an Indian or a British movie is akin to asking if Chicken Tikka is English or Indian?? What defines a "thing" as being Indian or British? Is it the content? In which case Chicken Tikka is obviously Indian. Is it the people who develop it, in which case again Chicken Tikka is Indian. Or is it the locale?? In which case Chicken Tikka is English. The fact is the definition is a combination of locale and the content. Without India(or Mumbai) there is no Slumdog Millionaire. I would be very interested if you could point me to any place on the globe where this movie can be made. Anywhere from Buenos Aires to Begusarai will do. As I wrote in a seperate thread some place Mumbai has the propensity to create stories and SM is a fantastic tribute to that spirit. And reg. the portrayal of India in bad light, thats just a load of bull. The movie makers have the creative licence to highlight whichever aspect of the society they think is required for the movie's script. Slumdog was not meant to be an ‘Incredible India’ tourism ad in the first place. The criticism of poverty is senile. The movie is a rags to riches story, literally. So how does such a story initiate? In the "slums" of Peddar Road?? Of course it has to go to the chawls. A chawl replete with common bathroom etc etc. If the Producer were interested in highlighting poverty they did not have to show the common bathroom. A vast population of Mumbaikars use open space truth be told. The movie then goes through its twists and turns and I am not sure where it "cashed" on poverty. By the way the best stories in life will always come from lower strata in life. Who wants to know how the freak did Anil Ambani add to his inherited billions? Everyone wants to know how Dhirubhai created those billions to start with. xxx
Lurker Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Dude don;t hide behind names if you have anythign to add to the obvious and real criticism add don't throw names and character assassination by calling him senile.. If you have cajones which i seriously doubt you have given your warped inconcsstent views which finds sanjay dutt saint and others guilty , then try to critic the criticism raised.. jeesuss there is limit to retarded point-scoring through fallacious logic Dude do a spell check. Then add some meat if you want people to respond. Else you can, as you have done in this thread, act as a joke and debate on a movie which you are yet to seee!! What a tool :hysterical:
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Please don't throw names of illiterates llike SK when scholarly debate is on.. I am sure he doesn't know his foot from his mouth.. AB had this stand all along western guys selctively recognise negative aspect of India ..
Recommended Posts