EnterTheVoid Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 i personally enjoyed the movie very much i really dont know why this movie is getting so much crap
Rajiv Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 i personally enjoyed the movie very much i really dont know why this movie is getting so much crap ..coz it got famous, its indian, it won awards, its got gora director and it had things which seem controversial..nothing can get away smoothly like that
EnterTheVoid Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 ^^ inferiority complex at its best if they are upset at the issues shown by the movie, they should confront those who perpertarte such issues in society, not the film makers
gs Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 ^^ inferiority complex at its best if they are upset at the issues shown by the movie, they should confront those who perpertarte such issues in society, not the film makers Good point. No doubt the depiction of riots seem one sided, but sh.t like that does happen in India. So does other events like slum life/beggars/underworld shown in the movie. Sad but true.
graphic23 Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 It is worth remembering what Amartya Sen had once said - "Whatever opinion you have about India, the very opposite is also true." Its not like India is the only country with slums. In other places (like some places in Southwest Chicago), it just has a different facade. I don't feel bad that SM was made in Mumbai because the focus was on the main character winning his love and the romanticization of the rags-to-riches concept. It was not, "Mumbai sucks cause it has slums". In fact, it can be taken to the complete opposite point-of-view where you can show that in a place like India, even a person from that beginning, through whatever means, can have significant achievements in life. From an Indian movie maker, you will not see (or it is very rare) such images of India because a movie shows the qualifications of the person as a director - to me, it is like a resume. You never put your home in a negative shade (though I'm not totally convinced it is a negative one in SM) on your resume. Even if we do, it would have some unconvincing conversion of the slums to excellent apartments scenario (like in Sivaji).
Desi Cartman Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 I will watch this movie tonight BTW for people who think Hindus are always shown as violent in the movies then u need to watch all movies made which have a character of a desh drohi or a terrorist ... 99% chances are that its a guy wearing a salwaar kamiz and muslim topi ... also in the movies these villains openly say "yeh desh humara nahi hai ..... tu humaray bhai ho ... bla bla bla" . baki I will report later :isalute:
suraj Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 It is worth remembering what Amartya Sen had once said - "Whatever opinion you have about India, the very opposite is also true." Its not like India is the only country with slums. In other places (like some places in Southwest Chicago), it just has a different facade. I don't feel bad that SM was made in Mumbai because the focus was on the main character winning his love and the romanticization of the rags-to-riches concept. It was not, "Mumbai sucks cause it has slums". In fact, it can be taken to the complete opposite point-of-view where you can show that in a place like India, even a person from that beginning, through whatever means, can have significant achievements in life. From an Indian movie maker, you will not see (or it is very rare) such images of India because a movie shows the qualifications of the person as a director - to me, it is like a resume. You never put your home in a negative shade (though I'm not totally convinced it is a negative one in SM) on your resume. Even if we do, it would have some unconvincing conversion of the slums to excellent apartments scenario (like in Sivaji). Yes, quite true India is a country of so much variety and so many contradictions that any generalization about India is done by stupid people (exception being Pakistanis who do the same)....... ....... Pakistanis are not included in "people" category hence excluded.
Gambit Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 For as long as I can, I'll try and stay away from watching this.
ludhianvi Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 ^^ but how can you base your opinion without watching it?
Gambit Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 ^^ but how can you base your opinion without watching it? If your friend asked you to try fried cockroaches and you refused straight away, given your disgust for cockroaches, how would you respond if your friend chided you for forming your opinion without even trying it?
DomainK Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 I am going to watch it when its released in India. Then I will form an opinion.
gs Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 I will watch this movie tonight BTW for people who think Hindus are always shown as violent in the movies then u need to watch all movies made which have a character of a desh drohi or a terrorist ... 99% chances are that its a guy wearing a salwaar kamiz and muslim topi ... also in the movies these villains openly say "yeh desh humara nahi hai ..... tu humaray bhai ho ... bla bla bla" . baki I will report later :isalute: That's because muslims completely own the terrorist domain! With riots, its more of a 50-50 split - both sides are equally guilty of inciting or participating in it.
Gambit Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 People need to read and comprehend what AB said. His words were - On blog, comments for the film ‘SlumDog Millionaire’ and the anger by some on its contents, prompt me to say the above. If SM projects India as Third World dirty under belly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky under belly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations. Its just that the SM idea authored by an Indian and conceived and cinematically put together by a Westerner, gets creative Globe recognition. The other would perhaps not. 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 at all the prestigious Film Festivals of the West, and not a word of appreciation for the entertaining mass oriented box office block busters that were being churned out from Mumbai. The argument. Ray portrayed reality. The other escapism, fantasy and incredulous posturing. Unimpressive for Cannes and Berlin and Venice. But look how rapidly all that is changing. Retrospectives in Paris and New York. Dedicated TV channels running Hindi cinema on prime timings. Premiers at Leiscester Square, the home of all Hollywood royalty, thronged by hundreds on the street in cold biting weather. Affable recognition at most corners of the universe… And a dear friend from Los Angeles wires in that Hollywood is abuzz with India and the phenomenal talent that exists there. We’re talking cinema still ! He was commenting on some angry comments on his blog regarding SM. He says that reality portrayed by Indian directors would probably not get the sort of international recognition that Boyle has gotten. Nowhere has he slammed SM.
beetle Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 The world in Mr.Bitter Bachchan's head probably is slum free.The man needs to come out with such stuff to get people to read his stupid blog.
vroomfondel Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 People need to read and comprehend what AB said. His words were - He was commenting on some angry comments on his blog regarding SM. He says that reality portrayed by Indian directors would probably not get the sort of international recognition that Boyle has gotten. Nowhere has he slammed SM. I have to admit, I was going by the headlines and the reaction on this thread...should have read what he wrote. What he says is not unreasonable, and I do agree that the west has a highly skewed view of 'masala' movies. But hey, there are plenty of worthies "slamming" SM for being anti-Indian. Highly juvenile in my opinion. but whatever, at some point we agree to stop caring that we disagree. pass the roaches.
fineleg Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 vroom. I apologize if u already answered this. What is the reference to that in your title? :D Mudala Sambar.Appurama Ni PS: Got it...its one of those Handgun/shotgun Murugan thingy.
King Tendulkar Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 Was the book not written by an Indian?
vroomfondel Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 . What is the reference to that in your title? :D Mudala Sambar.Appurama Ni Si:hatsoff:
Desi Cartman Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 TheAge.com.au Feel-good film doesn't hide India's truth I think some believe that Indian cinema doesnt make any films about slums ... just because they are not directed by British/americans doesnt mean that there are no movies on slums ...:banghead:
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 The world in Mr.Bitter Bachchan's head probably is slum free.The man needs to come out with such stuff to get people to read his stupid blog. I hope you make sense to yourself at least..
Recommended Posts