Once again I am struck by this rising to the surface of a shadowy battle; the clash of exports from the two great film-producing countries of the world, mediated by the old imperial master, Britain. There are many good movies on Mumbai, classic like Anand or Kaagaz Ke Phool or Maqbool, but also the more urban-modern: Bombay, Company, Satya. All edgy in different ways, visually arresting, tugging at your emotions, musically vivid. And then, I recently saw Slumdog Millionaire and have watched its Dickensian appeal to the Western media, rising up in waves about the feel-good story of the underdog, the conceits, the pulsating music and truthful view of Mumbai like the Indians would never tell it, and the raw cinematography. The interviews with Dev Patel (where are you from really? London, really? You have never been to India??) and Freida Pinto (are you from India? Really? Sure you are not from Portugal?) and the excitement over Bollywood dancing over the ending credits. Slumdog Millionaire? A decent Bollywood movie on a $13MM budget. Good production values. But great? Come on! Wake up. Watch a few really good Mumbai movies…like the other ones I mention above. And I am just talking about movies out of Mumbai. Don’t get me started on Adoor and Ritwik and the other great movie makers that have suffered the fate of all subalterns. Danny Boyle vs. Guru Dutt vs. Mani Ratnam. Such sadness underlies one of the great loves of my life, and yet so much richness.

I agree with the comment someone made about a “global” film drawing on many influences. Let’s kick it up a notch.

But to consider the many layers of influences would make the criticism more complex and challenging. If its acknowledged that Boyle and co wasnt just straight ripping off and appopriating Bollywood and those poor brown people, it wouldnt make the criticis feel as intellectual.

Sure it may have seemed insightful or witty to label MIA the “favela funk thief” but if an actual second or 2 was taken to think about something like that, the critic would have realized favela funk was a thief in itself.

“Oh, those poor brown folks!”

I really dont get these kind of sentiments.

Really dont.

Non westerners want recognition in the west. When the west doesnt notice, maybe they’re too good for us. When they do, they’re appropriating/exotifying/exploiting us.

Eastern/etc pop culture has taken so much from western pop. When the west is influenced by the non-west, let the “they’re appropriating/exotifying/exploiting us” begin.

When Lost in Translation came out, so many insecure Asian writers couldnt stop crying of how the Scarlett didnt have some kind of Zen enlightening awakening and Bill Murray made fun of some Japanese people (like he makes of like, everyone in every single movie he’s ever made).

When will we get over this minority complex?

I am wary of Danny Boyle, though, for a multitude of reasons, including an interview he gave in which he exhibited absolutely zero sense of there being a problem with a British director making a film about India’s poor. I don’t think British directors are precluded from making films about India, but I think they should be aware of and give sincere thought to the issues surrounding such a venture, and Boyle seemed uninterested in any such notions until the controversy broke.

Gina – the scriptwriter is best known for his work on the Full Monty, which was a movie about how unemployed english steelworkers resort to stripping to make ends meet. The director is best known for Trainspotting, a film about Scottish drug addicts. These are hardly people who have shied away from the underbelly of life in the UK.

But this point is made in an unspoken contrast to America, where the film takes as a premise that there are no poor people such as Jamal

how’d you figure this? did you see this in the director’s liner notes? did trainspotting imply that there are no druggies in ireland?

It is the responsibility of all one billion and counting Indians in India, first and foremost, to address poverty in India. Obviously, as the film reveals, what little has been done, is no where near enough. The way Indians treated one another in the film, lets assume is accurate as so many on this board seem to say, was revolting and horrific.

To me, this is the crux of the problem. SDG does argue that India has not done enough to help its poor, and is to blame for the situation of the protagonist who lives in a slum. But this point is made in an unspoken contrast to America, where the film takes as a premise that there are no poor people such as Jamal about which to tell a story. One of the implicit arguments in SDG is that India is worse off than just about everywhere else, and it encourages Americans (and others) to sit back, feeling self-satisfied about the state of our country, even though the dominant sentiment in America exactly mirrors that of India: ignore the poor, pretend the destitute don’t exist. If Danny Boyle wanted to film a story about the fortunes of a poor person, there are plenty to choose from that come from America, and, my goodness, Great Britain. But he chose to tell a story about an Indian, and it makes it seem as though India is the last place in the world someone can find a story like this.