- FEBRUARY 9, 2010
-
-
MEMO TO BEIJING
From Washington: Stop Copying Us!
-
MEMO TO WASHINGTON
From Drezner: Use the WTO!
-
SUPERBOWL
Touchdown, Abe Vigoda and Betty White
How will Slumdog Millionaire play in India?
Posted By Daniel W. Drezner
Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 1:50 PM
Share
Slumdog Millionaire won the Golden Globe for Best Drama this past Sunday, presaging a strong run for the Best Picture Oscar -- provided it can deal with the inevitable blowback. And there will be blowback.
Without giving anything away, the movie is undeniably the feel-good flick of the year. The love story at its core, however, is tissue-thin. Dev Patel really does deserve an Oscar nod for Best Supporting Actor, because he manages to give his character's motivations far more emotional longing than the story justifies.
What I'm very curious about, however, is how the film will play in India. The movie has yet to be released on the subcontinent. According to the Associated Press, the film will open there on January 23rd. The story also explains why it might not play too well in India:
[S]cenes of Mumbai's filthy vast slums have drawn criticism from some viewers. Indian poverty is a delicate issue here, particularly when it is raised by outsiders [Danny Boyle, the director of Slumdog Millionaire, is British-DD]. While India has gone through spectacular economic growth over the past decade, about 400 million people — more than the entire population of the United States — are believed to live on less than $1 a day.
This is serious -- if Indians pan the movie, its shot at an Oscar is... er... shot.
Still, I suspect that the Dickensian fable will play well in the country where it is set. One criticism of the movie is that it paints the slums of Mumbai as too colorful and sanitized.
Readers who have seen the movie: does it deserve the Best Picture Oscar?
As someone who lived in Mumbai and did lots of work in the slums, I think that Slumdog is a fantastic portrayal of the city and it's people. It really captures the spirit and atmosphere that I remember (and miss). I loved the movie and certainly think it deserves the Best Picture Oscar. I suspect it will get a warm reception in India, especially given the fact that Shah Rukh Khan, the biggest star of Bollywood, has given it his tacit endorsement by showing up at the Golden Globes and presenting an award with Frieda Pinto.
I enjoyed the movie, but I haven't seen enough of the competition to judge whether it deserves Best Picture. Certainly the award would not be a travesty.
As the love story goes, it's unfair to call it paper thin - it is perhaps one of the best fleshed out stories ever, tracing the relationship back to childhood. Perhaps it neglects to explain why there was no Westermarck effect here, but otherwise it certainly provides plenty of detail....however, the characters themselves are rather thin, a natural consequence of a film devoted mostly to actions. The protagonist is swept through his life by circumstances, so he is not often faced with Hamlet-like choices to ponder.
Best actor/actress awards in this film are very difficult, because this film may be unique in the even way the same character is spread across different actors!
I originally posted this comment over at Sepiamutiny.com, which has been thinking about the same thing:
My guess - after an initial flurry, maybe one good weekend, then interest will die down. Call my cynical, but I think Indian audiences are still uncomfortable with a guy named "Jamal" pursuing a woman named "Latika". While Indian films occasionally show a Hindu-Muslim romance, it is usually where the guy is Hindu and the girl is Muslim. It's still a touchy matter.
Back in 2000, when American audiences (including me) were thoroughly impressed with "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" - modern Chinese moviegoers generally took a pass. Does not mean it was a bad film, just that cinema tastes are still different.
Dan
I've not seen the movie yet so can't comment as to quality but I was in Delhi over Christmas and the quality English language newspapers (like Times of India or Hindustan times) all had articles about Slumdog and the Oscar buzz.
Danny Boyle has been complimentary about how India has influenced his film making so my guess is that there will be a buzz amongst the Multiplex audience in the metropolitan cities. Whether the movie will get beyond that is anyones guess.
Re your point about depictions of Indian poverty it should be remembered (and is in India) that the source of the movie is an Indian novel therefore this may be less problematic than you think.
"Call my cynical, but I think Indian audiences are still uncomfortable with a guy named "Jamal" pursuing a woman named "Latika". While Indian films occasionally show a Hindu-Muslim romance, it is usually where the guy is Hindu and the girl is Muslim"
KXB, I will do the honors - you are'nt cynical - just plain ignorant. It was only after you wove in "the Hindu girl falls in love with Muslim boy" theme did I realize that there are STILL people who see it this way.
Lots of Indian women like Shah Rukh Khan and Aamir Khan - let me get more specific here - lots of Hindu women like SRK and Aaamir - and both these guys are married to Hindu women.
Dang, I find that OFFENSIVE !
If SDM fails to create the hype it does in India it would be because not too many people would be thrilled by a British director trying to make a "Bollywood wannabe" movie. Not because they are offended by the religious persuasion of the kids.
We see plenty of these "Bollywood" movies in India. Enough already !
While Aamir Khan and Shah Rukh Khan are among India's most successful and popular actors, the characters they portray are usually Hindu (Shah Rukh also portrayed Buddhist convert emperor Ashoka) or their character's religion is left out, as it is not important in the script. Nor need it be. However, since Slumdog does have a seen of a Hindu mob descending on a Muslim area - religion as a divisive matter plays a more significant role in Slumdog than most mainstream Indian films.
Citing the spouses of film stars is not all that important. Robert DeNiro is noted for almost exclusively dating or marrying black women, but aside from the indie "Mistress" is always paired off with a white actress.
By analogy, Will Smith is the biggest American box office star right now. Yet, when filming his romantic comedy Hitch, the female lead was originally cast as white. But, in a business where money is everything, it was felt pairing Smith with a white lead was too risky, so it was switched to a more "acceptable" Latina - Eva Mendes.
For good or ill, audiences (American or Indian) want to see films that reinforce their viewpoint, not challenge them. If either Shah Rukh Khan or Aamir Khan were to start filming movies that had a more explicit religious component, I'm not so sure they could continue their success. But they are savvy businessmen, so I am certain they will keep religion out of most of their work.
I think it'll do reasonably well, but not great. I know the Indian version is in Hindi proper (not dubbed or subtitled) and heck, the sheer number of people who will watch the film to see what the fuss is about (i.e all the kids in the metros), would be considered a success in America.
It's not going to do great outside the metros, I don't think, for various reasons.
I also don't think people will have problems with showing an unsightly side of India; we see plenty of that everyday. What a lot of people have a problem with, is the way westerners go fida (fall in love) with films about third world poverty. You know, it's today's exploitation genre (povertyxploitation? like blaxploitation if you don't see where i'm coming from)
Whether should win a Best Picture Oscar or not, is a different matter. I'd put it right up there with Wall-E, although that is better cinema, but the Academy is never giving the best pic to an animated film.
I think 'Slumdog' deserves Best Picture, and I think you do an injustice to the movie by calling it "the feel-good flick of the year." This trivializing, patronizing description really doesn't capture what the movie is about or the sources of its impact. And it doesn't matter whether the love story is thin, because the love story isn't the center of the movie. The city itself is the center, and secondarily the Dev Patel character.
KXB,
You ve gone all over the place.. Will Smith.. Bob De Niro... I dont care about these analogies. Let's keep it to Indian audiences please and how they are going to receive the movie
You still couldnt make an argument as to why people in India are going to be turned off by the story line of a Muslim kid and a Hindu kid being in love. You didnt make an argument as to why the religion of these two kids would be such an over riding factor that people would be blind to the human story in the movie.
You should probably watch the Hindi/Tamil movie "Bombay" - it was released in 1995 and it was based on the communal riots that rocked Bombay following the bomb blasts of December 1992.
Indian audiences are quite used to watching movies that depict riots or show Hindus as being aggressors - no biggie. We have had entire movies based on the bloody days of the Partition. Every one understands that these riots are a two way street and no one who is reasonable expects a movie to accurately portray any historical event.
Also, it wouldnt matter if Aamir or SRK were portrayed as anything other than Hindu. Their popularity is due to their talent and their sense of professionalism. Not what ever religion they play in movies.
"If either Shah Rukh Khan or Aamir Khan were to start filming movies that had a more explicit religious component, I'm not so sure they could continue their success."
This is your personal opinion - and it also shows how little you understand/know of Indian audiences. We appreciate talent. And movie star looks. just like anywhere else.
Very well - if you wish to keep the focus on India, let's take Water, the Deepa Mehta film that had to move its shooting from India to Sri Lanka because some Hindu groups smashed the film sets, believing the film portrayed their faith negatively. It did the usual business in the art-house circuit in the West, but was largely ignored by Indian audiences. Staying with Deepa Mehta, a number of theaters were ransacked when they showed her lesbian drama Fire back in the nineties - again, by Hindu groups claiming it was against the values of the nation. And in those theaters that were not trashed, the movie played to largely empty seats.
As for the film you cite - Bombay - again, that does not disprove my earlier contention. In that film, it was a Hindu man falling in love with a Muslim woman. Since Indian culture (Hindu or Muslim) regards marriage as a woman marrying into a man's family, such a marriage would be less upsetting to the majority (Hindu), than what was in Slumdog Millionaire, where it was Muslim man/Hindu woman.
What a lot of people have a problem with, is the way westerners go fida (fall in love) with films about third world poverty. You know, it's today's exploitation genre
Well, they think that by falling in love with the poverty of the third world, they are able to
A. fall in love with the "authenticity" of a world that they have no idea about.
B. show people of poor countries that they feel sorry for the poverty and appreciate "the grit" of people even under such trying circumstances.
C. They think living poor is soul satisfying even if they wouldnt want to be "satified" in such a way..
Sometimes I tell myself -There are two words to describe all this - white guilt. Guilt over how third world countries are "exploited" by the "white capitalist/western countries" and how from this sense of guilt comes a feeling of " hey, lets prove we arent the evil capitalist people that our businesses" are feeling.
This is a touchy subject to begin with and hey i just took a stab at it.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
January/February 2010
-
Cover Story
-
Dispatch
-
Feature
(11)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE