The Slumdogs Blog

As the applauds of the Oscar award ceases down, a feeling of indignity rises in the minds of many Indians. Was the movie 'Slumdog Millionaire' any better than other well made Indian movies? Are Indian movies that bad to be nominated for Oscar? Why Indian movies never won an Oscar? Why 'A.R Rahman' s other great works in the Indian movies didn't get an Oscar nomination? Like this goes the murmuring and uproar among many Indians.

These questions are the ones that should be taken into serious consideration. Many of the Indian nationals feel like betrayed or insulted before the world.Some feel that showcasing poverty in the film, India is pictured as an under-belly nation, while some others say it has shown only the dirt and filth of the slums and not the real poverty. In reality the question, 'Why Indian movies are not getting the Oscar nomination? is one that should be seriously discussed among the Indian movie makers.This issue of indignity wouldn't have raised, if the British made Indian context movie had not won the Oscars. The pride of many Indians got hurt and they feel ashamed of having given a poverty pron picture of India to the westerners.

While this low budget movie has proved of getting record collections from the Europe and America, it's director Danny Boyle and producer Christian Colson never thought of the movie becoming a grant success. Armed with the Oscars and a load of unprecedented publicity, Slumdog is now getting the treatment of a star-driven, mainstream Hollywood film. The victory of 'Slumdog Millionaire' should send a huge message to Hollywood: Don't overlook the littleguy,' wrote Claudia Puig in USA Today. It was being commented when Warner Independent sold the distributing rights to Fox Searchlight, thinking that the movie will create a big loss for them.

Slumdog's Lessons for Hollywood by Arther J Pais

Comment (0)

The low-budget movie "Slumdog Millionaire" has not only drawn big crowds in the West, but also the movie has won eight Oscars, including the Academy awards for the Best Picture and the Best Director. The Best Music and Best Song awards went to India's musician A.R. Rahman, known as the Mozart of Madras. Half the world in Mumbai, the Garib Nagar crowd was particularly excited because several children from the area, including Rubina Ali, 9, and Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, 10, starred in "Slumdog Millionaire," playing the roles of "young Latika" and "young Salim" respectively.

After the well-deserved success of the well-made Slumdog movie, will the lives of poor children in Mumbai or in India improve? Can this extraordinary focus on child poverty translate in to positive actions to reduce poverty around the world? These are the most important questions on the minds of many after the euphoria in Los Angeles. The people in India have got different opinion towards the success of the movie. The ABC news has reported that people in the slum area are not at all happy and believes that nothing is going to make any change in their life. In fact the people in the slums are not happy with the use of 'Slumdog'. They conducted protests march in Mumbai against the movie.

Now Reality Tours have started targeting Mumbai Slums as a major place for Poverty Tourism in India. It is estimated that sales are up by about 25% since Slumdog Millionaire's release. Though the tourism industry was down after terrorist attacks in Mumbai, publicity surrounding the film has played a big role. The tours have come under criticism for exploiting poverty. But the organizers say that it is way to help poor in Mumbai. Now, the great success of movie is a fantastic opportunity for the director to set up a foundation for funding the poor children together with UNICEF.

Comment (0)

India, which is often described as peaceful, stable and prosperous country by the western media, remains home to the largest number of poor and hungry people in the world. About one-third of the world's poor population lives in India. According to World Bank, more than 450 million Indians exist on less than $1.25 a day. India has about 42% of the population living below the new international poverty line of $1.25 per day. The number of Indian poor also constitute 33% of the global poor, which is pegged at 1.4 billion people, according to a Times of India news report. More than 6 million of those desperately poor Indians live in Mumbai alone, representing about half the residents of the nation's financial capital.

There is widespread hunger and malnutrition in all parts of India. India ranks 66th on the 2008 Global Hunger Index of 88 countries .The first India State Hunger Index (Ishi) report in 2008 found that Madhya Pradesh had the most severe level of hunger in India, comparable to Chad and Ethiopia. Four states — Punjab, Kerala, Haryana and Assam — fell in the 'serious' category. "Affluent" Gujarat, 13th on the Indian list is below Haiti, ranked 69. The authors said India's poor performance was primarily due to its relatively high levels of child malnutrition and under-nourishment resulting from calorie deficient diets.

As critics complains about the usage of “Slumdog” in the Oscar Awards winning movie “Slumdog Millionaire”, and for showcasing India as a poverty stricken nation, fogets the real fact about India. The millionaire's and the billionaires neglects the poor and therefore the gap between the rich and the poor widens. So is the gap between two Indians. As 'Slumdog Millionaire' has drawn a global attention, those politicians and the rich who stumps away the poor should come down from their statuquo and be ready to pay attention to the poors needs.

Comment (0)

The Oscar Awards winning movie Slumdog Millionaire, has created a wave among the Westerners, who have watched the movie. Many of the Charitable Trusts in India have started to experience its feedback from people in Europe, asking for details of children whom they can sponsor. Yahoo News have reported a news showing a surge in Child's sponsorship.

While the child actors in the movie have impacted psychologically after returning to the same old condition of their tarpaulin houses in Mumbai. Now the things has completely changed with them. The children refuse to return to their old condition before the movie bagging eight Oscar awards(see..Yahoo News). Even though, the state government have promised to shift these children's families to new apartments, it seems to take much longer time. Since the plight of children have changed, their families in turn have also started put them in demand. Rubina Ali, who stars the child Lathika in the movie is put on a bargain by her own mother who left her early and the step-mother, who is now looking after her (Yahoo News).

Now the slum people have awaken to the light that the 'Slumdog Millionaire' have created. But there are comments that the people are becoming too greedy. When all of a sudden the poor people come across riches, their mentality changes and they will start to look upon them with great unrest. The movie is said to create some impact upon the lives of slum people in India. Especially, the children who are deprived of basic things in life. The westerners as well as Indians might contribute or will be ready to take up sponsorship for at least one child. So, the hope is awaking?

Comment (0)

Even though the families of these two children will be shifted to new houses once it is ready, the rest of the slum population will still remain behind the scenes. Will the government do anything for their development? This new move has formed the decision because 'Slumdog Millionaire' won Oscars or was drawn attention because it was nominated for Oscars. Time to do something effectively for these people by government has long been passed. Either these people should be given permanent place of residence or their rights should be protected.

The data shows that 60% of the population of Mumbai live in slums, which cover only 6% of the city's land. Slum growth rate in Mumbai is greater than the general urban rate. Why does this happen? Is it the population growth, poverty, unemployment or all of these? The government should look into these slums not only as tools for winning elections, but also must consider to give them better livelihood.

Comment (0)

As India pride itself of winning Oscars for the movie “Slumdog Millionaire” directed by Danny Boyle, that showcases the slums of Mumbai and the real life of people who live there, the question which arises is, does India care for its poor?

Whether yes/no, the real fact of the poor in India can not be ignored. Poor are poorer and the rich are getting richer. The gap between rich and poor keeps on increasing. As for now depends on the statuesque of the society, the mentality of people have changed. People show little mercy towards the poor section of the country or  just avoid them at the very sight. Some just hate them and consider them as dirty people. No one will feel good at the sight of dirtily ragged beggars. So is the the feeling of ruling parties and government towards this poor section of the country. Government does little for the homeless and street children. The slum dwellers are chased away just as how a street dog is chased. So the word “Slumdog”used as the title of the movie “Slumdog Millionaire” to emphasize the slum dwellers matches aptly to the point.

So many of our Indians are uncomfortable with the usage of the word 'slumdog' and the movie itself, that shows a face of India. The winning of Oscar's by Indians is something that we should be proud of, but should we be proud of what the movie is about? Will this movie create any impact on our government, ie, to do something useful for these section called underprivileged? The world now knows what India is as they watch the Oscar winning movie “Slumdog Millionaire”, and they will look upon India with a vision they have witnessed. When India boast of the vast tourism opportunities, never thinks how to make the country inviting to people from oversees. See the blog below by

Dane Nelson

Comment (1)

It started with Alice Miles in the London Times describing the film as "poverty porn". Then Time Magazine claimed the film was "no hit" in India and finally Slate Magazine slated the film as well, scoffing at Director Boyle's "fairytale vision of squalid poverty," and writing that Boyle is guilty of "aestheticizing poverty." His attack is formal ("dissonant to the point of incoherence" is one of his catchy phrases) as well as a summation of other people's criticisms: the Indians don't like it as it does not portray the "real" India, ignores the middle-classes, it's not as good as Luis Bunuel (but then who is and isn't that a favourite criticism? Take a film nobody watches except for cineastes and accuse nothing else of matching it.)

Well, you can't have it both ways. Slumdog Millionaire is not a documentary although it takes as its subject matter themes that seem weighty. It is not based on fact although the incidents such as the religious riots are based on actual events. As a film it attempts to meld two narratives together - a social and romantic narrative to create a filmic experience that audiences can respond to. To accuse a film of "aestheticising poverty" is redundant: all films aestheticise their subject matter. It does not really deal with poverty so much as the escape from poverty. 

Importantly, the film is creating discourse and joins a body of films about India made by western writers and directors. This whole corpus romanticises and aestheticises India, but then so do Bollywood films. The few that don't such as the work of Ray create revulsion and incidents.

Go and see it. Decide for yourself.

see LA Times article

Slate Magazine

Comment (0)

Were the child actors in Slumdog Millionaire exploited, or as one article put it; is there a there there?

The production company claims that they were paid 3 times an average Indian salary for a month's work and that a trust fund has been set up for them that will supplement their income after 18 so long as they attend school - something which Rubina Ali and Azharuddin Ismail (who play the youngest Latika and Salim) have never done. Both are from Mumbai slums similar to those depicted in Slumdog Millionaire.

The controversy seems to be as much as manifestation of press story mongering as genuine concern among the parents, both of whom seem to have rescinded their original stories of child exploitation.  The story gained traction in the London Telegraph newspaper who reported that the children's lives were even more precarious than they were before. The Telegraph reported:

"Azharuddin is in fact worse off than he was during filming: his family's illegal hut was demolished by the local authorities and he now sleeps under a sheet of plastic tarpaulin with his father, who suffers from tuberculosis. "There is none of the money left. It was all spent on medicines to help me fight TB," Azharuddin's father, Mohammed Ismail, said. "We feel that the kids have been left behind by the film. They have told us there is a trust fund but we know nothing about it and have no guarantees."

What seems apparent is that the experience of making the film has changed the children's world and that the film makers are going to have to develop a more coherent and structured plan to help the childen adapt to the two lives that exist for them now - the slums and the glamour of the film. 

Comment (0)

India is uncomfortable with Slumdog Millionaire. Uncomfortable with the success and awards that the film is garnering. Uncomfortable that it portrays or reveals a side of India that Indians are increasingly out of touch with. Uncomfortable that it is not an Indian film but seems to capture a quality of India and Indian lives that staple bollywood fare largely ignores.

First it was "Big B"  (Amitach Bachan) railing against the film on his blog (how contemporary) then old style Bollywood producer Mahesh Bhatt declaring, "This isn't best or better than any of the cherishing films made by our filmmakers. Why should we get excited when it's not an Indian Film and even if it wins Oscars, it is of no use to India. It is a British Filmmaker's flick and he has accomplished his dreams roping in India's best personalities to work with. There were more films where actors like Anil Kapoor and Irrfan Khan had spelled their best works and yet went unrecognised. Moreover, the Oscars hadn't been plainly nominated for Indian Films for superior quality in the category of Foreign Films."

Some of this is plain jealousy and some of it the continued anxiety between the new go-go India of BMWs and Vogue India Magazine and the reality that for many Indians the economic boom has passed them by. Despite laws to the contrary, poor children remain vulnerable to exploitation and it is in the slums and on the edges of the slums that  such vulnerability if most keenly felt. 

It is not for nothing that a central theme of the film is money - its lack and the impact of its excess. The closing scene reflects three simultaneous images: one brother dying in a bath of money, the celebration of poor Indians at one of their number escaping poverty and the loneliness of the main character in the railway station ( a place where journeys start and stop).

The drivers of homelessness are many, but surely the preeminent among them is Money.

Comment (0)