Seems some in India are getting a mite testy now that Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire has finally opened there. In case you’ve been living on another planet, Millionaire takes place largely in the slums of Mumbai, and chronicles the rise of a slum dweller from Mumbai as he competes on the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? The controversy has gotten heated enough that it’s hit the airwaves on CNN, where I saw it this morning (although it’s an open question as to how heated it has to be; after all, there’s no ongoing election soap opera to consume its voracious 24-hour news cycle).
The film is taking fire from two directions. Some are angry because they feel that the film dwells entirely on the seamy side of India, that it doesn’t show the good things of their country. “They’ve just shown the poor parts of India,” says one movie-goer. “They haven’t shown the real India in this movie.” Their dismay is perhaps understandable: if all another peoples see is one side of a particular country, they get a lop-sided view, and assume things that are grossly oversimplified. It’s like the old jokes about the Japanese or Italians coming over here and, being raised on westerns, asking questions about the latest Native American uprising.
The problem is, Millionaire is not a travelogue — it is not about India as a tourist destination, nor is it about happy, beautiful, dancing upper-caste folks as are a lot of Bollywood productions. It is about people who live in abject poverty, how they scrape by with what they can get and — as a sop, I suspect, to our middle-class expectations — how they occasionally rise above all that in the end. It would be like asking Meirelles to devote equal time to the lives of the rich tourists in City of God or Schlesinger to follow Joe Buck’s clients in Midnight Cowboy. It might make a compelling picture, but wouldn’t tell the same tale.
On a second front, others object to the use of the word “slumdog,” a derogatory term for a lower-caste slum dweller. They want the removal of the word word, or at least the word “dog,” from the film’s title. This reminds me of the any number of recent controversies, in which peoples’ passions for justice get in the way of their common sense. In the most well-known, the moderately-funny Tropic Thunder got taken to task for its use of the word “retard.” In a second, less-well-publicized tussel, Arab groups objected to the title of Alan Ball’s Towelhead, again because of its derogatory nature.
Again, these objections are understandable, given the circumstances of their utterance. All have been made by — or on behalf of — people on the outside, people with no power, who have been oppressed by the powers that be. They are all used as weapons against powerless people to help keep them in their place, and make the person using them feel powerful in comparison.
In my mind, the problem with these arguments in all three cases it that they’ve been made by people who apparently have never seen the movie in question. If they had, they might have seen that in each case, they are used to explore the exploitation of the oppressed group in question. In Thunder, well-off Hollywood actors are lampooned for their hypocrisy in using intellectual disabilities to further their careers, and Towelhead is in part about prejudice against people of Arab descent. And how can anyone who’s seen Millionaire fail to notice how often the term “slumdog” is used by everybody from the police to gangsters to game-show hosts, and that the title is an ironic commentary on both the plight of the poor in India and the triumph of the spirit that are the film’s twin themes?
Many of us liberal types object to censorship in any form, and say things like “I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it” at the drop of a hat. It saddens me when we act like a lot of conservatives, who hate big government except when they call for it to censor what they don’t like. Truly free speech means hearing occasionally that which offends us; it’s a “price of freedom” that I am glad to pay.
Here’s a video of the CNN story. I’d wait for it to load before you pressed play if I were you.
RSS 2.0
In case you’ve been living on another planet, Millionaire takes place largely in the slums of Mumbai,
Hey everybody, back from my six month holiday on Jupiter. Say, what the hell is Slumdog Millionaire? I hear it’s a travelogue but it only shows one side of India. That’s kind of stupid for a travelogue don’t you think?
Many of us liberal types object to censorship in any form,
You know, many of us Super Sexy types do too.
It saddens me when we act like a lot of conservatives
It also saddens me when we eat a lot of preservatives… like conservatives. We should eat more vitamins and minerals… like liberals.
Yeah! High five! Down low! Toooo slow.
Anyway, I’m sorry, what was this post about? Dogs and cats right?
Rick,
I can understand the anger associated with this, but that in no way means they should change anything about it.
But I don’t believe that Boyle is innocent here. It’s obvious that it’s the subject matter that gives this film weight. One wonders how he would have done had he chosen a love story in a different setting. My point is that Boyle never misses his chance to highlight the squalor. And that might be the sticking point.
And I’m not sure I agree with the statement that Boyle’s compassion is evident throughout this movie. My criticism of this movie is not in the story, but the direction. Jamal seems to be devoid of any kind of emotion and I didn’t feel that his harsh childhood made him tough. It’s obvious that the character is passionate, but I didn’t see that in Dev’s performance. And of all the time dedicated to the two brothers, I never felt that their relationship was fully explored. One is a good seed, and one is a bad seed and that’s about as far as it goes. The ending scene involving Salim seems forced because his character was never full developed.
Honestly, I’m just not understanding all the hype about this movie. It’s a good film, just not a great one.
Geez, Jonathan, just when I tried to write an honest, heart-felt post, you malign and ridicule it. But it’s what I would expect of a guy who tears up a Certified Cinephile Classic like Citizen Came just to make a point, which you just did on your blog at cinemastyles.blogspot.com.
I don’t believe that Boyle is innocent here.
Piper, that’s a great point . . . perhaps Boyle exploits the folks in the slums as much as do the upper-caste folks?
I’ve gotta go, but I want to explore this further, and I probably will when I get around to writing about it.
Hi! Rick,
Your review covering the “effect” of the film “Slumdog Millionaire” and the news clip just “bumped” it up a “knotch”on my list of films to watch ….before the month-of-Oscars@ prevail upon some?!? or all?!? (e)bloggers. (Sooo…Sorry!.. Fletch, but the (“e”) stay put!” ) who(m) plan to cover the year best next month.
Rick, below is a link related to your “post” and your news clip.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/whod-want-to-be-a-slumdog-millionaire/2009/01/27/1232818435810.html
DarkCityDame
dcd, I hope you like it. I did. Thanks for the link!
Just saw SLUMDOG.
Anybody who has a problem with the title is an idiot. Perhaps my favorite line in the movie, which sums up the ENTIRE FILM is “What could a slumdog know?” And we go on to see that he knows a hell of a lot.
I’m totally with Rick on this one. But I want to say that I also agree with Piper.
This is a very good film. But not a great one.
Joe, follow the link above that DarkCityDame left. Interesting dilemma: did Boyle not only exploit the poor as a sideways swipe — i.e., by exploiting their situation/stoy — but directly? It is disturbing to me that the actors who are integral to the first part of the story, who play Jamal and Latika, are living under plastic sheets in the slums. Slumdog Millionaire has made a lot of money. Yet one of the children was paid $3600 and the other a bit over $1000.
Okay, no more jokes. I just read that piece and it makes me sick. Apart from the fact that they could invest millions from the box office into these slum areas is this: They didn’t even pay the kids scale. I used to be a member of AFTRA/SAG back in the day and I can tell you that scale is pretty damn good. It’s different for everything. For commercial work it’s usually by the half-day (about 400 which may sound like a lot but it only takes about a day, sometimes two, and that might be the only job you get all year) but for film work the rates apply differently. I looked up the current rates but as I’m not a member anymore could only find the non-broadcast rates for 2007. Keep in mind, non-broadcast (educational, industrial) are much less than theatrical film work. So, with that in mind, the day rate for Non-Broadcast work in 2007 was 775 for a daily performer (usually used for one day only), 1900 for a three day performer, 2900 for a weekly (5 days) performer. According to the article, the kids worked on the movie for a year. That means they fall into the weekly performer category. Adding fifty percent to the non-broadcast totals for theatrical film work, that means they should have been getting around 4300 a week for a year, or $223,600. That they were paid only 3600 and 1000 is sickening. I’m sorry but Danny Boyle just fell into my category of directors to spit on should I ever meet them.
Jonathan, I gotta agree with you. I’m about to put the link in a post; maybe we can all publicize it and at least embarrass Boyle and his production company. A few read this blog, but quite a bit more read yours, and Marilyn’s …
Thanks for the figures. They really put it into perspective. Too bad: I liked Slumdog, as I’ve liked all his films I’ve seen.
Update: Here’s Boyle and Company’s reaction to the accusations. As you might guess, given all that’s at stake, they deny it all.
Can I quote your figures (with attribution, of course) in my post?
Here are a couple of links. This one goes with $2,634 for a weekly performer, while this one goes slightly higher with $2,712.69 for the weekly rate. Since I don’t have actual contracts from SAG I wouldn’t go with a 50 percent increase since that was guesswork on my part. I’d go with these two figures which comes to $136,968 for a year for the first figure, and $141,059 for the second. I’d be happy to put something up too if you like but I don’t think our blogs are that well read quite frankly. But every little bit helps right?
I agree … our blogs may not be that well read, but every little bit does help. I get page hits in the range of 2 – 300 a day and I bet you get them in the thousands, and the SEO software I’ve installed ensures that it gets hits when folks google or yahoo the film title, so what can it hurt?
Rick,
I have read a couple of the links people have posted about the stories related to the child actors and I can’t believe it. It’s terrible, terrible news.
It’s unconscionable that this could happen. While I may not like this film, I harbor no ill will towards Boyle and crew. So I’m hopeful that they will make this right. Of course if they are only making this right because they are getting bad press about it, then I sincerely hope they rot in hell.
Rick and Johnathan,
I’m attempting to do my part.
I just posted this story.
http://lazyeyetheatre.blogspot.com/2009/01/real-dogs-of-slumdog-millionaire.html
Piper –
It gets more and more complex: I was emailed a press release by Fox which had the film-makers’ and distributors statements (maybe somebody does read this blog after all). In it, they dispute the figures published by the Telegraph (republished by the Sydney paper), in particular the state that they only worked for 30 days, not a year. Here, in part, is Fox Searchlight’s statement:
“A plan has been in place for over 12 months to ensure that their experience working on Slumdog Millionaire would be of long term benefit. For 30 days work, the children were paid three times the average local annual adult salary. Last year after completing filming, they were enrolled in school for the first time and a fund was established for their future welfare, which they will receive if they are still in school when they turn 18.”
This just gets curiouser and curiouser. Thanks for writing about it! I’ll put a post up this evening, after I get home.
Sorry to focus on this, but…
Many of us liberal types object to censorship in any form, and say things like “I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it” at the drop of a hat. It saddens me when we act like a lot of conservatives who hate big government except when they call for it to censor what they don’t like..
How can you label it a conservative fault when it’s something you acknowledge that both sides do with great frequency? Many liberals are on a self-righteous and deluded and hypocritical quest to achieve total PC Utopia, and they want to ban the shit out of everything. But guess what? Not all of them are like that. And I’m a conservative who wouldn’t support the banning of Michael Moore’s films.
This kind of casual labeling really bugs me. Like, a lot.
Well, I’ll leave that to Rick to clarify but for what it’s worth, and I may be wrong, I read it as meaning conservatives who hate big government but want to use it to ban things are hypocritical. In other words, he could have also said, “I hate it when we act like liberals who hate states rights except when they want to overturn federal immigration laws on a state by state basis.” In other words, to me, it was a statement of hypocrisy, and he used conservatives who hate big govt as the example. But definitely the way it came out was “conservatives are hypocrites” so I can see how you would be offended.
And at this point Rick is saying, “Thanks Jonathan, thanks for nothing.”
Oh…you know what, Jonathan, I think you’re right. That was some bad reading on my part.
Apologies, Rick. My humblest apologies…
This kind of casual labeling really bugs me. Like, a lot.
Sorry about that. I really am. But Jonathan’s right (thanks, Jonathan!) I was referring more to my own hypocrisy and liberal bias in thinking this was a conservative fault — if you get what I’m saying — and didn’t write it very well. It was meant more to underline your point than anything, using, you know, that irony stuff, but it was poorly written.
But I already apologized to you!!
Really, I misread it. You didn’t write it badly.
Bill,
Now I’m offended. Will you apologize to me?
All this apologizing is giving me warm and fuzzy feelings. I’ll try to suppress them.
This kind of thing is always tricky, but in general, the poor people are picked up and then dropped back in the gutter they came from. It happened to the lead in The Gods Must Be Crazy and to Herzog’s discover in his Kasper Hauser film. Only Born into Brothels had some good news about the kids as a result of the camera project.
I just don’t see people like Danny Boyle parachuting into a dire situation and then sticking around to make things better. He only wanted to tell a Cinderella story, not make a Cinderella. Exploitation? Ultimately, yes. If he really cared, he would have given these grindingly poor people points in the box office. They need it more than anyone else involved in the film.
Yup, it’s exploitation all right, Boyle is exploiting their poverty as surely as sweat shop operators. They all build their fortunes on the backs of the poor.