My first reaction on hearing that this movie has been nominated for 9? 10? Oscars was: "Oh."
Something like what you would say when you looked at the clear sky in the morning but heard the steady drizzle grow into a thundering downpour by 4 in the afternoon. In this case a typical reaction would be to stare out the window at the rain for around 5 minutes and then get back to
whatever it is you were doing. That is precisely what I did.
I don't think it shows India in a bad light or glamourizes poverty. In fact it is a very realistic potrayal of a set of people who have to constantly watch their backs and for whom surviving each day is the biggest challenge.
I also don't think an Indian director could have done justice to this story. Not because Indian directors are not good enough (as is mostly assumed) but because as an Indian, having grown up seeing luxury and poverty across the road from each other, his view would be biased. The view portrayed in the movie looked real because it was objective. It is the view you get when you see it for what it is, without any "baggage". If an Indian was to make a movie on the American life/way of living I'm sure he would do a great job.
I also didn't see what was there for it to merit all those Oscar nominations. I guess that is because we are used to watching Indian movies that are high on drama and emotion. It is well-made, no doubt, but not too different from the mainstream movies in terms of masala.
Sometimes I am tempted to spout a theory about a conspiracy to get the world to talk about India. First Arvind Adiga's "White Tiger" and then this. Remember the theory of how countries which the cosmetics giants view as potential markets win the beauty pageants? I can imagine a similar exercise being conducted to identify how India is different from the rest of the world: so you list all the "Points of Differentiation" and then you see which one can give us competitive advantage. No prizes for guessing what topped this list: poverty and the grit of the people condemned to live with it.
But then this would be a self-destructing hypothesis right? More attention => more business => more development => get richer => eliminate poverty => left with no point of differentiation
As a last word, so long as we are benefiting from it (economically) as a country, I have no objections at all.
Something like what you would say when you looked at the clear sky in the morning but heard the steady drizzle grow into a thundering downpour by 4 in the afternoon. In this case a typical reaction would be to stare out the window at the rain for around 5 minutes and then get back to
whatever it is you were doing. That is precisely what I did.
I don't think it shows India in a bad light or glamourizes poverty. In fact it is a very realistic potrayal of a set of people who have to constantly watch their backs and for whom surviving each day is the biggest challenge.
I also don't think an Indian director could have done justice to this story. Not because Indian directors are not good enough (as is mostly assumed) but because as an Indian, having grown up seeing luxury and poverty across the road from each other, his view would be biased. The view portrayed in the movie looked real because it was objective. It is the view you get when you see it for what it is, without any "baggage". If an Indian was to make a movie on the American life/way of living I'm sure he would do a great job.
I also didn't see what was there for it to merit all those Oscar nominations. I guess that is because we are used to watching Indian movies that are high on drama and emotion. It is well-made, no doubt, but not too different from the mainstream movies in terms of masala.
Sometimes I am tempted to spout a theory about a conspiracy to get the world to talk about India. First Arvind Adiga's "White Tiger" and then this. Remember the theory of how countries which the cosmetics giants view as potential markets win the beauty pageants? I can imagine a similar exercise being conducted to identify how India is different from the rest of the world: so you list all the "Points of Differentiation" and then you see which one can give us competitive advantage. No prizes for guessing what topped this list: poverty and the grit of the people condemned to live with it.
But then this would be a self-destructing hypothesis right? More attention => more business => more development => get richer => eliminate poverty => left with no point of differentiation
As a last word, so long as we are benefiting from it (economically) as a country, I have no objections at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment