I wasn’t at the Screen Awards, nor, as I write this editorial, have I seen the telecast. I read in the papers that Ashutosh Gowariker was very offended by host Sajid Khan’s jokes. And now Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Vidhu Vinod Chopra and Raj Kumar Hirani, along with Ashu, are planning to ban ‘such award functions’ unless the hosts show them their scripts before hand.Beats me, the only thing they have found offensive in so many years about these award functions are the scripts of the hosts! I mean, clearly, these guys see themselves as serious connoisseurs of cinema! And yet they have sat through these farcical fanfares, year after year, in their best finery and expression, sometimes accepting and sometimes giving away undeserved awards. And after years of being party to these comical ceremonies, they suddenly train their guns on Sajid Khan’s jokes! Puhleese!
Yes, there’s a difference between humour and sarcasm. But are we looking for profundity here, sir? This is a circus, for Krishna’s sakes! And all of us are jugglers and jokers, scrambling for attention, glory, fame, money, viewer-ship, readership, revenue…immortality. The awards functions are merely television shows desperately, desperately chasing TRPs. If we see them as sombre tributes to Hindi cinema the joke’s on us! This is show business. We thrive on excesses. Who would know more about excesses than our affronted trio? Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Vidhu Vinod Chopra and Ashutosh Gowariker have spent millions and millions of rupees to satisfy their own creative whims! Propriety and righteousness are a matter of opinion.
So let’s not take on exalted positions and get romantic about ourselves. If we seek praise for a living, we should be ready for the insults. Intellectual supremacy cannot be an argument against it, because intellectual superiority is once again a matter of opinion, and an assumption open to everybody. Humari jail mein soorang! That’s a vain declaration. Either nobody in this world is above banter or everybody is.
Like this huge hue and cry about SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE and this ‘selling India’s poverty’ outrage! Firstly, SLUMDOG is a piece of fiction, a book and a feature film, not a documentary on India. Secondly, it happens to be a fact that 80% of our population is poor*. The slums are India even though they are often treated like the country’s servants’ quarters. Of course, we would like to wish them away, sweep them under our expensive Persian carpets or much rather pretend they do not exist. They cramp our global style. We’d like to assume that we represent India and they do not! Isn’t it presumptuous on the part of a mere 20% to think that they make more appropriate ambassadors of our country than the rest of the 80%? How typical of us, pompous asses that we are. Come on let’s hide the hole in the wall with a Husain painting?! But they are not holes in the wall; they are our bona fide countrymen. If Madame Tussaud’s can house stupid looking wax replicas of Amitabh Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan, Salman Khan and Aishwarya Rai why can’t Danny Boyle make a vibrant film on spirited kids from the slums? Both represent India. In fact, they, more than us!
_______________________
* As of 2005, 85.7% of the population lives on less than $2.50 (PPP) a day. The World Bank further estimates that a third of the global poor, now resides in India. And income inequality in India is only increasing.
Posts
Excellent!!
ReplyDeleteThe following is an excerpt from my letter to a cousin who lives in the USA, who had some reservations about seeing Slumdog Millionaire ...
ReplyDeleteI'm thrilled that Slumdog Millionaire is doing so well, and is claiming all the top awards in so many countries. Good for the team! Hope they scoop up an armload of Oscars, too! I urge you to see the film. It has some scenes that are tough to watch, but it is ALL true, and having spent my childhood in India, I know it all to be TOTALLY true. Indians overseas squirm to see the filth of India on public display; many would rather that somebody served up a glitzy superficial version of the wealthy India, so they wouldn't have to be embarrassed by their motherland's nakedness, corruption, ignorance, and poverty...they're all for sweeping the crud under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist. Some terribly ignorant Indians in India are causing riots because they say the title Slumdog is derogatory to slum dwellers. I suppose it is perfectly acceptable for society and the Indian government that so many millions live in slums in dire poverty...that is just how things are, there is nothing offensive about that, but it is offensive when someone, especially a foreigner, names a film slumdog. Why isn't anyone incensed about the hideous, demeaning poverty in the country? Why aren't Indian politicians squirming about the rampant corruption that is looked at as a way of life? Talk about double standards and getting priorities incredibly wrong! I guess it is easier to riot against a film and burn Danny Boyle in effigy in 56 slums as some idiot threatened than to actually take steps to eradicate poverty and corruption. If they got around to watching the film, they would realize "slumdog" is a term used repeatedly by Indians referring to fellow Indians (as we well know). How proud one should be of anyone, any "slum dog", who succeeds against enormous odds and such a grim start in life! What is utterly endearing about Jamal the protagonist is that the only reason he goes on the quiz show "Who wants to be a Millionaire?" is to reach his beloved (who is in the clutches of a very evil man), because he knows she unfailingly watches the show. He has absolutely no interest in the 20 million rupee jackpot. How praiseworthy (if a tad unrealistic) is that!
An Indian diplomat, Vikas Swarup, wrote the novel "Q&A", on which the film is based. The novel came out some four years ago, but there was zero outcry then. Why? Because an Indian wrote it? Because many Indians in India have never cracked open a book? Because the film is so successful, and now some sleazy Indians want their share of the pie through bogus lawsuits?
Danny Boyle did not set out to make the definitive film on Indian poverty; he wasn't making a documentary committed to telling the truth about Indian slum life. What Danny Boyle has done--although I doubt it was his intent--is hold up a mirror to Indian society, and Indians are being squeamish about what they're seeing. He took a book--an entertaining work of fiction--that told a great story of resilience, optimism, and the triumph of decency, kindness, and true love--qualities that have an almost fictional air about them these days--and made a superb film out of it, as he has so many times before. He owed nobody anything; he did not have to stand up for any causes. He put his own money into the project, paid the local actors and especially the child actors (who were plucked right out of the slums) handsomely. He even set up trust funds for these slum kids to provide long-range benefit to them; to ensure they stayed in school, these moneys would only be payable when they turned 18 IF they were still in some kind of school or educational program. His film is filled with immense love and admiration for the poverty-stricken of Bombay's slums; to me it was the ultimate love letter to the city, which arrived when Bombay was reeling from the horror of 170 murders. And Indians, instead of applauding his fine effort, are finding ridiculous things to object to. Typical! It makes me so mad, I could spit! Do see the film, and decide for yourself. Okay, I'll end my rant here.
I agree with the views expressed in the article. Celebrities should be ready for both praise and insults. They cant always expect one way traffic!!
ReplyDeleteSure do agree with this logic.
ReplyDeleteNo Making fun of Stars????
Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle Black.
Jeeez!! I guess now this anecdote would be attributed to 'grossly being misquoted' etc
Having said that, did not expect this to come from this nexgen lot of cerebral selfmade artists - who have done all the hard grind of the Industry and duly and creditably earned their stars.