Q&A, now with Amitabh Shubha Shetty-Saha Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:16 IST [image: Email] Email <javascript:emailArticle(1233806,7);> [image: Print]Print<http://www.dnaindia.com/dnaprint.asp?newsid=1233806> [image: Text size] Text <javascript:change_text_size1()> [image: Share] Share<http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1233806#share>
Superstar Amitabh Bachchan has long made it clear that he isn't enamoured of the Oscars. *Slumdog Millionaire's* success at the Academy Awards has done little to change his mind. In an email interview, Bachchan explains his stand, questioning if the Oscars should be considered the ultimate and final recognition for every film made in the world. *Do you think too much hoopla is being made about the Oscars...are we giving too much importance to what seems like just an award ceremony in the US? or do you think its big enough to deserve the kind of attention it does?* AB: This is a typical media exercise. Start something, then look for celebrity endorsement for or against it, highlight comments made, headline them, initiate controversy and thereby guarantee several good copy. By the end of it, the perpetrator of this 'crime' is lost and forgotten and some vulnerable celebrity has his neck dangling on the anvil. Who is the 'we' that you talk of in the question. Surely you will not hesitate in agreeing that the media through its powerful medium is the creator of this hoopla. Your argument in defence shall be, we are merely reflecting the voice or the conscience of the people and inviting comment through the principles of fair journalisim. All very well and clear. Its what follows afterwards that brings in the discomfort. The Oscars is a film award ceremony conducted in the US. Through the years it has built itself into a powerful brand that now unabashedly conveys that it is the very best in the world. It is a matter of personal belief and choice whether one believes in that or not. Or whether it deserves the kind of attention that it does. Live with this, I would suggest. Why the unnecessary verbal jargon on it. We respect the respect of the Oscars as we would any institution that honours excellence and rewards it. Big enough small enough, important not important is not up for debate. *Do you think we should be looking at Oscars as the ultimate parameter to judge a film, considering that the films of other countries, especially Asian countries, have entirely different cultural flavours and perhaps the finer naunces could escape the judges there?* AB: For me the ultimate parameter to judge a film has been the audience. Their reward is the biggest and the best and the most lasting. But this is my personal choice. As I said earlier, we respect the Oscars. They are an American Award ceremony, conducted to honour films made in English and in the US. They also honour films from other countries under a special section and we acknowledge that. I would presume that they have set themselves conditions and parameters within which they would assess the merits of films that come up for consideration. Who are we to comment on the veracity of their judging system ? Do you ever question why Filmfare, or Screen, Zee, Stardust and our National Awards not consider Hollywood films or films from other nations for reward ? Do you question the judging system of these institutions ? Barring of course the National Awards, because they are Government Awards and under democratic and constitutional norms subject to question and answerability. *Do you think our films deserve much more attention than what we have recieved from the Oscars till date? Is it time that we are more proud of our movies than we are?* AB: I find this question funny. As a child I can ask my parents to consider me as deserving of more attention. As a citizen of India I can ask my Government to give me more attention. I can ask my wife to give me more attention and be deserving of it. But the Oscars are not my parents or my Government or my wife. Who am I then to question whether our films are deserving of more attention by them. They are an independent and a foreign institution, we honour and respect them. We are very proud of our film Industry and our movies. What is 'more proud' ? One can either be proud or not proud, but 'more proud' I am unable to understand. And just being 'more proud' is not going to get you 'more' deserving attention from the Oscars Academy. *A lot of films from India, which seemed excellent, have not been able to make it to the Oscars....Do you think they deserved better?* AB: Again here the assumption from your question is that the Oscars are the ultimate and final recognition and destination for every film made in the world. You would have to convince me first that they indeed are. Each independent institution has their own yardstick to measure excellence. As things stand they have not found any of our films worthy. Fine. We do not crave for it. If it comes we shall humbly accept and honour it. But then again this is not a generalised statement. It is independent and individual. *A few technicians from India (for example Rasool Kutty ) have managed to get the attention of the Oscars, while the actors from India are still to make a mark...What do you attribute this to?* AB: Yes true. The reason that Rasool has received attention is because he has worked in a foreign ( English ) film that has received Oscar nomination. When their system of judging feels actors from India deserve an Award we shall respectfully acknowledge it. There have been very few instances when an actor not speaking English in a non English film has been recognised for his acting capabilities. We make films in Indian languages and speak Indian languages. *Do you think Indian films need to be marketed better worldwide and its not the quality of the films but lack of exposure that has led to us not getting enough world wide recognition?* AB: Yes marketing does play an important part in the furtherance of our products world wide and I believe that very concerted efforts are already in place to enhance our presence beyond Indian shores. English being a more universal language we do feel handicapped there, but I believe cinema is a universal medium and does not need dependence on language for it to be understood. We have come a long way from 60-70 years ago when cinema in India was considered a medium that was infra dig. We have continuously moved ahead and moved forward. We are already attracting a huge amount of attention and its getting better by the day and the hour. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Anil M <[email protected]> wrote: > From The Times > February 24, 2009 > Aren't our slum people the world's best? India's euphoria at Slumdog > Millionaire's Oscars reveals much about its national character Tunku > Varadarajan > > Search every corner of the globe, I say, and you will not find a people > more complex - and complexed - than Indians. Quite without irony, a nation, > many of whose citizens had just been heaping abuse and lawsuits on Slumdog > Millionaire for showing India in a bad light, and for using the intolerable > word “dog” to describe those poor little slum-wallahs, is now in a state of > euphoric bhangra over its winning eight statuettes conferred by an “academy” > that regards a bunch of Scientologists (not to mention Mickey Rourke) as > icons. > > Maybe it's a result of 200 years of colonialism, but Indians are world > champions at caring - really caring! - about what foreigners (more > accurately, Westerners) think or say about them. They will live blithely > with impressively foetid slums in their midst, thinking nothing of the > juxtaposition of Victorian-era poverty and world-class, 21st-century living > standards. But the national outrage stirred when a Western film-maker uses > “slumdog” in the title of his film is an incandescent sight to behold. > > That foreigner's neologism (“slumdog” doesn't exist in real parlance in > India, although gali ka kutta, or alley-dog, comes close) is thought to heap > more shame on the land than the slums themselves. And yet when that same > film, with that same neo-imperialist title, is fêted by tuxedoed Americans > at an awards ceremony watched across the globe, Indians burst with pride. > Eight Oscars, yaah! Isn't that a record? Isn't A.R. Rahman the best composer > in the world? Isn't Bollywood bloody wonderful? And aren't our slums a > lesson in how to overcome adversity and cruelty? > > Aren't our slum people stoical, resilient, self-reliant, courageous, > fraternal, resolute and inventive? Aren't our slum people the world's best > slum people? > > Largely lost in this euphoria-come-lately is the sense that in the real > Mumbai - big, bad, brutal, bolshy, bad-ass Bombay - Jamal Malik, the gali ka > kutta of purest pedigree, wouldn't have come within five miles of a TV game > show. Of course the film was fantasy, but the fantasy had an ugly core that > Indians are blind to. Jamal would not have survived his torture in a real > Mumbai police station. > > There are no Oscars for “best adaptation of police practices”. But to end > on a positive note: the film has had so much attention that it will shine a > global light on everyday torture in Indian police stations. > > Westerners are quite ignorant of such matters, and if they think ill of > India now because of them, maybe the Indians, too, will start to care. > > *Tunku Varadarajan is a professor at New York University Stern Business > School and opinions editor at Forbes* > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Anivar Aravind < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> "Slumdog Millionaire": A Hollow Message of Social Justice >> >> By Mitu Sengupta, AlterNet. Posted February 23, 2009. >> >> Despite all the hype, "Slumdog" delivers a patronizing and ultimately >> sham statement on social justice. >> >> Danny Boyle's "Slumdog Millionaire", perhaps one of the most >> celebrated films in recent times, tells the rags-to-rajah story of a >> love-struck Indian boy, Jamal, who, with a little help from "destiny," >> triumphs over his wretched beginnings in Mumbai's squalid slums. >> Riding on a wave of rave reviews, "Slumdog" has now won Hollywood's >> highest tribute, the Academy Award for Best Picture, along with seven >> more Oscars, including one for Best Director. >> >> These honors will probably add some $100 million to "Slumdog's" >> box-office takings, as Oscar wins usually do. They will also further >> enhance the film's fast-growing reputation as an authentic >> representation of the lives of India's urban poor. So far, most of the >> awards collected by the film have been accepted in the name of "the >> children," suggesting that its own cast and crew regard it (and have >> relentlessly promoted it) not as a cinematically spectacular, >> musically rich and entertaining work of fiction, which it is, but as a >> powerful tool of advocacy. Nothing could be more worrying, as >> "Slumdog", despite all the hype to the contrary, delivers a deeply >> disempowering narrative about the poor that thoroughly undermines, if >> not totally negates, its seeming message of social justice. >> >> "Slumdog" has angered many Indians because it tarnishes their >> perception of their country as a rising economic power and a beacon of >> democracy. India's English-language papers, read mainly by its middle >> classes, have carried many bristling reviews of the film that convey >> an acute sense of wounded national pride. While understandable, the >> sentiment is not defensible. Though at times embarrassingly contrived, >> most of the film's heartrending scenarios are inspired by a sad, but >> well-documented reality. >> >> Corruption is certainly rampant among the police, and many will gladly >> use torture, though none is probably dim enough to target an >> articulate, English-speaking man who is already a rising media >> phenomenon. Beggar-makers do round-up abandoned children and mutilate >> them in order to make them more sympathetic, though it is highly >> improbable that any such child will ever chance upon a $100 bill, much >> less be capable of identifying it by touch and scent alone. >> >> Indeed, if anything, Boyle's magical tale, with its unconvincing >> one-dimensional characters and absurd plot devices, greatly >> understates the depth of suffering among India's poor. It is >> near-impossible, for example, that Jamal would emerge from his ravaged >> life with a dewy complexion and an upper-class accent. But the real >> problem with "Slumdog" is neither its characterization of India as >> just another Third World country, nor, within this, its shallow and >> largely impressionistic portrayal of poverty. >> >> The film's real problem is that it grossly minimizes the capabilities >> and even the basic humanity of those it so piously claims to speak >> for. It is no secret that much of "Slumdog" is meant to reflect life >> in Dharavi, the 213-hectare spread of slums at the heart of Mumbai. >> The film's depiction of the legendary Dharavi, which is home to some >> one million people, is that of a feral wasteland, with little evidence >> of order, community or compassion. Other than the children, the >> "slumdogs," no-one is even remotely well-intentioned. Hustlers, >> thieves, and petty warlords run amok, and even Jamal's schoolteacher, >> a thin, bespectacled man who introduces him to the Three Musketeers, >> is inexplicably callous. This is a place of evil and decay; of a raw, >> chaotic tribalism. >> >> Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Dharavi teems with >> dynamism and creativity, and is a hub of entrepreneurial activity, in >> industries such as garment manufacturing, embroidery, pottery, and >> leather, plastics and food processing. It is estimated that the annual >> turnover from Dharavi's small businesses is between US$50 to $100 >> million. Dharavi's lanes are lined with cell-phone retailers and >> cybercafés, and according to surveys by Microsoft Research India, the >> slum's residents exhibit a remarkably high absorption of new >> technologies. >> >> Governing structures and productive social relations also flourish. >> The slum's residents have nurtured strong collaborative networks, >> often across potentially volatile lines of caste and religion. Many >> cooperative societies work together with grassroots associations to >> provide residents with essential services such as basic healthcare, >> schooling and waste disposal, and tackle difficult issues such as >> child abuse and violence against women. In fact, they often compensate >> for the formal government's woeful inadequacy in meeting the needs of >> the poor. >> >> Although it is true that these severely under-resourced self-help >> organizations have touched only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, it >> is important to acknowledge their efforts and agency, along with the >> simple fact that these communities, despite their grinding poverty, >> have valuable lives, warmth, generosity, and a resourcefulness that >> stretches far beyond the haphazard and purely individualistic, >> Darwinian sort portrayed in the film. >> >> Indeed, the failure to recognize this fact has already led to a great >> deal of damage. Government bureaucrats have concocted many ham-handed, >> top-down plans for "developing" the slums based on the dangerous >> assumption that these are worthless spaces. The most recent is the >> "Dharavi Redevelopment Project" (DRP), which proposes to convert the >> slums into blocks of residential and commercial high rises. The DRP >> requires private developers to provide small flats (of about 250 sq. >> ft. each) to families that can prove they settled in Dharavi before >> the year 2000. In return for re-housing residents, the developers >> obtain construction rights in Dharavi. >> >> The DRP is being fiercely resisted by slum residents' organizations >> and human rights activists, who see it an undemocratically conceived >> and environmentally harmful land-grab scheme (real-estate prices in >> Mumbai are comparable to Manhattan's). >> >> Though perhaps better than razing the slums with bulldozers -- which >> is not, incidentally, an unpopular option among the city's rich – the >> DRP is far from a people-friendly plan. It will potentially evict some >> 500,000 residents who cannot legally prove that they settled in >> Dharavi prior to 2000, and may destroy thousands of livelihoods by >> rendering unviable countless household-centered businesses. If forced >> to move into congested high-rises, for example, the slum's potters and >> papad-makers, large numbers of who are women, will lose the space they >> need to dry their wares. For the government, however, that the DRP >> will "rehabilitate" Dharavi by erasing the eyesore and integrating its >> "problem-population" into modern, middle-class Mumbai. >> >> It is ironic that "Slumdog", for all its righteousness of tone, shares >> with many Indian political and social elites a profoundly dehumanizing >> view of those who live and work within the country's slums. The >> troubling policy implications of this perspective are unmistakeably >> mirrored by the film. Since there are no internal resources, and none >> capable of constructive voice or action, all "solutions" must arrive >> externally. >> >> After a harrowing life in an anarchic wilderness, salvation finally >> comes to Jamal, a Christ-like figure, in the form of an imported >> quiz-show, which he succeeds in thanks to sheer, dumb luck, or rather, >> because "it is written." Is it also "written," then, that the other >> children depicted in the film must continue to suffer? Or must they, >> like the stone-faced Jamal, stoically await their own "destiny" of >> rescue by a foreign hand? >> >> Indeed, while this self-billed "feel good movie of the year" may help >> us "feel good" that we are among the lucky ones on earth, it delivers >> a patronizing, colonial and ultimately sham statement on social >> justice for those who are not. >> >> A version of this article appeared in the Toronto Star. >> >> http://www.alternet.org/movies/127845/ >> "slumdog_millionaire":_a_hollow_message_of_social_justice/?page=entire >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
