In the past few months, a lot has been said about the movie Slumdog Millionaire and the hullah over Oscars and the prominence we Indians attach to it. The debate on Oscars became a hot topic after Amitabh Bachchan expressed his views against it. This blog is about the above two topics.
The Book Q & A hit the stands around October 2007. I went through the book last year, January and found the book to be quite gripping, quite unpredictable, easy to comprehend and a book which accentuated the roles of effort/hard work and luck for the success or the lack of it for a person.
It was gripping because from the first sentence of the story( I am arrested for winning a game show) till the last chapter, never at any point of time does one wish to keep the book away.
It was unpredictable because one always wanted to know what the next question would be and under what circumstances the protagonist would have found a clue to the answer.
It was easy to understand because the author refrained from using too many jargons and kept it simple and lucid.
Finally it demonstrated the role luck and effort plays in the success of a person. No person can achieve anything in this world without the contribution ( though it may be very meagre one) of the other. Had Jalal not shown the zeal to rise up again and again he would not have been a "slumdog", a chaiwalla, a tourist guide, a call centre person etc.. all in the same life. He wanted to grow, change his life and luck favoured the brave!! He was also lucky at the same time or else how could the 15 questions all linked to some or the other instances of his life. Or for that matter how could have he run out of clutches of goons converting children into beggars. There were several moments in the book which highlighted these two aspects, only thing is one has to look for them.
Danny Boyle made a good film out of this book, something which Ron Howard was not able to do w.r.t The Da Vinci Code. The film had enough in it to hold even those who had read the book. It wasn’t a replica of the book and the picturization was the territory of the director, which He explored well. If one's aim is to look for loopholes, there would be enough in any creation of a artist.
We need to assess an art independently of the impact it would have on others. If it appeals to us, we must appreciate it. If it antagonizes us, we must condemn it. But to criticize a film solely with the thought that what others( westerners) would think about it, is not that praiseworthy an idea.
The film shows about poverty, can we deny its existence? The film shows about child beggars, are we free of it? The film depicts fake tourist guides, don't we have any? Its not a matter of embarrassment but a matter of introspection as to how we individual can make a change so that in future others don’t have a chance to depict these.
The point about Oscars is a valid one. We Indians have been quite obsessed about getting a recognition from the world( west). Amartya Sen was not recognized for his work while he was here, but after getting a Nobel Prize we were singing paeans about him. Jai Ho is not the best creation of A R Rahman/Gulzar, but after the Oscars for Rahman, we have been so much crazy about this song that even Rahman must be wondering about the impacts of Oscars!!! If a thing is good, it remains good whether it gets recognition from the Oscars or not. After all Oscars is nothing but American movie academy awards, meant for American Films. Our obsession with it defies logic.
We must get over this “inferiority” complex about considering our things as backward and instead always strive to be an iota better than what we are at the present moment.
