SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE and why they liked to hate it.

A dingy locality, dilapidated shanties, chock-a-block houses, lanes so narrow that if two individuals try to pass through at the same time, would be seen as fierce competitors for some slimming test. Slumdog millionaire showcases every ugly and possibly every real side of Mumbai slums very starkly, and with no hold bar, in-your-face manner. Right from the slum kids playing cricket on the wide-open runway of the nearby international airport, to slum dogs trying to get some daytime nap as all the loud commotion happens around with heart pounding and pulse racing intensity, Director Danny Boyle has captured it all in a bit overt, but certainly not in an unreal way. No wonder, the film has been nominated in 11 different categories for the Oscars.
Having bagged the prestigious golden globes, the film has become the talk of the global town. But at the same time, the film has received brickbats and ire in equal measures from some bloody losers and moralistic-cultural tightass, who either do not want to see the reality around them for they travel in the plush luxury cars and stay in supreme deluxe hotels and hum the India shine song from the rooftop, or they are pure jealous, or worse still, they belong to cunning wannabe group- the so called voice and saviours of the underprivileged section of the society, trying to jump the fame bandwagon, so that the news hungry media make them shine on the television screen. There could be one more possibility of stretching the non existent issue a way to further to gain the political mileage. Here are the worries, plights, concerns and voices raised against slumdog millionaire by some of the limelight seekers, lets bisect them one by one in order to know where the shoe pinches.

• It shows India [Mumbai] in a poor light

what the heck! The film uses Mumbai slums as a backdrop and exploits it, but that’s what the story of the film is all about, about a fellow who had to fight against all odds especially, the circumstances life throws him into. If it’s was a story about eunuchs in Mumbai, then as a director, Danny Boyle was not expected to take you through sandy golden coastal life of beautiful Australia, right? Similarly, a story based on the destiny of a slum kid from Mumbai can not be shot in the vicinity of Hiranandani skyscrapers. What were all these big-mouth critics doing, when our very own films busy showing Mumbai underworld, life in filthy localities etc. very vividly minus aesthetics?
Just because I have never been to paris, I can not claim that such place doesn’t exist, likewise, if you can come out of your protected cocoon and see around [forget about exploring the life in Dharavi slums], you will find innumerable Latika and Jamaal pretty easily.

• Dharavi is not like that anymore- Huh!
  Yes, there have been changes in the discussed place, but Dharavi was like the way it’s portrayed in the film,and that’s what the film says-it’s the Dharavi when the protagonist, Jamal, was a tiddler. How could one forget the scene in which Jamal and his brother, while reflecting upon their past, also get engaged in a conversation about the change, the arrival of the new towers on the old ground, hence new lifestyle, at the same place where they used to reside once. Here, the director doesn’t fail to show the changing face of the city of Mumbai as he gives more instances of the change by giving us scenes like a hustle of the call centre in which Jamal works as a chaiwala etc. [some wish Danny had shown Malls from Mulund, Salons from Bandra, high end lifestyle of the town, but don’t you think that would have changed the tone of the cinematic expression of the film, hence the plot?]
  A few News channel actually went on to make the comparison between Dharavi shown in the film and how it truly is in today’s times. And some nonsense banter over the incongruous visuals could fill their half hour slot easily. And that was reason enough for us to form an opinion about the movie, without even watching it! [I doubt even the news presenter of the bulletin watched the movie before writing it off!]
  
  I am ready to buy this

1. Name of the film has created quite a flutter, and justifiably so. How could a white skinned come here, make film on our slums, and call the dwellers dogs? But before getting into this part of the debate, can anyone get us the person who coiled the proverb-every dog has his day?. By that standard anyone who is trying hard to win is a dog? Nonsense, well, the debate should come under the same category, the debate may make sense but the topic over which it may begin, is absolute nonsense.
   
   
2. The biggest flaw of the movie is the fact that neither I’ve watched live telecast of KBC, nor the Big B would ask contestants a question and gave them all the time in the world while the commercial break was on. [Big B would at least freeze or lock the answer and then go for a commercial break]
   
   
3. Why Jamal who speaks English with a heavy British accent serves chai, instead of attending calls?
   
   Barring above errors, Slumdog Millionaire rocks…so it’s better if we accept the shear masterpiece created by Danny Boyle and his company, without bickering about inconsequential controversies, and hum Jai ho!!