A Desi State of Mind
Not really worth a post, but it gives me the opportunity to share the link to a wonderfully written piece in the guardian - about denial and empty criticism which so often most Indians display when it comes to the portrayal of India and all things Indian. Although its intended target maybe an old man seemingly out of touch with times and only interested in props on his much publicized daily blog, it serves a good rejoinder to all the arm-chair critics out there who feel threatened by what Slumdog Millionaire has to say.
A little background - Apparently Amitabh Bachchan in a recent blog post criticized the British movie Slumdog Millionaire, although when I went through his actual post, it was a little difficult to figure out what exactly is his beef with the movie? He talks about, and I para-phrase, how poverty, which he refers to as murky underbelly! exists in all developed nations and then goes about trying to defend Bollywood, escapist cinema, bemoaning the fact that, and these are his exact words -- "and not a word of appreciation for the entertaining mass oriented box office block busters that were being churned out from Mumbai. "
Here is the actual link to his blog piece - http://bigb.bigadda.com/page/4/ or look for his post on Day 265.
Now I'm no Freud, but it would seem our esteemed superstar of Bollywood has two possible grievances. First the depiction of extremely cruel living conditions for those living below the poverty line in India in the movie. This has no doubt irked and angered many so-called patriots and nationalists including Mr. Bachchan who also throws an additional gauntlet by claiming a similar movie about poverty in a developed country by an Indian director would not receive the same global acclaim as Slumdog Millionaire. An empty hypothesis until an Indian director takes up the challenge of such a subject.
With regards to poverty - Yes it exists openly in India. We've grown to live with it. We've grown accustomed to little kids holding little babies in their arms and begging for money in the midst of heavy traffic. Blind singers along pathways or the long line of disabled, elderly denizens outside of any place of worship are not an uncommon sight. Yet we do not wish to let the outside world see this. As if they will disappear if remain unseen. As if the rampant construction of shopping malls, high-rise buildings, coffee shops, and availability of big brand name products would hide the untold miseries of such a huge section of the population. Such a typical desi state of denial. The rapid growth of the Indian middle-class but without controlled consumer spending would result in a system where there is no spread of wealth. There is a general feeling in India that more people have more money. Although that may be true this is no way alleviates the levels of poverty.
For instance I make a monthly income of $100 after tax (if I chose to pay). I save $20 and spend $80. I spend $80 on consumer goods - for groceries, at a club, to watch a movie. My $80 provides revenue to the businesses which have provided the good or services which will bulk up their balance sheets and income statements. This in turn would make shareholders happy and they'd make money at the stock market. The businesses would maybe give bonuses, raises to their employees and resources in addition to monthly fixed salaries, and assuming I'm one such employee I now receive $110. Barring no change in my savings, the cycle continues. Now take my spending behavior and multiply by 100 million or so. The money exchanges between hands but there is only interaction between the middle-class consumer and the business. How does this cycle of income-spending-revenue-income help the person living on the street with no education and with hand-to-mouth existence? The only possible way I could make a difference is either by employing them for manual, household labor where I control the rates and presumably keep the pay levels on par with 1980.
Although this an extremely simplistic way of explaining the cycle of poverty without employing economic theories, it shows how, on the flip side, a burgeoning middle-class can play a giant role in concerted effort with big corporations and government bodies to utilize their new found riches towards helping the poor. By providing for education of the poor children, kids of slum-dwellers so they have a chance to be gainfully employed. The Government with its reservations and quotas can only do so much. Although I'm uncomfortable with the concept of reservations and quotas I feel its a sort of quick-fix way to help the down-trodden. But at some point the private sector and the general public will have to get involved. But.
For those who feel angered at the portrayal of Mumbai in Slumdog Millionaire, they are burning the wrong tree. They chose to bury the mirror rather than examine the reflection. I feel I have no logical argument with such folks. I'd simply tell them - 'India is the greatest country in the world' and leave it at that.
Secondly, and more personal to Mr.Bachchan, the fact that a British movie-maker came to Mumbai and made a movie about India, with a somewhat accurate depiction of life in the slums, and it becomes box-office gold worldwide and gets absolute global recognition and praise including a possible Oscar nod, while our beloved star has been toiling away for decades and his movies has failed to garner the kind of response Slumdog has received.
Although Amitabh Bachchan movies are popular in many parts of the world and there are many outside of India who appreciate staple Bollywood fare, one can feel there is a sort of new found appreciation and tolerance growing for Bollywood movies worldwide and especially here in the U.S.A, the fact of the matter is major institutions and film festivals like Cannes, Venice, Sundance, New York, Toronto simply have not recognized Bollywood formulaic products.
And here I'd like to point out the distinction between Bollywood and Indian Movies. The works of Satyajit Ray, Shyam Benegal, Adoor GopalaKrishnan, Gautam Ghose, Ritwik Ghatak, Aparna Sen, Deepa Mehta, Mira Nair, Kamal Haasan and a whole host of Indian directors, proponents of realism, have made their mark around the globe and been honored by above mentioned institutions and festivals.
So lets not give any credence to the argument that there is a sinister conspiracy to blatantly ignore Bollywood and Indian cinema from award ceremonies. We simply cannot expect all foreign viewers to appreciate and understand 'Bollywood' in its present form. Especially since Bollywood excels in the art to regurgitate. And I suppose this is the crux of Bachchan's grief. To us Indians he is a legend, a superstar, but he craves for similar sort of outpouring of love and affection from a wider, international audience and more whiter audience, a need for a hour-long standing ovations and cries of encore! Bravo! to boot. He is definitely popular in India, but it is this very same iconic status that makes him a curiosity piece in the west. But once we're done with all the hype and see the actual work, I gather most westerners would carry a more bemused look and wonder what the fuss is all about. If I were to look back at all Bachchan's work from the past 10 years, there would probably be only a handful of movies which I felt truly justify his iconic status. A quick glance through his IMDB profile revealed he had roughly 60 movies to his credit since 2000 (a little less since he guest starred in many movies) out of which probably only 9-10 were watchable. And if you really think about he did some of his best work 40 years ago - with Zanjeer, Sholay, Deewar, Abhimaan, Anand, Don, Kala Paathar et al and has been collecting royalty ever since. The 80's were a blur with mind-bogglingly inane movies like Mard, Coolie, Toofan, Ajooba, Ganga Jamuna Saraswati and others. Suffice to say, most Indian movie-goers have endured his presence for a long time. One can only offer a word of caution to new age Superstars like ShahRukh Khan the self-pronounced Badshah of Bollywood, that once he seeks to attract a more western audience he'll discover his one-card trick routine will not be enough.
I'll pause here and take a breath. I guess I had something to say after all about what started off as a not so worthy post. Here is the link to the article on the guardian which I'd mentioned earlier -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/jan/15/danny-boyle-shows
Nav
A little background - Apparently Amitabh Bachchan in a recent blog post criticized the British movie Slumdog Millionaire, although when I went through his actual post, it was a little difficult to figure out what exactly is his beef with the movie? He talks about, and I para-phrase, how poverty, which he refers to as murky underbelly! exists in all developed nations and then goes about trying to defend Bollywood, escapist cinema, bemoaning the fact that, and these are his exact words -- "and not a word of appreciation for the entertaining mass oriented box office block busters that were being churned out from Mumbai. "
Here is the actual link to his blog piece - http://bigb.bigadda.com/page/4/ or look for his post on Day 265.
Now I'm no Freud, but it would seem our esteemed superstar of Bollywood has two possible grievances. First the depiction of extremely cruel living conditions for those living below the poverty line in India in the movie. This has no doubt irked and angered many so-called patriots and nationalists including Mr. Bachchan who also throws an additional gauntlet by claiming a similar movie about poverty in a developed country by an Indian director would not receive the same global acclaim as Slumdog Millionaire. An empty hypothesis until an Indian director takes up the challenge of such a subject.
With regards to poverty - Yes it exists openly in India. We've grown to live with it. We've grown accustomed to little kids holding little babies in their arms and begging for money in the midst of heavy traffic. Blind singers along pathways or the long line of disabled, elderly denizens outside of any place of worship are not an uncommon sight. Yet we do not wish to let the outside world see this. As if they will disappear if remain unseen. As if the rampant construction of shopping malls, high-rise buildings, coffee shops, and availability of big brand name products would hide the untold miseries of such a huge section of the population. Such a typical desi state of denial. The rapid growth of the Indian middle-class but without controlled consumer spending would result in a system where there is no spread of wealth. There is a general feeling in India that more people have more money. Although that may be true this is no way alleviates the levels of poverty.
For instance I make a monthly income of $100 after tax (if I chose to pay). I save $20 and spend $80. I spend $80 on consumer goods - for groceries, at a club, to watch a movie. My $80 provides revenue to the businesses which have provided the good or services which will bulk up their balance sheets and income statements. This in turn would make shareholders happy and they'd make money at the stock market. The businesses would maybe give bonuses, raises to their employees and resources in addition to monthly fixed salaries, and assuming I'm one such employee I now receive $110. Barring no change in my savings, the cycle continues. Now take my spending behavior and multiply by 100 million or so. The money exchanges between hands but there is only interaction between the middle-class consumer and the business. How does this cycle of income-spending-revenue-income help the person living on the street with no education and with hand-to-mouth existence? The only possible way I could make a difference is either by employing them for manual, household labor where I control the rates and presumably keep the pay levels on par with 1980.
Although this an extremely simplistic way of explaining the cycle of poverty without employing economic theories, it shows how, on the flip side, a burgeoning middle-class can play a giant role in concerted effort with big corporations and government bodies to utilize their new found riches towards helping the poor. By providing for education of the poor children, kids of slum-dwellers so they have a chance to be gainfully employed. The Government with its reservations and quotas can only do so much. Although I'm uncomfortable with the concept of reservations and quotas I feel its a sort of quick-fix way to help the down-trodden. But at some point the private sector and the general public will have to get involved. But.
For those who feel angered at the portrayal of Mumbai in Slumdog Millionaire, they are burning the wrong tree. They chose to bury the mirror rather than examine the reflection. I feel I have no logical argument with such folks. I'd simply tell them - 'India is the greatest country in the world' and leave it at that.
Secondly, and more personal to Mr.Bachchan, the fact that a British movie-maker came to Mumbai and made a movie about India, with a somewhat accurate depiction of life in the slums, and it becomes box-office gold worldwide and gets absolute global recognition and praise including a possible Oscar nod, while our beloved star has been toiling away for decades and his movies has failed to garner the kind of response Slumdog has received.
Although Amitabh Bachchan movies are popular in many parts of the world and there are many outside of India who appreciate staple Bollywood fare, one can feel there is a sort of new found appreciation and tolerance growing for Bollywood movies worldwide and especially here in the U.S.A, the fact of the matter is major institutions and film festivals like Cannes, Venice, Sundance, New York, Toronto simply have not recognized Bollywood formulaic products.
And here I'd like to point out the distinction between Bollywood and Indian Movies. The works of Satyajit Ray, Shyam Benegal, Adoor GopalaKrishnan, Gautam Ghose, Ritwik Ghatak, Aparna Sen, Deepa Mehta, Mira Nair, Kamal Haasan and a whole host of Indian directors, proponents of realism, have made their mark around the globe and been honored by above mentioned institutions and festivals.
So lets not give any credence to the argument that there is a sinister conspiracy to blatantly ignore Bollywood and Indian cinema from award ceremonies. We simply cannot expect all foreign viewers to appreciate and understand 'Bollywood' in its present form. Especially since Bollywood excels in the art to regurgitate. And I suppose this is the crux of Bachchan's grief. To us Indians he is a legend, a superstar, but he craves for similar sort of outpouring of love and affection from a wider, international audience and more whiter audience, a need for a hour-long standing ovations and cries of encore! Bravo! to boot. He is definitely popular in India, but it is this very same iconic status that makes him a curiosity piece in the west. But once we're done with all the hype and see the actual work, I gather most westerners would carry a more bemused look and wonder what the fuss is all about. If I were to look back at all Bachchan's work from the past 10 years, there would probably be only a handful of movies which I felt truly justify his iconic status. A quick glance through his IMDB profile revealed he had roughly 60 movies to his credit since 2000 (a little less since he guest starred in many movies) out of which probably only 9-10 were watchable. And if you really think about he did some of his best work 40 years ago - with Zanjeer, Sholay, Deewar, Abhimaan, Anand, Don, Kala Paathar et al and has been collecting royalty ever since. The 80's were a blur with mind-bogglingly inane movies like Mard, Coolie, Toofan, Ajooba, Ganga Jamuna Saraswati and others. Suffice to say, most Indian movie-goers have endured his presence for a long time. One can only offer a word of caution to new age Superstars like ShahRukh Khan the self-pronounced Badshah of Bollywood, that once he seeks to attract a more western audience he'll discover his one-card trick routine will not be enough.
I'll pause here and take a breath. I guess I had something to say after all about what started off as a not so worthy post. Here is the link to the article on the guardian which I'd mentioned earlier -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/jan/15/danny-boyle-shows
Nav
Labels: Amitabh Bachchan, Poverty, Slumdog Millionaire
posted by Nav at 12:01 PM
1 Comments:
Bravo!!! Well written I agree with your views. Also, I think Bachchan is in denial that his career will finally get over in the near future and that newer younger generation of actors are involved more in realistic, artistic cinema than the crappy, repititive, escapist movies that Bachchan was involved in all this life. SDK
Post a Comment
<< Home