Slumdog Millionaire...the saga continues...

Should he or should he not? Should Danny Boyle be helping the star children cast of ''Slumdog Millionaires'' or not? What is the responsibility of the producers( raking in profits) to the subject/s who/which has enabled them the access to heights of fame and glory? Well what do YOU think? Does he actually owe them something? Lets start from the beginning.....

Mr. Danny Boyle directs a movies for which he shortlists not professional actors but children from slums...namely the children get an opportunity of a life time. Subsequently he pays them their fees, and releases the movie, which goes on to become a supersuccess. He makes sure that the children get to experience some of the glory and power that comes with success by taking them to the Oscars. A few months later amidst reports of the children being homeless, he comes back to make sure that the children and their families whose houses have been razed to the ground be suitably provided for.... What does he get in return? This…..''The child artists' father walks out in a huff accusing Boyle for not helping them enough'' a magazine reported, which makes one wonder '' HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH, afterall''??

Coming back to the question ''Does he owe them something?'' On technical and legal grounds, he owes them just their predetermined fees( which, of course, should be as per industry standards, and not exploitative). On moral grounds? A lot more. And to be fair to him, I think he is doing that. Its important to note that anything and everything that he is doing for the children now after all the contractual fees has been paid, should ideally be seen as an act of concern and compassion for the children, and should be encouraged for the sheer sake of morality. No legal power in this increasingly materialistic world of ours, bound by contracts and legal formalities can make him pay up beyond the predetermined fees...hence any move that he does now, to help, needs to be recognised and encouraged, and not thrown back on the face as ''not enough''. Compassion and concern have been known to die a sure -shot premature death when they come face to face with greed, which all the spiritual texts of old cry themselves hoarse calling ''an ever- growing out- of -control animal''.

Greed is but a natural fallout of desperation. A desperate man when given a chance clings to it, refusing to relinquish. Sometimes he wants to secure his entire future on the basis of that one opportunity because life had not given him any before....that's understandable. Rubina's(the child actor) father's act of asking for more is thus understandable. Understandable, but not justified....there is a fine line between the two...What might happen in the process, which happens all too often, is that any further similar compassionate moves by others might get discouraged cause nobody wants to borrow unpleasentness simply for wanting to help.

This is where neutral parties, non biased ones, need to come in. Balance, the key word needs to define the measures being taken. Danny Boyle needs to be careful, for success always come with its associated problems. He seems to be facing the full onslaught of basic human frailities here in the form of greed, desperation, even peer pressure(by western film fraternity for not doing enough for the poor) and ever increasing demands from the parents, which Iam afraid might threaten to drown out all remenants of compassion or gratitude that he might be feeling for the children. He I feel is trying to do the needful for whatever reasons, maybe compassion, maybe peer pressure. But what about the recepients, namely the child artists or rather their parents'? Are they doing the needful ?

I wish someone would help the parents of the children see the beauty, of the opportunity that has prsented itself to them, in forms other than materialistic. How many people get such opportunities? The celebration for being the chosen ones needs to be sustained through hard work and gratitude. This can be a stepping stone to better opportunities like good education for the children.Most importantly, this opportunity has given them a chance to dream …...But they need to understand that dreams can be realised only through hard work- sustained continous hard work, and cannot rest on merely one episode of glory- one cannot go on reaping its reward all one's life!

As some wise old man put it ''To give is to be great but to accept gracefully is sometimes greater.''

slumdog or hotdog?

Slumdog or Hotdog?

When the Slumdog ( my friend's 9 year old daughter chooses to call it hot dog...its hot news, afterall!!) controversy broke out with stalwarts writing about it, me, the ordinary Indian decided to pitch in too....perhaps someone somewhere is interested in the common man's views......

Lets start from the beginning, from the first reaction to the subsequent ones. To be very frank, my first reaction to comments on the film being a peddlar of ' glorification of poverty' was incredulity. Its just a film after all, its bound to be inspired by something or the other, in this case something being 'Slums of India and a novel set in the same', but subsequently over a period of time, I too could not help but be aggrieved by what I saw my friends from west conjuring about India through their impressions from the film. It hurt, for anybody who knows India knows that though slums are a reality, they are not the only reality. However the film is not just for people who already know India, its also for people who are getting to know India only through films like this or books like 'The White Tiger'. Their pathetic impressions of India hurt alright. There is a lot more to India and being Indian, I wanted to say but who cares to listen to me? Iam not an oscar winner after all !

So, well, am I to be blamed for being a split personality, of not being able to acknowledge the truth of poverty etc.etc in my land? The thought bothered me a lot, and I sat down to fathom it all out, in my mind of course...the safest place of all nowadays...

Poverty and its depiction are nothing new. International humanitarian organisations like UN etc. too talk of Indian poverty all the time, they showcase it all the time and nobody minds, why? The answer gets me to the core of the problem, at least in my eyes. The purpose of an act defines the merits or the demerits of that act, to a large extent. Nobody minds a UN depiction of poverty because its all for a good cause....... but when depiction of somebody else's poverty is for reasons other than humanitarian, the responses can be quite different depending upon the context.

' All in the name of creative freedom' too is also perfectly justifiable, and that, incidently may be all that Danny Boyle was doing when he set out to make the film- a good subject, good treatment and thus an extremely enjoyable film. Period. However, it didn't stop at that did it? When the same film starts being touted as a mirror of Indian society by the ignorant West or vested Indian interests, its time to speak up. There is a fine line between exploration and exploitation of sensitive issues like poverty, handicaps, cultural differences etc. and this line is often crossed by one and many in the name of politics, humor or even creative liberties. A bit more of sensitivity may go a long way in restoring dignities which sometimes get trampled upon during people's personal quests.

Also as I read blogs and comments in Indian media lameting the poor portrayal of India, I wondered where has our good old Indian tolerance gone? They said ''People living in ivory towers do not have a right to talk about poverty...'' Why may I ask? If people in ivory towers cannot critique or talk about issues regarding slums, then by that standard all our ministers, scribes and do-gooders who wish to talk about similar issues, should be living in slums, right? But they don't do they? People who have done well for themselves through hard work need to be appreciated and applauded for their efforts, not barred from commenting on issues which plague their society simply because they have managed to rise above it. India needs to remember and renew its heritage of tolerance, I feel.

Let us leave 'Slumdog millionaire' to be what it set out to be...an interesting film which deserves all the artistic accolades that it has received. Neither is it a mirror to Indian society nor a matter of national shame..sil vous plait.