Monday, February 23, 2009

Jai Ho!

“Slumdog Millionaire” (SM) has created Oscar history. Those associated with the film have reason to celebrate. I join all in congratulating those whose talent has received recognition at the Academy awards – and wish them greater success.

When the din dies down, it will be worthwhile to examine what we are celebrating. First, this is NOT an Indian film – just one based on a story with and Indian milieu. The song, for which Rahman received the Oscar, is good, but undoubtedly not his best work. I am sure that Anil Kapoor, and to an extent Irfan Khan, cringed when the producer of SM went on stage and stated that when they started the project they had “no money, NO STARS” etc. So, while we share the happiness that winning an award would bring to the awardees, we must carefully look at the lessons learned.

The commercial success of this film internationally is a lesson in great marketing. While our movie stalwarts have tried hard (the leading Khan’s in particular) to “market” their products, the effortless, almost self effacing, ease with which Danny Boyle has “sold” the story is worth emulating. In interview after interview, Boyle comes across as a humble down-to-earth story teller who was so moved by the rags-to-riches story of the protagonist that he achieved “mission impossible”. Danny stresses the positives:
  • Universal appeal - the story is of an under-dog who, in the face of adversity, makes a success of life
  • The “spirit of Mumbai” – buoyancy and entrepreneurship in the face of abject poverty – is what he seeks to display through this film

But is that really the case? Scene after scene in the movie examines the dark underbelly of Mumbai’s underworld. We are introduced to the “business” of begging and prostitution, to police brutality and drug trafficking. I remember no incident in the movie that illustrates the spirit of striving, of entrepreneurship that Boyle speaks of. The protagonists’ appeal is not in his attempt to achieve more (a la “Satya”), but in a dog-like devotion to a child-hood crush he does not seem to overcome. His participation in the TV show is not motivated by trying to be a success, but a means to reach out to his lost love. And his winning is a function of the brutal life he has led, rather than any active effort on his part. What, in all this, is inspiring?

On the other hand, a recent Indian movie like “Taare zameen par”, has all the ingredients that Doyle speaks of, but are missing in SM. The story of a young lad struggling with a learning disorder is indeed a universal subject. The parental pressure, the child’s emotional response – are both finely crafted and brilliantly performed. None of the actors in SM reached anywhere close to the portrayal achieved by the young actor in Taare. The struggle and eventual success of the protagonist is definitely inspiring. Taare was a success, but not at Hollywood.

What does this tell us about the reasons why some movies make it at the Oscars, and others don’t? And should we care? After all, we are the biggest industry in the world, except in terms of the dollars collected. Judge for yourself.

No comments:

Subscribe Now: standard