The movie “Slumdog Millionaire”, a fairytale of a boy from the slums, who wins both love and money on a TV gameshow, was criticized by some people in India for portraying“poverty porn” to “titillate foreign audiences.”Poverty porn, something we rarely hear about in the United States and other developed countries of the world, ismentioned in the article “An Idiots’ Guide to India” many times. The author claims that developed countries are responsible for the deaths of children, poverty and oppression in Third World nations. Moreover, he claims that the film “grossly oversimplifies poverty and our relationship with it” (Sawhney 406).Can it then be presumed, those who enjoyed the film thought it accurately portrayed India and those who did not enjoy the film thought it a negative portrayal?Some may believe citizens of a developed nation should take responsibility for helping under developed nations, but some may believe as an audience we should only feel genuine sympathy for destitution rather than responsibility. Therefore, is there reasoning behind the author’s claim that ‘poverty porn’ is the cause of this type of oppression because he did not like the film, oris there justifiable proof that this particular film has finally portrayed a real, identifiable idea of the non-glitz and glamour of the ‘real-world’ India; and simply put, this type of oppression cannot be blamed on the hype of “SlumdogMillionaire”?
For those admirers of the movie, it portrayed a reality of India to the whole world.RuchikaMuchhala wrote, in THE CHANNEL 19 blog, about how her country is being portrayed on film from her own perspective: “Finally here’s a film which does not profile the villages of remote India detoxifying ‘The East’ nor does it show-off the glitz and glam which only a small percentile of the upper-crust in India can relate to but everyone dreams of. Instead, this film shows the reality of modern India by portraying life in the slums and speaking with and working with slum dwellers rather than hiring actors and researchers” (Parra4). Slumdog Millionaire was illustrating Mumbai’s slums from a special point of view. Unlike other feel-good Mumbai tales, Danny Boyle filmed the poverty and tragedy from the early scenes, which gave audiences a real-world feel for what plain life and reality were.
For those who do not like the movie, they criticized it for showing too much social unrest and thought that it gave people a bad impression about India. It expounded “all of the major Indian hot buttons,” such as TajMahal, child beggar chai, prostitution, and all the unreal depiction of slums. No wonder Sawhney said “after watching the film, viewers are left to infer that slums are horrid, rancid places because of beggar masters, Hindu zealots and Muslim gangs”. (Sawhney406) The sharply contrasting Third World’ fetidness and depravity were gratifying to UK and US sensibilities “because it grossly oversimplifies poverty and our relationship with it”. (Sawhney406).
After interviewing some of my friends, most of them agree that developed countries should always have a direct responsibility to help developing countries in an extensive way. Nowadays, any poverty in the world is caused by an absence of capitalism, not the existence of capitalism. However, as a result, Boyle’s movie let audience believe that that abject poverty and inequity are strictly foreign things for which we share no culpability” (Sawhney406). Instead, the reality of Indian life has strayed too far away from its myths, and the only thing we can do as audience is– just feel genuine sympathy for destitution.
“In fact, far from spreading the blame for global poverty, Boyle’s film actually suggests that the west is the solution to India’s problems.” (Sawhney406) In any case, if someone is still trying to suggest that Western economy has not lifted millions out of abject poverty in the Third World, then one must be extreme. Of course, “Slumdog Millionaire’s implication that western values offer a way out of the slums is a dangerous myth,” due to the fact that India nowadays is trapped by a culture of corruption and development. Western cultural values acted as a sharp knife of society which dissected India and exposed its ugly side, while all kinds of culture collide. Because of corruption, funds management, and many other problems, Third World countries often are in huge amounts of debt whichare never clear – they follow the same old disastrous road that becomes a vicious circle, therefore their economy cannot improve. And these debts need the First World countries to forgive them. In conclusion, India does need western values; at the same time, it excludes western values.
Actually, there is no need to seek freedom, rebellion, or breakthroughs in a western value system, or to be too serious and earnest in its progress or regress. Like Sawhney said, India “begins the painful process of questioning the integrity of its way of life” (Sawhney406). Meanwhile, our help to the developing world is important. As it is getting strong, its problems are also growing-such as agricultural conditions, corruption, debt, overpopulation and structural adjustment. One day India will succeed in transforming, but it may be a long and painful journey there.
Work Cited
Source: Hirsh Sawhney,Signs of Life in the U.S.A. seventh edition, an idiots’ guide to India, Pg. 405-406, November 21, 2011, September 10, 2012.
Source:Juliana Rincón Parra, web.http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/01/21/video-slumdog-millionaire-and-the-indian-slums/, Jan 21, 2009, September 10, 2012.
Slumdog Millionaire, Dir. . Perf.. 2008, British drama film. You can fine this information on Wikipedia.com
