(I opined (sorry, very long mail!) on something Bhumika sent me: two links, which you may check below first if u hv the time.)
----------------------
Some POV's post the awards....
Juhu Slum Dwellers Prefer Ghajani.
Um, Slums.
Also --Title of the movie is very important --like the title " Slumdog Crorepati" is not very SINGLE SCREEN friendly ... the "SlumDog" bit....so its difficult to get Single screens barring a few...premium ones....
---------------------------
Slumdog and the SlumsI think this is a 'dangerous' trend, and also part of the Indian psyche - 'react before you see', and then exaggerate as we get charged-up since we are so 'sweetly sentimental', and then to be wary of foreign appreciation, which we may deem it as 'exploitative'.
At the end of the day, or the year, India produces more masala (so-called,escapist cinema) than realistic cinema; heck..realism is almost dead, except for very few flicks. India's biggest block-busters are all masalas. The YRF, Johar brand of cinema, the song-n-dance, typically show opulence , which is miles away from 'reality'. Does that work? Sure. If audience go for it, have a good time, then who are we to criticize that.
The thing is...even the masalas need to play with 'universal emotions'...they need to have some sort of a theme that connect with the audience, whether it's the character or the story...unless they execute well, it wont' work. But so is true of the 'realistic' films.
What I find funny is that Slumdog is being taken so 'seriously'; it is a very good masala flick, it's a 'smart' one and...as i said before, tried to play with 'realism' by showing life of a slum-kid; if you tell a story of slum-guy, you need to show him there, not sitting in a huge bungalow! And...90% of flicks are anyway would show life in a bungalow, then why do we get disturbed by this one 'minority' flick?!
Because, they have shown how effective good story-telling can be? Which we quite suck at? Slumdog for me is primarily a love story with the backdrop of KBC of a slum-kid. For many of the phirang critics (yup, phirangs can be pretentious and perhaps indulge in pity too)...it's a film about hope and that's what it is; you should read Roger Ebert's review on why he backs-up this film. And...it's told in Bollywood-style; it IS a homage to Bollywood as Loveleen Tandon, co-director also points out. Someone thought Anil Kapoor sucked, but watch him close and you shall see that his mannerisms are close to a bollywood (masala) villain, well...that over-the-top was all intentional!
RayAs for Ray's Pather Panchali, well maybe the journalist is trying to be 'objective' by using that example, but again...it's a dangerous trend to put 'pather panchali' against the word 'poverty'. If Nargis was dumb, we can't do much about it. Pather Panchali is again a film about hope and how the family struggles and copes with the ups and downs of life, like any family, who maybe billionaires; he based it in a village (courtesy Bhibhutibhushan Bannerjee's novel) and it shines like very flicks do. Why? 'Cos it's seeped in realism and it's all about emotions.
So yeah, I find it corny when the 'intellectuals' walk that line. Sure, when we get used to watching the 'escapist' cinema, it gets hard to open our heads to other. In fact, I am truly grateful for the appreciation course we (Bhumika + Debo) took (under Ashok Rane Sir), wherein lot of folks would tell us something - you are the student of cinema, 'watch it for more' not like normal audience, and...it's tough for us too; am dead sure the normal audience would watch it for (sub-conscious) 'emotions', and that's how it should be, but it IS dangerous when you put such (poor!) thoughts in mind.
Journalism itself is so interesting (and dicey) in our land. I will never forget what someone had pointed out in a web article - the irony of the situation when Ray was given the lifetime oscar and was interviewed by none other than the giant of tv journalism, a guy i like too, Prannoy Roy (and I could recall that interview, which he did from his bed, as he was invalid...those were his last days) - Roy, in all his brilliance, and intellect asked him something like - what do you feel when the world considers Pather Panchali as a film depicting India's poverty?
Ray being sick, in very bad shape, was fragile like a child...but tried to explain his best what the film was about, he struggled since he couldn't speak coherently. It was one sad moment; the genius, on his death-bed was being made to justify a fantastic film & his cinema.
Why - because India's top journo also didn't 'get the film' and how he was being instrumental in creating a further screwed-up vision about the film and about the film-maker; Ray was being humiliated, he was being made to represent a cinema that highlighted India in poor light and because it was perceived that that's how the world appreciated his cinema.
In fact, from what I see, his films are kinda 'dead' in India and abroad too; normal audience will not be too excited to go, unless you really do excellent marketing. The people of cinema across the world who love his cinema, the 'students' and 'academicians', do so for the true value of his works. Btw, not only was he an awesome film-maker, but a terrific screenwriter; if you need to learn writing...you need to observe his screenwriting and check-out the 'economy'.
As for Pather Panchali it is basically, 'Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham' :-) That's what it is, of course, for my money (at least), you just can't compare the two, but then, yeah...the latter worked for the masses.
It's 'Fresh'Slumdog may not work for you. But if you are in the position of being a 'student of cinema', step-back and try to evaluate the setting and the emotions, the theme and the tone the film is playing with. And try to see the elements at play - kbc, slum life, suspense, masala, the scenes on the train (definitely used as a motif), the transition from kids to adults et al.
Another thing, which makes the film very special - it's highly original. (Something we are told at school to try to be - originality really shines and captivates if you can make it play well.) Like Chak De was too and that's why it was special for many; who would have thought of making a film on hockey that too women, though....i did think it was a 'smart' move by YRF - you can show 11 or more girls in mini-skirts throughout the flick and the world would 'love' watching them :-) Of course, for the film to work, people need to relate to it and it had (interesting) characters which people fell in love with and like Slumdog...it was the story of an 'underdog'.
Would We Make Slumdog?I wish the journalists would ask the question - why can't Indians make such flicks? As i was asking, Bhumika, which company in India would have backed this project? It was apparently made at $15 million and as of yesterday had earned $35 million, and after the Oscars, when it gets a re-release or a wider one, it should go over $100 million over the time. Not bad, huh.
Would the brightest brains of our production houses stepped back and said - hey, lets take this story by an Indian (!), and...let's get a foreign director and make an 'international' film and put 70 crores with no stars, no song-n-dance?! I mea, just looking at it from a purely money perspective?
Ghajini, India's BIG hit, touched 200 cr the other day; around $40 million, and would do more...but Slumdog with the awards et al...should get much stronger; so....doesn't it make sense to walk that line?! Who would have thought that? Why didn't we? Looking at the past record / content, perhaps only UTV would come near that 'frame'; guess Reliance (Big?) should start thinking too considering the stuff they own in USA.
By the way, from what I read and understand, the story happened due to one guy - Simon Beaufoy, the writer, who worked on it for 3 yrs and...also came to Bombay and would visit the slums. Now...who in right mind would do such a thing, right :-)
(so...writers and makers, if your setting is orginal, if the emotions are universal...'believe' in your story/stories! And maybe pitch to foreign firms ;-)
Marketing / TitleAs for marketing, the title would be a bit of a hassle...sure. But...i strongly believe it's the (right) mindset (of marketers) that's the key. The key is pronounciation and it's not difficult ('Slumdog' has just two syllables.)
Of course, we had Aamir selling, 'Ghajini', but...what does that mean? I actually used to think that it was the name of the girl/heroine for a long time; since the PR et al would only be around Aamir and his lady-love! And then i discovered that it was the villain (and i didn't find him extra-ordinary); point is - audience across wouldn't have known anyway what n' who Ghajini was looking at the promotion; it's only Aamir and the dream-girl. Like, I am convinced, all of us love the sound of 'Sholay', not think about the 'angarey', fire or whatever!
The name, Slumdog Crorepati (not too user-friendly) could work I think with aggressive promotion; one master-stroke of the film that will help it relate to the masses is - using the KBC angle, but then...that IS the story. And as my uncle pointed out, it really helps in selling the film in USA and UK, as masses know the hit program - Who Wants To Be A Millionaire; Lagaan is harder to relate to as they dont know cricket, but this works, and it's true, after-all the whole film revolves around the questions-answers of this program.
Commercial ElementMy gut-feel says the film will not do as great commercially as its potential, which I believe it has. We would discount it on many a things and go easy. Anyway, let's see. It'd definitely go into the hall of fame if it picks up an Oscar or two, which would be fantastic considering that it's a film about India, story about an India guy and has only Indian actors.
It really shows what potential a good story has - and i say, forget the acclaim and awards (which is helping of course), just look at the money, as that's the reasoning India's big banners give when they scare away from such (dicey) content to indulge in 'entertaining' escapist cinema.
There IS some progress and again...UTV takes the lead by doing smaller-budget (interesting) flicks. But it seems too slow. For every Oye Lucky or a rare, Slumdog, you have a SRK or Akshay Kumar super-hit and those 'n' number of flicks who want to ape that success, and despite the 'original' making as fantastic returns, they keep sticking to same stuff.
I guess, it's really hard walking the other line. And the key - telling a good story, for which all our mythology background, dadi-maa story-telling culture, and producing the maximum flicks in the world...we remain weak at. Yup...it's all about 'poverty'.
Boy! Enough..
It's a vicious game. I belong to Bombay (Mumbai) and see a similar deal in 'Bollywood'. The way I see it:
- it's typically, a 'kick' to see someone fall (especially, as majority of us don't have it in us to make it, or...to strive)
- the 'professionals' (journalists in this case), don't want to work hard enough to get to the 'truth', or opine with honesty, even if that subjective 'honesty' maybe in contrast to other's take-away from that object/film; Scott Peck said, 'Man by nature is lazy', and that kinda applies every where.
- my impression of the powers-that-be at most of the places is that they want something big and yeah...the 'stars' are easy prey.
I also have a problem with the opposite, when sometimes stars are praised for their 'superlative' performance (of course, that's my 'subjective' opinion!) But there is a sense of exaggeration - to build the Gods; I can understand for the star-value they bring-in, but when they relate it to acting, which is wanting at times, it seems weird.
Like in Bollywood, it's interesting, how a 'social' film, with lot of messages, move the audience; i realize they have a history for that; films with 'sermons' can move them a lot; more interesting is how in that scenario...appears good.
But then...the Box Office does tend to reveal the true picture eventually. Opening-weekend is almost like a sham, and I find it amusing how 'smartly' the distributors and producers celebrate the success of their film based on that, and sometimes even before the 2nd weekend, the film goes down under.
(Just discovered your blog on Sita Sings the Blue; since am in usa for some months, i was fortunate to catch it in the Denver Fest, and it was interesting to note that the best 2008 films on India, were not by Indians! This one and Slumdog. The irony is that Sita Sings...will not be released in our country; i hope not, but i know that no distributor will have guts to play a film that shows one of the true sides of the Lord Rama. Well, that's the way it is...)
Ebert: On the other hand, some of the best English-language novel of recent years are by Indians. There's much disagreement among my (surprisingly many, nearly 16,000 last month) Indian readers about whether "Sita" is affectionate or disrespectful.