This has been on my mind ever since that night after the Oscar Awards ceremony in 2009 when I was asked "So how do you feel about Slumdog's clean sweep at the Oscars?"
I was at an informal dinner at the home of the envoy of a developed western country. Fortunately I was prepared for the question. I was attending without my husband, and hence probably more candid than I normally am in diplomatic circles. I launched into my answer, "It is not an Indian movie, and the only thing I can think of to be proud about is that the concerned Indian authorities who give permission to foreigners to make such films about India reflect the openness of our system. Can you imagine a country such as our giant northern neighbour for instance, giving a free hand to any film maker to depict it in such poor light? I think not."
I must confess here that the import of my response notwithstanding, I have nothing but the highest respect for a thoroughly uncompromising stance in this matter. I remember being truly enraged at the scene in which a slum kid lets himself drop into a pile of human shit because he is locked into a makeshift toilet, and because that is the only way he can get out to get a glimpse of his Bollywood heartthrob. I can fairly confidently say that not a soul in India would willingly use this escape route to get a glimpse of God himself, let alone a Bollywood actor! As such, the scene was a misrepresentation and a falsehood and I would have loved to see Mr. Danny Boyle sued for it! Admittedly, if the Bollywood superstar was replaced by a few thousand dollars in the scene, the shitty escape route would probably not be such a far fetched idea, though it would be no less damaging to a country's pride.
While this was just a frivolous opportunity for Mr. Boyle to inject humour into his film, the collateral damage to India's image was plain unfunny. As I remember it, this scene was not even that crucial to the film! So why was it in the film? The answer simply is that Mr. Boyle did not even think about what light it showed India in and how it would hurt Indians (why would he?), and worse, if he thought about it, he knew no one in India would object to it.
My calculated and evasive response to the question asked to me that night was precisely that - an embarrassed evasion and pretty weak damage control. In the company of other Indians I would have said that it is stupid, for want of a better word, and of course greedy as hell on the part of whoever makes money out of this, to allow our warts to become capital, off which foreign film makers get fat and rich. To use a really bad analogy, it is like poverty stricken parents lending their deformed child to the circus company to make a living!
This is is not to turn a blind eye to the shameful fact that millions of Indians defecate in public because they don't have decent public toilets, or any toilets at all for that matter. But the point is, do the Danny Boyles of this world help us to do something about it? Then why give them carte blanche on what they depict in a film made on Indian soil about Indian people, without retaining some form of control either before or after, or better still before and after the film is made?
With Kathryn Bigelow and others rushing to India to shoot their films, I don't honestly know how India can safeguard her interests, but it seems imperative that some sort of control be instituted, perhaps in the form of conditions and clauses that will prevent the depiction of scenes that are objectionable to our sensibilities and sentiments.
If it were left to me, I would put our slums out of bounds for vultures posing as film makers. Maybe then the positive aspects of this country would inspire some foreign films. It is not a crazy idea, believe me. Other countries have been known to simply erect walls around unsightly neighbourhoods to keep the foreign media out during international events and such like. Frankly, the Bigelows and Boyles will do what they have to do by whatever means are available to them, so in the end this is not about them; this is about us and about what we have to do and need to do, even if it means no one will want to film in India at all!
I was at an informal dinner at the home of the envoy of a developed western country. Fortunately I was prepared for the question. I was attending without my husband, and hence probably more candid than I normally am in diplomatic circles. I launched into my answer, "It is not an Indian movie, and the only thing I can think of to be proud about is that the concerned Indian authorities who give permission to foreigners to make such films about India reflect the openness of our system. Can you imagine a country such as our giant northern neighbour for instance, giving a free hand to any film maker to depict it in such poor light? I think not."
I must confess here that the import of my response notwithstanding, I have nothing but the highest respect for a thoroughly uncompromising stance in this matter. I remember being truly enraged at the scene in which a slum kid lets himself drop into a pile of human shit because he is locked into a makeshift toilet, and because that is the only way he can get out to get a glimpse of his Bollywood heartthrob. I can fairly confidently say that not a soul in India would willingly use this escape route to get a glimpse of God himself, let alone a Bollywood actor! As such, the scene was a misrepresentation and a falsehood and I would have loved to see Mr. Danny Boyle sued for it! Admittedly, if the Bollywood superstar was replaced by a few thousand dollars in the scene, the shitty escape route would probably not be such a far fetched idea, though it would be no less damaging to a country's pride.
While this was just a frivolous opportunity for Mr. Boyle to inject humour into his film, the collateral damage to India's image was plain unfunny. As I remember it, this scene was not even that crucial to the film! So why was it in the film? The answer simply is that Mr. Boyle did not even think about what light it showed India in and how it would hurt Indians (why would he?), and worse, if he thought about it, he knew no one in India would object to it.
My calculated and evasive response to the question asked to me that night was precisely that - an embarrassed evasion and pretty weak damage control. In the company of other Indians I would have said that it is stupid, for want of a better word, and of course greedy as hell on the part of whoever makes money out of this, to allow our warts to become capital, off which foreign film makers get fat and rich. To use a really bad analogy, it is like poverty stricken parents lending their deformed child to the circus company to make a living!
This is is not to turn a blind eye to the shameful fact that millions of Indians defecate in public because they don't have decent public toilets, or any toilets at all for that matter. But the point is, do the Danny Boyles of this world help us to do something about it? Then why give them carte blanche on what they depict in a film made on Indian soil about Indian people, without retaining some form of control either before or after, or better still before and after the film is made?
With Kathryn Bigelow and others rushing to India to shoot their films, I don't honestly know how India can safeguard her interests, but it seems imperative that some sort of control be instituted, perhaps in the form of conditions and clauses that will prevent the depiction of scenes that are objectionable to our sensibilities and sentiments.
If it were left to me, I would put our slums out of bounds for vultures posing as film makers. Maybe then the positive aspects of this country would inspire some foreign films. It is not a crazy idea, believe me. Other countries have been known to simply erect walls around unsightly neighbourhoods to keep the foreign media out during international events and such like. Frankly, the Bigelows and Boyles will do what they have to do by whatever means are available to them, so in the end this is not about them; this is about us and about what we have to do and need to do, even if it means no one will want to film in India at all!
Well Said Amita! I think you have spoken for most of us. Keep it up.
ReplyDeleteKalpana Sen
hi Amita.. though i quite understand your view on the matter i have a slightly different take on this..the fact is that we do have quite a lot of things that we would like to keep under wraps, be it our slums or the way we treat women. I agree that others should not be allowed to make money by depicting us as a land of snake charmers.. thank god we have gone past that stage..or this absolutely pathetic nation but some of these views will find air if not in movies then in books. does control on what is depicted solve these issues? is it possible that we begin to fight against the way we are viewed ? i have no answers but it is a thought ..
ReplyDeleteWe were in Venezuela when SDM was realeased in 2009 and I had a hard time expalining how beggar children were treated. The toilet scene was not an issue since they gave it poetic licence. It was much harder to defend the scene in which little childrens eyes are gouged out with a hot spoon which really shook audiences.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the Brits can relate to beggar children easier than others thanks to Dickens and his novels which deal with the subject!
hi, Amita:
ReplyDeletePerhaps every one of us living abroad has been confronted with the issue. Your treatment of it is unique and appropriate. Such public debates would definitely help tackle this and other similar issues indigenously. Keep it up!
-Indu, Rajesh