Caught on film: India ‘not shining’

thanks generaldecay. the problem is that not being a very computer savvy person, i don't know how to select various pieces as when i try to do that, the initially highlighted portion gets deselected. please help. thanks.

Yes, as GeneralDecay said it is a very important piece even and extreamlly important Post.

I send you a PM as well.

When something shines, something else gets dirty. For example, the workers in diamond mines never shine as much a diamond does. It's upto us who wants to see what. It takes wisdom to see the right kind of shine by travelling through the way of dirt. But alas, some people's limited vision ends in the dirt and never reaches the shiny part of life.

generaldecay and paschen, thanks for the tips. I have now edited some portions of the highlighted text.

I think Arundhati Roy is talking a load of rubbish.  De-contextualising indeed!  What does she want?  An incisive analysis of the social and economic system of India?  Is that the context she thinks is necessary? 

Ive got news for her!

John Westergaard, the Marxist sociologist from the UK, who wrote the best exposition of social class, to my mind,  identifies the three components of class as power, wealth and security.  Danny Boyle's story of the complete insecurity of these residents of Dharavi (how you constantly have to guard against terrible exploitation and violence), their total poverty, and lack of any power or influence is surely a magnificent exposition of class oppression, but told as a fantastic story.  What more is she asking for?  She should have been paying more attention when she watched it!

It's a good piece, Rumana. 

Several Asian American magazines also criticized the film's casting and depiction of India given the country's complex socio-cultural and economic landscapes, to mention a few of those magazines' views. 

Gerrypopplestone, i think Roy is objecting the commodification of poverty and the riding of the Indian government on the wave of the film's success, feeling no guilt for its poor, naked and hungry population which does not reside in Dharavi alone. "Slumdog Millionaire allows real-life villains to take credit for its cinematic achievements because it lets them off the hook. It points no fingers, it holds nobody responsible. Everyone can feel good. And that’s what I feel bad about."

pythiian1, thanks for your read and comment.

The film was made for the west, it is a sanitised fairy tale that uses human suffering as a back drop. It does not have the feel, look or taste of India. It is homogenised and it is milk toast shanty town and milk toast characters that become light skinned as they mature and miraculously don't become junkies or get AIDS. The story is far fetched & it requires big mental leaps to keep the continuity going, the filming is epic, & the music keeps it going  ....but

If this were the story of African American slum kids growing up outside of DC in a derelict neighborhood, that learn perfect English giving tours of the White House. I believe the buzzword would be racism. Or maybe the discussion would be about the untruthful representation of their disadvantages and the cruelties that race, class, economics and diet play on us.  By making the movie in Mumbai, they can use racist stereotypes and hide behind the classic vignette of boy meets girl- loses girl & finds her again, because the backdrop is exotic. Oh and yes, there are no cows in the streets and maybe the West will try and figure out how come there are Muslims in India, never underestimate the lack of knowledge.