Protests In Mumbai Say Slumdog Millionaire Is Exploitative, Has Totally Freakin’ Unrealistic Plotline
4 February 2009, 2:37 PM. By Alex Alvarez
We’ve yet to see Slumdog Millionaire because everyone tells us they love it, so we can’t help but think it’s all lovey-dovey tripe that kind of sucks. Apparently, a whole lot of people living the slums of Mumbai agree with us.
They have orchestrated a protest to draw attention to the film’s supposed exploitative look at life in India’s slums.
The film’s director, Danny Boyle, has had to deal with similar accusations of having created “poverty porn” - loving, lingering shots of impoverished people as set dressing. Many in India also find the film’s title offensive (Which brings up the question: Can someone use a derogatory label or phrase without necessarily endorsing it?) because it, they say, equates human beings to dogs. One resident of Mumbai’s slums, social activist Nicholas Almeida (Who. A Latino, possibly?), also takes issue with the fact that the film portrayed life in slums for the entertainment of movie-goers, without doing any for the community off of which they made their money. He asks, “It is making so many millions of dollars, why can’t they spend some money here to improve our lives?”
Boyle and the film’s producers have, however, set up education funds for the slum-dwelling child actors used in the films.
Did you watch the movie? Did you find it to be exploitative? Did it make you feel terribly guilty to be sitting in an air-conditioned room with a big box full of Jujubes?
For More Images of the Protest, Click Below
(20) 
Post Your Comment
Did you know you can now share a link, image or video?
Click to submit your own notas.
i saw it at home on a screener and totally enjoyed it actually. it’s a good movie and quite frankly, the child actors are amazing in some tough roles. i’m the least sentimental person ever and i enjoyed it. i’ve noticed lots of hipster douches are getting off on calling bullshit on the movie and the what not but why don’t you see the movie and actually stop bitching about it before you complain.
i know times are tough so maybe i can score you a screener.
el smrtmnky,
I’ve often thought you to be very attractive and intelligent. Just a great well rounded person with a great spirit.
Now hows about a screener?
I’m pretty much willing to sell out on any and all of my beliefs for free movie tickets or a screener.
Me too!
—Ivan
http://www.watchtvsitcoms.com/Movies/Slumdog%20Millionaire%201.php
this one fell off of truck…
I was with you on this. I was NOT going to see it. Got dragged to the theater the other night & did go home feeling good.
I did see it a few weeks ago. I was sitting in a sold out theater in Dallas and many sitting near me were crying. El Smrtmnky is right, there are some really rough parts in this movie and the child actors handled it beautifully.
When I approach a movie like this, I keep in mind that it is fiction and not meant to be perceived as a documentary. I didn’t find it to be exploitative nor did I find it to be “poverty porn.” I liked it and most people left the theater singing its praises.
What surprised me was the scene during the ending credits. I wasn’t expecting that. And I won’t say much else for fear of giving spoilers.
I know its to be expected but for me that scene cheapened the previous two hours for me. No?
Yes. IMO, that ending credits scene just didn’t blend well with that kind of movie.
traditional bollywood movies end in a huge production number, so it was only fitting that it do the same. for research, check out “Om Shanti Om,” the biggest bollywood movie of 07. it’s actually funny and romantic and has great numbers.
OMG! I loved Om Shanti Om. :) I actually enjoy Bollywood a lot. However, Slumdog Millionaire was so serious. It wasn’t a musical so that’s why the ending surprised me. If it has been a movie with singing and dancing numbers it would have blended beautifully.
I saw the movie and enjoyed it. It’s actually a comedy with some insight into India’s impoverished… or at least that’s what I got. Does it exploit slums as a setting? Well, yeah. Isn’t that the point of a setting / backdrop? To create a mood? I don’t get it.
Instead, why not collect licensing fees and set guidelines and unions to keep the spending within the city being exploited? Wouldn’t that be more effective than boycotting a movie? By the way, I like the way the two main characters interacted with each other. I’d bet that’s the way many hosts treat their “lesser deserving” guests, yeah?
It’s possible that Nicholas Almeida is from Goa, a state in India that is a former portuguese colony. It’s not uncommon for people from there there to have Iberian names.
Ah, thanks for the info!
Damnit. La Rubia totally stole my thunder. As the resident history buff, I also knew that answer.
In fact, did you know, the name Bombay is an anglicization of the name Bom Bahia (Good Bay), which is what the Portuguese named their new settlement.
Can’t touch this. Duh duh duh duh duh
Exactly, and that’s why Goans resist the current trend of rejecting the British names for cities in favor of the traditional Indian names (like rejecting Madras and instead calling it Chennai). Since “Bombay” comes from the Portuguese and not the British, the Goans want to keep calling it Bombay and not switch to Mumbai. (Of course, I can’t speak for all Goans–this is just a generalization.)
While I have never been to Mumbai, I have been to places that experience a similar instances of poverty. Many of the things that were portrayed in the film did in fact happen on my journey or I had witnessed similar stories. For me, it was good to let these things be known to viewers who otherwise would continue living their lives ignorant that these things can and do in fact happen.
I think what is inherently problematic with films like this is the lack of EXPLANATION as to why places like Mumbai exist. I understand the author’s concern with “poverty porn”, as you get many viewers completely ignorant to these world issue being almost “enchanted” by such imagery, blaming the society the poverty exists in, rather than a long history of exploitation from powerful countries, then feel better than these “barbaric brown people” or altruistic when they go home and donate 25 cents a day to some random country in Africa.
I thought AS A MOVIE, it was well made. Perhaps one or two scenes I thought could have been done better to address the issues I mentioned earlier, but it was an interesting movie that showed the reality of some of these places. Squeezing in WHY and HOW these places come to exist, if done justly, would probably be too long of a movie, thus, it is an inherent problem of movies like this, i.e. “City of God”.
I really enjoyed the movie, and what struck me the most about seeing the Mumbai poverty is how much it looked like poverty elsewhere - like the shacks of tin outlining the hills just outside Guayaquil. We live in a world where a billion do not have access to water or plumbing - at no point was it “poverty porn.” I really connected with it because even though I’ve seen such dire poverty, the story of the two characters made the background poor people seem more human. What’s sad is that they are probably right and happiness is ‘unrealistic’ for a person born in third world poverty conditions.
I didn’t think it was “poverty porn” because it did not glamorize living in poverty. I agree with Wandering about the movie being too long if they explained why the slums exist, etc. They do touch upon on that topic a little bit (different religion, etc.) The characters were also complex and interesting. Which can be a problem when people of color are portrayed movies.
As far as being sappy I thought it was a good love story. There were some scenes I had to close my eyes for and there were some that were tear jerkers.
@ Latin Princess I think the end was to balance the heavy mood. Just my thought.
I do agree that the mood was heavy. However, I felt as though the ending of the story brought balance. Thus making the ending credits scene seem superfluous to me. Just a thought…