February 28, 2011 - 11:38pm
Naked Gold Man: The Slumdog's speech
BY PROMA KHOSLA
- Courtesy of A.M.P.A.S.
Hello everyone, and welcome to the Naked Gold Man, a series of blog posts over the next few days about what we love, hate and tolerate about the crazy hullabaloo that is February awards season. The topic of today's daily installment: "Slumdog" fever.
For my part, the Oscars peaked in 2009 with a little film called “Slumdog Millionaire.” I doubt I’ll ever find myself so invested in a telecast as I was because of that one film.
Western audiences were almost unanimous in their approval and quick to vocalize praise for “Slumdog Millionaire.” They called it brilliant, illuminating and a “feel-good film.” I wasn’t about to go along with the happy-go-lucky, Bollywood-concoction version of events, but I still loved it with every fiber of my being.
In the Indian community, “Slumdog” caused commotion. Watching it was … rough, to say the least – for me and for most Indians I know. As refreshing as it was to see an honest depiction of India, it came with the disturbing knowledge that our country has its scars and it’s up to us to heal them.
I began touting praise for the film as early as November 2008, encouraging anyone and everyone I knew to go see it. On the other side of the world, Amitabh Bachchan, the most famous actor you’ve never heard of, publicly demeaned it for its gross depiction of poverty and the implication that it represents all of India. It exposed a disturbing underbelly absent from most mainstream media (like TV’s “Outsourced,” where middle-class urban Indians don’t know what a strip club is … if only) and perpetuated the image of India as a third-world country.
All due respect, Bachchansaab, but that’s bull. A remotely educated moviegoer knows that one film doesn’t represent an entire culture, and for a culture as internally diverse as India’s, you’d need a thousand films for a truly accurate education. “Slumdog” did what it needed to. Even though it shed a sharp, bright light on problems of crime, prostitution, child violence and poverty, the most fundamentally Indian aspect of the film was the underlying hope.
My favorite thing about “Slumdog” fever was that suddenly I became the highest authority on this film and the entire awards season by extension. It was of the utmost importance for kids at school to have the “Slumdog” conversation with me. If I liked it, they could like it – and if I hated it, then it was an offensive travesty that must be destroyed immediately.
I was in my element. I was a senior in high school, and my country’s culture was poised to win the highest honor in the world of cinema. Shah Rukh Khan, my favorite actor since I was old enough to dance to Hindi songs in my living room, appeared on stage at the Golden Globes. My friends wanted to listen to A.R. Rahman CDs. We were invincible.
The night after the Oscars, Aasif Mandvi pretended to drunkenly stumble into John Oliver’s field report on “The Daily Show.” “We won!” he slurred gleefully. “Jai ho!”
That personal interest, that caring-too-much-for-a-third-party-observer – that’s what makes the Academy Awards and movies in general so special. Once in a lifetime, a movie comes along that steals your heart and soul and speaks to you in a way that no other medium could. “Slumdog” spoke to audiences and critics across the world, myself included. I hope everyone can be so lucky as to find such a film.
WANT MORE? Look out for the Oscar B-side on Thursday, February 24, premiering in a Daily near you, featuring interviews with University alum Oscar winners, a discussion of why and how awards shows are so captivating and more.
