Slumdog Millionaire should have been a novel moment for India. Several citizens of the country and a movie set in it won the Oscars and the BAFTA’s. In the United Kingdom, United States and Australia there was a record breaking craze to see it more than any other India-related movie. I am an Indian and I haven’t seen the movie. Surprisingly, so haven’t most of my countrymen. The article that I chose to review is an Opinion on the New York Times.
The reason for this is the critical reaction the movie has generated in some quarters of the country of being a poor stereotype of the economic and social situation of the country. The title of the movie some say, threatens to degenerate the entire cosmos of a nation into the prevalent misconception of a dirty developing nation. The article presents a logical face by side stepping the right-wrong and instead analyzing the reason behind the disgust to the stereotype. While most Indians are upset over the representation of the country, the word “dog” which has an affectionate overtone in the west is typically seen to be a dirty animal in India. The appearance game frustrates both ways.
With all the talk about holy cows on the road and dirt roads in cities, I hear in context with India on campus; the stereotype has managed to get a significant hold on the psyche of people. To bring it closer to home (USA is home right now) take the Simpsons. The character “Apu Nahasapeemapetilon” is another example of stereotype in media. The fallout of this effect is misrepresentation and generation of misunderstanding between people.
Bibliography:
The Editors, et al. "The Real Roots of the ‘Slumdog’ Protests" The New York Times, February 20, 2009, Online January 23, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment