The Oscar's are all but over and ‘Slumdog Millionaire’, a desi movie by a videshi has won an enviable bevy of 8 Oscars – a no mean feat. The crowning glory – AR winning two Oscars and Resul Pookutty bagging the Best Sound Mixing Oscar – a commendable performance, especially for Resul, knowing that we Indians don’t have access to the best technologies as our more lucky compatriots in the west do. It would do every Indian proud to see their homeboys rubbing shoulders with the best there is of Hollywood, standing up on the world stage and chanting ‘Jai Hind’ in unison. Of the very few films that I see each year, I was goaded into viewing Slumdog Millionaire by my wife, enamored as she was with the rave reviews that appeared in almost all print and electronic media. I must confess, and I would be one of those one-in-a-million kinds, who stepped out of the theater extremely disappointed. I did not like the film, period. A good film is as much about a good story, a story that forces you to think and reflect, as it is about good technique, direction, use of the technology etc, among a host of other such parameters. To me, a good film leaves behind a good and long lasting aftertaste, which, at the very least hangs on for a couple of days if not more. Slumdog Millionaire does nothing of that sort. I forgot the film as I stepped out of the hall, that's it! While I do not grudge the musical and technical awards that it has won (adapted screenplay, film editing, sound mixing, cinematography, original score and original song), but the fact that the film has won the Best Picture and Best Director Award is a huge dilution for what the Oscar’s stand for. Why is it that the film has captured the imagination of the jury? It has an average storyline – a rags-to-riches story with a fair bit of romance thrown in, a cop who moves from being malevolent to benevolent, and a fair bit of blood and gory. Here's why I think the western critics feel for the film.
Every country and race has, due to some quirk of history, 
been typecast into certain image patterns. For instance the image that India generates is one of cows, sadhus, poverty, slums, filth, corruption etc. An African-American is typically seen as a druggie, mugger, a member of some vicious gang etc. Africa on the other hand brings up images of wild animals, suffering, abject poverty and hunger. These are images that appeal to us the most and hold true our mental image of the race and country. Most of the tourists from the western world helplessly retain images of India as dusty and noisy country, beggar children with snooty noses peering through the car window as you wait for the lights to change, unruly traffic, potbellied cops etc. For an average western mind, India and its ever changing colour, its huge diversity of culture, its languages, its religious diversity, its chaos is a bit too much to take in and understand. No Sir, we are not an easy country and race to understand. So when Danny Boyle holds aloft a medley of images that western audiences are so used to seeing, it is then that they start feeling comfortable and see in the film the India of their imagination. The film portrays the image of India most tourists retain – a superficial, surface view – a view that shows just one small (but true) side of a complex crystal like shape that is India. Good, but is that good enough to win a Best Picture Oscar? The hype that the film created in India also exposes the deep scar in the Indian psyche left by years of British rule – a period during which Indian were left to feel as savages without a sense of history or culture. Deep down somewhere we are still diffident in taking a divergent view to the pronouncements of the Western world. Thus, as the film started getting rave reviews in the west, the Indian critic too started to toe the western line, with the media jumping into the fray. Except for Amitabh Bachchan, and kudos to him, for standing out (though I really didn’t know why, before I saw the film), there has been little noise to the contrary. Yes the film has been shot well, edited well, the score was fantastic and all that but to win the Best Picture and Best Director awards? My view of what the Oscars stand for has gone down quite a number of notches.
been typecast into certain image patterns. For instance the image that India generates is one of cows, sadhus, poverty, slums, filth, corruption etc. An African-American is typically seen as a druggie, mugger, a member of some vicious gang etc. Africa on the other hand brings up images of wild animals, suffering, abject poverty and hunger. These are images that appeal to us the most and hold true our mental image of the race and country. Most of the tourists from the western world helplessly retain images of India as dusty and noisy country, beggar children with snooty noses peering through the car window as you wait for the lights to change, unruly traffic, potbellied cops etc. For an average western mind, India and its ever changing colour, its huge diversity of culture, its languages, its religious diversity, its chaos is a bit too much to take in and understand. No Sir, we are not an easy country and race to understand. So when Danny Boyle holds aloft a medley of images that western audiences are so used to seeing, it is then that they start feeling comfortable and see in the film the India of their imagination. The film portrays the image of India most tourists retain – a superficial, surface view – a view that shows just one small (but true) side of a complex crystal like shape that is India. Good, but is that good enough to win a Best Picture Oscar? The hype that the film created in India also exposes the deep scar in the Indian psyche left by years of British rule – a period during which Indian were left to feel as savages without a sense of history or culture. Deep down somewhere we are still diffident in taking a divergent view to the pronouncements of the Western world. Thus, as the film started getting rave reviews in the west, the Indian critic too started to toe the western line, with the media jumping into the fray. Except for Amitabh Bachchan, and kudos to him, for standing out (though I really didn’t know why, before I saw the film), there has been little noise to the contrary. Yes the film has been shot well, edited well, the score was fantastic and all that but to win the Best Picture and Best Director awards? My view of what the Oscars stand for has gone down quite a number of notches.