They should be able to create freely,otherwise it will be impossible to make entertaining and inspiring movies

I read the draft for a book once that depicted a small village in Africa in a terrible light. It detailed the peeling paint, the dirty street, the cracked walls, and I felt I'd been cheated and was sort of repulsed.

Not being African, I didn't feel offended personally but I am from Guatemala and I know if that book had been written about Guatemala rather than some place in Africa I would have felt offended because I feel that some people only see what's wrong with other places. There is so much beauty in places that don't fit into the perfection we've come to expect of the streets in North America.

When I read or see things that show foreign places in a mostly unfavorable light, I think it either has to do with ethnicentrism or just a lack of appreciated for other types of beauty. It's sad really.

I read the draft for a book once that depicted a small village in Africa in a terrible light. It detailed the peeling paint, the dirty street, the cracked walls, and I felt I’d been cheated and was sort of repulsed.

Not being African, I didn’t feel offended personally but I am from Guatemala and I know if that book had been written about Guatemala rather than some place in Africa I would have felt offended because I feel that some people only see what’s wrong with other places. There is so much beauty in places that don’t fit into the perfection we’ve come to expect of the streets in North America.

When I read or see things that show foreign places in a mostly unfavorable light, I think it either has to do with ethnocentrism or just a lack of appreciation for other types of beauty. It’s sad really.

Hi,
I live in Kenya which is a developing country in Africa. I also work in the film industry and i face a similar problem, that of trying to balance the 'ugly' side of my country with the good and at the same time to bring films that will best potray my creations in the best way possible to life. It is a shame though, that most international film makers will, most of the time, show the hunger, fighting, corruption, disease, and conflict affecting developing countries, so yes, I do believe that filmmakers have a responsibility to show balance in their work(s)

It was the best movie I have ever seen. I was in India when it opened there and saw it the next morning in a theater audience of Indians. No one seem offended and I thought it was fantastic. The day before I had visited the slums for my job and I thought the movie accurately depicted the situation. Perhaps some good can come from highlighting the situation.

There should always be freedom in art. Music and art are universal ways to communicate and should be open. A venue can reserve the rights to show the art or not based on their principles. Another form of freedom.

In the U.S. we have created films for years about the ghettos of America and a whole range of poverty and crime. If you look at the most popular TV shows in the U.S. a lot of them are about homicide investigations, autopsies, trials, drug trafficing and a wide variety of criminal activites. A person who was unfamiliar with America would get the idea that we live in an environment where this is the everyday normal life of most of its citizens. Is that any less flattering than what was portrayed in Slumdog? It's a horrible way to portray America to the world and nobody seems to mind that for some reason.

What do you think about that?

Movies like this make history because they are not all "flowers and perfum". I am from Brazil and City of God a movie that is vicious and harsh is one of my favorites. It might not make people feel god, but is the reality and is part of our country like it or not. People shouldn't be angry, they should try to change the wrongs.

I just spent the last 3 weeks in India observing organizations and the public health status in various places and found Slumdog Millionaire to be a great film to show sort of the true essance of poor living in India.

I agree that certain aspects of the film could be interpreted as demeaning towards the poor in India, but in an age where movies reach a global audience, isn't it better to have awareness? For the middle class Americans, Europeans and Indians worldwide, a look at Slumdog could be an eye opening experience for the better. What if it serves as an inspiration to motivate an individual to commit to standing up for social injustice? A bit of an extreme result of watching a movie, but people consider movies that move them.

For that i think artists should be free to create their own art. There is a certain amount of responsibility when considering the cultures they portray, but if a movie is more about social commentary and awareness isn't it only fair to stick with the reality of those groups? With that said a realistic portrayal can be hard to find (just think of all those westerns and how they portray native American Indians). I am sad Slumdog is not well received in some parts of India and hope that for most Americans it sheds light on a cruel actuality.

I thought it brought real issues, real life of some people in India. Taking pride can be good, but when you want to hide something under the rug and not willing to view or discuss real issues problems don’t get solved. This was realism and it’s not your typical Bollywood film. It’s a very good movie.

Get a life! This is an awesome movie. The director is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. They hate it - then they are mad it didn't open there first. Reality is hard, and they are mad that it shows reality. It's a beautiful film, and shows us how painful life can be in other parts of the world. I hope it wins the Oscar for best picture.

The question this article ends with is reprehensible. Artists have every right to do whatever it is they want to do. Society will judge worth.

I think they are backed into a corner, as an artist or filmmaker, you must always be prepared for an unhappy crowd; people are never satisfied, and they love controversy. In the end, to please everyone they should create balance, however, in creating balance the artist (or filmmaker) relinqueshes his or her right express his or her thoughts in any which way they please. In some ways that undermines freedom... we should all have the freedom to express how we see the world and what we think of it.

Freedom of expression. We undoubtedly see a lot of media that ignores, hides, or de-emphasize poverty and social problems in developing nations, so it is necessary to have media that leans in the other direction to balance it out. Besides, it's entertainment; if it were marketed as a documentary, then it would have the responsibility to show all sides.

Art can entertain but it can also teach. Sometimes learning the truth is disturbing. I was recently in a production of "One for the Road" by Harold Pinter. One person was so disturbed by the play that they joined amnesty international afterwards. That's what we wanted, to make people angry enough, upset enough to go out and try to do something about it.

Artists must NEVER concern themselves with "responsibility." As long as their expression does not physically affect another human being, artists should express themselves without regard to consequences (even if their art "hurts" others in terms of emotions) ... Otherwise, you wind up with mediocre art that, ultimately, simply becomes propaganda for the state ... An artist's expression (of any kind) will be judged by the public on its merits AS art, nothing more, nothing less.

The balance should come in the area of the number and diversity of films about Indian culture and life. I think it is unfair for a film to be made to be politically correct when that is not the point or vision of the story being told. However, with a multitude of quality Indian films that explore different facets of the culture, everyone should be content that a well rounded view of Indian society is being portrayed to the world.

Found Slumdog Millionaire to be an incerdibly well made movie. It distrubs you and touches you and makes you really want to reach out and do something. It depicts the life of children abondoned and left to fend for themselves very realistically. If some Indians don't like what they see in the mirror, then I guess they should go out and do something about it, rather than crib about the movie.

why should people not tell the truth. you have the choice to watch it our not. what about the afghani movies osama the kite runner and kandhar none of which paint a nice picture of afghani. you also have a television series about saddam hussein and his family. from the us standpoint you have movies like w jfk fahrenheit9/11 texas chain saw. europe as hostel and other movies. it's a movie. sometimes they strike us down with memories but that's life. are we to believe all the other movies we have watched about indians are that they break out into dance and song all the time. you can't always dance and sing as if the world around us is falling apart.

The movie has definitely shown India in a dim light.Truth hurts.But India is not just about slums.Since the movie has profited so much, it should donate a good sum of money to the Mumbai slum to uplift the people.

Journalists have a responsibility toward balance not artists. The only responsibility filmmakers have is to create a movie that is true to the message of the author. Great art should make people uncomfortable, otherwise the creation of art is only about pleasure and self-aggrandizement.

Indians do not need another song-and-dance Bollywood flick! I am Indian, and find it interesting that Indians hate it when Westerners point out poverty in their country. They would much rather be shown images of their new corporate centers and air-conditioned malls, and told that their new standards of comfort rival Americans' (the ultimate compliment!). However, although the average Indian may see poverty as a 'problem', he/she is not necessarily compelled to do anything about it. Perhaps poverty is so deeply embedded in the cultural fabric that people have become desensitized to it. The director needed to portray the slums in its ugliness to order to highlight the suffering of the characters.

The fact that the movie was not released in India first, makes it disputable. But, i am sincerely of the opinion that the fact people enjoy watching a movie and call it "entertaining and uplifting" is because it is really a well-made movie. And that pertains to the succes of the efforts of the makers.

If you make art with the viewer's possible reaction in mind, it is not true art. Yes, art can offend, make people think, incite heated debate and emotions. That's the purpose of art. As an artist, you can't please everyone, so you might as well please yourself. This world is being overrun with political correctness and resulting fear, and I for one am a little sick of it. Let freedom of expression reign people!

I find this question to be a bit ridiculous since most of the best films in the world have been shocking and disturbing to their public. Why, all of a sudden, should it matter whether a film is "likable" or not? It is the director's perspective and voice. If it wasn't, why would he/she make the film, choose the shots, have a voice on the choice of actors, etc?
As someone who is half Mexican, I have seen and studied several films that critique the make up of Latin American societies in what the general public from those countries would deem as horrible to watch and redundant. "Terra Em Transe," "City of God," "Delacalle," "La Virgen de los Sicarios", "Las Nueve Reinas," :La Muralla Verde", and countless others poke and probe about the injustices of their society and reveal the poor in their full desperation. Although these films are depressing and disturbing, they show what the director wants to show us. Even if they may be exaggerated, they hold, most of the time, grains of truth that the world needs to see. After all, we may be aware of our situation, but others may not. Likewise, when you study these films you are oftentimes reminded that this is not the only representation of the country as a whole, but just the director's perspective on it.
Also, people forget that for every film like this, there are others, or even other forms of artwork, which can glorify the country and its culture. Take, for example, "Monsoon Wedding," which shows the life of a well-off family and their preparations for their daughter's wedding. Although this film is also (melo)dramatic, it nonetheless shows the lives of the wealthy and, thus, another perspective of what life in India is like. Several Bollywood movies are also available to the rest of the world, and they have achieved a cult following especially in some European countries (Austria, Italy, etc.). They usually show the lives of the wealthy and are presented in many forms (comedy, melodrama, etc).
Therefore, I think that it is unfair to think that one film represents a country. If people are worried about the image of India, they should realize that this is not the only form in which its presented to the outside world. A film is an objective work of art, and it is unfair to impose on the director that he/she should change his/her vision in order to not insult other people.

Fortunately, this movie is a bittersweet reminder of a cultural system still battling with the religious caste system we in the West have no understanding. While America still faces the embarrassment of racism, the caste system in India still exists throughout the country although the Indian government would cast denial at this statement. While many Indians may be angered with this movie, there will be no attempt by the population to change the culture. It is with hope that many people will see past a wonderful love story to the hurt and pain of hundreds of millions of people in India who deserve a better life yet live each day without hope.

While It is true that education has contributed to an emerging middle class there is still a lot of poverty in India (more so in Mumbai where the discrepancy in wealth is staggering) other factors such as illeteracy, superstition and religious factors have exarcebated the situation. I don't think there is anything wrong in confronting our Ghosts (take the example of the movie Mississipi burning which is searing and brutal but also depicts racism and violence pretty accurately) and overcoming them. I think that we as indians are also at fault because we do not hold our politicians to account and should hold them as well as our public servants accountable for their actions.
Nothing wrong with this film, it's a well made film that is brutal, but it is the truth and people rise past it. Consider the true story of the maid servant's daughter who went on to study a business degree in the UK (again from Mumbai)

I think artists should be free to create art the way they wish. Art is about expressing what one feels, not about adapting your expressions to reality, painful or not. I don't believe artists should give in to the politically correctness of these times. It was very hard to see the terrible reality of India's poor children in 'Slumdog', but I thought that while the movie was both saddening and uplifting, it was made beautifully. I am one who appreciates the point of view of artists, despite the hardships of reality.

I think that when you try to expose the reality of a certain place and time in this world, there will always be people who oppose that perception – no matter what. Even if you're trying to tell a story that ends with a positive and uplifting message. It's just the nature of people being upset because they feel like they're being exploited by film makers who don't understand what really happened/happens.

Think about movies like Schindler's List, Hotel Rwanda, Blood Diamond, and pretty much any War movie ever made. There has been moans and groans directed towards movies like these for decades. It will never end. It doesn't matter though. Film makers will continue to do whatever they can to wow people.

Visions of slums come to my mind when I think of India and not much else to many people who live in the developed world. By the way , I am of Indian background but I've never been to India.

Slumdog's producers portrayed India in a unique/artisitc way to Western audiences. Its a story!

Isn't it about time that Indians,started acting globally......in sync with contemporary modern life! On par with European and American counterparts rather than living in some unparallel dimension which is quite frankly WEIRD!

To me, Slumdog is just another movie. Not a political statement, or a protest or an insult.

Maybe Indians should view this as positive rather than making a point to contradict every thing that is different or of the 21st century!

They may not see it as fair, but art is not about being fair. If an Indian director made a movie about how bad America is, no one would even be surprised, much less protest about it.

One of the things I loved most about this movie was the honesty in which the slums were portrayed. I didn't feel like they had Hollywooded it up as much as they could have, which I appreciated. Had they tried to make it 'balanced' just to keep everyone happy, it would have ruined the movie, and taken away from such a beautiful story.

Film is an art. There is no law in art stating that it must be politically correct.

Inspires one to revisit " Ode to a Grecian Urn" by Keats.

Truth is beauty and Beauty is Truth..... I am sure Keats may disagree to the interpretation as applied to the movie but does invoke a paradigm shift in what one may consider to be truthful thus beautiful.

Hurray for the makers of Slumdog! Yes, it is disturbing but the plight of the people and especially children in the slums is worth highlighting. The folks who do not like it should perhaps contribute in some way to help eradicate poverty from India instead of wasting their time and effort in protesting against the film.

Of course artists should be able to create whatever they want to, as offensive or inoffensive as they want to. Having said that, just because someone creates the artwork doesn't mean they have the right to cram it down everyone else's throats. They can create what they want, but no one is obligated to offer them a platform to display it if they don't want to. And of course some art is completely inappropriate for children. However, if someone wants to view or pay an artist for that art - whatever it is - that's fine. For those that are offended, they can simply not view or buy the art (or in this case go see the movie) and if they want to, they can respond with funding their own artists' works - there are plenty of artists out there that could use the support.

One of the most powerful aspects of art is that it can help people to think - it can challenge the status quo - it can inspire for change, many times for the good. And one of the great problems with society today is the endless focus on what is politically correct. Thank heaven for artists, even the offensive ones.

Artists have the right to create their art as they want. If people don't like it, they don't have to see it, buy it, etc. If Indians don't like what they and other see in their country, perhaps they should do something about it

The movie may be excellent, and it may accurately depict the economic situation in Mumbai, but I have not seen it. However, the choice of Slumdog for a name is tasteless and offensive. I think the Indians have a legitimate complaint here.

Well, I felt sad watching the movie, but it was a heart warming story. This is reality, those slums were not movie sets, it was reality. So, please gimme a break!!

I guess the Indian public is so used to watching the romantic locales of the world where the hero and heroine run around dancing around the trees and bushes, is that a reality or way of Indian culture?

It's not an artists' responsibility to show balance, nor should it be unless they choose to do so. Art is a reflection of the culture it's created in and is, ideally, a tool for the viewer to see something from a perspective other than their own and hopefully encourage reflection. Also, there is no way to control how one interprets any given piece of art, nor should there be. Censorship is not a governments responsibility.

I am from India -middle-class Indian but have lived closed to slums all my life. Slums, poverty, squalor are a reality here in India. But wait a minute. Dont we have ghettos in New York, inner-city crime, teenage pregnancies et al? The point is, we Indian movie audience are a little bored with the same crap on screen.Also remember India is a country which has Forbes billionaires., extreme welath plus extreme poverty, a Land of Contrasts. So I am not offened because as a nation, we are also respected for our manufacturing, software and intellectual skills. And the music of the film may win an Oscar for an Indian music director. So I am not complaining!!!

Cinema represents life. For this sake, there is no wrong with this movie. We should not forget that cinema helps us to think and to work. I think this movie will help us to develop awareness to fight against the poverty. There are many movies on how poverty impact the daily life in India by different languages. But this movie become famous not because of poverty but some other factors like global platform and a present global crisis of rapidly increasing gap between the poor and rich all over the world.

I do not believe that poverty is a curse rather it is result of systematic fallout of economic and political policies. We do not have scarcity of wealth in India but we do have very unequal distribution of that wealth. So people of India should think about that. Movies are not always made for entertainment. This is movie like that. It can help common people to think more deeply on the issues of poverty.

I would like to thank the Director of movie for displaying not only true facts but also some deep concerns on black side of poverty that will help people to think and to fight for change.

The bottom-line is this: The affluent 'West' likes to see graphic poverty as distraction (in this case entertainment) so that it can feel good about itself! Some weird fusion of evangelical fervor, post colonial guilt and the unfulfilled civilizing mission that the Victorians set about over 150 years ago! Pull this together in the 21st century and you get compulsory, sanctimonious, politically correct cocktail like the Slumdog! The so called 'backward other' and the 'as yet not there' (as if Western capitalist model is something to be emulated as the only way out and life strategy), in this case Indians, get offended partly because their hunger, poverty and distress is packaged as entertainment and partly because the middle classes, in a hurry to rise as India Inc., remain in denial. A slavish, subservience to the idea that one day they too will consume the good life (and in the process the planet) like the 'civilized West'. Oh please give us a break and return to simple life truths, get back to basics... and rethink life and what it means to be alive in the new century!

While it is creative freedom which is a part of an artist's fundamental right, presenting an aspect of society without the overall societal background, conveys an image which is, at best, only the partial truth. If the image is partially true it obviously has another part which is untrue. That is where I have a disconnect. I would much rather go with the theme of an Econiomist which once said that India is a like a huge dinosaur with its head in the 21st century and the tail in the prehistoric age. I think at least that sentence capture the overall background. I am afraid Slumdog millionaire does not portray both sides. The film's name would obviously cause repulsion for anyone who has the experience of India's or more particularly Mumbai's slum life. I think this movie could have done more justice than it has. As a piece of art though I must concede it is good.

Well the director is under no compulsion to strike a balance and please all quarters of society with his piece of art. This however does not imply freedom to be irresponsible. I personally did not think much of slumdog. It had its cliches, inaccuracies, faults and perhaps sought to cause impact by jarring the senses. I am only sad that it reinforces Western stereotypical views about India.
Apart from that the director is free to add in the elements (poverty porn, etc) in the movie which will help it sell in the West. At the end of the day, like any other marketer he is selling a product – there is no place for altriuism in this high-decible pitch

It definitely shows the negative side of India. I hope this will serve as a wake-up call to improve the living conditions in the country. The country must do everything it can to break down the social (caste and religious) barriers in order to protect and nurture the children and their families.

What a question! Do words mean anything? "Art" does not mean vetted, balanced, non-offensive, neutral, lukewarm, objective or any other such thing. Expression and creativity are individual. Everyone should be able to express her- or himself without fear, threat or punishment. Intelligent people are not bothered by the opinions of others; they are simply either interested or not, agree or disagree. Anyone who chooses to be upset about art (or any expression of opinion) should realize that fact, that it is a choice. I don't 'make' you angry. I don't have that kind of mind control. You choose to be angry.

I think that Slumdog Millionaire is an artistic and thinteresting movie in the sense that it tells the story in a unique way. Even though it shows many cruel realities of slums, poverty etc. but that is what films and art is about. It's a simple story about three people and their love ans affection for each other. It keeps the audience glued to the chair. I do think that for many Indians it is hard to deviate from a bollywood kind of set up and it is hard to realize that there is poetry and art beyond Bollywood and therefore such reaction to such movies. I think it's quite narrow mindedness of Indians that leads to such reaction. If Indian audience in India or globally went to see this movie without any bias in their mind then they would thoroughly enjoy it. The stories are same but it is how the story is conveyed by a filmmaker makes a difference and that is what SM movie is about, a simple love story conveyed uniquely.

Creative freedom is must for any kind of art including films .What has been shown in the movie is not something new to anybody aware of the problems we have to tackle.However,most of the domestic audiance for the movie consists of middle class,educated indians and not the people actualy shown in the film and they are more likely to express their opinion about the film.

Few people back here may not have liked the movie but,many have praised the movie as bollywood too have matured enough to include all type of subjects.To some,only issue is that when something dirty
(not denying reality) about developing world is shown,it gets acclaim and awards in west but there have been other very good movies like "Tare Jameen Par" which went unnooticed.

its a brilliant movie, the best I have seen recently. I can see how the
folks of the slums of India feels offended because its their reality
and its a sad reality, it brought tears to my eyes. They also have a right to express themselfs. The bottom line is such is life, you cannot please everyone in this world, you have to develope thick skin and just move on, I know its easy to say this but if we to live their world
it a tough life. We all should count our blessings.

What a great movie! Loved every minute of it! Even the burning of children eyes' with acid... this really happens in real life.

Filmakers should make the films they want to make. Cals for 'balance' ultimately lead to Potemkin villages.

BTW – People might want to check themselves when they bring their own emotional baggage to the story. Seriously, most dogs I know are better than a lot of people that I have met, so the whole "dogs" insult is unique to...well, those that manage to find insult in it. So the filmaker is supposed to work to the lowest common denominator?

My understanding of Bollywood movies is that they frequently follow the matrimonial troubles and tribulations of young Indians in love, often separated by wealthy, feuding families. Maybe it's time Indians come to accept a movie that depicts reality, rather than fictional fantasy. Not that Hollywood is any better: most movies follow the adventures of upper-middle-class twits promoting a lifestyle unknown to most Americans. Bollywood and Hollywood are both dream factories. That's why a movie like Slumdogs is a refreshing change. I see the movie as a sign the Indian movie industry is maturing. Shame it took an outsider to make it, though. India – your time has come. Revel in it!

I haven't seen the movie but personally, I think an artist should be able to present he's view on any given situation through their art/work . In this particular case, Danny Boyle decided to present a tough and sad reality that undergoes in India. However, the ability to express freely allows anyone to present another view, a more positive if that's what they want to present.

I would support freedom for real art but would require some responsibility and context for commercial film making.

A film like Midnight Express (commercial, not art?) probably set Turkish tourism back by about ten years because context was not provided.

Artists often protest against the misuse of power, by others, but art can also be a form of power, which requires some responsibility.

I think it was a very gross representation of India and insulted Indian people who live below povertyline. The script did deviate a bit from reality every now and then..... It was good watching as a movie though...

Even though the backdrop of the movie is a true-to-life compulsive stare at India's dark, dark underbelly, I saw it chiefly as an uplifting story of survival–the artfulness of the weakest to stay one step ahead, to stay alive.

Anyone au fait with the type of movies Indian's in India favour (and bear in mind they are the biggest cinema-going population in the world) will see instantly how this film, full of the realities most face daily, will be a jolt to them. Their popular films are mostly clean escapism, a leap into an uncut OTT fantasy.

Should directors have free reign? Absolutely; without it, honesty of vision is compromised. Will everyone appreciate it? Obviously, no, but when have all the people been pleased all of the time...

Interesting that the criticism focuses on the depiction of the Mumbai slums early in the film while ignoring the other standard Western visual stereotype of India (the Taj Mahal) and the scenes of luxury apartments rising out of the slums and the gangster's very Westernized, gadget-filled upper class home in the later sections. But maybe that cuts a little too close to the current truth and issues, not like decrying the romantic depiction of desperate poor people. Personally I was happy to see the call center (first time I've ever seen something like that in a film set in India!) and was more outraged by the casual way the game show host talked down to Jamal than by any of the locations or daily activities shown in the film. How come no one talks about that?

i just saw this movie today and found it to be very moving as it depicted a certain accuracy and imagery of these people's plight, which i can relate to. in 1991, i spent a few days in bombay and was exposed to some of the reality in the streets where i saw maimed individuals and a desperate mother trying to provide a lifeline for her infant as i slept in a 5-star hotel. this film not only provides a multiple story line (poverty, love, wealth) but amalgamates each facet to create a great real life story.

For one, art should never be questioned based on offensivisenss or balance to one group or another. If it was there would be no art because someone, somwhere would offended. This movie does show the dirty side of india but if is how the artist see's india. If there were only nice and pretty movies about Mumbai, someone would just complain that movie makers were not showing the true side of that city. So no matter what, you cannot win with some people. One movie is too dark and revealing of poor life, another does nothing but show all the good things and none of the bad. These are meant as entertainment, not a documentary.

If you are asking about a documentary or a work of nonfiction, I believe balance should always be present.

But, we're not talking about a documentary. We're talking about a film – a work of art. Art is meant to communicate a vision, an idea. It is meant to move people. To awaken something in an audience. To, even for a moment, imply (through a dangerous question) that art which "disturbs" individuals is somehow... unfit to be produced or publicly displayed is a testament to the dangerous times we live in. When we censor our artists, we commit a grave injustice to our own culture. If people are unable to swallow a piece of art due to its ability to touch them (especially if it is due to themes which hit too-close-to-home due to their addressing hardships that are all to much like reality), then we have reached a point in time where art of this sort is all the more necessary.

Do not be disturbed because a film depicts poverty. Be disturbed by how much time, money, and energy goes into the production of this artwork... by how much reaction will come from it... and by the fact that so little of this reaction will be in the form of individuals making a conscious effort to lift all people out of poverty, illness, and societal repression. Because that's how amazing art can and should be. It can point to a society, an individual, and idea – and in one instant – bring everything to light.

Film, like everything else that is made for profit (at lest, by most), is just another commodity up for sale. Most of the movie-makers make what sells. They are not here to uplift the world, they are here to make money and get name and fame.

The Great Brando in a famous interview flatly declined to accept movie as an art form, and when reminded that movies entertained and educated people, replied that prostitutes did the same too.

Why does Slamdog sell? Because it shows what the West wants to see about India: Poverty, Filth, Violent Majority (read Hindus) etc. That is the reason Satyajit Ray's Apu Trilogy is well-known in the West, but not Charulata (even though Charulata was an excellent movie)

Don't forget the huge positive role Dickens had in drawing attention to the often-deplorable living conditions in Britain during his time. The ensuing public outcry was followed by improved legislation to protect children, etc. The same was true of important American and French literature, Mexican art, and so on. Ameliorative social and political change are often led by cultural visionaries with the courage to present the truth! PS The movie is terrific too. Hope it wins Best Picture.

Having been brought up in Germany after the Nazi era, I have come to expect to see movies that portray Germany in a state of moral darkness. These films, whether made by foreign or national film makers, were often shown at school as part of a history lessen. viewing them left me feeling guilty and ashamed, in my opinion important emotions necessary to shape a country built on higher moral ground politically and socially. For India, it is important to face its dark site in order to lift it into the light and start healing what is ailing it.

It's a very good movie and it shows the reality of slums in India. We Indian shouldn't be offended. But, for the solidarity of slums people, I may condem the name "Slumdog". They are not dogs and they live with the dignity!! I belive Indians are very mature, they have very good sense of Arts, music and movies. Only Indians can accept and tolerate this movie. Because Indian are the one of the most tolerant people in the world!

They should get over themselves. It's a film not a tourist board advert.

As an Indian and many Indians liked the movie. The movie really brings real issue of people who live in slums and they are always looked to be good for nothing. Most of talent in Bollywood comes from slums in bombay

Slumdog is a rip-roaring tale entertainingly told. Its use of Bollywood music in a manner never seen so far is fantastic. The fact that Danny Boyle is a white man is irrelevant except that he does not carry the baggage Bombaywallas do!

You should get offended if you are a Bollywood film maker who has had many chances to make honest entertaining movies without messing them up with percieved demands of the audience.

You could pretend to be upset if you are a local India politician or wannabe hoping to benefit by rabble-rousing.

Well i have lived in India and have been lucky that i belong to a very comfortable background. I really can not understand why are they protesting about something that exists.Probably no one likes the truth that is why they are creating a hue and cry. I wish if the people and the govt try and weed out crimes against children,it should be an eye opener to our society,how blind and how out of touch we are with reality.

Dumb ending to a good article. Asking artists to censor themselves is asking for art to quietly lie down and die.

Also, Indians are not the most tolerant of people in the world, unless you mean tolerating the abysmal poverty of our 700million "invisibles" or tolerating some of the worse infrastructure in the world.

Well I'm 27 years old, an Indian, from Mumbai and I have worked in a project in a slum in Mumbai. I think if the people (of India) find it objectionable – be it with the title or what is depicted in the movie, they need to take a reality check. The Indian Film Industry has very rarely made movies with similar subjects and have always subjected viewers to ESCAPIST CINEMA. Well I would love to escape into a dream world myself (being an artist)... but wouldn't it be better if we first took care of problems like poverty, corruption, religious intolerance etc. before wanting to see movies that are clean and full of make believe fantasy. We even found itso difficult to find volunteers who were willing to travel for an hour to teach a classroom full of children from the slums, eager to learn.

And we call ourselves the most tolerant people in the world??

INDIA!!! its time we snapped out of our fantasy dreams and took stock of REALITY.

I am an Indian and i found the movie to be very uplifting. It shows that such creative ideas can come out of the beauty in India. Maybe some good will come of it- now atleast of all the people in the world someone will help the slumdogs of India.There will be a change- pwovided the slum dwellers want it!

I think it was a great movie showing the reality in this world rather than a fairy world. It's a very inspirational movie...and any good artist would receive many negative feedback, since many people are not ready to accept the reality.

The movie is not intended to be a documentary.

It's a movie about slums in India, as seen through the eyes of a Britisher. There shouldn't be anything more to this. This is how and what the Western world wants to view India and so be it.

India as a country is incredibly diverse and has many different layers of prosperity and lifestyles. India is a pot pourri of culture, style, class , religion and creed. This movie portrays one such segment of the Indian society. It does exists and that's a fact. But If anybody watches this movie and decides for themselves this is what India is, they would be limiting themselves and reducing their experiences with this country to the minimum.

Storytelling as an art always fascinates if different point of view are presented and if subject matter is handled with balance but it's the filmaker's choice, they make what they want to make, let the audience decide if they appreciate the balance or the imbalance of the film. It's clear in this case that the filmmakers haven't been balanced, but that doesn't in any way diminish India, it's achievements and it's history. So not to worry, it's a fast paced, racy movie, keeping you interested all the time, so just watch it for what it's worth.

The movie speaks for the people... Its not about how poor they are or how everyday life is getting worst. I give 5 star to the director and writer of the movie. It tells the true meaning of what is happening around the world not just India there are places are more worst than that. This is just a honest story. Why cant people handle the truth? Because they are afraid the world is watching this? Is there anything to hide? At least now everyone knows whats happening in India. More and more people with good hearts will help the poor.

The miseries of India if projected by anyone other than the majority community is considered as anti-Indian, no criticism is allowed, especially of Bombay, which sits on virtually, in the middle of rubbish, the people of the country are so much used to this rubbish that they cannot feel the filthy smell of these cities. This time it has gone beyond the control of the custodians of Indian internal misery and hollowness. I am glad this has been projected. I feel the protests etc. launched/sponsored is from non other than the Indian Far Right.

The movie shows the reality of life, everywhere, not just in India. I think people should accept that every victory lies a tale of stuggle, sacrifice, hardwork, and faith in love. Those who see only the bad side needs to know and understand what life really is and what is for.

being an Indian , I liked this movie very much for opening up the true story of our fellow humans . being it happens in India or in any part of the world , if any one love , respect our fellow humans , just come out and do good things for our fellow humans and for our precious planet before you leave this planet. I salute the producer & director of this movie . do more , reveal more thru your media to the world , which is deffinitely helpfull for so many people around the globe .

As an Indian i can that the movie was well made. It depicted some positives and a lot of negatives about INDIA. I can say the spirit of the boys was inspiring. It was an underdog movie so what do you really expect. It was truly a good movie to watch.

The poverty in INDIA is to do with lack of opportunity and not just religion ( though it does show the boys being orphaned in a riot ) or caste ( donot see this being depicted int the movie ). With opportunity it does potray a more modern INDIA as the movie progresses.

Education and opportunity are the ladders of growth and there has been reservation in educational institutions for the downtrodden people from lower castes for last 50 yrs in INDIA. It has been backed by free primary school education in quite a few states. This however should be matched by opportunity in jobs and when the economy can grow quickly this would happen and poverty will subside.

Population is what is INDIA's problem and not as much as caste or religion. They would be opportunity for all if the population was less.
Caste or religion is not INDIA's major problems afterall most who rule this land currently are of lower caste and minorities. The bane of INDIA is its large population which cannot be provided for.

If INDIA had the same population of 300 odd million as when independence then it would be a rich country. 1.2 bln people are many.

I would say that Corruption and over population are INDIA's major problems

They should be able to create freely, it's what makes it more interesting. Anyway, it's a film and we should bear in mind that most of it are just made up to attract peoples attention and iterest.

Define "balance". You can't. Some people were angry about references to Katrina being made in The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons, yet most think it was tastefully done. You just can't please everyone. Look at most WWII movies. Some people think they portray real life; some don't. Who is right?

I think the movie was absolutely fantastic and appreciated by the majority of people in India. Some small and isolated protests were there in some parts of the country, which is to be expected in a large, democratic country like India. I don't know about the other places but in Mumbai it is running to packed houses all over the city.

Which brings us to the question. "Has Sara Sidner's reporting of the reactions to the movie been balanced?" Why do some reporters always see the negative side of events? The live reporting of the Mumbai terrorist attacks was another case in point.

I am from India and I find it funny when people say that the movie shows "realities" of India. Just show me one 'chaiwala' with the body language and mannerisms similar to that of Jamal's (the protoganist of Slumdog). The movie shows India through the eyes of a westerner and I thought the movie was just ok. (In almost all Bollywood movies that have western characters, they show them as 'cultureless' and 'valueless' people who don't care much about 'family values'. No one protested). Let's face it – Indians have serious inferiority complex. (One of the reasons why India is proxy ruled by an Italian). What hypocrisy, my fellow Indians are not offended by the poverty in their neighbourhood, but take offence in it's depiction in a movie!

Art is freedom of expression, and a nation which curtails or dismisses this basic right is not a free state or society. Reality always bites, and there might be many indians who have never entered a slum and would talk about lofty ideas of dignity, wrong name, ideals for living in slum. Yes India is a young nation and yes they have developed which is commendable, but that doesn't discounts you from turning a blind eye to what is wrong within your society. This false national pride and pop nationalism, and one upmanship is for those who only know how to do lip service and lack any credentials or boldness to enact their words. There is no dignity if you live in a slum, go and ask the person living in them,but there is beauty, courage and heart when you see the slum dweller smile even though he has been ignored, exploited, and suffered the frustration on being marginalized all his life. And who are these people crticizing a work of art , guess not the slum dwellers i bet they cannot afford a ticket to a multiplex or theatre (which is just next to you slum dwelling).

... to paraphrase Lorraine Hansberry, every artist says something social, and in this case perhaps it is good that such balance is lacking, lest our conversations tiptoe around the realities of third-world life.

It isn't the fiilmmaker who should find the balance, but the audience in private and public discourse. Otherwise, no artist should ever "project" into spaces they know nothing about. Finally, if art is, indeed, some imitation of life, then isn't it good that we can recognize that our perceptions of the world aren't balanced?

I have not seen the movie. But I feel we cannot judge any art work on the basis of it depicting misery or affluence. If some one tries to make it balanced, it will no more be work of art. Do not organisations like UNICEF, CRY etc. show faces of the miserable to seek donation from us? Should they be balanced and show both misery and affluence? The world is a mixture of both, which we witness on a daily basis. We should learn to accept both wherever we see them. This will also help us understand the degree of deprivation of those below poverty line and make us act to improve their condtition.

Denying your problems does not solve anything. Any country needs to acknowledge it's problem before a solution can be found. In a country like India, or the US for that matter, with resources accumulated in a large middle and upper class, hiding the truth does not help social responsability. Sometimes it is healthy to be forced to see the realities of other peoples lives. If it makes you feel guilty, maybe you should do something about solving the problem (did anyone say healthcare...).

The movie is not a documentry about India to highlight all facets of India. India has a very different side too other than the slums but thats not the point of the movie. It is just a story about three kinds making their way out of the slums. I dont understand what all the outrage is about.

I don't know why everyone is making such a fuss about the movie – granted, it is a good one and shows reality and is very touching and all that. But Bollywood has been making such and even better movies than SM on and off for a long time. After all, Bollywood is not all about kitsch and songs and dances (although I think 80% of movies are in that category). The difference now is the global audience SM is getting courtesy of Danny Boyle and company. Many much better Indian movies don't get that advantage – forget about GG or Oscars.

Also, regarding the music of A R Rehman: I am from Rehman's land and I thorougly admire and enjoy his work and contribution to music, particularly movie tracks. But he has been doing it for the last 15 years or more and I can say for certain that if SM had not got as much visibility and publicity, courtesy Hollywood connections through Danny Boyle, it would not have even been considered. There are numerous Hindi/English movies from India with far better musical scores, many from Rehman himself. However, they never see the light of Oscars / Golden Globes etc. because of lack of publicity and a lack of a Hollywood figure like DB to represent it.

It may also be due to the fact that American and Hollywood citizenry are only now getting the first tastes of Indian film music which has had a supremely rich history that has gone un-noticed largely because of stereotyping (such as Indian movies are all about song and dance, its more kitsch than quality etc. etc.) In fact, films have been the only major medium through which music has evolved in India. The concept of albums is something around 25 years old only.
And now, such newer sounds never heard in Hollywood are enamoring Hollywood like never before. And the Danny Boyle connection definitely helps. In fact Rehman gave far better music for movies like Lagaan, Roja, Dil Se etc etc. This work is average by his own standards.

All that said, SM's music deserved to be nominated.

On the other hand, Springsteen's song (The Wrestler) captures so perfectly the essence of the movie, how can anyone deny him the nomination for whatever lame reason (end credit song, released as
part of an album, Oscar nominators wanting to stand out against GG nominators, min score of 8.25 etc, etc.)? It is a major tragedy if his song is not in the race. There is still time (and 2 remaining nomination slots – one for Gran Torino and the other for the Wrestler) and I hope that better conscience prevails and his song is at least nominated.

No! the artist have no obligation to show things in balance.
It is a fiction, it is just like movie "City of Gods" in Brazil. Brazil is an emerging nation however it also has a seedy part of city.

Well just like any developing country India has two aspects. A large and affluent middle and urban class getting world class education and living in air conditioned bungalows, and a large lower class and below poverty line people devoid of proper living conditions.

I think any viewer has sense enough to understand that there is much more to a country than what is shown. There are number of movies portraying different countries in bad light but that doesn't mean that a person watching the movie will start hating that country or take a pledge never to go there.

Some people think India is still a country of snake charmers and kings and queens, atleast slumdog breaks that myth :)

I would also like to take this opportunity to tell everyone that slumdog is a very good movie but please dont stereotype or criticize bollywood. Recently there have been many movies in bollywood showing social problems which are really very touching like Traffic Signal, Salaam Bombay (life of poor kids living on roads or slums), A Wednesday, Mumbai Meri Jaan ( A common man's reaction to terrorism), Parzania & Black Friday ( Communal Riots), Satya, Parinda (Underworld crime), Fashion, Page 3 (Truth of the glamour world), 1947 Earth(The horrors of partition) and on many more topics.

Ha,ha.Guys India has got 28 states.Out of these states atleast 20 of them produce nearly 100 movies in a year.That makes 2000 movies reginal & another 300 Hindi movies.I saw slum dog.There is nothing to be offended in this movie.In fact I rate this movie as one of the above avarage movie produced.Thera er lots of movies produced with very high level of cinema making techniques in India go unnticed.I done think slum dog has got such great music too.It is Rahmans avarage.He himself is surprised.Listen to some of great music scores.Just because the movies as whole dont get in to the race of awards they dont get noticed.as far as I am concerned this music score of slum dog is easily forgettable.But some movies are not like that.As long as Western world do mot think Indian movies as musicals they actually miss some of most beautiful movies.It is their loss.
Lets get back to this movie.This depicts slums of India.Slums anywhere in the world are supposed to be like this only.Thats why they are called slums.Moreover who would like to live in slums? people who have difficulty.But as far as Mumbai is concerned it is not always true.Most people living in slums lead very decenyt loife & have got work to do & they also earn decent living which is actually missing in this movie.They need not necessarly be poor.They live in these areas because of their own comfort levels & not out of any other compulsion.In Mumbai the land cost is so high & these slums are located is such central aream who will want to leave these areas.Actually government has provided all the basic facilities to thes ekinds of slums.
We need to look at all these aspects. Thats why some people do get offended when they are called slumdogs because theyr leading a very decent life & they definitely do nto want to get out of this life style.THEY LOVE THIS>

The movie was more like United States with its mix of terrible poverty and amazing riches. India's not very different. The name is meant to sell the movie – no intentional offence meant towards Indians.

I have seen the movie. I am an Indian (a staunch one in fact) and, although painful, the movie has shown the reality. There is no other explanation. This is the situation in the slums of Bombay, Delhi, and other metros.

As for liking the movie, I don't know whether I like it or not. The direction is good, editing is crisp, songs are okay, and above all it has an amazing story that touched my heart! But it also showed the down side of India. I as an Indian know its there, I don't need to be told that day in and day out.

In the end, it comes to artistic liberty, which, no matter what, should be allowed in all its forms. Art is art, good for some and bad for some. India is a democracy!

I also was bothered by a white director making an Indian movie, however would the movie have been portrayed the same way if it hadn't? it is based on a prize winning book written by an Indian author, though what I didn't like is that the director threw in the gangster scenes, the love scenes, to appeal to a mass market. Basically it seems like he took the book and "americanized" it. I can see why Indians would be angered. Also, the book was called Q and A, not slumdog millionaire.

I found the movie, a real and moving depiction of the slums of India. As we are used to watching entertaining movie it sure was a pain to face the reality. We are used to seeing movies as fantasies. Coming out of the theater we need to feel happy and entertained. But when we came out of this movie, everything seemed real. It was 1' o clock in the night, it was cold and i saw a man searching for plastics in a garbage bin. To experience the emotions of poorest of the poor , is something oblivious to us. Depiction of real emotions is what i would like to see in a movie and slumdog does a good job in doing so.

I DON'T SEE WHY WE INDIANS SHOULD FEEL UPSET AND WHY CRITICISE THE WEST FOR PRODUCING SUCH FILM. IN FACT WE SHOULD FEEL ASHAMED OF OURSELVES FOR DOING NOTHING TO HELP THESE POOR CHILDREN. ALL WE DO IS TO IGNORE THEM AND AVOID THEM OURSELVES. WE SHOULD BE INDEED BE GLAD THAT OUR EYES ARE NOW OPEN AND WE CAN DO SOMETHING COLLECTIVELY. I FEEL THIS MOVIE IS A WAKING CALL . CONGRATULATION DANNY BOYL

Hi i am an young indian studying in Scotland, this movie is like my real story. i spent most of my life in these slums almost 11 years, my home is in the slum located in Kandivli (a suburb of Mumbai 15 minutes drive from slum location shown in the movie) roaming around the slums like that kids but continued my studies, we are a family of five we lived in a place which is 12 * 14 inches in size and even worked in a call cetnter for one and half years. this movie touched my heart i felt like i am running around the movie screen as a child. i am not at all offended with a movie it is the part of real India. but i would say things are vey much improved i witnessed the growth of Mumbai in front of my eyes, from the communal violence in 1993 to the recent 26/11 terror attacks mumbai, poverty is gradually eroding from the society because of the increase in literacy rate. A very happy Indian

I think every artist should have the freedom to express himself at the expense of "disturbing" the public. Each artist has the duty to express the truth as he sees it. I was born in the Philippines where such slums as depicted in "Slumdog Millionare" exist. I know many Filipinos who are upset when they see the slums portrayed in films. My answer to them is that this is part of the truth and it must be confronted. Too many turn a blind eye. So many are in denial and do not want see the negative aspects of their culture. These aspects need to be seen however, before any change for the better can ensue.

I think that it is good, most people have never been to India and are surprised that these slums even exist. I saw it with my own eyes and I was astounded. Miles and miles of cardboard houses. Mumbai is not the only city, this exists outside of all of the big cities in India. It did not make feel badly about India. It made me feel more aware. I think this film leaves those unfamiliar with India a good feeling overall. Everyone is aware of Africa's poor, but most people don't know about India's struggle. Maybe this will motivate people to want to help, or get the government in gear to help it's people and not pretend like they don't exist. I found the kids that I met in Varanasi to be the most creative and vibrant people I have ever met. I also think India is an extraordinary place.

Honest Indians will not be angry or ashamed of the India depicted in the movie because the movie truly depicts the India situation. I think India is indeed privileged to be so honestly potrayed by Hollywood filmakers unlike Africa which is constantly potrayed dishonestly and wrongly by Hollywood movies, for e.g. Tears of the Sun, Blood Diamond, etc to mention but a few.

I come from one of those poor countries were movies arrive months after they were released in the States therefore I haven´t seen this one yet but I read the reviews. There are slumps in Argentina, in Brazil in Paraguay everywhere in South America and people should know
how life goes on in them. We can not continue living in a thermos! That is reality ! Let movies bring these slums people closer to our homes and maybe to our hearts!

The film is an updated "Oliver Twist". I wonder if Charles Dickens faced this kind of criticism.

The problem among us is that we only wanted the world to see what we consider "beautiful" in our country. If some persons deal on the ugliness part, we say those people are unfair and have insulted our race. I say- Get real!

I haven't seen the movie despite the availability of pirated copies here in the Philippines.