From ‘A lively upbeat movie depicting life and times of rainbow nation’ to a ‘typical western cavalier attitude’, the reviews of this multiple Oscar winning movie has covered the complete panorama of imagination. By most film critics admission the script was ordinary in fact a cliché for the Indian audience (am sure many of us will agree with me on this) but what is it which made the film so popular to make a clean sweep at Oscars.
Even though am not a big connoisseur of art or films either but one doesn’t needs to be Einstein to find out the common thing amongst all great piece of arts, they manage to capture consumer attention. You love it or you hate it but you cannot ignore it. The way that every novel piece of art makes way through the consumer’s perceptual defences right into your awareness is quite similar to a landmine blasting a way through the mountains, before you realise what is happening you are captivated by it.
The film tried to exploit the basic human tenet of feeling good at the victory of an underdog. The basic hedonic tendencies of a consumer to catch hold of a fortune, a lovely damsel and you know what else. But isn’t this concept already a cliché or even a platitude rather. But still Danny Boyle manages to sweep past your perceptual defences. The credit must go to Mr Boyle and his crew for this endeavour. The screenplay was fast and lively, the shooting locations were spot on. The script had novelty, dwelt on a large number of social issues to create an ambience for a life of a slum dweller and to create a strong level of contrast with the life at the end, just a simple application of sensory marketing .
But many critics (mostly Indians) have criticised it has a highly ostracised view of the India or India Shining rather. I find it particularly hilarious, what do they expect an orphaned guy in slums to lead life like! Eating chicken with chicks and party with smarty and what else,kudos to these critics.
Another masterpiece from the intellect warehouse of these guys is based on the science of semiotics( i must admit these guys have really good knowledge of consumer behaviour) that slumdog is being associated with the Indians worldwide. According to them Object: SM, Sign: Jamaal Malik (an Indian), and interpretant: Every Indian is a slumdog. If the reasoning for the last argument was anything bordering funny then this one was truly a masterpiece comedy as i have reiterated earlier too. This was just a movie it is supposed to border on fantasy, fiction etc and is a reflection into the life of one aspect of our society. Besides slum dwelling is a universal phenomena. In terms of semiotics we have Strong Icons: like Tata, Index like Sachin Tendulkar and symbol: like Taj Mahal to boast about the concept Indian. And one movie cant alone overcome everything. I mean whosoever has semiotic association of Tata with poverty I just have this much to say.....ha ha ha...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment