Mrv says, "I cannot imagine any Pakistani, British orAmerican doing anything like this to make money at the expense of their countrymen."That's only because, being a relatively poor country, India can't afford to make it worth their while, except for hostile Pakistan.

Slumdog is an average movie in all senses . with stuffing of lot of indian symbolics in it the produces are able to hoodwink the western jury . I dont see much art in that movie .I was surprised to see AR Rehman won Gloden Globe for that music .but the marketing take the cake .anyway congrats . like all thing in this world the best marketed thigs will surive .

I totally disagree. All the people who are coming to the defense of this movie in India have a clear financial interest in it so they support it. Financial interest seems the only motivation that moves these people. Which brings me to this important question - Are Indians really this devoid of patriotism? I cannot imagine any Pakistani, British orAmerican doing anything like this to make money at the expense of their countrymen. I can tell you having lived in U.S. for a long time, anyone who is seen as unpatriotic will find it hard to get ahead. When the Dixie Chicks went to Britain and made nasty statements about the President, they had a tough time filling the stadiums. As patriotic Indians, we need to take action to prevent such exploitation especially of children. The movie exploits not just poverty, it actually exploited the children who acted in this movie specifically the lead child actor who was supposedly covered with shit. Indian heart, yeah right!

Let us not take these words of Anita Basu at face value. Obviously she will defend Slumdog as she is an interested party! Hey lady, wake up! Get real. Why do you find it so difficult to accept that the movie does focus mainly on the horrors and poverty in Mumbai? Why can you not, for once, shed your own interests and take an objective view? Why did the same producer not do a film with the same theme but shot entirely in harlem with a black impoverished negro as the central character? Why did he have to come all the way to India?

The movie does portray India in a negative light and that is why it won the western awards. I agree with Amitabh Bachan’s view that there are several other movies on India which are produced by good producers and directors, but, they do not get the recognition because the westerners (British?) have this pre-conceived notion of what India should be. Individuals like Anita Basu sing along with them. What a sell out!

The first twenty minutes of the movie was the hardest for me to watch, as they have shown the slum life in a very disturbing light. If the slum people are living like that, then my heart really aches for them. I knew that the slum life would be bad, but this is just too much. I still loved the movie, the story, gripping. It is a very inspiring movie. I can also understand why some people didn't like the movie, as it does showcase a lot of slum life. But the sad truth is that we do have slums in India just as there are impoverished living elsewhere in the world.

It was a gripping movie but, like most movies these days, the plot hinges on so fantastic a set of coincidences as to strain the credulity. One can't help but note the eagerness of western audiences for movies and novels depicting the seamy side of Indian life."Water," for example, showed a poor, beautiful Indian widow forced into prostitution. This can happen anywhere in the world. Sixty per cent of Indians mayn't have access to a private bathroom. The situation is unlikely to improve because of the massive Indian population, so there'll always be the raw material for films like these to satisfy the appetites of western markets. This may be the first movie in the world in which the star's defecation constitutes an episode. The ensuing episode is ridiculous.I left India at the age of 43 without seeing a slum lavatory. I always thought it mayn't be a scene I'd like to see. But you can trust a westerner to ferret it out, visit it, see it, and even film it.

"Slumdog Millionaire" has been slamed by some for depicting India in poor light by portraying the negative side of "Indian Economic Miracle", the slums of Dharavi in Mumbai.Why do we Indians hate facing the truth in "Ostrich fashion"? The existence of a "SLUM CULTURE AND ECONOMY" is as prevelant in Indian social life as are ithe existence of infamous brothels of Kamatipura and Sonagachi.Every Country has its "UNDERBELLY" of embarassing social outcastes,misfits or economic laggards, hence India has nothing to be embarrassed about director Danny Boyle, a foreigner, exposing the dark murky life of a part of our Indian population."American Blacks" are mostly portrayed in a very negative manner in Hollywood films, which is partly true but not the whole truth and "STEREOTYPING" is common to all "Film Cultures".The fact that a lucky or priviledged few manage to rise above the "SOCIAL NEGATIVE STEREOTYPES" of their culture or community guarantees the success and appeal of cinema .

I completely disagree. The movie exploits Indian poverty and showcases it for the pleasure of the westerners. It shows India not only as extremely ( and exclusively) poor but also shows Indians as extremely cruel. Please join the just launched online petition movement against slumdog millionaire and pass the word around. We hope to get our views published in American and Indian newspapers.