Slumdog Someblog

There has been some talk of a backlash to recent Academy Award winner Slumdog Millionaire. Although some of it is quite valid, I think the conversation isn’t as significant as it could be. One of the criticisms is that the movie portrays India as a poverty stricken country and doesn’t focus as much on the recent development and wealth of the nation. I agree with this critique and many Americans do hold strong stereotypes of the developing world. However, India does still suffer from grim poverty.
The fact this movie is getting so much attention provides the opportunity for conversation about stereotypes of India, poverty, and the developing world at large. Our media often goes straight to stereotypical images because that is what sells. We don’t want to see an African city that looks like an American city because then it wouldn’t be exotic and that’s what people want to see.

Another criticism was that the screenplay is a fantasy that is based in reality.
“It makes a show of being anchored in a real-world social context, then asks to be read as a fantasy.”
This criticism I feel is an insult to much of the audience. As if, we aren’t able to distinguish fact from fiction. Entertainment is meant to provide elements of fantasy, but they often have real world ingredients. Take for example romance movies. Main characters fall madly in love in one day and live happily ever after. (At least, in Slumdog Millionaire the love affair developed over years.) Love happens in real life, often there are characters and situations we relate to, but everyone knows living happily ever after like that is a farce. The illusion being placed within some authenticity is the best part of romantic movies.

As for the Academy Awards, truth be told I think Benjamin Button should have won for its overall cinematic quality (acting, directing, technical skills, etc.), but Slumdog Millionaire was a beautiful flight of the imagination.

Craving Celebrity

(Sorry for the delay in posting. A combination of traveling and computer troubles prevented me from posting. I will try to make up for it by posting twice next week! Yeah!)

Many people want to be famous. I can understand it to a point. Usually, celebrities don't have a lot of financial woes and it appears that they get pretty much what ever they want. However, the pressure to look good every time you leave your house would be a pain. Magazines would call it shameful if you ran to the corner store in PJs. Not to mention, the annoyance of cameras flashing in your face as you walk to that store. Your moments as a celebrity may be "glamourous," but you would have to share most them with a million people and not just your loved ones.

As much as I don't think I would like to be extremely famous there is one thing about celebrity that I envy greatly. That is that their voices are actually heard. They may be criticized, rightly or not, but there is no question they get their voice out there. When they care about an issue they can do something. No, they can't solve the problem by magic, but they can raise awareness and often coordinate some action.

Just think for a moment and many names and causes come to mind. (Please click on the names to find out more about the causes they support.)

George Clooney and Don Cheadle: Darfur
Angelina Jolie: Refugees
Bono: AIDS/African Aid
Oprah: Girls Education
Al Gore: Environment/Climate Change
Late Princess Diana: Landmines

This is what I envy. Celebrities can keep the paparatizzi, big houses, magazine covers, and red carpets (although I must admit walking a red carpet once in life might be fun, but it certainly isn't something I need to do to be happy.) What I really want is the means to get important information to the public and the means to moblize and begin change.

The celebrity culture of America has seeped into politics. Even as I write this, Entertainment Tonight is teasing an upcoming interview with John McCain. This aspect of the political process can be a good or bad thing. More people are interested in politics, but are they interested in issues or what is on the candidates' Ipods?

A big concern with politicians becoming “stars” is that the nature of celebrity isn’t one that requires much accountability. Movie stars make a living at playing a part, essentially not being themselves and telling a story that is usually fiction. We can’t have our campaigns becoming romantic-comedy or tragic screenplays.

Many political commentators get ratings from turning the election into laughs or dramatic yelling-matches. The popularity of Tina Fey’s spot on parody of Gov. Palin has given SNL a huge boost. ABC’s The View has produced some heated political arguments this season and it only takes 5 minutes of watching Bill O’Reilly to see the drama emerge.

However, there are more people registering to vote and real issues are being discussed more this year than I ever remember in the past. It is exciting that Obama was easily able to fill a football stadium with supporters/delegates while still thousands watched his acceptance speech at home. Hopefully, the excitement of politics will translate into the younger generations caring about issues, craving knowledge and demanding to be a part of the process. This is a great thing.

So is a celebrity political culture a good or bad thing? Time will tell like it always seems to do.