Exploitative and manipulative film

Rating: 3/10 (9 August 2009)

On reflection I thought the film was exploitative and manipulative. What is its message? That TV game shows can save even the poorest of the poor? And what of the choice of actors? While the film contained harrowing scenes of a poor dark child being blinded, the make-up men clearly shirked from portraying the leading actress with credible scars at the end of the film. As the film progresses the two leading characters get progressively paler until they become 'almost' white and hence - I imagine in the view of the director - more palatable to audiences. Which half of the film are we supposed to believe in: the dire life of the slum dwellers or the cosmetic H/Bollywood romantic ending? I think it uses the former to legitimize the latter: it exploits the real Mumbai protagonists of the film by involving them at first only to drop them out of the picture to make way for its 'attractive' Europeanized leading stars. Likewise it manipulates Western audiences into thinking that India's social problems are not so bad because in the end true love (and true money) can triumph thanks to a TV game show. Or is the film just an elaborate plug for the show itself? The film was clearly tailored for affluent Western or Westernised audiences. I believe its 'social' denunciations are simply a device to fool viewers into thinking that the film is worthwhile so that it can get its real message across: celebrity TV, money, some measure of astuteness and good Western looks are going to save the world (as well as guarantee box office profits).