Did it deserve 8 Oscars?
That bastard Boyle exploited India.
It was just Poverty Voyeurism.
Here's my 2 bits on the various Bones Of Contention (BOC):
BOC 1: It didn't deserve soooo many Oscars
Of course it didn't. And maybe it's a bit of a shitty movie. You thought it peddled poverty, told untruths, was based on crap. Maybe so. Maybe Milk, Benjamin Button, Reader were far better movies, but here's what you need to get - the world needs a story. The world needs someone/something to make it feel better. Something that will make them forget about global terrorism, about recession.
We need a story of hope.
Just like America needed Obama.
Not that he's the best President. He's just the new symbol of Hope.
And Slumdog became the new Hope.
A story of triumph against all odds. See, it's not really about the best directed movie, or the best told one, it's about which one strikes a chord the most. And the Academy could have given SD one/two awards but then that would not make history; that would not be talked about.
So as
BOC 2: Flawed script. Not based on truth. Peddling poverty.
Guys, that's why it's called fiction. As a storyteller you must embellish, dramatize, stereotype and exaggerate to make something compelling.
As for the peddling poverty bit - have you not seen a someone shitting on the road? Has a blind kid not come and knocked on your car window, are there not slums almost everywhere we go?
BOC 3: Why show Indian poverty?
Why show 2 Indian guys pretending to be gay in Miami? Why show a chef who's actually a kung fu master? Why show an alien? There are all kinds of stories. This one happens to have poverty in it. Grow the F$%& up. And in defence of Danny Boyle - he merely adapted a novel written by an Indian.