Slumdog Millionaire

A major contributor to the science of cross cultural education is perspectives, in its essence largely contained in the educational study. Perspective plays an imperative role in the evolution of cross cultural education. Defined as a field of study that looks at how people from differing cultural backgrounds communicate, absorb information, present information, and interact socially in similar and different ways among themselves, and how they enterprise to communicate across cultures; cross cultural education is significantly developed by the idea of perspectives. It seems that the term perspective has largely developed into a technique used to depict relationships. In the case of cross cultural education our study looks at perspectives sociologically, economically, and in some cases psychologically to analyze and explain objects of cultural study. In continuation to this fragment of information the inter-woven term of stereotypes almost goes hand in hand perspectives. As a vast embodiment of people; educators, truth seekers, competitors, and any other depiction of the human genus, bias and prejudice produce conceptions of standardized and simplified ideals. Stereo types define itself as a set of inaccurate, naïve generalizations about a group that allows others to categorize them and treat them accordingly.
For my review, I am attempting to gander at the one-dimensional ideology that may unearth itself in the award winning film Slumdog Millionaire. Slumdog Millionaire written by Simon Beaufoy, winning eight out of its 10 academy award nominations was highly acclaimed and welcomed in universally among many nations. The film sets its views right in the middle of the of the main plot and the biggest experience, ultimately life changing day of our esteemed main characters life. Prior to this point our young character, Jamal a slum dog from Mumbai fighting for his survival and the love his life. His road up to the point the film places its viewers presently, on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?, consist of the culminating graphic experiences around the country of India. Although the film did so well, it upset the culture that it depicted. By many loyal to the Indian society the film about the impoverish child was said to be a stereotypical Western portrayal, Indians say, that ignores the prosperity and advancement their country has seen. Written by an author of Los Angeles Times, Mark Magnier comments, “the sensibility is anything but Indian; they attribute the film’s sweeping international success in large part to its timing and themes that touch a chord with Western audiences (Magnier, 2009).” Many who had seen the film as offensive made annotations that it’s a white man’s imagined India or remarked that it’s a poverty tour. The films biggest insult to the nation of India is that illustration of the film only displays the paucity and scantiness of this large, vastly populated country. Throughout Jamal’s adventures the film biggest portrayal displayed India as a poverty stricken ghetto with drugs, solicitation, and a horrific industry of sex trafficking. In the movie they show this drug lord as the esteemed force running the city or provinces of India (Magnier, 2009). The film also includes a large portrayal of lawlessness displaying the authority as having little to no power. The film allows this drug tyrant to roam around freely with no fear, dispersing orders and having a hand in just about everything. It’s extremely offensive to depict an entire nation in such a manor making a majority of the community looked poor, homeless, and basically helpless. The film shows the people of Mumbai as people who can’t even help their own cause. In fact, it was quite in considerate to envision a nation with little to no people who was morally sound in the film. Consequentially, the film name in its self is demeaning kind of insulting the country’s dignity. The film name is similar to call it Negro millionaire or border hopper millionaire. I don’t mean to be harsh on the film it seemed a bit unrealistic to display so many people in such a manner. Sakshi Bagai an author from the Legacy notes, “I would point out that throughout the corruption, insensibility and irresponsibility in the movie about police officers or the call center employees, or even the blinding of kids by the mafia to make them beg and earn money, Boyle ignores the most expensive house on earth located in the same city, Mumbai, built by Mr. Anil Ambani and worth one billion U.S. dollars (Bagai, 2009).” Simple facts such as this display are why some concern should be pointed out in the portrayal of this country. I find myself in a bind due to the nature of the film because there is no other way to simply put it, but these ideal are Western Stereotype largely place by our nation. Although there is some truth in Slumdog Millionaire’s display, is more simply put that this film only depicts the harsh truths about India. This is something that we are thought to recognize through comparative education tool in perspectives and explanation of stereotypes. To escape the negative light that has been shared, cross cultural education can help us to see all aspects in culture. I get the idea that this style of education is a form of learning through various experiences through an education seeker life. I believe that the development of this style of education comes from intricate learning experience through various cultures and can help us see thing accordingly. If I am correct about this style of learning, I feel that it is an interesting way to acquire knowledge.

Bibliography
Magnier, M. (2009, January 24). Indain don’t feell good about slumdog millionaire. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/24/world/fg-india-slumdog24
Bagai, S. (2009, Feburary 12). Slumdog millionaire dwells on india’s stereotypes. Retrieved from http://media.www.lulegacy.com/media/storage/paper1262/news/2009/02/12/Entertainment/slumdog.Film.Dwells.On.Indias.Stereotypes-3627637.shtml
(2011). Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perspective

Bowling For Columbine

Stefan Bond
4/24/2011
Bowling for Columbine
Professor David Stoloff

Recently for my international cross-cultural movie review, I watch the controversial Oscar winning examination of gun violence and America’s love affair with fire arms, Bowling for Columbine. One of our basic rights as an American citizen and our second amendment is the right to bear arm. This amendment was given to American citizens so that we may have to means to protect within their home and from the government, if such a situation occurs. But there are many that would argue against this basic right on the premise that guns are a lethal weapon and in the hands of someone untrained or has dangerous intentions harmful to society. This film constructed by Michael Moore explores the roots of America’s predilection for gun violence.
The documentary begins in the film maker, Michael Moore’s home state of Michigan, where he found a bank that issues a free fire arm of your choice with the opening of an account at their facility. His film later progressed to conversation with militia families, military forces of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency. These people train their selves to be skill in the use of fire arms in case that they must protect themselves from their own government. Many members of these families simply indulge in the pleasures of practicing with the fire arms and see their second amendment as detrimental to basic living needs. He moves on to provided a comparison to these responsible fire arm user, to people with less credibility easily getting hold of guns. Michael Moore performed an interview of male living in central American states. This male’s reputation was slandered and smeared with many rumor that he would call false accusation in the interview. As Michael Moore address the accusation that this man was unstable, crazy, violent, abusive, a loose cannon, and unpredictable he revealed that the interviewee own many guns, many of which was semi-automatics. The interview continued and the man with responses to many of these terms used to describe were starting to seem a bit accurate. The interview quoted that he wouldn’t hesitate to fire round to at anyone who he did not recognize trespassing on his property. He also noted that he sleeps with a 9mm glock under his pistol, which at that point he cock the semi-automatic pistol and leisure held it to his head. Michael Moore expressed his sentiment and asked that he not do that as playful banter. After talking to this man who in my opinion proved that “everything was not all there,” Moore inquired about how easy it was for him to obtain a fire arms; which the interviewee divulged as a pretty easy process.
Before stepping out and looking at the correlation between America and other countries to make comparison on gun violence, Michael Moore touches a little closer to home investigating the shootings of Columbine High school and the adverse affect it had on the town of Columbine, Colorado. Moore asked if the blame for this tragic event was being placed in the right direction and if the citizen of Jefferson County place their effort in the right direction. You see, as a result of the Columbine tragedy many citizen blame artist such as Marilyn Manson because the music support violence, drug, and lawlessness. Moore inquires if it is the portrayal of violence in media and music that is to blame, or is the American community overlooking the fact that teenage students were able to acquire automatic and semi-automatic weaponry with ease. Moore’s documentary was done with a sense of conviction in an angry humorous way. Many citizens of Jefferson County took up efforts to eradicate the display of violence in media, which started with the monumental movement and showing by the people in the county. What bothered Michael Moore in combination with the tragedy is that the shooting were done with guns and ammo that purchased legally. The incident did more than compel a upheaval of citizen to push for more censorship, also changed the dynamics of high schools across the nation and forced the questioning of teaching in society at the time.
To tie this movie into the course of cultural perspectives, I want to more focus on the comparison of countries as Moore sets out to explore America’s disposition for bloodshed and violence via fire arms. The United States of America is notorious for its astronomical number of people killed by firearms for a developed nation without a civil war. The Oscar award winning film expressed that the American government has had a hand in over a dozen assignations of outer country world leaders and helped establish new authority in these areas. Almost of those new leaders led to thousands to millions of deaths and casualties of war. In some of those areas we provided the weaponry for these murderous regimes. After divulging this information Moore did a comparison of America to Canada and later other world powers. What he found is that there is extremely less violence Canada; even with a lower unemployment rate and just as big diversity population. His comparison continued to as he looked for the answer to why America has such a disposition for violence, when other country listen to the same type of music and participate in watching the same violent suspense movies. In fact he divulged that other country that rival America’s population and media viewing are significantly less violent with less death per year to gun violence. The United States led with 11,127 (3.601 per 100,000), Germany with 381 (0.466/100,000), France with 255 (0.389/100,000), Canada with 165 (0.484/100,000), the United Kingdom with 68 (0.109/100,000), Australia with 65 (0.292/100,000), and Japan with 39 (0.030/100,000). I found this static widely alarming among many, and it really raise the question the source of America violence and if it is really easy availability of fire arms and the powerful elite political and corporate interests fanning this culture for their own unscrupulous gain.

Bibliography
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/