'Slumdog' Dharma ?

My wife talked me into going to see 'Slumdog Millionaire' over the weekend. I'm glad I saw it, because its a terrific movie. I initially didn't want to see it, because frankly I didn't like the word 'slumdog' as a description for the impoverished. It seems to me that it lacks... respectfulness, or dignity, perhaps compassion. I still feel that way, even after the movie.

Overall, the movie is a vivid portrayal of poverty, suffering, and a 'rags-to-riches' plotline that is woven into a love story. As I said, it is a terrific movie. However, aside from the name of the movie, which remains problematic for me, there were also one or two other moments that I did not care for, either.

The most problematic moment for me, was in the depiction of the anti-Muslim rioting where Jamal's mother is murdered. That there has been this kind of horrible religious violence throughout India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh is no secret-- both anti-Hindu and anti-Muslim violence has been all too common. However, in the movie, at the height of the rioting, Jamal and Salim spy a young boy, dressed up as the god Rama, painted blue (for divinity) and holding a bow in his right hand, with his left hand held up in the sign of a blessing. The scene passed in an instant; but later, when Jamal is a contestant on "Who Want's to Be a Millionaire," the host asked him-- what does the god Rama carry in his right hand?

Of course, Jamal gets the answer right; but that is what got me to thinking: was it correct, to have Rama depicted holding the bow in his right hand? I study Kyudo, which is Japanese archery, and I know from this that there are no left-handed archers, which means all right-handed archers carry their bows in the left hand. Hmmmm.....

So, I consulted Google, the Oracle of all Knowledge... and sure enough, all classical depictions of Rama show him carrying the bow in the left hand, while the right hand gives the blessing. Further research revealed to me that the Hindu deities always give the blessing with the right hand, when they do so.

How could the moviemakers get this wrong?

I know-- this seems trivial. But I don't think it is. In Buddhism, for example, the symbolism associated with the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is very specific. What is the symbolism behind the sword carried by Manjushri, for example? Why does he carry the sword in his right hand, and not the left? How would I feel, as a Buddhist, if a depiction of Manjushri was backwords?

I was not astonished to discover that some Hindu groups are none too happy about this movie, or the depiciton of one of their deities in the movie. I do not approve of over-reaction, which (given the history of religious violence in India) is a real possibility. But they do seem to have a point: how did the movie makers get this so wrong? With so many cast members from India, did no one point this out?

On the balance, I do think this is a terrific movie. But the discovery of this error in the movie, and the reaction of some Hindu groups to the movie, reminds me that one of the teachings of the Buddha-Dharma is that we should generate respectfulness at all times. If history teaches us anything, it is that people are extremely sensitive when it comes to religion (to put it no more strongly than that). Look what happened, when a Danish newspaper innocently (thoughtlessly?) published a cartoon image of the Prophet Muhammed. They were rioting in the streets, literally.

Buddhism teaches us that anger is one of the three Poisons of the Mind (along with greed, and ignorance). Anger and over-reation to this sort of thing is never justified; but by the same token, it seems to me that when dealing with the sacred images of other cultures, perhaps we should all try to generate respectfulness whenever possible.

Which brings me back to the top: it was a great movie, but I still don't like the use of the word "slumdog" in the title. I don't think the word "dog" was meant as a compliment.