# data[].attributes.body
I think it is useless to be angry about the title of the film because it is obvious that it refers to the very difficult living conditions of the poor population and not to offend the people in question. lusiana

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the title is a little dehumanising toward the people of India and makes them out as animals but that could be to emphasize the fact that they are at the bottom of bottom. - Alek

# data[].attributes.body
the british director shouldnt be getting hate for "assuming the lifes of the slums" since all he did was create an amazing fictional story about going from nothing to something. it was only a film idea that he must of felt confident about

# data[].attributes.body
the idea of a British director producing an Indian film is interesting. the director has not ever lived in slums or poverty so he does no fully understand the struggles, feelings, and events that these people will have to experience through their everyday life. so I don believe that it is fair for him to work on that movie as the only director as he would only of had secondary experiences, and knowledge by talking and learning about life in the slums by someone who has truly experienced it. However, having a British director also enhances and widens the amount of people who will see this film, drawing attention to the problems that are yet to be solved. It shows that it is not just a problem that just India alone should have to solve but more of a world-wide issue. - Bridget

# data[].attributes.body
I think even though it was directed by a British director it was quite good as Danny Boyle hasn't ever lived a day in the Slums or India. - Anneka

# data[].attributes.body
i don't think that he had the right to make a film without someone telling him what it was like there and there experience and him understanding before he made the film. - jess

# data[].attributes.body
i think that it was not a nice way to talk about the people of the slums by calling them dog it tells us that they take them as animals and they have no rights. by having a English directer it tells us that it's what English people think about Inder and there slums but if they had a inder directer would of had a better idear of what it was more like in the slums.

# data[].attributes.body
Some really excellent contributions guys! Followed up with in class discussion too. Well done!

# data[].attributes.body
I think the director does have a right to tell a story because he might want to tell the audience what it is like and their conditions, and how the system works and then compare it to England and how they are completely different--JAMES

# data[].attributes.body
I think he has got a right to tell their story, as it is fiction. - gracie

# data[].attributes.body
If the director went to see the slums or talked to people that live there or used to live there then I think it's okay for them to have not lived there themselves. I do think they should see what it's like there or at least watch documentaries or something to understand the lives of slum residents - trinny

# data[].attributes.body
I think that they do have a right but he doesn't really no what is happemimg or here as he has never been there this is  another reason for them to be angry as it is also strerotyping. Love Sasha :)

# data[].attributes.body
I think he doesn't have the right as he has never lived through the emotions or intensity of living in the slums but with the help from influencers and people who have lived through it i think he is just trying to spread the awareness and inform people of the slums. - joe

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the people of India are allowed to be a little angry as they are being called dogs and that they should have thought about the name and how it could backlash - Liam

# data[].attributes.body
i think British directors do have a right to tell there story but they should do lots of research and talk to people who have lived in slums to make sure that he gets it right and isnt offensive - krystyna

# data[].attributes.body
What do you think about it being directed by a British director? Does he have a right to tell their story?

# data[].attributes.body
i think people from India have a right to be annoyed as they are getting called dogs just because they live in the slums and in the film they are not seen as dogs. dane

# data[].attributes.body
the title Slumdog millionaire is a title that is very controversial and the people of India should have every right to be annoyed with the title. however the movie shows that they are human who are struggling with the idea of poverty and disease and violence. It shows the everyday struggles they have to endure, if anything the movie shines a light on the slums of India and the importance of helping each other and them. - bridget

# data[].attributes.body
i think they should get annoyed because being called slums as dogs is disrespectful but i think the directer should of made the film because so that people can help them. Lauren

# data[].attributes.body
well i think that calling people in the slums "dogs" is not a nice way of saying that however this film was made for a good cause because it makes people realise that the conditions in india are very bad and not a nice way to live especially for young kids, so it could help us help them for a better life - amina

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the people of India do have rights to be annoyed at the title of the film as they are referred to as dogs and referred to be treated like animals but the film represents them in a good way and shows us that they are struggling. I think they shouldn't be annoyed at the film but consider to change the word 'dog' in the title. -Alfie

# data[].attributes.body
people from the slums are probably degraded more then that, the film is showing attention too people in the slums, they can be annoyed because it is personal but the film doesn't represent them as dogs.

# data[].attributes.body
slum dog millionaire is not really fair representation of the people in India in the slums because they are described as dogs but what the people of India saying is that they are poor but they are happy. But they don't want to be called dogs because they don't live in a expensive house that's why the people of India should be angry with slum dog millionaire.-Kaitlin

# data[].attributes.body
i think that they have a reason to be annoyed as they are being called dogs just for living in slums but i also think its a bit extreme ripping down the posters and stuff but the actual film isnt offensive and i think it represents them fairly - krystyna

# data[].attributes.body
I feel as though the residents of slums are probably falsely represented through media such as magazines/the news and dirty and poor, where as this film shows the struggle that the other forms of  media don't show. I think that, thinking about how this movie would impact who it is about, they should have gotten people and sent them to the slums, record around them so they can get a true representation. However they do have a right to voice their opinions on the movie as this is about their culture and while it is good for us to see what life is like for some people, they may feel personally 'attacked' as its their life. Their opinion is also their opinion, they are entitled to it more than anyone as its about them and their culture. This teaches us to be more careful with our representation of other cultures and countries and think about the effect this has on them people. -Katie

# data[].attributes.body
I think people who live in slums or in India have a right to be annoyed, they're being referred to as dogs which is de-humanising. I don't have the right to say if they should get annoyed at it or not because i'm not someone who lives in a slum. - Trinny

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the people of India do have a reason to be annoyed because it is their reputation and they may not be proud of their living conditions and don't want their lively hood to be mocked or ridiculed. However, the film doesn't present the slums as a bad place and just tell the truth and facts of what can happen to some unfortunate people in the slums. - joe

# data[].attributes.body
no because a tittle dose not show the full film, the tittle is negative but the film is also positive, and the title dose not show the full film and the story, I think it shows the good sides and the bad sides of India the director has to do his job of showing what life was like in India for someone who grey up in the slums - rocky

# data[].attributes.body
in my opinion i think the title of the film wasn't intentional to offend anyone however i think they should have taken into account how the word 'dog' would effect other people. i don't think that the film represents anyone as dogs in the film so therefore i don't really think it's offensive so they don't have a right to be annoyed at the title of the film. - Rosey

# data[].attributes.body
Hey guys, so I think that the people from India do have a right to annoyed at the title of the films. They have this right as they are intitled to an opinion. More then 20 slums went into protests about the title of the film. that shows that they really care and they don't like it. Love from Sasha

# data[].attributes.body
i think that the people of India have a right to be annoyed, i don't think that the writer or director ment to offend the Indians. however it is a film about them so they should be aloud to express how they feel because some of the go through what the film has shown and they know what its like. they should of thought of how it could effect people. - jess

# data[].attributes.body
I can see why India are not happy with the title 'Slumdog Millionaire' this is because the word dog tells us that people in India have no rights. In my overall the film as a whole wasn't the best way that they Indians were represented, also the word dog is owned by someone or doesn't really know what is going on. So the people from India may be annoyed because of they are being called dogs and have no rights. which they do--James

# data[].attributes.body
i think it does have a fair representation since it was said to be a film about hope and the name 'slum dog' isnt supposed to be the way you look at the film but rather a way of showing the contrast between a slum dog and millionaire. i understand why people are angry about the name and yes they have the right to be angry however the person who made the film even said that it was a name that came to his head and didn't mean to upset or offend anyone. the film does show why they are called dogs but i think that this is a clever way to show that even the least likely people can accomplish amazing things

# data[].attributes.body
I think the protesters have taken it a bit too far because as the writer - Simon Beaufoy - said "I just made up the word. I liked the idea. I didn't mean to offend anyone". I don't think they would have tried to offend anyone from India or the Slums on purpose, i do see why there was protesters though... it is quite offense about calling the people in Slums dogs because its not right. They shouldn't take it too far as it is fiction. - Anneka

# data[].attributes.body
I think the people of India have the right to be annoyed at the title. However, the director has showed how bad life in the slums is, which could make people want to help the children, after they've seen the awful conditions and how they get treated. In a way it raises awareness. The people who live in the slums might find it patronizing getting called a dog, but in the film they're not presented as dogs. - Gracie

# data[].attributes.body
Do you think Slumdog Millionaire has 'fair' representation? Do the people of India have a right to be annoyed at the title and the representation?