Oscar front-runner Slumdog Millionaire has received some criticism of late for cultural insensitivity. Are these legitimate complaints, or are they accusations trumped-by by rival films trying to chip away at the Slumdog's awards buzz?

We don't doubt that some Indians' are genuinely upset about the film, which shows a grim, trash-strewn side of the country, a place where legions of children are lost and forgotten. But the Los Angeles Times' Envelope awards blog notes the fact that the fervor only began in earnest when the first of the Oscar voter ballots started arriving in mailboxes.

Folks at Fox Searchlight, Slumdog's US distributor, immediately sent out press releases refuting all the claims, which ranged from people upset that India was portrayed in an overly negative light to charges that the film's child actors were poorly treated and unfairly compensated for their work. Fox PR folks were wise to act quickly, as charges of inauthenticity have sunk Oscar-hopefuls before. The Envelope post brings up Denzel Washington's The Hurricane, which was torpedoed by claims of inaccuracy before it even got out of the gate.

Whether or not the anti-Slumdog reports are being manipulated by reps from rival movies like Benjamin Button and The Reader (Weinsteeeein!!) is sort of beside the point, though. The actual issue is that people are neutralizing legitimate complaints, complaints about a movie that depicts horror show instances of abject poverty with verve, zeal, and touches of cutesiness. We liked the movie, but we can certainly see how another party—specifically one that's, you know, from there—could take issue with some sort of perceived fetishism of hardship or what have you. But instead, it's all about Oscars. And Slumdog'll win anyway. Ironically, so voters can prove that they're not narrow-minded.