The story? Not different from what you have heard before. But definitely different from what you have seen before. As the title completely gives away, it is “about” Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), a slum kid who participates in a game show and goes on to win the grand prize at the event. He is also in search of his childhood sweetheart Latika (Freida Pinto) who he meets after religious riots in the city. There are villains who try to stop him and some elements – human and superhuman – that help him achieve his goal. But why is this making waves all over? The answer may be – the right move at the right time towards the right direction. It is a story that could possibly happen to anyone anywhere in the world – one of destiny and fate. So, why Mumbai? Well, Mumbai makes the possible probable.
Here is an excerpt from Mr. Amitabh Bachchan’s blog post on the film:
“It’s just that the SM idea authored by an Indian and conceived and cinematically put together by a Westerner, gets creative Globe recognition. The other would perhaps not.”
Why is that so?
Look at the characters that Boyle uses. Note their objectives. Could they be more stereotyped? Jamal – A lad who has grown with Hindi cinema and unconsciously imitates that. He is still the young hero who dreams of taking his sweetheart away from the jaws of the dragon. His morals are those defined by traditional Bollywood flicks – love over money, hard work and righteousness at all costs. The 20 million never crosses his mind as does the cherished idea of a “familial” reunion. Salim – brought up with similar Bollywood dreams like Jamal, but with a different set of films! The gangsta flicks (a la Drohkaal , Satya and Company) that make you drool over the wads of money that flow here and there. The sheer romanticism of pulling the trigger with utmost indifference. The jump cuts. The cigarette smoke and the all-hiding ever-cool sunglasses. He dreams of literally bathing in loads of money, till the very end (At this moment of the film, a shiver ran down the spine when he strikingly resembled Private Pyle of the chilling Full Metal Jacket (1987)). Yet, the urge to remain upright and undo his sins. And Latika – the Rapunzel of the story, resigned to her fate, fantasizing that a prince charming will come take her away some day. The arrogant constable Srinivas, the savage Mafioso head Javed, the one dimensional child trafficker Mamen – now, how many times have we seen them before?
See how Boyle employs the typical plot points to find a resolution. The baddie turns good out of remorse and sacrifices himself to aid the damsel in distress to reach the safe-space of the narrative. The quintessentially Bollywood theme of predetermination and destiny makes the lovers meet again. The inevitable train sequence that separates Jamal and Latika in the first place. Ring a bell? Well, why Not? These are the characteristic sequences of our cinema (“entertaining mass oriented box office block busters” to borrow Mr. Bachchan). And look how fresh and unseen he makes it all! Boyle has provided the kind of new wrapper to the old sweet that the Indian directors seem to have traded with star power some point down the lane. Indians are masters at storytelling by tradition and cinematically too. But what has happened is that the craft of storytelling always played a second fiddle to the story itself. And Danny Boyle, thoroughly soaked in the Hollywood-type craft of story telling, notes this. In essence, he bridges the best of both worlds – Form and content – to provide something so familiar yet not so much. A stereotype film with stereotype elements celebrating stereotypes with honesty.
There is a lot of talk going on around about the depiction of slums in the film and how the film is essentially a “consolation and titillation” device for the west. Claims are being made that the film is clearly Danny Boyle’s version of the Indian story and not the truth. Of course it is. And the sad thing is that the film is being criticized for that very reason. This is where I sense absurdity. Cinema, art in general, is most definitely an abstraction of the world that the artist sees though a kaleidoscope of his ideologies and idiosyncrasies. And its appreciation is one that involves its decryption and the discovery of what the artist sees, not what the artist should have seen. Danny Boyle says in an interview to NDTV that when a foreigner attempts to picture something on a land alien to him, he must be extremely honest in his opinion. Indeed. When I started watching the film, I was afraid that Boyle would be quite conscious of what he is doing and would probably try not to breach certain lines. But gladly, he doesn’t do that. He relentlessly attempts to show what he sees. The child beggars, the riots, the guided tours. Once more, I take to Mr. Bachchan’s blog.
“If SM projects India as Third World dirty under belly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky under belly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations.”
Precisely. And that works the other way round too. Take Hollywood for instance. Though plagued with essentially American morals (beautifully parodied in Slumdog Millionaire at one point where the tourists offer consolation to the hurt guide, all in the “American way”), the industry has never flinched from showing the darker side of the nation. One of the most self-criticizing and self-correcting cinemas of the world, Hollywood and its associated branches have regularly treaded to their “dark side”, though unfortunately with considerable romanticism. Now, there is no reason for anyone, leave alone developing nations, to turn away from all the filth going on around. Note that all that Boyle has shown in the film has earlier been shown in Indian cinema numerous times, many times going unnoticed. But when Boyle, the unnamed representative of all foreigners, points this out – to us or the west, immaterial – our pride is hurt as if being frank (note that being frank is not related anyway to being true) is a crime. We argue that a westerner should not make comments about our country without even experiencing it. Now, I don’t understand this newly born possessiveness about our “underbelly” that hitherto was repudiated by “the commercial escapist world of Indian Cinema”. If what this film is doing is slum porn, the behaviour of ours should be aptly called shameless opportunism.
I have a question. Zana Briski made an Oscar winning documentary about kids in red light areas – Born Into Brothels (2004) – that was hundred times more stomach churning than Slumdog Millionaire. Now, why was no claim made about that film’s portrayal of the slums, though by no means it projects a rosy view of the state of affairs? Was it because it was low-profile? Was it because only Slumdog seriously reminds us of the stale state of our mass entertainment, hence hurting our pride? Or was it because the facts were undisputable there and in that Slumdog, which is a work of fiction, they can be easily disowned?
Having said these, one must also note that what Boyle has done here is not a consequence of frustration but of brimming hope. True, he does show the most shattering facets of Mumbai’s buzzing life, but he picks up situations that always have an outlet into redemption. Yes, it is typically what a tourist would see in Mumbai. The contradictions, the happiness in spite of that and “the show must go on” attitude – aspects that residents would naturally be indifferent to. He never condescends on his lead actors. There is no sympathy for them. Boyle always films them from a downward angle. Yes, he celebrates them during their highs, but does not go for tears during their lows. And amidst all this, he superficially studies the spirit of the city. Jamal’s win is necessarily an escapist entertainment, irrespective of the money, for the people who would go on to live their own lives after the show ends. All they need is a hero, which is a universal desire, who comes up from rags by the moral path (“substitution of their gaze”). Boyle’s film is an escapist fare about escapist fares. Slumdog Millionaire could well be termed as a crash course to Bollywood to the west – only that it celebrates the tradition honestly and in the right way.
Sorry, but Mr. Bachchan again:
“The commercial escapist world of Indian Cinema had vociferously battled for years, on the attention paid and the adulation given to the legendary Satyajit Ray at all the prestigious Film Festivals of the West, and not a word of appreciation for the entertaining mass oriented box office block busters that were being churned out from Mumbai.”
Now, I’ve read a lot of support for the “Indian mainstream” cinema by people who claim it is purely a manifestation of the workings of the Indian mind and the West can’t possibly judge them using their yardstick. Now, once it has been decided that this type of cinema is clearly democratic (of and for the Indian people), then what is the need to expect admiration and applause from the west? Isn’t it being dishonest trying to entertain locals and requiring admiration world over? Here, in Slumdog Millionaire, Boyle presents escapist entertainment to the west in a form that they would naturally like (incidentally, being liked by the Indian audience too). Thus, it would deserve no more criticism than a mainstream Indian film does. But when it comes to admiration, the craft gains weightage and Boyle scores there.
Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle does Christopher Doyle all the way. The restlessly blurred events, the dizzyingly deep focus shots and the skewed camera angles are clearly adapted from Doyle’s features with Wong Kar Wai, but definitely suit this film too. Probably one of those oriental good luck charms! I will not elaborate upon A R Rahman’s soundtrack as I have been deemed as one of his notorious fanboys. But seriously, it is nothing short of triumphant and a sizeable fraction of the film’s success. And the editing is masterful with snazzy and relevant cuts between the past and the present. The final sequence tops it all where we have three visual sequences intertwined and led by a single soundtrack. It is definitely going to be a tough call between The Dark Knight and Slumdog Millionaire at the Oscars next month.
I had mentioned one of the two sequences that typify the spirit of the film. The second sequence obviously being the one where young Jamal, covered in filth, celebrates after getting the autograph from the angry young man and the hero of this review Mr Amitabh Bachchan. Placing the celebrity above himself, despite of his own pathetic state. Celebrating life despite its own wishes. This is what Danny Boyle (or any foreigner who admires India) has seen in the country. And this is what he has honestly unfolded in the film, with significant decoration but no other hidden intentions. Mr. Boyle isn’t teaching us what to show, but how to show. He isn’t telling us how India is, but how he sees it. And positively, he isn’t showing us our darker side, but the brighter and more humanistic one.




January 25, 2009 at 11:13 am
at last a review which i feel is justified..
those who say this movie showers disgrace on India go back and start looking at all the movies made by bollywood, kollywood, tollywood or whatever..
abd shriek u have not answered my question.. is this movie over-rated?
LikeLike
January 25, 2009 at 11:30 am
Er… over-rated by whom? If you ask about the IMDB. Obviously YES. The Shawshank redemption is the best movie ever it seems.
If you ask about the collective consensus of the western critics. May be not. Because, this is a film like Borat – tailor made for a specific audience of the west.
And personally for me, this is no exception from the usual “best of Hollywood”. Almost all the Oscar nominees of the year and biggies are overrated for me – Benjamin Button, Milk, Frost/Nixon, The Wrestler, Revolutionary Road and more.
LikeLike
January 25, 2009 at 12:51 pm
ok.. over rated as in lookin at all the accolades it has received.. i dont understand the hype this movie has generated..
one more point..
people(indians) who i talked to felt that india was shown in poor light and this is not the real india. i was stunned. my only question is well what was shown that wasnt true. and what do they expect from a movie which is showing the life of a slumdog. as u have stated this is utter nonsense.
well as we have seen all this before why the crazy outbursts now??
LikeLike
January 25, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Yes, this is not at all about “real India”, it is about “real Bollywood”. Nothing beyond that. Anything beyond is a silly statement.
Of course, I feel the accolades (minus the music) are definitely overdone. Direction isn’t as extraordinary as the move to make this film itself.
LikeLike
January 26, 2009 at 12:20 am
Shrik,
Warning, the comment is extremely long and might exceed your post length. :)
Admirable effort from your side to give the perspective of the director or that of a “balanced” critic.
Admittedly the film reeks class in its screenplay, the camera , the editing , the music (i wouldn get into more detail on that having been labelled a rahman baiter of sorts ;) )and the acting of the kids. As I had pointed out in my review, it’s an amazing drama and an escapist one at that.
But then , you take a look at all the interviews that Boyle, Irfan Khan, Anil Kappor , Vikas Swarup etc have been govong, they seem to take some moral high path and state that they eanted the true india to be showcased. A so called resilience which is being shown in the movie. Agreed. But then by bringing it all down to destiny (option D, if i remember right) he ridicules the whole resilience aspect. If it was resilience then what is destiny doing there?
To answer your query on my blog. Let us take a Hollywood movie with the lead actor being part of a similar game show. The participant has a mixed Black-Hispanic parentage and is from the slums (for the lack of a better world to describe people in similar condition in the US )
First question : What is the colour associated with breast cancer?
Flashback: The kid is three years old. She is seeing her mother breath her last. The reason, breast cancer and no cash to afford treatment.
Second question. Who was the chairman of enron when the financial crisis happened.
Flashback(henceforth F): The kids dad used to work in Enron and he lost his job. Already poor family have to struggle even more. Therefore kid knows the answer to the question.
Third question: Who is the only current player to hold all grand slams?
F: Having seen his dad lose her job, the son has to decide on a means to get his hands on cash. He joins the local gang. And what do you knoe, opne of the guys shoots Serena Williams’ sister soon enough and he’s a witness to that. And its all over the news. So the kid, yes you guessed it right, gets this question also right.
Fourth question:Where is Mifepristone used?
F: After becoming a successful gangster, the kid has too many girls/women/ladies falling for him. He totally falls for one of them and then, you know, accidents happen. He cannot afford such distractions in life and in order to be better safe after being sorry, he forces his girl to take the above mentioned drug.
Fifth question: Emanuel, Henry and Mayer are fist names of a few businessmen. Whats their second name?
F: Kiddo decides to maximise his “hard earned” earnings and invests in a leading I-Bank, then a very popular investment opportunity. Then crash happens, and all his money is gone and he’s now reduced to nothing. Thats why he’s on this show.
Guessing you get the drift.
All these things happen in the US. Total reality. If I am lucky, I’ll assemble a great crew, put all this in a very poetic and aesthetic manner on screen.
Would I be praised for this or be thrashed for showing no common sense. That its not possible that all this happen in one individual’s life? That I am exaggerating? I am mixing too many issues? I am dealing with a subject beyond my comprehension because I haven’t understood their culture?
Frankly, I won’t give a damn because if the movie is a hit I have done my job. I have made money for the producers who expected me to do so. But then I wouldn be giving interviews about how amazing the whole thing was, that I was trying to capture the spirit of a city, that being in the midst of these people has totally changed my life like this.
LikeLike
January 26, 2009 at 12:33 am
Hmmm. I see your quizzing instincts have carried you away :)
“Would I be praised for this or be thrashed for showing no common sense. That its not possible that all this happen in one individual’s life? That I am exaggerating? I am mixing too many issues? I am dealing with a subject beyond my comprehension because I haven’t understood their culture?”
Depends on how you make it. What Boyle has made here is a replica of what’s essentially Bollywood and not what is Indian. I have said it and I say it again. Any claims beyond it and delving into reality is silly (even if Boyle claims so). But what matters is the final product immaterial of the director’s intention (a good case could me made here) and that is why Sm falls into the safe zone for me.
I have said in the review “And amidst all this, he superficially studies the spirit of the city.”. This is purely in relation to entertainment alone. There are no claims about straight faced issues that the filmmaker may have wanted to portray.
P.S: thanks for all the trivia. I could use it.
LikeLike
January 26, 2009 at 1:38 pm
[…] ingredient (Mumbai’s changing face in the context of globalization) and Bollywood. As I said in my review (“It is a story that could possibly happen to anyone anywhere in the world – one of destiny […]
LikeLike
February 7, 2009 at 6:02 pm
[…] nation. But if the people are fair and they are able to see what Mr. Kashyap is attempting here, Slumdog Millionaire is going to look like It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)! But wait, Anurag Kashyap isn’t a foreigner […]
LikeLike
February 15, 2009 at 8:58 am
[…] Millionaire debate. No other film recently has generated so much conversations and arguments as Slumdog Millionaire. It has been accused of “pandering to the western fantasies” and “exposing the underbelly of […]
LikeLike
February 20, 2009 at 9:34 pm
[…] Slumdog Millionaire (2008): Christian Colson […]
LikeLike
February 25, 2009 at 10:28 pm
[…] has been a lot of question raised about the recognition Slumdog Millionaire is getting across the world. And things have been made worse as people with no connection to […]
LikeLike
February 28, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Sm it was the best film i have seen ever in my life.
LikeLike
September 7, 2009 at 12:58 am
I agree with every word you say here. And you have put it very objectively. I myself agree that perhaps it is not a great film, but it is definitely an extremely well-made film.
As you say, Boyle knows how to show whatever he chooses to show.
LikeLike
January 12, 2012 at 10:43 am
I am not sure if I would get a reply but still would like to reply to the review. I think when a director finds good material in terms of story,plot,character arcs,entertainment,locations it is very hard for him to put down the script and say, wait this script in someway or the other makes a statement on one of the basic problems facing this huge country. On the other hand, what is easy is for the media(or press) with their agendas to serve their public with a entertaining article about an english filmmaker who exploits Indian poverty to anger the public, while also bringing back memories of his ancestors who did the very same.
Personally I would not accept a foreign filmmaker exposing the country in such a way for the sake of storytelling,great cinema or exposing the state of mass indian cinema. No, thank you. Please stick to your socio realism or focus on racism or something else that bothers the british nations.If an Indian filmmaker does the same then it is a different discussion.I think the director is being very opportunistic just like any other director who sees a great story. So is the media which is also focussed on asking the wrong questions. I think it is important to understand the portrayal of India by the media in other countries.
LikeLike