You’re The Man Now, Dog!: The Racialicious Review of Slumdog Millionaire

By Special Correspondent Arturo R. García, also posted at The Instant Callback

You could say Slumdog Millionaire is too cute by half. But you can’t say it doesn’t do cute very well.

Adapted from the novel Q and A, Slumdog follows “uneducated” street kid Jamal (Dev Patel) through a Dickensian collision of money, love, poverty and hope against all odds. It’s the kind of fairy tale Hollywood can’t do without tripping over its’ own commercialism anymore. But the relentless pace set by Simon Beaufoy’s screenplay and the direction of Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan sacrifices schmaltz (and practically everything else) in the name of the quest of this most improbable (implausible?) hero.

We meet Jamal, a perpetually wide-eyed call-center drone, as he’s being “questioned” by Mumbai police. The kid has been doing well as a contestant on Kaun Banega Crorepati, the Indian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? — too well for comfort, in fact. How could this urchin, this upstart, people are asking, be on the verge of winning the grand prize of 20 million Rupees when doctors and lawyers have fallen short?

“Because I’m a Slumdog, I’m a liar, right?” Jamal asks the cops. But the truth is, Jamal’s an anomaly. The answer — or rather, the answers — are within him. Boyle and Tandan line up the parallel paths of Jamal’s rise: each right answer ties in to the different flashpoints in the hard-knock lives of Jamal and his conflicted older brother Salim (Madhur Mittal). The boys have, at various points, been orphans, hustlers, “Musketeers,” travelers, until they finally take different paths. The only other constant in Jamal’s life, besides making enough to get by, is the love of his life, Latika (Freida Pinto). Indeed, the only times mild-mannered Jamal gets riled up is when somebody crosses his girl.

The film’s single-mindedness brings to mind Forrest Gump — and that’s potentially as bad as it is good. We get glimpses of the abject poverty the kids face (the scenes in the “orphanage” are particularly harrowing) but Jamal’s focus on saving Latika (who herself seems to avoid the worst possible fates before running into Jamal again) dulls some of the impact of seeing what Jamal has overcome along the way. It’s easy to see why other reviews have panned the film for being “picaresque” and “cinematic overkill.”

But, in a time where Mumbai is in the news for all the wrong reasons, and on the verge of the annual winter barrage of cinematic and economic gluttony, Slumdog is, like its’ hero, an anomaly: a “feel-good” movie that actually delivers on the sentiment.

And you can say about that what you will.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. “Aaja jind shamiyane ke tale…” « the ones who are mad to live on 22 May 2009 at 6:01 pm

    [...] it. (Such as: the portrayal of India or the very Western fairy-tale like plot. This post and this post at Racialicious is better than anything I can come up [...]

Comments

  1. Dan wrote:

    I’ve heard that the film that’s screening in wide release in the US is a pretty heavily edited version. I’m interested to know which version of the film you saw.

    Can’t wait to see it myself, it sounds good.

  2. sarah wrote:

    I saw the film a few weeks ago in LA. It’s an above average movie, but I wasn’t blown away by it. I think the press is eating it up because it’s different, and also, it eases people’s fears about America losing its status as a superpower, especially given the economic crises we’re going through. Even though the last third of the film does show India on the upswing, it’s still depicted as a depressing, down-trodden place. I thought the scene with the white American woman announcing, “This is how we do things in America” and handing the kid a $100 bill was totally unnecessary. And I don’t know why all the critics are raving about the dance sequence at the end, it was pretty underwhelming in comparison to those you’ll find in most Bollywood films. :)

  3. allheavens wrote:

    Dev Patel is that kid on BBCA’s Skins who is always trying to get laid. I swear I have seen his bare ass WAY too much. I don’t know if I can really take him seriously as a romantic lead but I am going to give it a try.

    Yeah I know, I’m watching Skins but I find it to be a more truthful representation of teenagers and it’s actually quite funny.

    Saw Twilight and I have to go with the line from True Blood: “Honey….if we can’t kill people, what’s the point of being a vampire?” All that overwrought symbolism for sexual abstinence is a little much unless you are a 15-year-old girl.

  4. Pheagan wrote:

    @allheavens– I just saw an episode of Skins for the first time last night–Dev Patel wasn’t in it, though. Really liked what I saw, actually. I’m not sure whether or not to be surprised that the lead of a movie that takes place in India is in fact English. I wonder how people feel about most of the movie’s dialogue being English, especially when the kid versions of the characters don’t speak it? Haven’t seen the movie yet, but it seems potentially problematic.

  5. Fatemeh wrote:

    This looks pretty interesting; I’ll have to put it on my list!

  6. Sobia wrote:

    A desi friend of mine watched this film and loved it. Now I’m curious though and interested in seeing it. I wonder, was there any mention of religion in this? Jamal and Salim are obviously Muslim, and considering a disproportionate number of Muslims in India live in poverty was there any mention of this dynamic?

  7. atlasien wrote:

    Just wanted to add that I personally don’t see anything wrong with cross-ethnic casting. For example, The fact that Memoirs of a Geisha had Chinese actresses playing Japanese characters speaking English didn’t bother me… I had plenty of other reasons to dislike that racist abortion of a movie.

    I just don’t think it’s tenable to demand that level of accurate ethnic/linguistic representation. You can have all kinds of weird cross-casting without racism being involved… it’s common in all kinds of cinema. For example, Enemy at the Gates was directed by a Frenchman, in English, with an Englishmen playing Russians and Americans playing Germans.

  8. Arturo wrote:

    Sobia,

    Religion wasn’t really a focus of the film. There is a scene where we see a character engaging in prayer, that helped shade some nuance to said character. And a religious figure is mentioned and “seen” in a flashback. But issues of class are definitely positioned more prominently.

  9. jmn wrote:

    Actually, the reason Jamal’s mother was killed was because a mob attacked a group of Muslim folk, killing her in the process. Religion is in the movie, but it’s on the sideline. It really is a Forrest Gump-like love story, especially with Jamal’s single-mindedness towards Latika.

    Still, as simple and sugary sweet as it is, I still enjoyed the movie immensely. Next up for me is “Let the Right One In” and “JCVD.”

  10. Jaye wrote:

    I wonder if the fact that it’s not a Bollywood film, but actually a British movie, has anything to do with why a lot of the critics are going crazy about it. I’ve read a lot of positive reviews, and I’ve never heard such exalting praise about a Bollywood film. On the other hand, most Bollywood films aren’t in English, so it might be harder to get excited about films in other languages.

  11. Naomi F. wrote:

    I thought it was a beautiful and extremely fun movie. I have read that originally, the filmmakers promised to not use Hindi to get backing, and snuck it in there once filming was underway. For me, the english/hindi seemed pretty seamless (but I’m not usually someone who is bothered by subtitles). This was such a fun, fairy-tale movie…if there were problematics…I didn’t see them (which would be rare for me, I’m always the fried who ruins a movie with a racism/sexism critique). :^)

  12. AgapeA wrote:

    I saw this movie at the toronto film festival in september and really, really enjoyed it. in terms of the casting of the lead, the director said, during the Q&A after the screening, that he tried pretty hard to find an actor in india but the fashion for actors over there is to be pretty buff (which my avid hindi film watching tells me is a pretty accurate assessment) and he wanted someone slighter for the role. i felt like i could buy him in the lead, so i wasn’t bothered by it. but i do think that in general terms it’s best to cast people whose ethnic backgrounds match with the character, particularly in hollywood where roles for actors of certain backgrounds are so infrequently available.

  13. allheavens wrote:

    @jmn – Saw both, Let the Right One In and JCVD.”

    Let the Right One In was good but not great, the pacing is a little too leisurely.

    However JCVD was very good, very surprising performance by Van Damme. I hope he gets some recognition for his work in this film.

  14. welllah wrote:

    didn’t anybody notice that the actors got progressively lighter in skin color as the movie progressed? It struck me quite hard that the grown up, “pretty” lead characters got lighter the further away from the slums they got.

    would this have been such a smash if the leads had been darker?

  15. Mobular wrote:

    Somewhat racist at times, it sorta implies that Hindus get together in rallies dress their kids up as the god lord Rama and go on a whacking day hunt for Muslims.

    While riots do break out, it’s usually a result of religious extremism between the two groups – not just a random monthly Muslim beat-a-thon as they show in the movie.

    Also it shows India in a bad light at times, there’s some truth but there’s even more exoctic stereotypes.

    It’s a good movie by all means, but I think that the scene with the American lady was totally unnecessary and only served to prevent Americans from feeling alienated .

  16. Emily wrote:

    I didn’t get the feeling that the “here’s a taste of the REAL America, son!” from the woman was really supposed to make Americans watching the film feel better about themselves or anything. It seemed to me like the film was lightly mocking self-righteous Westerners, especially with the actress’s super-enthusiastic delivery of that line. Maybe my theater was just weird, but everyone laughed when she said that.

  17. FILM wrote:

    that scene is probably edited in other versions.