Filed under: Drama
Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire simultaneously wants to be a profound film about poverty and social degradation in India, while providing the most fun you’ll have at the movies this year. Into what category do I place such an ambitious effort? If it were a Bildungsroman, it would be titled: Slumdog Millionaire: being the urban education, perilous adventures, and romantic entanglements of one Jamal K. Malik, Mumbai born. However, the film is not interested in the development of the this particular young protagonist, and its large ambitions seem to have been replaced, assuming they existed, with a series of sequences that are constructed purely with the aim to manipulate the audience.
Our protagonist, Jamal, is a contestant on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” We know from the first frame that he is going to win. This knowledge eliminates a would-be suspenseful sequence toward the end of the film. Why does he win? Throughout the film we’ve been taught to believe that Jamal can find sanctity and sanity amongst terrible poverty. This message is sacrificed as Jamal simultaneously wins ten million rupees and secures the love of his life. His brother also dies, but it’s as a martyr in slow-motion, so the audience feels more elevated than upset. Does he need the money? It can be argued that he never wanted the wealth or fame, only Latika, the obligatory object of his affection. The theme of this movie: love conquers all.
The game show also serves as the frame for a series of flashbacks that correspond to each question. Flashbacks are an interesting convention in film. In Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane, the flashbacks construct a fractured narrative, providing multiple perspectives of the leading protagonist, Charles Foster Kane. The narrative serves as an exploration into the mysteries and ambiguities of a public figure who was a secretive man. The film does not succeed without the structure. However, in Slumdog Millionaire the flashbacks are all in chronological order. Altering back and forth between present and past becomes tiresome and predictable, without providing any deeper meaning into the lives of the main characters. Jamal, in theory, has led an eventful life, but the film would suggest that the events in his life have only happened so that he can answer a series of questions.
There are indeed some spritely moments to Slumdog Millionaire. I particularly enjoyed the sequence involving theft at the Taj Mahal, but I found that the treatment of poverty was condescending. Once upon a time, neorealism, was used to explore the nature of poverty and depravity in a damaged society. Those films were characterized by a minimalist style in a realistic setting. Slumdog Millionaire’s stylized cinematography, with its sweeping shots of Mumbai, and its rapid paced editing, fail to illuminate the day to day struggles of those who suffer from injustice in India. The Bollywood style ending dance sequence was perhaps the most insulting aspect of the film, as it clearly celebrated an industry that chooses to ignore the struggles of its country by marketing fabled, romanticized entertainments. Now I’m not against fun and escapism, but I am offended when it pretends, and fails, to be politically motivated and socially conscious.
-Jason Bardin
2 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Jason, I completely agree with you. For most of the reasons you spoke about, and some others, I think that was the worst movie I have ever seen, barring possibly Rush Hour 3 and a few crappy youtube videos. Good job. Paul, you too, but I haven’t seen any of the ones you reviewed.
TG
02.18.09 @ 3:12 pm
I personally liked the movie. I’ve been a fan of Boyle’s films, even when they haven’t garnered heaps of praise. His films are necessary to watch with a certain amount of disbelief, so to me Slumdog Millionaire needs to be given the same courtesy.
You say that the film suggests the events of his life have taken place so he can answer a series of questions. It could appear that way. But the line, “It is written” could perhaps give us a different insight to the fact that every vignette is the answer to a question. Could it not be that the questions were specifically geared toward the events of his life? The movie seems to be about destiny, and if it was his destiny to rise out of poverty, then could have the higher power governing his life given him a helping hand?
As for the treatment of poverty, this film wasn’t supposed to be a realistic depiction of Mumbai’s underbelly. It was less about the actual existence of poverty and more about the people who rise out of it. I agree there are many films that show Mumbai’s slums quite realistically, like Satya, and this wasn’t one of them. This movie’s purpose isn’t the same as City of God, and with the many homages to Bollywood I think that it is quite aware of that and isn’t trying to pretend. The movie depicts an actual escape from an impoverished existence rather than the momentary escape that one gleans from movies, Bollywood or otherwise.
Just my two cents.
And as for the post above… you must watch some pretty damn good movies.
Comment by Alicia Cavanaugh
02.18.09 @ 6:25 pm
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>