Gritty Portrait of Real India on Reel: A Review of Slumdog Millionaire

Movies made by westerners about India have rarely been worth writing home about, ranging as they've done from the appallingly ignorant racism of Steven Spielberg's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom to David Lean's well-intentioned but cringe-making Passage to India, with Alec Guinness in brown face and dhoti, warbling away as Professor Godbole. But once in a while an exception comes along that makes up for the lot of them. I've just seen Slumdog Millionaire, directed by Trainspotting's Danny Boyle from a script by The Full Monty's Simon Beaufoy, based on the page-turning novel Q & A by diplomat Vikas Swarup. Exuberant, exciting, gaudy and gritty in a way that can only be called Dickensian, Slumdog Millionaire brings contemporary Mumbai to life from the seamy side up, and it does so with brio, compassion and all-round cinematic excellence. For the first time since Gandhi, there's genuine Oscar buzz around a movie set in India, with Indian characters, Indian actors and Indian themes.

I'm a huge fan of Vikas Swarup's novel, one of the most delightful reads I've enjoyed in years. It's about an orphan boy called Ram Mohammed Thomas who is about to win a TV quiz show based on Kaun Banega Crorepati and is arrested on suspicion of having got that far by cheating. He's rescued by a female lawyer who gets him to tell his life story and explain how he, an uneducated slum kid, knew the answers to such difficult questions. Ram then tells a number of stories, each of which explains how he knew what he happened to know. Screenwriter Simon Beaufoy has changed pretty much all of Swarup's stories, introduced a romantic element and even re-baptised the hero (who is now Jamal Malik). But he has retained the novel's structure and premise, and Danny Boyle has brought its spirit alive in a way that i believe even Swarup would appreciate.

The film will be released in India, both in its original bilingual version and in a version dubbed in Hindi, in January. One fair warning to Indian viewers: its depiction of Indian poverty and slum life is searingly real. It was filmed in large part with small hand-held digital cameras on location in Dharavi and in the Juhu slums, and the mounds of garbage, the cesspits, the overflowing drains are all very present. There is even a scene involving human excrement that is both revolting and hilarious. But this is not, despite all of that, an exercise in the pornography of poverty. Slum life is depicted with integrity and dignity, and with a joie de vivre that transcends its setting. It is easy to see why this movie would appeal to international cinegoers in a way that a bleaker film like City of Joy could not.

I saw the film in New York with an audience made up largely of Indian expatriates. In the enthusiastic discussion that followed, only one person reacted negatively, saying that the film seemed to show all Indians as conniving, unprincipled and ruthless, and that the only compassionate people in the film were a pair of white tourists who give Jamal some money. Danny Boyle reacted to that charge by pointing out that his Scottish characters in Trainspotting were also conniving, unprincipled and ruthless, and that he happened to like to depict people like that. Something tells me that most Indian viewers will take this in stride -- we live in a land largely devoid of larger-than-life heroes, and we have learned to take human beings as they are, which is to say, as grossly imperfect. And the film's hero, played by the teenage British Indian actor Dev Patel with a look that combines intensity and expressiveness and yet seems utterly genuine, is as sincere a protagonist as you could hope to find.

The casting of Slumdog Millionaire is a dream. Anil Kapoor, as the sleazy TV host, diamonds winking in his earlobes, has never been better; the quietly understated Irrfan Khan turns in another bravura performance as the police inspector whose questioning brings out Jamal's story. And the trio of children who play each of the principal characters -- at ages 6, 12 and 18, roughly -- could not be more appealing, more convincing or more gifted. The casting was such a triumph that the casting director, Loveleen Tandon, got promoted to the unusual credit of co-director. She plans to make her own film soon, and her association with Slumdog Millionaire is a great credential.

As a novelist myself, i wondered about the changes made to the book on its way to the screen. Some i could understand; cinema and novels are distinct art forms, and what works well in one medium does not necessarily translate well into the other. In particular, novels can afford to digress in ways that the attention span of movie audiences cannot accept: a film requires one clear over-arching narrative, fewer characters to keep straight, and a common thread from beginning to end. But some of the changes were arguably unnecessary: I lamented, in particular, the loss of 'Ram Mohammed Thomas' and his mongrelised Amar-Akbar-Anthony exemplifying of Indianness. I hope that people will both read the book and see the movie to savour the differing strengths of Swarup's original premise and Danny Boyle's transcreation of it.

But above all, Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire is the work of an artist at the peak of his powers. India is his palette and Mumbai -- that teeming 'maximum city', with 19 million strivers on the make, jostling, scheming, struggling and killing for success -- is his brush. The portrait that emerges has been executed with bold strokes, vivid colours and striking images. It will stay in the mind's eye a long time.

Originally published in the Times of India, November 23, 2008

Comments

[P3]

Veiwing the movie was a joy, because it was, you might say inspiring, the britishesque
sounding made it more pleasant and attractive to Americans eventhough the situations
and subjects were crude, that drew your empathy instead of disconnect.

This reminds me of our own unique sounding "ganster' movies, that in their day, projected
to other cultures, Americana; or should I say New York, in the figures of James Cagney,
Edward G. Robinson and Humphrey Bogart.

[digitaleye]

Would love to see the movie. But, the book I believe is over-rated. There are heart-breaking chapters alongside plain smut. Besides, some chapters are utterly unbelievable, why would a rich but deviant actor scout for homo-sexual encounters in a movie theater's common section?. Also, some of the themes in the book are directly lifted from popular Bollywood movies.

[Scarlet]

I saw this film in Phoenix recently.

Yes, you see the slums, but the image of India that finally emerges is that of a powerhouse on the rise.

At the end of the movie, the audience burst into applause. The few people that didn't clap were busy wiping away their tears.

[phuff]

I read the book and LOVED it. I remember thinking as I was reading it that it would make a great movie. I was surprised to learn from your post that the stories that he told had been changed. I understand the "movie biz" need to add a love interest, but I loved the turns of events depicted in the book.

I am looking forward to seeing the film, but the new title: "Slumdog Millionaire" is HORRIBLE. If I had not read the book I would never be intrigued by a film of this title. WTF if a "Slumdog"?! It sounds so depressing!

A movie titled "Q&A" would pique my interest.

[pyt333]

I LOVED this film. I highly recommend it to everyone. I was completely mesmerized the entire time I was watching. It's been years since a movie has drawn me in this completely. I haven't stopped talking about it. Beautiful!

[Paawan]

Actually, not all actors are not indian...they are british. The main flaw of this movie was that the lead actors were mouthing dialogs in a non-inidan, non-slum accent. The 3 kids as teenagers had a strong british accent and the adults were too polished to have grown in the slums.

Had the movie been set in South Africa, I would agree with you that it would be oscar worthy. But there are probably none to few indians in the Academy to notice a casting mismatch or the fact that in India we dont count in thousands and millions.

[RumiSouth]

Translation, Paawan. To be understood, you must not only translate the words, but the ideas. Thus millions and thousands.

While I certainly respect your desire to hear authentic accents (my own regional dialect of English has been horribly mangled by Hollywood since the invention of film), my suspicion is that most audience members would be unable to understand most of the dialogue without subtitles if they had emphasized authenticity over intelligibility.

[metamutator]

If neither the accent nor the language (and remember, English is an Indian language as much as it is a British language) doesn't represent India, how can the movie have an Indian "theme" as Tharoor says?

[Meds]

I have not seen the film yet, but if the characters from the slums are talking in British accent, that would be frustrating to the Indians for sure.

I also agree with Shashi on changing the name of the hero to a totally Muslim name. I wonder what makes the authors give up so much when it comes to making movies on their novels--apart from money.

“Danny Boyle reacted to that charge by pointing out that his Scottish characters in Trainspotting were also conniving, unprincipled and ruthless, and that he happened to like to depict people like that.”

Sounds like Danny Boyle happened to depict “other” people like that.

[Marionnyc]

Thank you for writing so well about the book. I haven't seen the film yet, but am also a big fan of the novel. The book is an absolute joy to read and I hope the popularity of the film encourages more people to pick it up.

[KPW]

I enjoyed this movie but not head over heels in love with it.

Better still is a small movie "The Pool" set in India that snuck through theaters with little notice.
It was directed by the American Chris Smith who did "American Movie".

Put it on your Netflix list.