Posted by Benjamin on: 03.02.2009 /
Over the weekend I saw Slumdog Millionaire with my lovely wife.
I found myself generally incredibly annoyed at the movie. I haven’t totally analyzed this yet. I really liked Jamal. The story felt deeply untrue to me, although it’s imagery was incredibly beautiful.
Salman Rushdie said of the film:
I think it’s visually brilliant. But I have problems with the story line. I find the storyline unconvincing. It just couldn’t happen. I’m not adverse to magic realism but there has to be a level of plausibility, and I felt there were three or four moments in the film where the storyline breached that rule. And I’m the only person who thinks this.
To which three or four moments do you think Rushdie was referring?
Have any of you spent time in India? Do you think the film’s portrayal of evil, of religious violence, or of the reality of poverty worked at all?
Does the film move you toward MTWABP (Making the World a Better Place)? Or does it, in the end, just leave the viewer with a sort of happy lovely feeling which somehow smooths over what evil it does manage to expose?
How can we translate the question which gets kicked around on OTM blogs, “Is it better to be kind or right?”, into a question about movies and stories? If we can manage such a translation, what answers shall we find or posit, especially with regards to this film?
There have also apparently been some protests of the use of the derogatory term “slumdog” in the title of the film, including by groups of people who live in slums in Mumbai and Patna in India. How can one balance talking *about* the use of derogatory animal names for people and refraining from propagating such language?
Of course the film has been incredibly popular, and the last thing I want to do is put off those of you who loved it. Have you seen it? Did you like it? Why or why not? What are your reactions and thoughts about the film?
Comment by: joe
1I can’t comment on Slumdog as I haven’t seen it. But I am intrigued by the Rushdie quote. Since when has ‘good’ fiction been measured by the likelihood of occurrence?
Superman - couldn’t happen.
James Bond - unlikely sounding nonsense
Lord of the Rings - silly stories centring around imaginary being.
Somewhere along the line Mr Rushdie must have his head placed so far up a dark place of his own devising that he didn’t notice this was a novel. You know, a story. Made up. Not real.
Deary me, even my 8 year old understands this stuff. Mind you, she had to ask whether High School Musical was from the USA. Because British schools are obviously just like that…
Comment by: Martin Gugino
2Fiction requires suspension of disbelief, but there are some beliefs that you don’t feel a movie is worth suspending a belief for. In other cases, one just can’t do what is being asked: for example, a movie where Alberto Gonzales was portrayed as fit to be Attorney General would not be something I would see, even if the songs were good.
Comment by: joe
3Surely that is a very subjective thing, though Martin. Saying “now that wouldn’t happen would it?” is surely the worst way to review any work of fiction.
Comment by: Andy
4I really liked the film. I’ve never been in India, and I didn’t stop to think, “Is it believable?”
It’s believable to me that kids in the slums are real people, with their own stories, and this film gave me a sense about this. Having seen kids in poverty, there is both magic and realism in their lives (the reflection of God, the grit and grime of life, and shades of evil).
These are good questions to ask, though. My only hesitation is about the last one. The title seems fine to me. Anyone who sees the film will know the characters prove that they are anything but dogs or mere names.
Comment by: Craig
5I have spent a limited time in India and thought the film did a good job of painting a picture of India and it’s people. Certainly it wasn’t 100% accurate in every detail, but if it were, it would better belong in the documentary genre. As a filmmaker, I think of some of the production decisions required in making a film like this. On one side you have an obligation to paint an accurate portrayal and not be misleading and on the other side a challenge to tell a story that will captivate the audience (and sell tickets). I think Slumdog was a fair balance of these two. I’m actually surprised and excited that Slumdog has done so well, when I originally saw it back in October I didn’t think it would do as well. My dad (who has little appreciation for other cultures) called me up a few days ago to talk about the movie…this convinced me that the movie is making a difference.
Comment by: Helen
6I haven’t seen it yet but I want to. It never seems to fit in for us to go to a showing so we’ll probably end up seeing it on DVD.
I assume the use of ’slumdog’ is to reflect the labels people really use rather than affirm it as an appropriate label.
When I see movies with a fictional storyline set in a real cultural context it does make me think about the context. The fictional aspect of it doesn’t override that.
When I saw Wall-E it made me think about how wasteful humans (many of us) are. Yesterday we watched the Last King of Scotland on DVD. I doubt the story of the main character - running into Idi Amin and being hired as his personal doctor and also becoming a personal advisor of his - is true. However it made me think about that regime.
Whether I do anything with the thoughts is another matter, but that’s always an issue.
It bothered me to hear that the kids in the movie hardly got paid anything and were still living in very bad conditions. But the reason I heard about it was in a news article that they were going to get brick houses so that was good. It doesn’t help all the other kids in poverty in India, of course. Yet it did seem particularly unfair that those kids and their families had received so little given how successful the movie turned out to be.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
7I do not think it is the worst way to review a film. If, for example, one thinks the film is selling a lie, one can object to it on those grounds. As an example, one can not like the Passion of the Christ because one feels it is selling a lie, without commenting on whether it is 100% accurate in every detail.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
8Here is a possibly surprising talk on TED about slums.
Comment by: Meg Ady
9Hello JAC people!
I just posted a comment on Red Envelope Day, and wanted to share it with you…
Being invited to participate in this Red Envelope Day has been very thought provoking for me - thanks, Gabriel, for the invitation!
I am touched by the compassion you all have for unborn children, and for women. Personally I was overjoyed that Obama was elected - his vision is to create a society where a woman choosing to carry her baby to term is not in doing so choosing a life of poverty. Historically abortion rates are significantly higher when a Rebuplican president is in office, and lower when a Democratic president is in office.
My vision is for unity between people who are strongly pro-life, and people who are strongly pro-choice. My dream is for energy to be redirected - instead of fighting each other, to join together and work to create a society where a woman can choose to raise a child, knowing each member of her family’s medical, educational, childcare and public health needs will be attended to. Imagine, instead of millions being poured into campaigns for and against abortion, all this money could instead be poured into creating a society which would empower women to be able to care for their children and fulfill all their dreams!!?! I think there might be a lot of overlap between the two perspectives on this issue, and that if people could come together and communicate and find shared ground, the abortion rate would drop significantly, and we would grow, communally and individually.
I would LOVE to know what you think about my ideas!
Thanks for reading and all the best with Red Envelope Day,
Meg Ady
Comment by: Martin Gugino
10Yup.