Demystifying Slumdog

By now, the film ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ does not need an introduction. It is the story of Jamal (Dev Patel) who overcame tremendous obstacles, including the ones that come along with growing up poor in Mumbai, India, and eventually won his lady love Latika (Freida Pinto) – a happy ending made possible by the relatively popular game show ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire.’ As many reviewers have noted, the film strikes a chord with people because it is optimistic and perhaps allows human beings to be hopeful, especially in America right now where hope is fading in these difficult economic times.

At first, the content of the film did not really excite me enough to warrant purchase of a theater ticket. But, I still wanted to see it due to the buzz about the film that began to fill the air. One day in late November, I went to see ‘Slumdog Millionaire.’ The film was captivating. It was well directed. The screenplay was cleverly constructed, nuanced and certainly engaged me. I also thought Danny Boyle’s effort to select an all Indian cast to make this film was worthy of praise. It was a pleasure to see some of my favorite actors, like Irfan Khan and Anil Kapoor. And, some good character actors, like Zutshi. Furthermore, Danny Boyle’s engagement with the Bombay mainstream cinema genre that was reflected in the narration style of the story pleasantly surprised me as well.

But, I am unable to share in the jubilation surrounding the film. To me, the triumph of the film represents yet another triumph of the West. More specifically, the so-called victory of ‘Slumdog’ reminds me that any film about the ‘East’ that gains recognition at the global level (read: Western), must fit the frames constructed by the West, frames that deny the ‘East’ a place in ‘modernity.’ That means, representations of the ‘East’ must portray the space as either spiritual, in the past, or ‘dysfunctionally present.’ ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ focuses on an India as a place characterized by squalor, filth and poverty – images of the ‘East’ which are real to Westerners and historically designed for Western consumption. This image reinforces the construction of the ‘East’ as ‘dysfunctionally present.’ So, it is not the depiction of poverty in India which disturbed me; it is the inability of Third Worlders to define themselves once again is what I find to be painfully disturbing about the celebration of this film. Even A. R. Rahman’s musical score in my opinion was stripped of its cultural warmth to suit the taste of a ‘global’ audience. The dilution of the Bombay mainstream genre of story-telling, despite Boyle’s apparent understanding of the form, was yet another compromise made by the film in order to reach a ‘wider’ (read: Western) market. Additionally, while the film does not rely on a white Christian male protagonist to rescue the ‘oppressed,’ the use of a show that originated in the West (Who Wants to be a Millionaire) serves the same function. The reliance on destiny as the catalyst for Jamal’s success is another problematic concept, especially in light of the fact that ‘destiny,’ like the myth of meritocracy, is used as an ideological tool to preserve the existing status quo.

And, of course, this ‘cultural pattern’ is reinforced by a certain desire of ‘Easterners’ to be recognized by the ‘West’ which, in turn, perpetuates this kind of a global imbalance. Perhaps the need for recognition from the West is symbolic of self-loathing that is characteristic of groups that are on the lower end of the social/global hierarchy. Meanwhile, there are scores of films made in Bombay that speak to the issue raised by Danny Boyle in ‘Slumdog Millionaire.’ I wonder why those films have never been selected for the Oscars.

So, I ask myself: Can slumdogs become millionaires? In a world where Aishwarya Rai is conferred the Padmashree, most slumdogs do not become millionaires! But, their ‘makers’ are awarded Oscars!