Slumdog Millionaire

Right. I just have to get it out of my system, and I don't care who reads. Slumdog Millionaire is just another movie. It's not a great movie. I don't think the movie deserves so many accolades, it's just overrated. Now, let's do this the old style. What are the positive aspects of the movie?

1. Brilliant cinematography.
2. Music Score by A. R. Rehman is not his best, but it suits the flow of the movie.
3. A supposedly different story line.
4. Good direction and editing.
5. Entertaining

All in all, the movie's technically great. But so are RGV's movies. And there's the standard argument against every Indian writing a negative review of this movie: The movie just pricks the sensitive areas of the Patriotic Heart. An Indian abroad, especially, cannot tolerate anything that shows his/her country in a negative light. Right. In my case atleast, I couldn't relate to anything shown about India in the movie, but I wasn't born in a slum. The story, as far as I'm concerned, could be in any slum. So, let's for the moment assume that the movie took place somewhere far from India and get rid of the patriotic heart.

I am willing to concede that it is possible, just possible that so many bad things can happen to one single person. Your mom dies, you grow up in a slum, you're captured by a beggar gang where they try to put out your eyes, you run away on a train, child prostitution etc., because these are real problems in slums. But what I particularly disliked was the attempt to sensationalise some things in the movie. Some things I find unacceptable:

1. The scene where he is beaten up for misleading two American tourists into the Dhobi Ghaat and he says 'You wanted to see the real India'. What irked me even more was the reply: 'Here's some of real America for you, son' (or something like that). Now why was this scene put there, or even necessary? I mean, you could always argue 'this was just this one guy's case and it's what really happened to him, let it go for God's sake!'. Maybe, but more likely not. I think this scene was added simply to appeal to the western pride and make them feel comfortable and happy when they're watching it. It reaffirms their existent beliefs and impressions. This is where the movie's subtle underlying stereotyping just pokes through.

2. The storyline is just too flimsy to be convincing at times. Like the 100 dollar bill and how he gets to know the name of Ben Franklin, is way too unconvincing. A blind kid begging in a Mumbai subway telling Jamal the name of the guy on the 100 dollar bill seems just too contrived. The situation of the kid dressed as Rama holding a Bow and Arrow in his hand being related to the riot scene leaves too many holes in reasoning. I would little assume that any Hindu rioters charging in to a Muslim slum would bring their kids dressed up as Rama to witness the killing. Too artificial.

3. The mix of Hindi and English dialogue in the movie just seems out of place. It makes the Hindi dialogue too prosaic, and this again, is I think simply to appeal to the western audiences. I mean, they wouldn't understand the Hindi dialogues anyway, but it gives the movie an 'authenticity'. Jamal speaking perfect British English complete with the accent makes little sense in the movie's context.

4. Ending the movie with a Bollywood-style item number. Duh.

Oh, and before I forget,
5. Anil Kapoor.

There's a standard argument, that Hollywood has always shown only the rotting and gangrenous parts of India. The view is not balanced, and any movie about India is invariably filled with stereotype snake charmers, slum dwellers and loose cows excreting on highways. There are no movies of successful Indian businessmen or great success stories which catch the Hollywood eye. I mean, when you think of the US, you don't usually think of the slums of NY or Chicago or the mystic Native American witch doctors. When you think of Britain, it's not about medieval witch burners or the slums of Victorian England. I don't care to follow this line of argument, because Hollywood, after all, is full of stereotypes, and not just about India.

There are a few things, I must admit, are new about this movie. It fails to sit clean into any predetermined template or framework. It's easily better than previous attempts to mould Bollywood and Hollywood, better than Marigold, Mistress of Spices and the other retarded lot. But is it really as good as this? I beg to differ. These awards put it in the league of classics, in the same league as City of God and Forrest Gump. To me, it's just not there.