Danny Boyle: Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

[Chris Knipp]

Danny Boyle: Slumdog Millionaire

Horatio Alger in Mombai

Review by Chris Knipp

An exhilarating entertainment, an adrenalin rush, and a non-stop two-hour blast of colorful image and sound, Danny Boyle's new movie Slumdog Millionaire is a feel-good fairy tale but also a rough guide to the Dickensian low life/high life contrasts of modern Bombay/Mombai. In the story, by a fluke 18-year-old "chai-wallah" Jamal (Dev Patel) has gotten onto India's version of "I Want to Be a Millionaire." He's been delivering chai around the offices of the TV station and they've discovered he's smart. He's been winning hugely as the contestant and has reached the 20 million rupee mark when, right as the movie begins, he's jerked out of the TV studio to be interrogated and tortured by the police because they think a ghetto kid would have to cheat to get those answers right.

The interrogation becomes a frame-tale worthy of the Arabian Nights. Each of Jamal's explanations of how he knew the answer to a particular "Millionaire" question takes the form of a hyper-kinetic flashback to yet another exciting, heart-stopping segment of his tumultuous emotional roller-coaster slumdog life. Fast-paced, fluent editing integrates sequences of Jamal's TV show performance, the police interrogation, and his recollections to explain how he knew a particular answer. It's a juggling act that never falters, and the high-energy film-making ensures that all three settings are consistently exciting and suspenseful. Every childhood reminiscence is a shocker, a tearjerker, and a cliff-hanger as Jamal strives to survive poverty and exploitation and unite with his childhood beloved. We don't know how the interrogation's going to wind up. And most exciting of all, the whole country is waiting to see if Jamal, the poor boy making good, will win the big jackpot or sink back into poverty, and we don't know how that's going to end either.

Eschewing the machinery of the huge city's Bollywood studios (though utilizing several of its stars), Danny Boyle and his Hindi-language co-director Loveleen Tandan took lightweight digital cameras directly into Mombai's side streets and ghettos and worked with non-actors to portray the young life of Jamal.

When accused by the police of cheating, Jamal sullenly replies that he simply "knew the answers." As we see the questions actually being posed during the show, Jamal is cool, rather dazed, in front of the boisterous TV audience, being played and teased by "Millionaire" show host Prem (Anil Kapoor, one of several big Indian stars in the film), yet coming up with the right answer. Then the scene shifts to a flashback of an anti-Muslim mob that slaughters Jamal's mother. Jamal and his brother Salim must flee and live on the streets by hustling and stealing. They take on the pretty Latika as a partner, who becomes the love of Jamal's life. At one phase they're kidnapped by the evil, Fagin-like Maman (Ankur Vikal), who makes them think they're at a spa for poor kids and then puts out his little captives' eyes and trains them to be street singers (the blind ones make more money). Jamal and Salim escape by hopping a train but lose Latika. Later the boys steal shoes from tourists visiting the Taj Mahal and sell them in a street market, and they act as charming but uninformed guides while allowing their host's cars to be stripped by pals. Eventually Jamal is betrayed by Salim, who's always cheated him and turns into a criminal.

Slumdog Millionaire is like an animated history of John Locke's theories of memory. Every recollection contains the answer to a question in the show as a fact engraved on Jamal's brain by the power of the accompanying joy or trauma he was experiencing when he learned it. In the later phases of Jamal's story, he tracks down Latika, finding her beauty being exploited in a low-life activity, and in seeking her, he runs back into Salim, whom he remains linked to, but cannot forgive. Eventually everything gets resolved appropriately and the ending is happy, with Jamal and the now gorgeous Latika (Freida Pinto) united in a kiss. The closing credits boldly flaunt the film's unreality as the principals and a host of extras do a light-hearted dance in the Mombai train station.

Slumdog Millionaire tells a story more notable for its ingenuity than its verisimilitude, but there's a tumultuous reality about it nonetheless. It can be admired--not to say loved--on many levels, and seems likely to stand as one of the year's best films. There are dozens of good actors. Superstar Irfan Khan (whom Americans have seen in The Namesake, A Mighty Heart, and The Darjeeling Limited) adds inestimable subtlety and warmth to the role of the police inspector. Anil Kapoor is vivid as the show host--and the film is highly successful at capturing the drama and suspense of "Millionaire" shows. Dev Patel, actually English-born (only the young Jamal actors speak Hindi), was a star of last year's realistic British comedy series about Bristol teens "Skins," which from all reports is an absolute gem and ought to be seen. Tall and thin, Patel projects a perfect combination for the role of nerdiness and purity, innocence and will-to-succeed. Much credit goes to Full Monty and Miss Pettigrew screenwriter Simon Beaufoy who adapted Vikas Swarup's ingenious novel, Q&A. This is a wonderfully cinematic effort whose essence is its intense visuals by DP Anthony Dod Mantle, coordinated effectively by editor Chris Dickens and underlined by the lively music of A.R. Rahman. Boyle has always gone for the wild stimulus package (Shallow Grave, Trainspotting) and the exotic adventure (The Beach, Sunshine). He's also shown skill at working with children (Millions) as he does in the many scenes of Jamal's early life here. This is his most intensely sui generis effort. It combines various Boyle skills and predilections in a single explosive whole. It's one of his greatest successes and a disturbing, thrilling, heart-warming pleasure to watch.

[oscar jubis]

Slumdog Millionaire is exactly what you say in your first sentence: exhilarating, entertaining, an adrenaline rush, blast of sound and image...
It's also schematic, built on cliches and character stereotypes, relentlessly obvious and lacking in the ambiguities that make the actual world so interesting.
It's all razzle-dazzle. A movie with lots of pizzaz. All bells and whistles. Every emotion highlighted and underlined. There's no sublety to it, one always knows exactly what one's supposed to feel. Not much better than Australia for instance, which is basically the same type of movie experience, as far as I'm concerned. Highly enjoyable films I'm glad I watched but not the type of movies that should enter into any conversation about the best cinema had to offer in 2008.

[Chris Knipp]

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is an audience favorite as well as awakening "mad love" in some critics. It began with the People's Choice award at Toronto. It's been named the best film of the year by the National Board of Review, an indicator of Oscar potential. Dev Patel has been nominated for best supporting actor by the Screen Actors Guild. It has the most nominations at the London Film Critics' Circle awards. It won Boston Critics' Best Picture award with WALL-E. It's also a leading contender for the Golden Globe, and is winning other US critics' group awards.

[oscar jubis]

Some people in my audience clapped.

[cinemabon]

The idea of fatalism is that as we go through life, fate exposes us to a series of events that then shape the future of our lives - Jamal (the adult played by Dev Patel) is the classic case of being "fate's fool." How could he know as he traveled this path called life that one day all of his experiences would return to form a knowledge base necessary to become the first ultimate winner on the game show, "Who wants to be a millionaire?" (Google it. The actual Indian version of the game show is identical to the American version in every way although the host is older, has a white beard and wears a brown leather jacket!)

In a series of flashbacks, we discover what led Jamal to his present predicament - being tortured by the police for information related to cheating. At first we don't even know what kind of cheating. Is it a test? An exam? It is only when he is shocked and falls unconscious that loose threads to his life begin to weave together into a story.

We go back in time to a very young Jamal. He lives on the streets, mostly, with his brother Salim. They are opportunists, street urchins, causing trouble, eluding police officers while skipping school. After their mother drags them back to school, the teacher introduces Jamal to the Alexandre Dumas novel "The Three Muskateers." (My son leaned over to me during the showing and asked when India had living conditions like that. I told him that many places in the world currently resemble the slums in the film. He could not believe it. He thought it was CGI.) The Three Muskateer theme runs through the film as Jamal and Salim are joined by their childhood friend, Latika. The three become inseparable until an incident tears the two boys from the young girl. Jamal vows to find her one day (Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy eventually finds and falls in love with girl).

What makes "Slumdog Millionaire" unique is that a film, largely made of unknowns, shot on a small budget, with nearly a third of the film in English subtitles, showing a rather unpleasant side to India, should be nominated for Best Picture of the Year! The reasons are many... some include the universal themes stated above that weave through the plot. Another more obvious reason is that filmmaker Danny Boyle has created a sympathetic character in Jamal that many people can easily identify with in their own currently frustrated lives. Jamal is similar to the character Ben Braddock in "The Graduate," a pathetic figure, weak, unprincipled, yet hopeless in love with the wrong woman - one he cannot have. We want Jamal to succeed, although it doesn't make any sense, other than to make up for a miserable life of poverty. We want him to win the show. We want him to win the girl's heart. We want Jamal to win, yet the odds are against him.

Yet, fate steps in for Jamal. His path is set. While helping a colleague at a call center, he is drawn into being a contestant for the gameshow "Who wants to be a millionaire?" The show brings all the elements of his life into focus... the loss of his mother... the loss of his brother... the loss of his girl... and nearly, his exit from the gameshow from the jealous host who tries to accuse the young man of cheating (which links him to the opening of the film). Fate steps in for Jamal, as we knew it would. In the end, we are the real winners. India is also a winner, bringing a small film like this into mainstream audiences (even my 85-year-old mother saw this film).

And perhaps on the night of the Oscars, "Slumdog Millionaire" will be a winner too.

[Chris Knipp]

I'm not so lucky because I wrote an elaborate answer, appreciative of your novelistic depth in looking at the story, and I even brought in the autistic surprise basketball star seen on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6cOp6EDFlI) . His story is surprising, dreamlike. Even if he has a very mild form of autism, his abnormality is quite evident, and anyway, he wasn't on the team, just suited up at the end and then, "hot as a pistol" in his own words, lived a fantasy by sinking a series of miraculous baskets scoring the final 20 points and winning thunderous applause. That's real, but who would believe it in a movie? And I also talked about the Italian version of the TV show, "Chi vuol essere milionario,"and how my friends in Tuscany sent me a table game version of it recently, and how the emcee is benevolant, paternal, and sympathetic unlike the slick and sleazy somewhat dangerous one in the movie.

But I I lost my whole post by clicking on another site before saving what I'd written--the kind of mistake I'm not supposed to make any more. But it doesn't matter. Slumdog the film is as you say itself a bit of a rags-to-riches story, like its own narrative--though with a changing Academy that's becoming more common (or at least more possible) nowadays. I haven't read the book by Vikas Swarup that Simon Beaufoy's screenplay is based on, but it seems to me challenging material that Boyle and his whole international team have dealt with boldly. I can appreciate Oscar's comparison with City of God--both turbulent ghetto tales filmed with flashy cinematography. But I think the stories are very different, though I differ anyway from Oscar in quite liking them both. As you say, Slumdog Millionaire is irrational, none of Jamal's choices or his fateful experiences quite make sense (let's ot forget that he's quie smrt, though, a point the story and commentators tend to overlook) but it's somehow all life-affirming.

[Chris Knipp]

An excellent review with excerpts (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/2/03543/48414/971/689582) of the reactions to this film in India as expressed in the local newspapers from Daily Kos, "'Slumdog Millionaire' opens in India, and here is the reaction," by DebtorsPrison, Sun., Feb. 01, 2009, may be helpful to those troubled by issues of realism and context in Slumdog.

[tabuno]

My experience watching this movie was rather unusual for me. I really had problems with this movie two-thirds of the way through and then slowly as the threads began to be woven together, like a puzzle the picture became much clearer and by the end of the movie I understood how powerful the total presentation became. I still have some problems with this movie, the lack of background development and understanding of some of the characters (for example, of the game show host), the rather erratic and choatic and perhaps even over the top beginning of the movie, but even with all that, this movie's backdrop, its coarse and rough jagged poverty among riches, the cultural topsy-turvy from an American eyes perspective, really made the major elements of the movie - the love, the daring, the emotional feeling of risk, opportunity, of loss made for a most exhilirating movie experience. While personally, this movie wasn't my favorite, it made my top ten movie list of the year, and if it did win best picture, I wouldn't be overly thrilled, but I would understand and accept its deservedly earned recognition.

[cinemabon]

I can't recall another import from India that has generated so much excitement (unless you count British productions such as "Gandhi" or "A Passage to India" Neither reflected the Indian point of view, but rather the British version of an Indian point of view.) Hollywood filmed versions of Indian are far worse in showing Indian life. Films such as "Kim" "Lives of a Bengal Lancer" or "Charge of the Light Brigade" or even "Gunga Din" are silly backlot versions of how America views the world from the comfort of our air conditioned theaters. These films were star vehicles meant to promote studio investments rather than portray the actual living conditions or local feelings found within the country.

The spate of Bollywood films over the past twenty years have not helped the image of India either. These soap operas on celluloid are cartoonish at best. Ironically, "Slumdog..." ends with a typical Bollywood ending - having the cast dance together, aka musical-style.

[tabuno]

I wonder how would an Indian movie about India end? Are there not universal human qualities that bring us together? I have this stereotypical image of European movies having pessimistic endings where somebody dies at the end or the lovers are separated forever.

[Chris Knipp]

Though not such a wild success, there have been some quite mainstream Indian movies very well received in this country, like Mira Nair's. Apparently Indians were't too happy about the fame of Satjayit Ray's films. Apu isn't a pretty picture. But if you read those various Indian press discussions of Slumdog in the Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/2/03543/48414) , they've come to terms with the "negative" aspects of India and accepted that it's a good movie. Yes, Slumdog ends with a Bollywoodesque finale. It's a way of saying not to take the whole thing too seriously. Despite the use of authentic locations and extras, it's obviously not at all realistic, it's a fantasy. Movies that depart completely from cultural stereotypes can wind up simply being flavorless. But I would not call Slumdog Millionaire an import from India. A Passage to India is a novel by E.M. Forster, of course, and is meant to reflect multicultural points of view, is about the clash of cultures rather than one culture. The New Yorker critic David Denby, who doesn't like Boyle's film or Fincher's and thinks they're both mindless "fairy tales for adults says, (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/02/09/090209crci_cinema_denby?currentPage=all) most disapprovingly:

As slum children, Jamal and his friends are enchantingly beautiful, but the supersaturated color makes not just the kids but every surface and texture shine glamorously, including the piles of garbage that Jamal and his brother live among. Boyle has created what looks like a jumpy, hyper-edited commercial for poverty—he uses the squalor and violence touristically, as an aspect of the fabulous.[New Yorker, Feb. 9, 2009] I see what he and others are saying. But like many, I find the movie too exhilarating and fun to find time for such disapproval. Denby is astute and writes eloquently, but he's a grumpy guy. Nonetheless I agree with him in general that this was not a great movie year, when you look at the Oscars--and some of the very best ones (Rachel Getting Married, Happy-Go-Lucky, The Class) didn't make the Academy's cut.

[tabuno]

In order to have an authentic culturally appropriate Independent or Foreign film, are some people saying that a film must have a sad ending? Have a "realistic" ending? So is it that only American's on their gameshows that can win a millionaire dollars? So is it that only American's can have good luck and fortune and destiny that turns out right?

I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a reverse prejudice and stereotyping going on here? Perhaps even a bit of elitism from the educated crowd. Don't people with little money, less education get an opportunity to hope, to win sometimes. So is the underdog winner only reserved for American films? Does that mean that only the rich and successful, the upperclass (like India) are restricted to the happiness they deserve by their genetic birth? The ending to "Slumdog Millionaire" needed to be that our hero loses? What are we to expect for an ending? It's easy to criticize? But what alternatives are appropriate for a good movie? Nobody loses?

Do we condemn every one of the other classes to no hope, the futililty of it all?

[Chris Knipp]

True that there may be a prejudice in the sopisticated film buff audience for feel-bad vs. feel-good films. Slumdog is certainly feel-good. David Denby even thinks it's feel-good about abject poverty, which he considers beyond the pale.

The greatest weakness of the storyline (again I'm prompted by Denby, whose condemnation of Slumdog esp. as Oscar material I don't at all agree with though) is Jamal's improbably getting all his Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? answers from among his own key memories. It's a frame-tale trick--and to me, simply an ingenious device, certainly not to be taken too literally, allowing for some virtuoso editing/storytelling. It relates to Shehrezade in the 1001 Nights; he must tell one more story, then one more, then one more, to keep from getting tortured again or kicked off the show. The 1001 Nights is full of wish-fulfilment, extremes of wealth and poverty, absurd coincidences, etc. but it's a folk/literature 'classic,' so it's 'okay,' I guess. Swrup/Beaufoy, the novel/screenplay authors, instead get hammered because they've presented what ipso facto is a 'modern tale.' Urban legand, perhaps, but not 'folklore.'

[tabuno]

I've heard from somewhere that poverty and happiness are not necessarily related. Some of the happiest people or at least cultures/countries have been identified as some of the poorest. India may in fact have been identified as one of those countries if I recall recollected (not entirely sure).

[Chris Knipp]

Then Jamal is cruising toward a world of pain. ('Beware what you wish for'?)

Studies do seem to show that weath does not bring happiness and poor people may be closer to each other and more appreciative of what they have. I don't think the US is representative though. We seem less healthy and less happy and have more poverty as well as more wealth than other rich nations. Studies appear to have shown Americans think they were happier in decades past.
ROME (Reuters Life!) - Americans are less happy today than they were 30 years ago thanks to longer working hours and a deterioration in the quality of their relationships with friends and neighbors, according to an Italian study. (http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSL1550309820070615)(2007)But it all depends on which survey you read. A 2008 one (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080630130129.htm) says we're "pretty darned happy"--no. 16 out of 80-odd.

Indians might be appreciably happier since their country is clearly on the rise economically and so is their standard of living. And then, as they 'arrive,' they'll miss where they used to be.

[oscar jubis]

I stand by my earlier post but I'll refrain from expanding my comments until later. This film is being debated informally among students in my Contemporary Cinema course and only MILK can possibly keep it from winning Best Film at the Oscars. Which means, this is likely to be selected as "Film of the Week" in my class. Consequently, I'll have to watch it again and write an essay about it to be read and debated in class. At that time, I will post it here.

For the time being, I'd like to say that PERSONALLY I don't see how finding a film "too fun and exhilarating" precludes any serious thinking or consideration about its explicit or implicit meanings. On the other hand, I found that Chris Knipp's defense of its narrative structure as an ingenious device used in respectable works of literature (and film I imagine) to be quite pertinent and convincing. Not that it means one has to like it.

[cinemabon]

Some interesting tidbits:

Dev Patel (Jamal) was born and raised in England. He had never been to India until he made the movie, "Slumdog Millionaire." To help him prepare for the role Indian co-director Loveleen Tandan took Dev to the "slums" in Mumbai where they interacted with people there for a week prior to filming. Dev stated that two million people are crammed into an area the size of an airport.

"I had never seen a (Indian) slum in my life," Dev revealed. "They aren't that bad... really."

Stewart: "Oh, come on... the conditions..."

Dev: "No, it wasn't like that. They are peaceful. They live in a community where they all know each other and get along. They kid each other and speak in code. I was amazed."

The main plot according to Dev: "The whole purpose of him (Jamal) being on the gameshow was not to win but to stay on television long enough to be noticed by the girl (whom he spent his life trying to find). It wasn't to win the game."

Revealed last night by the excited eighteen-year-old actor interviewed on The John Stewart Show.

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, Dev Patel is from England. Maybe I should have mentioned that. He is part of the cast of the hip and award-winning UK youth TV series Skins (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0840196/). I didn't know about his reaction to Mombai slums though. He's right about Jamal's purpose in competing on the 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?' show being just to be noticed by Latika. I like Dev Patel's performance a lot. Some of said it's lackluster, but I think he's priceless, especially when he's on the show confronted by the emcee, Prem Kumar (Anil Kapoor) and manages to appear both dazed and cool.

[cinemabon]

Patel said cast members waited until Anil took a break. Then they took turns sitting in his seat and mimicked his heavy Indian accent in say: "Who wants to be a millionaire?" breaking up the cast and crew.