Analyzing Slumdog Millionaire

February 25, 2009 by Marc Lamont Hill

Despite all the hype, “Slumdog” delivers a patronizing and ultimately sham statement on social justice.

slumdog

“Slumdog Millionaire”: A Hollow Message of Social Justice

By Mitu Sengupta

Danny Boyle’s “Slumdog Millionaire”, perhaps one of the most celebrated films in recent times, tells the rags-to-rajah story of a love-struck Indian boy, Jamal, who, with a little help from “destiny,” triumphs over his wretched beginnings in Mumbai’s squalid slums. Riding on a wave of rave reviews, “Slumdog” has now won Hollywood’s highest tribute, the Academy Award for Best Picture, along with seven more Oscars, including one for Best Director.

These honors will probably add some $100 million to “Slumdog’s” box-office takings, as Oscar wins usually do. They will also further enhance the film’s fast-growing reputation as an authentic representation of the lives of India’s urban poor. So far, most of the awards collected by the film have been accepted in the name of “the children,” suggesting that its own cast and crew regard it (and have relentlessly promoted it) not as a cinematically spectacular, musically rich and entertaining work of fiction, which it is, but as a powerful tool of advocacy. Nothing could be more worrying, as “Slumdog”, despite all the hype to the contrary, delivers a deeply disempowering narrative about the poor that thoroughly undermines, if not totally negates, its seeming message of social justice.

“Slumdog” has angered many Indians because it tarnishes their perception of their country as a rising economic power and a beacon of democracy. India’s English-language papers, read mainly by its middle classes, have carried many bristling reviews of the film that convey an acute sense of wounded national pride. While understandable, the sentiment is not defensible. Though at times embarrassingly contrived, most of the film’s heartrending scenarios are inspired by a sad, but well-documented reality.

Corruption is certainly rampant among the police, and many will gladly use torture, though none is probably dim enough to target an articulate, English-speaking man who is already a rising media phenomenon. Beggar-makers do round-up abandoned children and mutilate them in order to make them more sympathetic, though it is highly improbable that any such child will ever chance upon a $100 bill, much less be capable of identifying it by touch and scent alone.

For the rest of the story, click here.

Categories: MLH
|

11 Comments

1. Matt wrote:

having seen the film sunday morning before the oscars, and having watched the oscars, I disagree with the central posit of this article that the films’ intention was that of social justice. Its not. There is no structural change that happens in the film. Its a love story. And a GREAT love story. And the conflict is rooted in the “well-documented realities” of the slums of Mumbai.

****SPOILER ALERT*****

he does not care whether he gets the last question right or wrong. whether he leaves a millionaire or with nothing. Because he found her. its a love story. and a touching one that is masterfully filmed, edited, and put together.

loooooved it. but dont 1) make it more than it is, and then 2) rail it for not being that…

February 25, 2009 @ 12:16 pm

2. DCI74 wrote:

Interesting article. I haven’t seen the movie and I’m not sure after reading this if I’m less or more inclined to see it.

February 25, 2009 @ 2:41 pm

3. Byron wrote:

Watch ‘Slumdog’ with an open mind, with no expectations. Leave the hype and criticism behind and you will be moved beyond any film in recent history. The movie has changed my life for the better and I am sure you will gain some fresh perspective on what is really important in life as well.

February 25, 2009 @ 9:51 pm

4. zak wrote:

Still, a good movie. I enjoyed it. I watched the Wrestler after that…damn near cried…twice.

February 26, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

5. DCI74 wrote:

For real zak, The Wrestler was that good? I haven’t seen any of the Oscar flicks that received major buzz.

February 26, 2009 @ 3:51 pm

6. zak wrote:

I like sad characters and good writing, and Mickey Rourke does a pretty good job. I’m a weeping vagina when it comes to shit like that. But it’s still a good flick.

February 26, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

7. zak wrote:

He does a good job in the lead role…he does no writing, I mean.

February 26, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

8. Miriam wrote:

the movie epitomizes everything that love and knowledge is: our experience, even if it is not understood (known). This is the best movie I have seen in my life (that’s to say the least) and needs to be shown in education classes for various reasons

This review is completely off and it is horrible. this movie is not a flick…it is a documentary about reality (personal, experienced, and only coincidentally shared [both in the script and in the theater]) disguised in philosophical cinematography. and it certainly does not ask you to understand, in fact it questions the way the west understands knowledge.

March 1, 2009 @ 2:16 am

9. Miriam wrote:

how do you feel it delivers a sham statement on social justice? curious.

March 1, 2009 @ 2:23 am

10. wouldn't you like to know? wrote:

when jamal and salim reunited as young men, they were in an abandoned building looking down at their old slum. Mumbai, then, in the movie, were filled with high-rises and commercial businesses. so i think the director did capture how the slum has evolved. really, i think Boyle was trying to capture another side of the slum. the side that no one really wants to speak about. just like here in the ghetto, you have lots of grass-root movements, new housing, technologies, and blah blah blah, but we still have a lot of injustice, corruption, thieves, and murderers that run a muck. every ghetto has their dirty little secrets, and i think Boyle just wanted to put a telescope on Mumbai’s.

As far as the blind-child recognizing a 100 dollar bill by just touch and smell alone, that statement is false. i don’t know what movie Sengupta saw, but in the one i saw, the child took the money felt it, smelt it, then he asked jamal what kind of bill was it. jamal told him a $100 dollar bill, the boy then told him not to lie, and also to describe the picture on the bill. after jamal swore he wasn’t lying, and described the pic, that’s when the boy said “Benjamin Franklin”…

Personally, i absolutely loved the film. it truly resonated with me. why is it that a dewy complected, uneducated kid, from the slum can’t be articulate or intelligent??? to me, that was the basic message of this film. i loved how they twisted it, and turned it into a love story….i found it to be very touching and beautiful, and yes, i would see it again.

in my opinion, it deserved all the “hype”…

Doc, did you see the movie?? and if so, what’s YOUR opinion on it??

March 1, 2009 @ 1:03 pm

11. Miss Martin wrote:

regardless, it was still an awesome movie with a very sweet love story imbedded in it.

March 1, 2009 @ 3:36 pm

Now Reading

Beats, Rhymes, and Classroom Life: Hip-Hop Pedagogy and the Politics of Identity by Marc Lamont Hill
Buy Now
Born to Use Mics: Reading Nas's Illmatic by Michael Eric Dyson and Sohail Daulatzai
Buy Now
View More