Slumdog Tales

On New Years Day, I saw Slumdog Millionaire. In a packed theatre. We had not gone to see that film, but our first choice nor our second choice was available. Now I am glad we did see it.

Reams have been written on Slumdog. How it exposes the "murky underbelly" ( to quote Superstar Amitabh Bachchan) of Mumbai/Bombay. How it is realistic and authentic. Yet others scream it panders to a Western audience, stereotyping India as poor. Yet it went on to win all the Golden Globes it was nominated for. And will possibly win an Oscar or two as well. Clearly there is something alright about the film.

To begin with, it is a story. Which means that everything- communal riot to superstar autographs to child prostitution to gangsters to call centers can happen to a singe character. Usually the central character of most films have things happen to them. Even falling in love having seen the female lead only 15 minutes on the screen. That is what a story is about. The narrative allows for the audience to build on the "behind the screen action"- otherwise how can a character grow to adulthood in the space of a few hours?

Then comes the portrayal of India. The film is not a documentary. It is a story set in a certain part of India- which, let us face it is sometimes even dirtier and dangerous. The villain is a Fagin like character- maiming young children and making them beg. Unreal? Have people not seen any children begging on the street in any big city- appearing when the traffic lights turn red- kids whom everyone rolls their windows up to?

Child prostitution. Happens. And is very rampant- and not only in Mumbai, but Delhi, Calcutta, and let us not forget several other pit stops on the GT road. And I certainly do not think it is any less horrific than what the film shows.

Call Centers exist. As do superstars whom everyone idolizes. And so do gangsters. Let us not forget the misunderstood bad guy roles a plethora of Bollywood heroes has played.

Oh the Taj Mahal, seen through a pile of trash- have you smelt the Yamuna behind it? It is an open sewer. For that matter so is the Ganga in most cities.

So what is unusual about the film . That it does not make a sanitized poverty, with virtuous people- pretending that the difference between the haves and the have nots is only the lack of material goods. But shows the depth of wretchedness, the vulnerability, the lack of security that poverty brings. and also reveals that goodness in the protagonist flourishes despite that- in contrast to his brother who takes the other route. That it is a story of shining happy hope, lovers united a dream fulfilled( and no the dream is not him winning all that money) and it ends in a feel good way. And so memorable. Even haunts you. Dickensenian, you say? This is not really a Victorian London of long ago, but the "center of the world"( as a character puts it) of today.

And perhaps the very proximity is what evokes the very strong reaction against it. Because it also creates a strong feeling of guilt. Not only the guilt of not doing anything about this gut-wrenching poverty, but the guilt of trying to live a "normal" life, even while knowing that this exists- so close. The guilt of the justification about it- it is too dirty, not our world. The guilt of having looked at people as statistics- 80% below the poverty line- mere numbers not as persons with hopes, dreams, aspirations as flesh and blood as they can be. And the guilt of trying to pretend all is well- a guilt which another prize winner- "The White Tiger" has also evoked.

I would not watch the film again, because it is just too strong and too powerful- not because I did not like it. But, when I read the "stereotype" arguments against the film, I cannot help but laugh at the irony of the heavily accented South Indian, the wanton white woman, the hearty Punjabis, the money minded Gujratis that "mainstream" Indian cinema constantly reiterates and that the common viewer watches, even as they escape from stark reality.