The Oscar buzz has already started and it’s only been one day since “Slumdog Millionaire” was released. So far, the new offering from British director Danny Boyle (of Trainspotting fame) has been referred to by The New York Times as a film that “could be the breakthrough work that leads the world to focus on the genre …of Parallel Cinema, a more personal narrative type of film like Mira Nair’s art house hit “Monsoon Wedding.” 
And, Roger Ebert predicts the film will win an Best Picture Oscar nomination, calling it “a breathless, exciting story, heartbreaking and exhilarating at the same time [whose] universal appeal will present the real India to millions of moviegoers for the first time.”
When you read gushing reviews like Ebert’s, you can’t help but walk into the movie hall with high expectations, wondering whether a film can really live up to all the hype. The answer is: Yes.
“Slumdog Millionaire” is being billed as a film about “first love, determination, and realizing your destiny.” Not quite the pitch that you’d expect from a mainstream film about a kid from an Indian slum. This is a film that will surprise viewers who think they’re going in to watch a movie about India’s tremendous poverty and rich-poor gap. It switches swiftly between scenes that take you into an India that is at once poor and wealthy, moral and crime-ridden, developed and undeveloped, hopeful and disappointing. And, though the story is laced with a trace of Bollywood romance, goondas, and some implausability, it is for the most part, as Roger Ebert says, “real.” Add to that a soundtrack by A.R. Rahman and Danny Boyle’s directorial talent for bringing India’s sensory overload and motion to life without the typical exoticism or “oh those poor things” mentality and you have a winner.
More of my review below the fold. The premise of “Slumdog Millionaire” is the same as that of Vikas Swarup’s 2005 novel Q&A where Jamal Malik (admirably played by British-born Dev Patel), an 18 year old from the slums (in Swarup’s book, it’s Dharavi) gets a spot on India’s version of the international hit show, “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” (That would be “Kaun Banega Crorepati?” which became a national phenomenon in India in 2000 and was hosted by Bollywood bigtimer Amitabh Bachchan.)
In Boyle’s onscreen version, the host of the show is Prem Kumar, a Bollywood star (played by Anil Kapoor) who also rose through the film industry from the slums. Prem Kumar does not find it plausible that Jamal, a poor “chaiwalla” who works at a call center, could actually know the answers to questions like “Who is the US president on a $100 bill?” or “What does the Hindu god Ram always hold in his right hand?” or “Who invented the first revolver?” and has him arrested after he makes it to the Rs. 10 million marker.
I have been holding on to Swarup’s novel “Q&A” since this summer and picked it up after watching the movie to see how the two compare [read Amardeep’s review of the book here.]
I usually don’t like to say that a film version has improved on a a book, but in this case I have to admit it’s true. The screenplay of “Slumdog Millionaire,” adapted by Simon Beaufoy (Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, The Full Monty) takes Swarup’s intriguing premise and brings it to life in a plot that is less complicated, which is a good thing for the big screen. In Swarup’s novel, Jamal is Ram Mohammad Thomas, an orphan who is raised in Delhi by an English priest. I’m glad that the film starts and ends in Mumbai, for it allows viewers to witness the transformation of “Bombay to Mumbai” over the past decade and a half. 
In Swarup’s novel, the protagonist’s questioner is a female attorney, Smita Shah, and the questioning takes place in the comfort of her home.
“Look, Ram, don’t get agitated. I meant no offence. I really want to help you. But if you didn’t cheat, I must know how you knew.” “I cannot explain.” “Why?” “Do you notice when you breathe? No. You simply know that you are breathing. I did not go to school. I did not read books. But, I tell you, I know those answers.” “So do I need to know about your entire life to understand the genesis of your answers?” “Perhaps.”
The dialogue in “Slumdog Millionaire” is snappier, more natural. The movie opens in a prison cell where Jamal is being prodded, pushed, and tortured to reveal how he “cheated” on the game show. When even electric rods do nothing to get him talking, the police inspector (played by Irfan Khan who never ceases to impress me) takes him into his office, pops in a DVD of the gameshow, and begins to grill him on how he came up with his answers.
As Jamal tries to explain, his life story unfolds in a series of flashbacks. I don’t want to give the surprise away, so I won’t tell you more about this story, but suffice it to say that you will meet a street-smart, sensitive, and intelligent protagonist who is capable of diving into a pond of feces to meet his favorite Bollywood star (a scene that will stay with you for a long, long time) and savvy enough to survive as an orphan on the tough streets of Bombay. This is a story of sibling rivalry, but it is also a story of love that takes you into crime dens, call centers, entertainment sets, and tourist traps. And, it has a funny side. All this makes for fascinating viewing, and during the two-hour run, I rarely lost interest.
But, there was one question that kept popping up in my mind: “How is it that Jamal speaks such good English?” (The first half of the film alternates between Hindi and English and the second-half is mostly English). So far I haven’t read any reviews that question how it is that an uneducated boy who has spent most of his life on the streets can speak English in an Anglo-Indian accent, similar to grads of The Doon School. Maybe it doesn’t matter and it’s a matter of suspending disbelief. After all, if this was to be a commercial film, language was likely a consideration. And, yet, I keep being reminded of “City of God” where the language of choice was Portugese. I wonder whether sticking with Hindi would have added a layer of authenticity to the film?
In Swarup’s book, I did find an answer to why his main character speaks English:
Father Timothy was from the north of England, a place called York, but had been settled in India for very many years. It was thanks to him that I learnt to read and speak the Queen’s English. He taught me Mother Goose Tales and nursery rhymes. …
So, here’s my advice: Go see “Slumdog Millionaire” as soon as it comes to your city (it’s being released on a staggered schedule) and pretend that a scene that explains how Jamal learned the Queen’s English was cut for a very good reason. You’ll enjoy it much more that way.
Update: Thanks to “inothernews” for the link to the NPR story. I learned that the original screenplay was all in English, so that Boyle and team could get funding, but when they arrived in Mumbai and started shooting, they were convinced by the Indian co-director Loveleen Tandan that the film wouldn’t work unless they added Hindi. Apparently that caused a bit of a problem with his French and English backers.]
There are a couple of free screenings coming up: New York – 11/18 Los Angeles – 11/14 and 11/15 San Francisco – 11/25
And, here’s a trailer for your viewing pleasure.
i think freida pinto is absolutely gorgeous and the main lead, dev, comes across as such a sweet guy in interviews. hope the film does well.
I heard Danny Boyle on Fresh Air last night and the interview just grated on my nerves. I’m usually slightly sensitive to “exotification” but also give some room for just a different experience, and he just came across as condescending and unaware of the real slum situation. At least to me.
Danny Boyle, From ‘Trainspotting’ to ‘Slumdog’
I’m going to see this tomorrow and looking forward to it having read the great reviews.
I hope that this does well in India and that Bollywood/regional film industries start pushing the boundaries with the public
Great review by Sandya. Thanks. I saw the movie last night after having read the book 3 weeks ago. It is not oscar worthy. As Sandya corrctly points out, the movie is certainly more entertaining than the book on which it was based. Mr. Patel looks goofy but he did a fine job. Ms. Pinto looked smoking but had only a few scenes. Unique soundtrack. Effective and innovative screenplay. Dark and lovely cinematography.
Now what was entertaining was what happened at the bar I went to after the movie. thats a story to be told in person…
anyone know when’s it coming to india? imdb gives only europe and US dates (as usual). guess i’ll have to wait for the bootleg dvd…
This was a great movie. I almost felt like I was reading the book “Maximum City” while watching it. Some of the images in the movie seem to come straight from that book.
This movie is so getting nominated for Best Picture. The reception has been tremendous so far, both by the critics and by the film festival crowd. All it needs to do is break through to general audiences in America, and non-Anglo films have been known to do so on ocassion. I have faith this is going to happen. It’s not going to win Best Picture (and it may not deserve to win), but a nomination is victory enough. Although a Best Score Oscar would thrill me to no end.
Sandhya, I didn’t quite love it as much as you or Ebert did. Some of the episodes involving the gang felt somewhat routine, there were moments when the movie’s themes were a little too explicitly pointed out to the audience, and I wish the movie was as profound as it was sweeping but it’s not quite that. But it is a tremendously stirring, moving, exciting film, entertaining in that old-fashioned movie way without feeling old-fashioned at all, and it’s a magnificent evocation of present-day India as seen through the eyes of Boyle. We can complain about whether its fully accurate or not – and we should – but as it is, his portrait of Mumbai makes it very much a character all its own in Slumdog Millionaire.
Finally, our “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” moment. It took a long time coming.
Hardly, considering the movie is not directed or produced by an Indian.
It’s more of an “Enter the Dragon” type of moment; the first film about South Asia by a Western director since Gandhi that has a shot at mainstream success.
And it took an English man to make it! That says so much for ‘Bollywood’. That more original and provoking and brilliant cinematic art cannot be made of the society that India is today by the desi film industry is amazing, and a little pathetic.
To be fair, it is co-directed by an Indian, Loveleen Tandon, and adapted from a novel by Vikas Swarup. It just took Danny Boyle, an outsider to the city, to imagine it.
10 · SpottieOttieDopaliscious said
Yeah, but how many members of the general audience are going to realise that as they watch the movie unfold on the screen?
I know this is a very imperfect analogy, but Ang Lee was an American citizen for twenty years by the time he made Crouching Tiger. And he was already an established figure in the American film industry.
Actually Tandon did get billed pretty high up in the film, early on and I did notice, but maybe because I am brown. The mainstream media is certainly not giving her name much play.
Yes, but it’s not exactly Loveleen Tandon’s name being used to promote the film is it?
Either way I’m indifferent. Hollywood has made movies set in other countries for decades and they can be quite amazing or completely awful. But I wouldn’t try and sell this as some massive leap forward for the Indian film industry, when it’s pretty clearly a American/British production.
13 · alc said
It’s more of our “City of God” moment. I haven’t seen it, but what I meant to say in my earlier comment is that midway between the please hange me depressingness of Ray movies/mallu cinema realite and pure escapism, I think this movie will show that you can find humor, love etc. in a more typical setting. No need for Swiss Alps etc.
It’s a movie set in India. With Indian actors. And Indian musicians (AR Rahman) scoring it. About modern India.
It’s about what can be fashioned out of the raw material of life in modern India, and how that can feed into cinematic vision. Something different and fresh and original in style, direction and subject matter. For that reason I’ll be glad if it succeeds.
I saw this movie MIAAC film festival in New York. The first 10 minutes were fantastic! It won’t be an exaggeration if I say that it was work of a genius. I told myself that this is going to be a great, Salaam Bombay type of, film. The filmmaker seemed to completely understand the spirit of Mumbai and Mumbaites.
But the next hour and twenty minutes of the film were a disaster. Every clichéd and stereotype imaginable about India, Indian class struggle, Indian religious struggle was reinforced in the film in an even more exaggerated form. Every character in the film was either good or evil, black or white. Every system was either fair or unfair. There was no room for nuances and subtleties. The story telling was too much on the surface. For e.g. a scene from ’92 riots, where a bunch of Hindu fanatics were attacking Muslims in their slums. That scene was a biggest turn off for me. I was in fact offended by the insensitivity and insensibility of the filmmaker who presented such a big historical tragedy in simplistic and stereotypical way. I have lived through those riots and I know exactly how it feels. It for sure wasn’t as simplistic.
And the scene where the two brothers were pushed out of the train because they were stealing bread. Common! Give me a break! I have never seen such things happen in India in my entire lifetime. And I’ve lived in India for most of my life.
Also the kind Caucasian couple who graciously gives $100 to Jamal. I’ve never seen such kind tourists in India ever. I’ve seen Western tourists sometimes haggle for 10 cents. Forget India I’ve never seen such a gracious Caucasian exhibiting such kindness even in New York City.
And besides that Caucasian couple nobody from the higher economic strata of the society was kind and generous. Everyone was brutal, cruel, conniving…as if there were only two types of people in Mumbai.
This was yet another stereotypical Western view of a “third world country” gone wrong. I think this film is made purely for the Western audience, so that they feel good about themselves. The film does nothing else but reinforces the stereotypes. And after looking at all these favorable reviews I feel that there is a great divide between the way the West sees the world (or wants to see the world) and the way the world really is. One of the roles of media, in my opinion, is to challenge these stereotypes, whereas this film, to become popular, simply reinforces them. The film in my opinion is shallow, lame and absolutely insensible.
I gave it a generous four stars because I loved the cinematography and the performances. But I wish I could give negative points for storytelling.
I loved this movie and applaud Danny Boyle for wading into Dharavi to tell this difficult story. The early part of the movie is not easy and captures some of what many of us have only seen in flashes while stuck in traffic from Mumbai airport to Marine Drive. The emotional beats are not overplayed even though the contradiction of all things in India is visceral in the film’s first 30-45 minutes. The “Bollywood beats” that follow in the second half of the film are much lighter, but they still capture something special. As an Indian, I have to say that I felt proud watching this film and I didn’t even mind when the two old white women sitting next to me seemed to derive pride from sitting beside me because they could claim – after watching such a powerful film – that they did so right alongside a real live Indian!
Hemal, could you at least have waited until the film had been out for a month or so before giving away all the scenes to the many people who haven’t seen it yet?
Or at least a Spoiler warning?
That’s been well-established online etiquette for years.
On a side note. “Loveleen” for a name couldnt get any cornier. God I would hate introducing my self to people.
With a name like that you better be Loveleen and not some samosa snorting hathi. That puts alot of pressure on a person.
Continuing with the series of insightful movie milestone analogies, I ask: can this movie do for Dharavi what Lion King did for Africa?
Also, alc, Kevin Spacey was Keyser Soze. And, no, Bogart doesn’t get on the plane with Bergman at the end of Casablanca.
I read this book, almost 3 years back, after reading about it in Rediff. I was fascinated by the idea of writing a story based on a quiz show (especially in today’s time, when there is a quiz / reality TV show in almost every channel). I really do hope this movie does well in India, so that the Indian actors / directors recognize the importance of good writers and make film about a range of issues / subjects than what they do now. Looking forward to watching this movie in theatre or on DVD.
20 · alc said
There are spoilers in the review. You don’t seem to be having any problems with that.
24 · hemal said
Sorry, there really aren’t.
All that’s given away is the basic plot setup. Nothing is given away that isn’t already generally known or hasn’t already been reported on in the entertainment media. But you’re giving away too many specifics. Please be more courteous to the Slumdog virgins.
Spoiler or not, I appreciate Hemal’s comment. I was looking for a review from an Indian’s point of view and how this movie has treated stereotypes.
I am sorry Alc I’ll be careful next time.
I’m usually hyper sensitive to stereotyping and exoticizing, and was pleasantly surprised that this was not an issue for me in this movie, even though it was made by a “Western” director. I think that Boyle and Tandon partnered together nicely to create a film that looks at India through a pretty unbiased lens. Actually, Hemal there were some likable and kind people in the movie who weren’t Western: the police inspector, for one, and I think the scene where the tourists give him $100 wasn’t necessarily meant to show their “kindess” as much as it was meant to poke fun at the gullibility of tourists. My additional two cents.
I never understood the idea that “I never saw that in India/wherever” so therefore the film is less credible. I never myself saw a riot in either Bombay or Los Angeles, but both cities have seen riots, with news footage to back it up. I have not seen anyone thrown from a train in India – does that mean it never happens, or that a writer sitting at a computer cannot imagine it happen?
Probably because they don’t want to bother figuring out how to pronounce her name. When “Bend It Like Beckham” was getting premiered on basic cable (Is Channel 11 basic? I don’t know) – it was promoted in the commercials as starring “Keira Knightley” and whatever the real name of the guy who plays the soccer coach is. Parminder Nagra’s name literally was not even mentioned. I wanted to write a letter, but it was the middle of the night and I didn’t really know who to write to at the time. It didn’t make sense to me to not mention the star of the movie – the person that the movie literally revolves around. :: shrug ::
He works at a call center, which would explain the English. Perhaps the question is how he was able to get a job at a call center?
Nevermind. As you can tell, I hadn’t seen the movie. He’s just serving tea not actually telemarketing.
He’s actually the guy who hands out tea at the call center, not one of the agents. But, yes, maybe he sat in on the language training classes and picked up his angrezi along the way 🙂
horrible things do happen in india unfortunately so one shouldn’t be suprised to see such things in the movies. for example, there have been incidences of acid being thrown on girls faces on the mumbai trains and elsewhere in public places. and then there are the abortions of female feuteses. there was one doctor who used to tell his patients they were going to have a girl child even when the baby was male, because then they’d come for an abortion and he’d get money for it. but horrible things happen everywhere. here in england the big news story is of a woman who kidnapped and tied up her own daughter so that she could sell her story and get lots of money.
29 · KXB said
Let me explain you. I’ve lived through Mumbai riots and I’ve extensively worked with people in slums during the riots. The slums in Mumbai were not segregated before ’92. Hindus and Muslims both lived next door to each other. There were damages on both sides. So when I saw an image of a bunch of Hindu fanatics running to kill people rampantly in broad daylight, I was very very put off. At that moment the film and filmmaker ceased to be credible for me. Because it was never so straight forward. Yes there were deaths, but unlike Gujarath riots, these riots were not so black and white and they were not directed towards a specific community. There is a reason why in the original novel the protagonist was called Ram Mohammad. I am very sensitive to these topics. They are like racism in India and such baseless stereotypes are not acceptable to me. Also the scene where the two policemen are interrogating Jamal – Mumbai police does not use such extreme interrogation techniques (like use of electrodes) unless they are interrogating TADA cases. I understand that it was meant to be a joke, but the Western audience does not know that. They would think that’s how Mumbai police treats every criminal (big or small).
What this film does is it portrays Mumbai (or perhaps India) as a horrific, lawless city where there all the rich and the middle class are very mean people, and the all the poor are helpless. Whereas Mumbai is cosmopolitan, fairly liberal and fairly safe. It is safe for a woman to travel at 2:30 in the night alone. Ofcourse there are parts of Mumbai that are not safe. But tell me one city that’s perfect? My frustration with the Western media is that it chooses to exaggerate and rub in the same stereotypes over and over again. I am just tired of seeing same types of movies (for e.g. Born into Brothels) with paternalistic whites romanticizing misery in the “third world”.
If you want to see a real film on the slum culture in Mumbai watch Salaam Bombay. I’ve seen Salaam Bombay eight times and I bond so well with the characters and the circumstances they are in. Whereas in Slumdog, I did not bond with a single character or circumstance. I went for the screening with a couple of my friends from Mumbai and they felt the same. We asked the director in the Q & A afterwards and he was very dismissive and infact condescending, like he doesn’t care. Obviously he doesn’t care, because we are not his market. He is pandering to the Western psyche. That’s really my frustration.
Stereotype – Shmereotype.
It’s a fantastic movie. Based on a novel by an Indian writer. Made with love and compassion for the maximum city. Danny Boyle is one of the most versatile and exciting directors of the last 15 years. This is a wonderful, wonderful movie. Go and watch it, everybody, run to the cinema and enjoy yourself.
It’s rated R so I dont know if I should take my parents who are visiting me in the US. I know they are grown up and all but what is exactly ‘R’ about the movie? Language? nudity?
bablu, if your parents are visiting from India and watch recent Indian/Bollywood films with any fighting scenes I would imagine they will find the language and violence in this movie tame in comparison. There is no nudity that I can recall, and maybe profanity is used a couple of times.
I’m sorry but this sentence is hilarious.
Delhi in the 70s was full of Loveleenas, Sweetikas, Cuticas etc… The fashion might have changed now but these were standard Punjabi names then.
going to tonite to watch….yay!
actually, all those methods of torture are from the novel itself.
37 · bablu said
R was given for the scene of torture, little bit of language, and touchy subjects like child prostitution. You see more violence in a Indian movie than this one. Your parents will be fine.
Trainspotting was brill, so I might watch this one as well.
Hemalji,
Your comments are very well put. Can’t agree with you more. Most Western people and their South Asian apologists see only the “Ugly” side of India, never the caring, beautiful or just. Perhaps this is the fault of our society that only worships money and status (i.e. the handmaiden of varna–caste). This film is definitley another in a long line of “curry munching, cow-worshipping, filthy living conditions, religious intolerance and so on and so forth movies. And before you ask, yes I’ve seen it. Kudos on the sound track, Mr. Rahman.
You’ll get a quote like the following from say a pink ape named Bob:
“Hey Gunga-Din, I just saw a great talkie about “your” people. Wow are you guys really that backwards.”
& you’ll respond:
“No not really you pink ape looking inbred”.
So its never gonna change until people open their eyes and see that everyone person is really shades of gray. The movie is strictly for Western Audience and ABCDs who can’t wait to get a bleach injection like wacko jacko.
Over and out.
Desi_Like_You, you not only managed to be wrong about the movie, you also managed to inject a large dose of racism into your little review. Well done.
Everyone, let me reiterate what a pleasent entertainment this movie, based on the novel by Indian writer Vikas Swarup, really is, and let me urge you again to watch this highly engaging, original, compassionate movie that has a heart as big as an ocean. Don’t miss it guys.
42 · sandhya said
That still doesn’t justify it being in the film. If you want to show “real India” show it the way it really is. Why do you wanna add your own Western prejudice masala to it. To add more drama perhaps. For those of you who are against masala bollywood films – this is the worst masala film ever and it is really done very distastefully.
Hemal
And there’s no police brutality in India? That’s the way it really is? Or only a certain kind of police brutality, for terrorists, right?
It’s a wonderful movie. One of the best movies to be made in India in the last few years. Everyone should watch it.
If all you know of Indian culture is what you see in the movies and TV you will assume we are all poor, dirt-farming, caste oppressing, church burning, unwashed, weirdos.
But that’s just how TV works. If all you know of American culture is the movies and TV you will assume we all live in million dollar homes and spend all our time either blowing things up, have sex with multiple random parters on a regular basis, spend all of our time smoking weed, or running some sort of organized crime syndicate.
You will find that in most movies show the world people live in as being less than totally happy-go-lucky all the time. That’s because a happy-go-lucky world doesn’t really have any of the conflict necessary for an interesting story. Sit back and enjoy the show. If someone is really stupid enough to think that all of India is like that then you get to make fun of them for being idiots which gives you a source of even more entertainment. Win/win.
47 · Hemal said
Indian cops really do kick and punch as SOP. I have friends who were punched before any questions were asked just to set the tone and this was minor stuff (e.g. alcohol, curfews). My friends did not even think it noteworthy until they came to the US because that is what cops do. And these were middle class kids so I shudder to think what’s meted out to street kids. The electrodes may not be accurate but the underlying point that policing in India is hands on is very true.
About how authors & directors are jumping over each other to portray Hindus as the perpetrators in all communal conflict…there’s truth to that. Mr. & Mrs. Iyer, start out being a good movie addressing a real issue and then turns into anti-Hindu hate propaganda. They place a Jewish passenger in the mix to communicate to a foreign audience that we are a bunch Nazis. Never mind that Jewish people have never known anti-Semitism living among Hindus. This puts me in a difficult spot. I hate how the Left is dismissive of Hindu grievances but there is no doubt that the prescriptions of the Hindu far right in Mumbai are rather horrific. And unlike the case of a Hindu slum dweller there are very few police who are inclined to save you or help you out afterwards. There are quite a few tapes of cops on radios during those riots diverting resources away from Muslim neighborhoods. So I think it is fair to use the ’92 riots to show how two brothers experiencing an actual historical event might take two separate trajectories