Track Mangoes

In it's attempt to portray the "real" India "Slumdog Millionaire" transferred the virgin/whore syndrome to the third world. You can either be a corrupted fat cat or a virtuous slumdog. For Director Danny Boyle India is the same ole rollicking third world it always has been. The colonial gaze hasn't changed much. You can look at India as something which must be conquered (which nobody will admit to), something which must be studied (exotic/scientific subject-object), or something which must be helped (missionary). Either way we as consumers in the wast cannot look to India as Indians, but only as westerners. The fact plauges us. We wish we could change it, but we can't. Some people try. Boyle is one of them. I won't touch on the fact that Boyle is ENGLISH, an irony I find funnier than Winston Churchill's drinking problem, but I will say that "Slumdog Millionaire" is just about as good as Boyle's other boxoffice hit: "28 Days Later." Sidenote: Zombies don't run, they meander at a droaning pace.

As for the (vapid) charachters, ask yourself which one you relate to the most. You probably don't relate to any of the evil doers, so that leaves, of all the substantial characters, lastnameless Latika, Jamal Malik, and Salim. Maybe you relate to Latika because she is taken advantage of, pushed into a situation from which she cannot pull herself. However, she, like Salim time and again, makes the moralistic mistake of turning her back on Jamal in his greatest time of need. We forgive her for it thugh, because in the end she provides the deus ex machina. But don't forget that Jamal's stubborn adoration of her was the only thing holding them together. (And what drove that? Perhaps the looming fact that she would put out for everyone but Jamal.) As said, Salim does the same. You can't relate to him though because he, unlike Latika, is the matyr figure, the reformer, and, if you're reading this, you're not a matyr, so Salim's off limits. Additonally, what would make him suddenly change his mind? His brother's unique circumstances? You would think life or death matters would have been unique enough for Salim to reform, but, unfortuneately they're not. Years of greed suddenly melt away. Finally, you can't relate to Jamal. Why? Two words: "LATIKA! LATIKAAA!" Are you really so one dimentional, Jamal Malik? No one can stay in love that long. And God help you if you can.

So that leaves the minor characters, the only ones of which that have any sort of depth/backstory are the Blinded Bard or the Cheif of Police and MAYBE Jamal's mother, though she is really a vicitim of historical circumstance (read: Hindu Muslim violence). So are you the Blind Kid or the Chief?

Personally, I relate to the cheif of police. He is presented with Jamal, a kid whom he has been told is a liar and theif, and yet he seems to be truthful and quite astute. The Cheif interrogates Jamal only to find that he cannot tell whether or not Jamal is telling the truth, or he is just retarded, or stubborn, or what? The cheif's plight is never resolved. We never know what action he takes agaisnt/for Jamal, we only see his confusion. It's not a moral confusion. It's not an existential confusion. It's simple confusion. "What am I going to do with this kid?" And that confusion is never resolved.

I felt that way watching "Slumdog Millionaire." Confused. "Why am I sitting here watching this 'realistic' depiction of India?" Yes, okay, India is the third world. Yes, okay, there was tension between Hindu's and Muslims. Yes, okay, there is a lot of corruption and organized crime due to a faulty system of Law. Does that mean that I should accept Boyle's depiction as the real thing?

And Why is HOW Jamal knows the answer to each question essential to the plot? The answer is that it's not. "Slumdog Millionaire" is not, contrary to what I've heard most people say, about Jamal winning a million dollars. The movie is a love story and HOW he wins a million dollars is irrelevant to the storyline between him and Latika, which really only develops towards the end of the movie. The constant back and forth in time is, rather, a marketing ploy. The story itself is boring, we've heard the quest for love thing before. So they juice it up with psuedo-documentary.
What bother's me about this movie is that it has little focus. The point of A Story is to recount the life changing expereince of a single induvidual. "Slumdog Millionaire" Attmepts that, but, because it is a Bad Story about one quest to get his girl, the plot needed to be juiced up with sociological voyeruism.

When people leave the theater after seeing this movie they SHOULD say, "ooo that was a great story, damn, he Really loved Latika!" but more often than not, and especially for those people who have never been to India, people end up saying, "Oh my Gosh, I feel like I know the country so much better now. And when Jamal jumped in the poop, oooooo, and Did you see how they blinded that kid. THAT REALLY HAPPENS? DID YOU THAT? IKNEWTHATBECAUSEIREADITINABOOKABOUTINDIA!" And then the well meaning consumers of high brow media get in their Honda's and drive home.

"Slumdog Millionaire" is a joke. It's not a movie. A movie has a plot. It's not a documentary. A documentary is slice of truth removed from context. A documentary avows no claim to reality as it avows no claim to fiction. Documentary is a genre unto its own. Rather than being a story or a documentary "Slumdog Millionaire" is a fictional portrayal of a real place, time, and culture. Ergo it's Propaganda.

Instead of worrying about what is or what isn't the Real India we should maintain a respectful distance or, like Mother Tersea, get our hands dirty. And since not many of us are willing to be so Saintly I suggest we stick to exotifying our own culture. Maybe Boyle should stick to Zombie movies. Hmm... Though I'm also sensing a sequel, something even scarrier than a Zombie flick. I'll call it "28 Days of Colonial Bullshit."