Some thoughts on Slumdog

Last weekend I went to see Slumdog Millionnaire. I am ashamed to say that the on-screen fiction bought tears to my eyes that the real-life poverty I encounter on a daily basis has not - the poverty that I often ignore when it comes clamouring for money to the side of my rickshaw or tugging at my sleeves as I walk down the street. Heck, I have even shoved this poverty away and shouted at it to leave me alone. But watching Slumdog Millionaire in a comfortable air-conditioned cinema, amidst a middle-class audience, munching on popcorn and slurping coca-cola - this is when my compassion and tears choose to put in an appearance?!

I suppose I have to cut myself some slack. Sometimes it is only with the distance afforded by fiction that we can bring ourselves to look at something. Similarly, I am often disproportionately moved by the suffering of the street animals here - perhaps because thinking about the condition of the humans next to them is too unbearable.

The other thing, of course, is that Slumdog was milking its audience for all it was worth; using music, cinematography and narrative to squeeze every last drop of emotion from us. The theory being that the more appalled and shocked you are, the greater the emotional high when it is all nicely resolved at the end.

I saw the film with a few other ex-pats and afterwards we ended up in a heated debate. The distilled version goes something like:

On one side: If a film features poverty like this, does it not have a responsibility to examine the issue more thoroughly? Slumdog blatantly uses poverty to elicit intense emotional responses from its audience, without provoking due reflection on these issues - is this not in some way exploitative? Is it okay for a film featuring poverty, exploitation of vulnerable people, crime, abuse and corruption to have such a feel-good factor?

On the other: Chill dude. Slumdog never sold itself as a serious film about hard-hitting issues; it does what it says on the packet - good entertainment, bit of tugging at the old heart-strings, and at least it has put India and its issues in the limelight. Stop taking it and yourself so seriously.

You can guess which side I came down on. I can see both sides of the argument and don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the film and can appreciate its merits. I don't want to be a kill-joy….BUT, I am not sure that, buried amidst the compelling sound-track, beautiful camera shots and edge-of-your-seat story-line, there isn't a somewhat dubious message. 'Hey, don't worry, poverty is easily remedied - you just have to have a bit of nouse, some balls, put the effort in, and a life of luxury is all yours. And failing that, if the worse comes to the worse, poverty ain't all that bad, there is always that good old street camaraderie to fall back on, getting up to all sorts of shennanigans with your pals and skipping across the tops of moving trains in the radiant Indian sunshine'.

Okay, so perhaps this is a bit harsh; the film does show some pretty gritty and disturbing stuff. There is also an (in my opinion, slightly clichéd) attempt to demonstrate the cost of a 'happy' ending, when the lead character's brother pays the ultimate price for his younger sibling's liberation from a life of poverty and suffering. I also understand that slum-dwellers were actually involved in the film-making and formed a large part of the cast. Although this seemingly commendable approach has been somewhat undermined by the recent controversy over the (under) payments made to Slumdog's child actors.

I suppose for me it just comes down to this: will the film change anything? Its makers will make a hefty profit, a large chunk of which results directly from the film's portrayal of some of India's worse social problems. But as the music fades on the final scene - an energetic bolly-wood style dance on a railway platform - and the audience leaves the cinema humming the sound-track and basking in the feel-good factor, will that make a difference to the people for whom this fiction is a reality?

….and yes, I realise that a load of ex-pats pontificating about poverty, whilst knocking back beer served by local Indian staff whose weekly wages were probably less than the bar bill came to, doesn't change things either; so I guess I'll climb down from my soap-box now.

I am pleased that a film about India has made such a splash in the UK. I can also verify that its depiction of India is pretty authentic (according to my experience of the country). I suppose some might argue that by instigating debate and discussion like this, the film is giving prominence to these issues and could therefore help bring about change....?

I wonder what India's 61.8 million real-life 'slum dogs' would say about that.