The Slumdogs Blog

It started with Alice Miles in the London Times describing the film as "poverty porn". Then Time Magazine claimed the film was "no hit" in India and finally Slate Magazine slated the film as well, scoffing at Director Boyle's "fairytale vision of squalid poverty," and writing that Boyle is guilty of "aestheticizing poverty." His attack is formal ("dissonant to the point of incoherence" is one of his catchy phrases) as well as a summation of other people's criticisms: the Indians don't like it as it does not portray the "real" India, ignores the middle-classes, it's not as good as Luis Bunuel (but then who is and isn't that a favourite criticism? Take a film nobody watches except for cineastes and accuse nothing else of matching it.)

Well, you can't have it both ways. Slumdog Millionaire is not a documentary although it takes as its subject matter themes that seem weighty. It is not based on fact although the incidents such as the religious riots are based on actual events. As a film it attempts to meld two narratives together - a social and romantic narrative to create a filmic experience that audiences can respond to. To accuse a film of "aestheticising poverty" is redundant: all films aestheticise their subject matter. It does not really deal with poverty so much as the escape from poverty. 

Importantly, the film is creating discourse and joins a body of films about India made by western writers and directors. This whole corpus romanticises and aestheticises India, but then so do Bollywood films. The few that don't such as the work of Ray create revulsion and incidents.

Go and see it. Decide for yourself.

see LA Times article

Slate Magazine