WP3 — Slumdog Millionaire
How do the cultural values embedded in this object help it translate well (or not) to your home country? What does this say about the globalization of culture?
A habitat to over a billion people, India is a unique amalgamation of culture, and heritage thereby attracting all sorts of western media. Danny Boyle, a director, dissected India and realized that there exist some robust cultural boundaries and generic conventions that don’t hold in the west. He decided to create a movie, set in India, that breaks these cultural boundaries, and re-establishes these generic conventions such that it appeals to a western audience. Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire reveals the dynamic slum Dharavi and the eclectic nature of Mumbai city to the world, through a romantic and rags-to-riches story. The movie went ahead to win various academy awards and received great appeal from both western and eastern audiences. However, the aspects of the movie that appealed to its western audience were disdained by its eastern audience. Some might say that the fictional elements create the grandeur of the movie, however, I (an eastern boy) argue that the movie paints an unrealistic perspective of India as a country that is based on western fantasies and ideals. This perspective is held by many Indians who further suggest that Boyle illustrates an unfair exposure of grave Indian poverty, and an implausible and over-glorified rags-to-riches story.
Boyle’s portrayal of Mumbai as a city, gave birth to polarized opinions amidst western and eastern viewers: eastern viewers knew the beauty of the city and loved it, however, Boyle’s illustration made viewers in the west demean the city. Dargis of New York Times described Mumbai as “vast, vibrant, sun-soaked, jampacked ghetto, a kaleidoscopic city of flimsy shacks and struggling humanity”, whereas a reporter from Seoul Times wrote “demeaning portrayal of India. Poverty is celebrated, destitution, squalor, beggar mafia and prostitution stare at us from the frames — magnified to distortion, glorified silly and used as tools of titillation to please the smug white world”. He concluded his criticism by saying “only India can do [the Bollywood genre] right”. Boyle attempted to produce the best of eastern and western cinema, however, failed to do so, and ultimately went back to his roots producing a film set in the east with a robust western perspective. Boyle used ‘Dharavi’ — Mumbai’s biggest slum — as the setting to illustrate Indian poverty. I feel this is where Boyle got it wrong: he tried to present ‘Indian’ poverty in a ‘Bombay’ slum, ignoring all the microscopic elements of life there and focusing only on stereotypes and macroscopic elements that are known in the west.
The ‘picture-of-poverty’ acts as a foundation for the movie’s over glorified rags-to-riches story. Boyle illustrates the breaking of the Indian poverty cycle through Jamal Malik; he presents a live example of the individualistic dream that with enough hard work and effort an individual can escape poverty. Some might say that this message is motivational, positive, and hence the fictious portrayal of Indian poverty is justifiable; however, this individualistic ideology translates well in the west, but in South Asia it doesn’t work because people operate on the basis of a collectivist mindset. Growing together, and improving together, are traditions and ways of life deeply rooted in Indian culture. Boyle portrays Jamal as the only character to escape his ‘situation’, while his love remains an object for a criminal boss, and his brother remains enveloped in Mumbai’s dark gang life. This is a fundamental problem in the plot of the movie. Indians cannot relate to human beings functioning that way, and are completely against an individualistic lifestyle. Notice our constitution, our laws, and our familial teachings, everything that makes us Indian is rooted with belonging to a certain group, class, sect, family, and community. Yes, Jamal’s life story opened the eyes of many Indians showing them that the “American Dream” can be real anywhere in the world. However, he assumed that audiences would adapt to the modern cultural normative he was setting; well he was wrong. From the movie’s point of view, Jamal was looking for a way out, in came an opportunity hailing from America, and Jamal’s life changed. Boyle tries to kindle the ‘American Dream’ within Indians he doesn’t show them the ‘Indian Dream’, or to any global viewer a ‘dream’ in general.
As a viewer, I feel that Boyle is unable to present the audience with a ‘dream’ in general because of the over glorified rags-to-riches story he presents. He tries to tell viewers that ‘if Jamal could do it with the odds he has against him, then anyone could do it’. However, he doesn’t realise that in order to show the audience that Jamal can do it he creates numerous ‘coincidences’ that make his entire path to success incredibly implausible. Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers attests to this idea suggesting that the movie’s “concept bends coincidence to the breaking point”. Indians are a very faithful and god-fearing community, and hence they believe in miracles, however, Indians are also very logical and one of the biggest community of realists out there. This story does fit into the god-fearing part of the community, however, doesn’t in the latter because of the implausibility of the rags-to-riches story. Specifically, the movement of subtitles from British English to Hindi, as Jamal’s accent became polished, raised doubts about how he came about to be prim, proper, and educated.
Consequently, various aspects in the movie, attest to the idea that Boyle interprets Indian and Eastern culture correctly, however, chooses to westernise certain norms to appeal to his western audience, and create a novelty for his global audience. Saying that Slumdog doesn’t dissect various Indian cultural values distinctly and accurately, is wrong of me, well, they do so often, but as mentioned there are various major things they get wrong. Boyle illustrates the caste and class system very vividly in the movie. Jamal acts as a metaphor for the repercussions of the Hindu-Muslim riots that exist in India. His character changes from a reckless schoolboy content with his lifestyle to an ambitious and innocent young man set to achieve his dreams of “fame and wealth”. Boyle illustrates this character development very smoothly, almost like its natural. Today we find such stories of young kids using their hardships as motivation to achieve great heights; Boyle, uses Jamal as a symbol of such kids and connects his story, creating a ‘fairy tale’ for every young, ambitious, individual who has a dream they’re set to achieve.
The movie ends with Jamal winning “2 crore and 20 million rupees” and him kissing Latika — his love — on the train station. It practically ends with Jamal getting everything he dreamed of. This is the most unrealistic part of the film; as humans we never get exactly what we dream of, we get a discounted real-life version of it. The movie’s ending is the cherry on top of the implausible plot created by Boyle.
To conclude, Slumdog Millionaire exudes cultural colonialism by creating a plot wherein western ideals are set in Indian conditions. The idea of ‘western influence’ on Indian culture and growth, provides me with enough evidence to label Boyle’s work as a product of cultural colonialism. Consequently, by creating a fairy tale around breaking the poverty cycle Boyle creates a universal story for people to relate to when they speak of poverty alleviation. Slumdog is set in India, however, has western ideals. This makes the movie appealing to both western and eastern audiences. Boyle explores poverty as a global issue and uses his plot to signify hope for a global solution. Additionally, Boyle’s use of western ideals in eastern society, elucidate the globalisation of culture where the west influences the workings of the east; ideas and ideals from the west are always considered foreign, novel, and unique to easterners and hence, Boyle illustrates this global influence of culture through a rags-to-riches story.
