Logwritten
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 08, 2009 8:29 AM IST

No, really unbelievable: It could never happen. Not the money (a slumdog may have every chance of making a fortune), but the manner. It could never happen through the dignity and repose of Dev Patel’s Jamal, an utterly improbable slumdog.

Unlikely heroes: Could a real-life Latika transcend the brutality of rape and prostitution?

Unlikely heroes: Could a real-life Latika transcend the brutality of rape and prostitution?

Director Danny Boyle has reported on the Indian slum with the Westerner’s thoroughness. He has shown its squalor, the randomness of its violence and the distance of the state from its problems more precisely than an Indian could have.

But he has not observed the character of the slum’s occupant standing beside him as the sweeping camera records the filth.

The single most important fact of poverty is the loss of dignity in the individual. The Indian knows this. The poor are actually second-rate human beings. Their existence is like that of animals: Their concerns are all immediate because that is the only level at which life engages them.

It is an existence of eternal reaction.

Constant hunger and helplessness have obliterated their dignity. Dignity is not congenital; it is acquired. The poor have very little opportunity to acquire it. The boy’s experiences inform the man, incident upon humiliating incident, layer upon undignified layer. That is why the man’s character cannot stand apart from the boy’s life.

Jamal Malik, whose mother is killed for her faith, whose friend’s eyes are spooned out so that he can beg better, whose hungry plea society rolls the window up at, is not going to be a disinterested observer of the world.

In the building up of his character, the influences on Jamal the boy are those incidents of theft and flight that result in his survival. Jamal the man cannot escape that through the goodness of his heart.

But Boyle shows Jamal’s heroism as coming not from his courage but from his dignity; his distancing of himself from his surroundings.

His carriage and manner, even when he is on national television, are that of a man for whom survival has a higher purpose. But that is impossible in a man who has lived a life where he has stolen and duped to feed himself. Jamal’s eyes, the softness of his face and the tenderness of his manner do not talk of the life Boyle narrates to us.

That is why he is unconvincing.

Enormous intellectual effort is needed for the man to distance himself from the trajectory of his fate and observe; but Jamal is not equipped intellectually to do that. He is practically illiterate, and in indicating that, Boyle is correct.

The poor are not particularly interested in knowledge. Those who have spoken to the poor will notice the glaze over their eyes. There is no curiosity in the nature of the world, because it has already revealed itself to them in full.

The boys who sell books at Mumbai’s traffic signals know which books are popular, but they don’t know why. They don’t care either, as those who will have offered them lifts to the next signal (“Uncle, please”) know.

The dignity of their profession dissolves immediately into an act of begging if it can swing the sale.

The poor have no poise because they are nothing as individuals. The poor are not dignified; they are craven. To show them in dignity is as fantastic as to show them content in their poverty. It is an act of imagination; it is as Boyle wants the slum dweller to be.

Latika, Jamal’s girl, is still fragrant after being sold into prostitution, and living through rape and an abusive marriage. Not possible.

The character of Salim, who rapes his brother’s love, who betrays his friend, who shoots his tormentor, rings true—even though he’s painted all-extreme.

The poor are rejected in India for their condition: Nothing beyond that matters because that fact is supreme. That is why the poor evoke our pity; very rarely do they evoke true compassion. If they did regularly, it would be intolerable for us to live, surrounded by such sorrow.

We are inclined to feed the dignified beggar, because he is “good”, more than we are the craven, filthy one.

But yet the poor do not telegraph dignity well because they do not know it.

After the quality of his depiction of the slum, and it is quite superb, Boyle lets us down by Sellotaping his fairy-tale characters on top of Indian reality.

Jamal’s spirit shines on the filth around him; he floats above the shimmering cesspool, even when he takes a dip in it.

Boyle tells us that there is individual redemption; he has taken what we can call the Christian’s view of poverty and the poor—blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall inherit the earth.

But we know that they won’t.

Aakar Patel is a director with Hill Road Media Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai.

Write to Aakar at replytoall@livemint.com

Tags - Find More Articles On:
READ MORE ARTICLES BY:
 
Suresh Said:


This is the most arrogant and derogatory article I have ever read. The writer who, probably, lives quite comfortably thinks he is an expert on what constitutes dignity in slum dwellers in India. Yes, that kid selling books at traffic signal may not know why a particular book is good but he recognizes which one sells. He also sells to make his few rupees rather than be dependent on some handout. I am sure the author would probably get a government payout or welfare if he were to become unemployed. I suggest he first live that life before commenting on dignity of these kids.

Posted On 2/20/2009 5:24:34 AM
Re: Sandeep Said:


I agree with you Suresh. I don't want to comment on what this film did or what it shows. Because it is a film. But, I must say that we all are human beings no matter how much money we have or to what extent we are poor. The author of this article must not forget this. Personally I have seen many talented human beings emerging out of so called 'slums'. Believe it or not one of such person is now an IAS officer.

Posted On 2/20/2009 10:37:07 AM
Re: confident Said:


Oh great - just what we were missing in our lives - another loser sucking up to a foreigner who probably will never step foot in india again, and really only wanted to make money off a poverty pornography movie - made for $15M and marketing buzz machine gone amok to achieve a huge ROI. danny boy made his life's riches off of selling the indian poverty story - and all you suckers are sitting there lionising him while he's sitting in a strip club in london putting fast-getting-worthless pounds into g-strings. woo hoo!

Posted On 2/20/2009 8:42:16 PM
sugan Said:


What a brilliant analysis. I agree completely. There is no dignity in deprivation. What we need is better governments or more caring governments and birth control. There are just too many people in the world.

Posted On 2/20/2009 5:44:54 AM
Rajeev Said:


You are completely ignoring the fact that there are no rags to riches stories in real life. There are umpteen number of cases in Indian history which exemplify how the most humble person has risen in life and has earned money, fame and respect. Self respect and belief are the most important aspect for this success to happen. Even if you believe that poor people do not live with dignity, through this article you should inspire readers to take steps forward to correct the situation. Criticism with constructive thoughts and positive attitude would go a long way in bringing change.

Posted On 2/20/2009 10:17:28 AM
hosa Said:


Yes indeed badly written.the writer has denied human evolution.No one is born rich buddy!he makes it some day. Where does christianity come in? Indians are always cynical about change. thats the reason why we have'nt developed. WoW! this crap is the editors pick!

Posted On 2/20/2009 10:44:22 AM
NITIN Said:


The movie SDM is being misjudged by many people, sorry to say, but its true. You need to understand what the Director of the movie is trying to convey. You cannot criticize the Director if you are unable to see what he wanted to convey. You need to first understand what he wants to say and then make a judgement whether he was successful or not in conveying his message. In SDM, d director is not trying to show the loss of dignity associated with poverty or slums in Mumbai, but he is trying to show the Spirit of a boy who grew up in poverty and child abuses all around him. He wants to show and inspire everyone with d spirit of a slumboy. He his trying to show despite all negatives, the boy upholds his spirit and wins a fortune.. Rather the fortune meets him bcoz he kept the correct spirit

Posted On 2/20/2009 11:06:12 AM
Famous Said:


Good analysis. Would agree with most of what the author has said. BTW, it does not matter if the author is comfortably placed or not. What has that got to do with the contents of the article. Do you expect a Medha Patkar to write one with legitimacy? As regards rags to riches, India is one place that can kill anyone who wants to build his riches based on values and honesty.

Posted On 2/20/2009 11:23:35 AM
Paddy Said:


This is a wonderful analysis. I guess everyone should be allowed freedom of expression. If you don't agree with the author's views, shut the page and move on. Forget who did what for what reasons, try to appreciate someones point of view, be it hte director of that movie or the author of this article. I thought this was a very differnet take on the movie and is thought provoking.

Posted On 2/21/2009 12:20:13 AM
arshad Said:


If the author thinks that dignity comes only with riches, he is living in a fool's paradise. The article is a load of bullshit depicting a very narrow view of the poor. It is a highly unfair commentary on the film and its characters. After all it is Indian mentality that is speaking.

Posted On 2/21/2009 2:32:22 AM
saleha Said:


The needs of poor people are more immediate-food and shelter.The movie is just a movie and is far removed from real life.There is little dignity in poverty.Ask the poor man who is hungry or sick;ask him if he'd rather be poor and have his dignity or have a full stomach......

Posted On 2/21/2009 4:45:29 AM
shweta Said:


Learning is better than Criticising:- What author of this article wants to say is nearly not very correct as he quotes"poverty is the loss of dignity"every individual poses his own dignity but unfair circumstances where he/she has to survive ..4 this they have 2 put their dignity,ethos at stake as 4m darwinism "survival of the fittest"so what is wrong if they feel the work they r doing is good but its bad according to our perspective b'coz we dont have 2 starve 4 food..so we r not able 2 empathize wid them...so why to abash the poverty ridden people..we r totally aware by the incessant corruption in INDIA..which has been elegantly depicted by dany boyle,we should be ashamed of.. that foreigner knows better than we INDIANS..now also time has not gone we can join hands to improve the pathetic condition of INDIA.

Posted On 2/21/2009 11:48:21 AM
Abhishek Said:


The movie is great in terms of acting, bad in terms of depiction of India. And getting it selected in Oscars looks to me more like a “racist act”. Has it been made by the Indian director will it still get same applaud???? I doubt.

Posted On 2/21/2009 12:36:59 PM
Puresh Said:


I completely agree with the author. The poor people are pieces of shit.

Posted On 2/21/2009 2:30:18 PM
K Said:


Amazing article. Thanks a lot for this and I fully agree with you. As such I grew curious about the movie when I came to know that it is shot in Nehru Nagar slum in Juhu, which is very near to my place. Actually I and a friend have gone into the slum a couple of times, once seeking a chai walla shop and another time to check out the market and what things are there. And yes, it is not the slum where some of the world’s poorest people would starve and live a pathetic life… It is kind of collection of shanties with low roofs, and buzzing with small scale industries… About the movie, I read many reviews and came to know many things about it. What you say here, and thanks a lot because I read one of the few reviews on it by Indians, confirms my perception. It is another attempt to sell India for dollars. Like many other directors have done in the past, and some like Deepa Mehta are champions on that. But this is a commercial movie. It is very natural to know that they showed such incidents about communal riots, beggar mafia (this concept is stolen from yester years’ Hindi movies), condition of Muslims, and slums… The idea was to sell the movie by showing India in as pathetic state as possible. And after I read Amitabh’s comment on the movie, my respect and pride for the man swelled another high. A man of his stature made this ‘politically incorrect’ statement – that the movie has deliberately shown India in poor light in front of the global media. Thanks a lot sir. I will go and comment on his blog too.

Posted On 2/21/2009 11:53:26 PM
K Said:


About AR Rahman, we know that he was a born Hindu. His parents converted into Islam in the 70s while he was young. He had gotten ill and some Muslim guru saved him, and hence the conversion. It seems religion is something like so easy. Hindus believe in rebirths. We know that our this life is not all. We are souls who travel and take rebirths. And hence a Hindu can never fear for his life when it comes to fight the wrong, or to protect the dharma. He proved that he was never a real Hindu. But it was his personal decision, I won’t get much into that… When I read the review of many foreigners, they were feeling pity. I am sure if the movie makers keep a begging bowl in front of the movie theatres in the West, they will become Millionaires every passing day :) :) As for the title of the movie also tells that: The book on which this movie is based is named Q&A: Questions and Answers. The movie makers changed the name to ‘Slumdog’, defaming the slum dwellers of Mumbai and India as ‘dogs’. Can someone tell them that the people who live may be proverbial dog’s life are real people with self-respect? Not to get surprised at a news report in HT recently – the people from Nehru Nagar slum said they won’t watch this movie because it shows their life, they would rather watch other Bollywood movies which will give them a change in mood. Only those will enjoy the movie who are naïve and haven’t seen any poor person in years…

Posted On 2/21/2009 11:54:13 PM
Sumeet Said:


I agree with the author. In India, its almost a curse to have been born poor...look at their living conditions. The Urban poor (and thats what Slumdog portrays)are the worse of the lot. All that our Govt looks at are votebanks...if they want to improve society, improve the infrastructure of our cities, improve the services we offer our citizens. Urban poor need to live like human beings, not animals.

Posted On 2/22/2009 3:15:43 PM
V Said:


I agree with the author...Being poor in India is all about day-to-day survival, the only thing that the poor here worry about is where their nextmeal is coming from and sadly enough, nothing has improved over all these years...it only gets worse! On another note,the grown up Jamal in the movie is too polished, too"fair"( when you compare him to the small and middle Jamal) and too calm to have witnessed such atrocities in his life. All said and done, the least the movie has done is to make us think about what's right/ wrong in India and how it's taken a foreign director to get us talking!

Posted On 2/23/2009 11:45:48 AM
usha Said:


I wrote an e mail to Aakar raising some points, but it was not acknowledged, so I feel the need to write it here again. I can see that several others have commented on this here. I had a sense of indignation when I read his article. It seemed that Aakar had generalized and stereotyped poor people by saying that the poor have loss of dignity, that they are craven and that they are not interested in knowledge. This is such an unfair analysis. In my personal experience I have met many people who in spite of not being rich are dignified and enthusiastic and seek knowledge(I have given specific examples to Aakar in my e mail). we also see the converse of well to do people, who are undignified, craven(very often) and uninterested in new knowledge. If I delve deeply enough into myself, I know that there are several instances where I have been undignified and craven. Aakar can examine whether it is so for him too and if it is so, where did it come from? from helplessness and hunger? My next question is what would the people he writes about think if this article was available to them? It is also surprising that Mint in its print avatar does not have a column for readers' views.

Posted On 2/24/2009 10:12:26 AM
Re: Priya Said:


Usha we did get your letter at Lounge and it will appear in our next issue ie March 2. FYI we do have a weekly letters column for readers views. Lounge gets a lot of letters, and we work a couple of weeks in advance, hence your letter will appear on March 2. Keep reading us. Thanks! Priya Ramani, Lounge editor

Posted On 2/26/2009 10:32:06 AM
anugam Said:


Well I personally feel that this movie moves away from realism. Its more or less a creative portrayal of a creative overlook, perception of the problem faced by a slum child. The film is brilliant in its very "filmy" nature but it cannot club the very true life, challenges, struggle and enthusiasm of slum and a slum kid.

Posted On 2/25/2009 12:46:00 PM
DrThom Said:


Slumdog unbelievably believable No, really believable: It could actually happen. Not the money (a slumdog may have every chance of making a fortune), but the manner. It might actually happen through the remnant dignity of Dev Patel’s Jamal, an utterly improbable, but not impossible, slumdog. Perhaps outsider director Danny Boyle has reported on the Indian slum more precisely than any insider Indian ever would have: its squalor, the randomness of its violence, the disgusted-ness of the state’s too often chasing down of the poor while sahibing to the perverted mob-boss in his limousine. But only because he has intuited the humanity of the slum’s occupant standing beside him as the sweeping camera records the filth. The single most important fact of Indian poverty is the loss of dignity in the individual. The Indian knows this. The poor are actually caste-ascribed second-rate human beings. Their existence is like that of animals: Their concerns are all immediate because that is the only level at which life engages them. But animals, they are not: That is the essence of Slumdog’s universal reception. Constant humiliation and hunger have acid-doused their dignity. But dignity is congenital; it is innate, though the poor have very little opportunity to enhance it. The boy’s experiences inform the man, incident upon humiliating incident, layer upon undignified layer. But in the end, they do not define Jamal. That is why the man’s character can stand apart from the boy’s life. Jamal Malik, whose mother is killed for her faith, whose friend’s eyes are spooned out so that he can beg better, whose hungry plea society rolls the window up at, is not going to be a disinterested observer of the world. He is the railcar, raindrenched, waif-on-the-run protector who invites an abandoned girl-child to curl up unmolested with him and his brother: Jamal is the little heart-musketeer who does to her what he wished someone would do to him.

Posted On 2/25/2009 12:46:02 PM
baz Said:


how is it that a movie like sdm that shows the lives of the poor in india is "an attempt to sell India," but all the crappy love stories marketed and produced about rich indian families such as K3G marketed to us in the diaspora that nostalgic immigrants consume and feed their hapless kids isn't??!! Maybe it's easy for the middle and upper classes to identify and aspire to the affluence reflected by the inhabitants of those movies, but it's harder to do so when the protagonists are poor and their opportunities few. I noticed this reluctance to deal with the hierarchical mentality when I was in india the last couple years, a mentality that allows this writer to say that the poor have no dignity. Indeed, it's only those who are insecure about their own dignity that cannot grant their fellow man the dignity that they were born with. I ran into many people like this when I was in India; once, in a bathroom this rich kid was trashing the attendant. When I confronted him, he backed off. And this kid was an Indian student who studied in the UK. Apparently, denigrating others is in fashion when you return to India. It's unfortunate, because everyone is striving to make something of themselves, an act that requires a modicum of dignity, and to assert otherwise ensures that vast numbers of the poor will absorb and perpetuate the second-class mentality this writer seeks to attribute to them, preventing them from using their talents the few moments they may have the opportunity to do so.

Posted On 2/27/2009 5:08:54 AM
Jarryd Said:


In my opinion thought that Slumdog Millionaire was the most rubbish of movies I have ever seen in my entire lifetime. I appaul the votes of the Golden Globe and Academy awards nominating it for most of the awards. The movies actually looks like it was recorded on a cell phone. The main actor looks like he was picked up off the street. I will never watch an indian movie EVER again.

Posted On 2/28/2009 7:42:00 PM
JV Said:


Which movies are believable!! All the movies are the dream of the audience. It is the spirit/courage or dignity of a character in adverse circumstance , which the audience adore and like. Otherwise who loose dignity or courage in adverse situation doesn't make of a hero!!

Posted On 4/5/2009 3:22:29 PM