Slumdog Millionaire

The last time I was in India, my girlfriend died. She was shot to death by a Russian assassin in Goa. Right after I went for a run on the beach. Since then I've been beat up, shot at, and chased, and I've never had a chance to deal with the loss of Marie Kreutz. So you'll understand that I have been wary of returning to India.

But return I must for the viewing of the lavishly praised film that is supposedly a crowd-pleaser. Before I saw it, I knew the bare bones of the plot, and I could guess that in the end the main character, Jamal, gets the money and the girl. Just a guess. And I must say, five minutes into the film, I also knew what the final question would be. And ten minutes in, I was thinking, isn't this just like "City of God," with the children learning life lessons as they grow up in the slums?

But that's getting ahead of ourselves. Let's first ask, what crowd is pleased by this? We see a little orphan blinded by molten liquid poured from a hot spoon, a kid covered in feces, the main character subjected to electrical and water torture, a mother beat to death with a bat, a man burned alive, and more kids left to horrible fates at the hands of thugs and gangsters. The same people who cheer for this film also were likely pleased by "I Spit on Your Grave" and "Inside."

Perhaps the crowd was pleased by the love story between Jamal and Latika, a girl who we hardly ever see and who spends very little on-screen time with Jamal. Other than the fact that Jamal finds her attractive, what does he love about her? We're not sure, because she has, like, five lines. Being attractive is reason enough for the film to make sense (see "Something New" for another example of this), but I'd like more.

Director Danny Boyle does bring the verve to this project, but one can't help but wonder, is it the story that is thrilling, or is the camera doing all the work? It's like the cinematographer liked the multiple cameras of "Natural Born Killers," the dramatic effect of "Requiem for a Dream," and the handheld, nonstop use of, let's be honest, my films, and brought them all together. And then added some color to it all, making the slums look not pristine, but glorious. The film doesn't really convey the awfulness of being covered in other people's excrement when it looks like the person is shining and glittering like Edward Cullen in "Twilight." Now, I don't need a scene like that to look realistic, but the overall effect makes the life of a slumdog seem not as bad as it was depicted in "Born into Brothels." Ah, just another beautiful, colorful day of gleeful children cheerily running through the slums being chased by police while a song by M.I.A. plays in the background. What should be a terrifying experience is now a music video.

Can a British director and writer and producers be more honest about India than India? Should we care that the film is essentially made by people who did not grow up in India? Why not, when we live in a world where Gandhi can be played by an Englishman. And Americans make films about other countries all the time, like "Rocky IV" and "Valkyrie." And those are historically and socially accurate, so I'm sure there's no problem.

I've seen it twice now, and I still don't know what to make of it. Everyone loves a winner, and who doesn't like a story about a poor man getting the girl and the money? "What a night!" the host of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" says at the end. I just wish I had left the film thinking, What a movie! But I didn't.