First about the story, or, how a boy from the slums lands into the chair of television game show `Who wants to be a Millionaire` and somehow reaches the last `multi-million rupees` question. The movie is framed as a contemporary `fairy tale love story`, and it proves to be one of the most upbeat stories about living in hell imaginable (New York Times). It’s a life that begins in a vast, vibrant, sun-soaked, jampacked ghetto, where little 7 years old Jamal jumps in an open gutter, just to, all covered in poo, get a signature from his favourite movie star. It is a hilarious scene, but events take an abrupt, cruel turn when Jamal and his older brother, Salim witness the murder of their mother by anti-Muslim fanatics.

 

Along with another new orphan, a shy beauty named Latika, the three children make their way from one refuge to another before falling prey to a villain whose exploitation pushes the story to the edge of feeling sick in the stomach. The young actors are beautiful, sympathetic, and the images are invariably pleasing even when they shouldn’t be — it’s unsettling to watch these young characters enact the deepest misery with such charm. After many events, teenager Jamal, who is still in love with Latika, and his brother take a different route in life but destiny brings them all together in the end.

This movie raises three Million-Dollar questions: The first Question: Is it a `too good to be true story`, or as Alice Miles (The Times) describes it: “Slumdog Millionaire is poverty porn" that invites the viewer to enjoy the miseries it depicts”.

The second Question would be: Does Slumdog Millionaire projects India as a third-world, dirty, underbelly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots”, as famous actor/singer Amitabh Bachchan puts it. He continues: “Let it be known that a murky underbelly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations. It's just that the Slumdog Millionaire idea, authored by an Indian and conceived and cinematically put together by a westerner, gets creative global recognition".

 

Or, as the English newspaper the Guardian describes it the final question is: “Is it the bitter truth that Slumdog Millionaire could only have been made by westerners? The Newspaper continues: “The talent exists in India for such movies: much of it, like the brilliant actor Irrfan Khan, contributed to this film. But Bollywood producers, fixated with making flimsy films about the lives of the middle class, will never throw their weight behind such projects, Like Bachchan, they are too blind to what India really is to deal with it. Poor Indians, like those in Slumdog, do not constitute India's "murky underbelly" as Bachchan moronically describes them. They, in fact, are the nation. Over 80% of Indians live on less than $2.50 a day; 40% on less than $1.25. A third of the world's poorest people are Indian, as are 40% of all malnourished children. In Mumbai alone, 2.6 million children live on the street or in slums, and 400,000 work in prostitution. But these people are absent from mainstream Bollywood cinema....” The Guardian finishes with: “As an outsider, [Danny Boyle] saw the truth that middle-class Indians are too often ignoring: that countless people exist in conditions close to hell yet maintain a breath-taking exuberance, dignity and decency. These people embody the tremendous spirit and strength of India and its civilisation. They deserve the attention of its film-makers. Slumdog Millionaire will encourage many more honest films to be produced in India. But they should be ashamed that it took a white man to show India how to do it”.

 

Having travelled through India, I recognised the slums, poverty but also the Indian vibrancy and good humour. I enjoyed watching the film, as it is an Indian story of global appeal. I believe it would have worked just as well in the slums of Rio de Janeiro as it did in Mumbai. It is telling its truth with great warmth. Danny Boyle's joyous style brought a fresh perspective on the misery of so many. Still the questions above remain.