Faculty forum critiques the dingier side of 'Slumdog'

A panel of Seattle University faculty members participated in a forum titled "Slamming Slumdog Millionaire"-an event that was touted as a criticism of the sleek and at times problematic-Oscar winning movie.

Moderated by Gabriella Gutierrez y Muhs, Wismer professor for gender and diversity, the panel included professors from various academic disciplines including Nalini Iyer, associate professor of English and Tayyab Mahmud, visiting professor at the Sullivan School of Law-both natives of India.

"Slumdog Millionaire" follows the story of Jamal Malik, a young boy who grew up in the slums of Mumbai, India only to escape and appear on the wildly popular television game show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Through the seemingly simple show viewers are able to trace Malik's life and journey from rags to riches. Each question becomes a glimpse into an experience, and each experience leads Malik towards his destiny-a young woman named Latika.

Criticism ran the gamete, from describing "Slumdog Millionaire" as a movie that is essentially manipulative to a film that will have little to no lasting cinematic impact.

"[Slumdog Millionaire] is not some masterpiece of film," said Mahmud. Mahmud argued that Slumdog Millionaire, while an entertaining piece of film that was well made, produced a false archetype of Indian life. "Perhaps we are faking a caricature of what the subaltern should look like," he said.

Iyer, who has a wealth of experience teaching in topics concerning the subaltern-those peoples oppressed by Colonial empires-described the current debate occurring among people in India.

"The Indian middle class has seen this film as yet another triumph for India. However the Indian intelligentsia has been critical," Iyer said.

One of her main criticisms of the film is that it helps to reinforce an already problematic image of India by the West. She described this obsession to exploit the slums of Mumbai as a form of "poverty pornography."

American audiences are still in the process of discovering international cinema. The concept of alien-cinema is still problematic for individuals, as Americans have been inundated with Western and American ideals for years.

William Buckley, visiting assistant professor of theology and religious studies, was also a panel member at the event and criticized the film for its blatant romanticism of a serious situation.

"You cannot have romantic depictions of poverty or the poor," said Buckley. His comments referred to the romantic relationship between Latika and Jamal that underlies the entire movie.

Connie Anthony, associate professor of political science and one of the panel members, echoed Buckley's sentiments and argued that "Slumdog Millionaire" is "an emotionally manipulative film."

The film is emotional, as it was intended to be. At its root, "Slumdog" is a movie that uncovers a world most Americans are not familiar with. By shedding light on the challenges inherent in the Mumbai slums, Danny Boyle directs the film with intent to both entertain and educate. The entertainment arrives in the form of a traditional love-story. In order to grab traditional American audiences and those interested in the seriousness of the issue at hand, Boyle needed to appeal to both.

"Why is it that it requires Danny Boyle for Americans to discover India?" asked Iyer in criticizing the source of the film.

And it is true that it took Hollywood and the Western world to get this story out. If "Slumdog" were to have been released by an independent production company and directed by a native Indian, it would likely not have received a quarter of the attention it has.

But this attitude is shifting. "Slumdog Millionaire" represents a step in a different direction toward the globalization of cinema for a Western audience. The slums and injustices of Mumbai represent baby steps toward larger Indian representation.

The fact that "Slumdog Millionaire" garnered so much attention and subsequent critical acknowledgment is in large part due to its Americanization. While this may prove to be problematic in many areas-translation of culture, representation of India and so forth-it does provide a glimpse into a culture largely unexplored by American audiences.

"This was not a great film, but it was an evocative film. As we see the film, we should begin to question ourselves," said Mahmud.