Quem Quer Ser Um Milionrio -slumdog Millionaire- 2009 → 〈POPULAR〉

Verdict: A flawed, gorgeous, problematic masterpiece that asks one question: How much are you willing to survive for love? The answer, apparently, is 20 million rupees.

Critics argued Boyle exploited the poverty for aesthetic thrill. He turns the slums into a playground. But defenders argue that the film never romanticizes the misery; it romanticizes the survival . The energy of the children—dodging landmines of sewage and religious riots—is triumphant, not tragic. Let’s address the elephant in the Taj Mahal. In 2009, the film was accused of "poverty porn." The term "Slumdog" was considered a slur by many Mumbaikars. Protests erupted. The film’s child stars (Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail and Rubina Ali) were living in shanties while the film won Oscars, leading to a massive public backlash that eventually forced the producers to set up a trust fund. Quem Quer Ser Um Milionrio -Slumdog Millionaire- 2009

Suspicious of a chai wallah’s success, the police torture him, demanding to know how he cheated. Jamal’s defense is the film’s spine: He isn't a genius. He isn't a cheater. He simply knows the answers because every question is a trauma trigger, a memory of his brutal life with his older brother Salim and the love of his life, Latika. He turns the slums into a playground

Do I wish the child actors had been protected better? Absolutely. Do I cringe at the "Mumbai is a video game" aesthetic? Sometimes. But do I cry when Latika’s scarred face smiles at the train station? Every single time. Let’s address the elephant in the Taj Mahal