There is something that attracks me to Ebert's review of the film. He talks alot about the film's universal appeal and how it "present the real India to millions of moviegoers for the first time." Before seeing the movie, I never thought India was as poluted and choatic as it is in the film. I always thought of India as a beautiful country with fascinating traditions and celebrations like in the movie, Bride and Prejudice. However, in Slumdog Millionaire, you see overcrowded towns without houses but thousands of huts, dirty children playing in dirty water, women beating clothes in rocks and water to clean it and so on.

I remember, however, towards the end of the film, Salim and Jamal were sitting at the top of a building looking at the city of which they have grown as a child. They commented on how much the place has changed due to the Industrial revolution that happened in India. Everything looks neat and organized unlike the place they had grown to know.
One interesting thing that I probably would have never guessed about the actor who played Jamal in the film is that, based on the background info from the NYT review, he is British. To me, he looked pure Indian and he spoke well like one. It's also interesting that the actors who played young Jamal and teenage Jamal were Indian actors and the adult Jamal is a British actor. Ummm...
Sources:
Dargis, Manohla. "Orphan’s Lifeline Out of Hell Could Be a Game Show in Mumbai." Movie Review - Slumdog Millionaire 2008. New York Times. 12 Nov. 2008. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.
Ebert, Roger. "Slumdog Millionaire." Slumdog Millionaire: rogerebert.com. Chicago Sun-Times. 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment