Movie Vs. Book

In the movie Slumdog Millionaire and the book Q&A, the life of poverty is protrayed differently. The beginning of the “play-line” in the movie portrays poverty more in my opinion. When the movie first opens, there is a scene where there is a stream that runs directly by them. The stream isn’t just a flow of “dirty-lake like water”. The “stream” is actual sewer and dump water that passes by them. In the book, the start of the story is different; this is not present.
Also, the movie places pictures that are more extreme than I would imagine while reading the book. For example, the part in the movie when the children are digging through the dump where the actual trash trucks empty is a lot more than I would have imagined while simply reading the book. The pile of garbage was enormous and they were not just walking around it “looking”. They got in the middle of the pile (touching ALL of it) and actually dug. In the book, I would have placed the children digging through “some” trash (more like the amount that homeless people do here in Austin). In my opinion, the movie in some places is able to portray poverty more.

Chaudhuri Readings

For the week after next, please read the following in THE VINTAGE BOOK OF MODERN INDIAN LITERATURE:

• all of the introduction

Readings from the following authors (in translation):

• Mahashweta Devi
• Nirmal Verma
• Naiyer Masud
• UR Anantha Murthy
• Ambai

Readings from the following authors (in English):

• Ruskin Bond
• Dom Moraes
• Vikram Chandra
• Ashok Banker

Heads or Tails

In both the film and the movie, there is an undercurrent of destiny and mysticism tracking the lives of Jamal (or Ram) and Salim. During the Hindu raid on the slums, Jamal and Salim run for their lives, twisting and turning through the maze of the community. At one turn, they both encounter a vision of the child-god, Ram. In the book, the orphan children visit a carnival and Salim seeks out the foresight of a psychic. In both instances, the reader is made aware of a pre-destined plan; the path has been set. In the novel, Salim is the child destined for greatness. The psychic sees his path to fame clearly, whereas, Ram’s path is broken and uncertain. In order to provide some balance and guidance, Ram receives a coin

Although pre-destination continues in both portrayals, the film leaves behind the mystical encounters and underlying superstitions while the book ingrains them in the personalities of the characters. Ram is more pragmatic in the book. He constantly advises Salim to mind his affairs but after visiting the psychic, he believes in mystical qualities of the coin. Ram repeatedly returns to the coin for guidance in the book. In the film, Jamal’s path is guided by his faithful love for Latika. In the book, Ram uses the coin to decide the final answer. In the film, Latika answers the phone.

Love for money or money for love?

In comparing the novel with the film, the variant that eventually stood out as the most prominent thematic difference between the two stories was the treatment of money. The protagonist, whether his name be Jamal or Ram Mohammad Thomas, wins the opportunity to appear on a "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" style game-show. The awarded amount differs in the two stories, but the fact remains that the protagonist will be receiving a regal sum of money.
The character in the film, Jamal, has a much more moralistic approach to his life journey than that of Ram in the book. There are numerous encounters throughout the film when Jamal is confronted with choices pertaining to his ability to escape his current state of poverty. The path always taken by Jamal is not only the purer decision in regard to the advancement of all rather than just himself, but it is most often influenced by love. Hollywood never fails to push the romantic love story to the forefront of any tale, and Slumdog Millionaire is no exception.
Swarup's storyline contains an undertone concerning money that contrasts drastically with that of the film. Ram is constantly ruminating on the idea of true love. Almost every girl he meets in the recollected stories of the book seems to immediately flood his heart and appear in his dreams for the next few weeks. However, there is no static love that pervades the book. Instead of love, Ram is more steadily concerned with money. In a quotation from page 155, Ram rather overtly discusses his thoughts on status and money: "For the first time in my life, I had something more tangible than a dream to back up a claim. And for the first time in my life, I saw something new reflected in the eyes that saw me. Respect. It taught me a very valuable lesson. That dreams have power only over your own mind. But with money you can have power over the minds of others."

Class and Place

One of the noticeable difference was the books treatment of the possibility for upward mobility. Both “Slumdog Millionaire” and “Q&A” are ultimately a rags to riches story however the novel focuses on “what the elders in Dharavi say about never crossing the dividing line that separates the rich from the poor” (2). Jamal never muses on his right to social ascendance. While the police and the game show host might call him a slumdog, the whole of India seems to be rooting for him.

In contrast the novel complicates and dwells on the views around upward mobility. The false consciousness of staying put in ones class is ingrained on Ram yet he rebels against and even plays with. There is almost a superstition around the mandate to stay in your place. His initial fear or mystification of Colonel Taylor as “The Man Who Knows” show how ingrained the sense of social place can be. However Ram is able to find away around his master/servant relationship and trick Taylor. Many of the ways he gets by involve playing with class from crashing wedding parties to scrounging food at the McDonalds in his Levi’s. The real irony of this conflict is summed up by Ram on page 278-9 when discussing (a maid) Lajwanti’s theft of a necklace from her mistress he says:

“Lajawanti made the cardinal mistake of trying to cross the dividing line that separates the existence of the rich from that of the poor. She made the fatal error of dreaming beyond her means. The bigger the dream, the bigger the disappointment. That is why I have small manageable dreams. Like marrying a prostitute after paying off her crooked pimp brother the minor sum of four hundred thousand rupees. Only.”

Differences

On first watching Slumdog, I was struck as to the difference in the portrayals of Jamal & Salim in the movie and the relationship of Ram & Salim in Q&A. Swarup's novel focuses intently on Ram and his life experiences, wide-ranging and varied with Salim to an extent as a lesser character, while Boyle's film transforms that relationship for narrative effect.

Casting Salim as both the older brother and the moral foil to Jamal's underdog is hamfisted in the same way wtih which Swarup ties up Q&A (ie: the revelations of Prem Kumar as Nita's tormentor and Gudiya as Ram's lawyer). Boyle sets Salim up to be redeemed, and the effect it has is to lessen Jamal's impact as a proactive character in terms of the danger endemic to the life of a slumdog. This is in stark contrast to the novel where we find Ram often aware of the precariousness of any prosperity he may enjoy. Eventually after rescuing Nita and winning his millions he becomes Salim's secret benefactor furthering Ram's role as the caretaker.

Swarup's Ram Mohammad Thomas is the stronger character--and this is indicative of the medium in which each narrative unfolds. When Ram states in the end that "luck comes from within," he argues that his lot in life and its result are at least in part self-motivated. Boyle's Jamal is successful but largely his luck and choices are thrust upon him.

Interrogations

The main difference I have noticed from the book (Q & A) and the movie (Slumdog Millionaire) is the way that Ram aka Jamal is interviewed. In the movie Jamal tells his story, part of it anyway, to a police officer. One would think that after holding out on endless torture Jamal would be hesistant to talk. He does so anyway and I think that whole scenario is truly unbelievable.
In the book, however, Ram confides in a lawyer, behind closed doors, and at his own pace. Ram takes his time telling the story in order of the questions that he is asked rather than a linear story of his life like in the movie. This scenario is a little more believable for me because the stories that Ram tells are fairly out-of-this- world in that it truly is the luckiest case of coincidence that I have ever encountered and a police officer would have a hard time taking him seriously. A lawyer on the other hand would have to take him serious because she has to make a case out of his testimony.
Although the movie has a less believable method of interrogation, I think it does a better job at portraying the story because it is more chronological as well as less dramatic as far as all the sexual content and situations that Ram tends to be around.

Minimizing Abuse

One of the big differences between the novel and the film is the different portrayal of abuse and violence. In the novel Gudiya is sexually abused by her father. This has an intense effect on Ram. In the film the closest scene to this one is when Latika is clearly sexually abused by Salim. Although it is disturbing in the film, this scene is nowhere near the same as the one in the book. Incest is something people shy away from in general, so it is somewhat understandable that they changed this scene in the movie. As we discussed in class, the movie was a Hollywood production. There is something about incestuous abuse that disturbs our comfort zone to a greater extent.

Ram's reaction to Shantarum's actions are also very different from Jamal's. Ram intended to put a stop to Gudiya's abuse. The consequences were only an afterthought. Ram's murderous actions are much different from Jamal's defeatist attitude. In many ways it is easier to sympathize with Jamal. He is always the underdog getting shoved and never the one doing the shoving. Even though he does try to attack Salim and keep him away from Latika, he ends up conceding in the end. True, Latika tells him to leave and he has a gun pointed at his head, but it is hard to see Jamal pushing anybody down the stairs with the intent to kill. To me, this scene gave Ram agency that Jamal somewhat lacks.

Not Straight but Narrow?

One of the biggest differences between the film Slumdog Millionaire and Vikas Swarup's novel Q&A that stuck out to me, was the absence of the "The Death of a Hero" storyline from the book. This chapter initially mirrors the first minutes of the film, when Jamal recounts meeting film star Amitabh Bachchan. In the book, however, it is Salim who meets HIS idol, film star Armaan Ali. Salim admires everything about Armaan, and Salim is especially angered when he sees magazines suggesting that his idol may be gay; as Ram notes, "Salim hates gays." When Salim and Ram go to see a movie starring Armaan, an old man sits next to them and starts touching Salim. Salim attacks the man when he realizes what is going on and it is discovered the man is wearing a disguise; in the theater's dim lighting, the man appears to be Armaan Ali itself.

I wonder how this storyline, had it been incorporated into the movie, may have affected the tone of Slumdog Millionaire. Or, was this storyline PURPOSELY omitted from Slumdog so producers could avoid addressing issues of homosexuality, perhaps even as it relates to symbols of/celebrities within Indian pop culture?

PROMPT:

For this week, please write about the differences in representations of themes between Slumdog Millionaire and Vikas Swarup's Q&A. Just to make this a little more interesting, there's a list of some differences already available on wikipedia. Please try and find other differences. If you're having a tough time of it, think about the differences between Noir and the Bildungsroman as genres.

Syllabus

ENGLISH 379S: Slumdogs and Millionaires: Class and Indian Fiction

Spring 2010

MWF 10-11

snehal.shingavi@mail.utexas.edu

Description:

The recent success of Slumdog Millionaire (2008) has reopened discussions about the representation of class and poverty in India. The reactions to the film have been intensely partisan: some of have praised the humanizing of the poor while others have remarked that the fantastic rags-to-riches romance hinders any serious investigation of poverty. At every occasion, though, this discussion of class and poverty has been irrigated by the ideological streams of the middle and upper-classes, especially when it comes to their own solutions to and strategies for dealing with the persistence of poverty. Still, this representation of the poor, the underclass, the peasant, is shrouded in a patina of authenticity: this is how the poor really survive and imagine their life worlds. These aesthetic moves have become even more important in recent years as ruling parties in India have sought to demonstrate the country’s viability as a major world economic power. In the 2009 elections, for instance, the Indian National Congress Party ran television ads touting its economic policy credentials, set to the tune of “Jai Ho!” (the final song-and-dance sequence of the film). At the heart of all discussions of poverty are questions of blame, and this course will interrogate how aesthetic strategies intersect with certain ideological moves in the representation of Indian poverty. We will begin the course with Vikas Swarup’s Q&A (the novel on which Slumdog Millionaire was based) and examine alternative representations of poverty from the banal (English, August) to the magical (God of Small Things), from the gritty (Delhi Noir) to the witty (White Tiger), in order to map out the range of strategies used to aestheticize and politicize poverty.

Texts:

Adiga, White Tiger

Chatterjee, English, August

Chaudhuri, The Vintage Book of Modern Indian Literature

Desai, The Inheritance of Loss

Mistry, A Fine Balance

Roy, God of Small Things

Sawhney (ed.), Delhi Noir

Sinha, Animal’s People

Swarup, Q&A

Assignments:

· Paper proposal, 2-3 pages (10%)

· Rough draft, 8-10 pages (25%)

· Annotated Bibliography, at least ten sources (15%)

· Final Paper, 15-20 pages (30%)

· Blog posts, every week, 250 words (10%)

· Participation (10%)

Annotated Bibliography:

Part of the goal of this class is to familiarize students with research methods in underrepresented literatures. Students will be asked to produce a bibliography of works relevant to their final paper topics. Sources can include literary criticism, newspapers, journal articles, books, and primary source materials. Annotations should be approximately 100 to 150 words in length.

Paper:

There is one research paper in this class divided up into two parts (a rough-draft and a final). The paper should cover at least one of the texts covered in class and should be relevant to the themes of a course on Islam and South Asia. Other than those limits, students are free to choose topics of their own liking. Students wishing for more direction will be provided with prompts for final papers. All papers should be one-sided, with 1” margins, double-spaced, proofread, page-numbered, with consistent MLA style, and in your best academic prose.

Course Blog:

You will be asked to contribute to the course blog at least once a week. Your contributions will include both an original post (150-200 words) and a response to a classmate’s post (50-100 words). Topics for posts can be: issues not raised by class, alternative directions that a question raised in class could have gone, passages from texts (with commentary) that are intriguing but not raised in class, and disagreements born out of class discussion. The course blog should be seen as a way to continue the discussion in class, especially those ideas and issues that are left underdeveloped in classroom conversations. I will also pick one person each class to post notes from the class discussion to the blog in lieu of his/her post for that week. IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that you use the blog to test out ideas related to your final paper. Students will have access to the course’s Blackboard site through UT Direct.

Grading Policy:

Final grades will be determined on the basis of the following rubric.Please note: to ensure fairness, all final grades will be rounded to the nearest whole number (so 89.5 is an A- while an 89.499 is a B+). The University of Texas does not recognize the grade of A+

A= 94-100

A- = 90-93

B+ = 87-89

B = 84-86

B- = 80-83

C+ =77-79

C = 74-76

C- = 70-73

D+ = 67-69

D = 64-66

D- = 60-63

F = 0-59

Students with Disabilities:

Students with disabilities may request appropriate academic accommodations from the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement, Services for Students with Disabilities, (512-471-6259)

Schedule:

January 20,22: Introductions and Slumdog Millionaire

January 25-29: Slumdog and Swarup

February 1-5: Swarup

February 8-12: Chaudhuri

February 15-19: Roy

February 22-26: Roy

March 1-5: Adiga

March 8-12: Adiga

Paper Proposals DUE on MARCH 8^th, no later than 5 PM

March 22-26: Mistry

March 29-April 2: Mistry

April 5-9: Sinha

ROUGH DRAFT DUE ON APRIL 9^th, no later than 5 PM

April 12-16: Desai

April 19-23: Desai

April 26-30: Chatterjee

May 3-7: Sawhney

FINAL PAPERS DUE on MAY 7^th, no later than 5 PM