Reactions from India and the Indian diaspora to Slumdog Millionaire

The 2008 film ''Slumdog Millionaire'' has been a subject of discussion among a variety of people in India and the Indian diaspora. Some film critics have responded positively to the film. At the same time, others objected to issues such as Jamal's use of British English or the fact that similar films by Indian filmmakers have not received equal recognition. A few notable filmmakers such as Aamir Khan and Priyadarshan have been critical of the film. Author and critic Salman Rushdie argues that it has "a patently ridiculous conceit."

Reception from film critics

The film received positive reviews from many Indian film critics, though some were negative and others mixed. According to ''All Bollywood'', the film has an average rating of 81% based on an aggregate of 25 reviews from Indian film critics. It was praised by Nikhat Kazmi of the ''Times of India'' who referred to ''Slumdog Millionaire'' as "a piece of riveting cinema, meant to be savoured as a Cinderella-like fairy tale, with the edge of a thriller and the vision of an artist." She also argued against criticism of the film, stating: "it was never meant to be a documentary on the down and out in Dharavi. And it isn't." Renuka Vyavahare of '' Indiatimes'' suggested that "the film is indeed very Indian" and that it is "one of the best English films set in India and revolving around the country’s most popular metropolis Mumbai." Kaveree Bamzai of ''India Today'' called the film "feisty" and argued that it is "Indian at its core and Western in its technical flourish." Anand Giridharadas argued in ''The New York Times'' that the film has a "freshness" which "portrays a changing India, with great realism, as something India long resisted being: a land of self-makers, where a scruffy son of the slums can, solely of his own effort, hoist himself up, flout his origins, break with fate." Giridharadas also called the film "a tribute to the irrepressible self." Poorna Shetty stated in ''The Guardian'' that "Boyle's depiction of Mumbai is spot on." She further stated that the film displays the "human aspect of the slums and the irrepressible energy and life force of the place" and offers "a breathing snapshot of the city that is always stripped of its warmth when depicted in the news." Khalid Mohamed gave the film a rave review and a 5-star rating.

Others were more critical of the film. One common complaint was directed towards Patel's use of British English which was never explained within the context of the film. In referring to this issue, Mukul Kesavan of ''The Telegraph (Kolkata)'' stated that the film is "a hybrid so odd" (due to the decision to have the first third in Hindi and the remainder in English) "that it becomes hard for the Indian viewer to ... suspend disbelief" and that "the transition from child actors who in real life are slum children to young actors who are, just as clearly, middle-class anglophones is so abrupt and inexplicable that it subverts the 'realism' of the brilliantly shot squalor in which their lives play out." Furthermore, Gautaman Bhaskaran argued that although the film was shot in India, it is not Indian in character. He questioned the "euphoria in India" after the film's release there, arguing that with a few exceptions, "there is nothing Indian about this film." He concluded that the film has "very little substance" and is "superficial and insensitive."

A more contentious argument lay in the assertion that Indians have already made better and more realistic films about poverty and corruption in India. Subhash K. Jha (author of ''The Essential Guide to Bollywood'') remarked that this territory has already been covered by Indian filmmakers (Mira Nair in ''Salaam Bombay'' and Satyajit Ray in the Apu Trilogy). Similarly, Soutik Biswas of the BBC
...