SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE TRAILER (2:05)

26th Sunday in Ordinary Time (YEAR C)

While Jesus’ parable in the Gospel might feel distant, its core message resonates powerfully in the modern world, perhaps nowhere more vividly than in Danny Boyle’s 2008 film, Slumdog Millionaire. The movie masterfully translates the parable’s timeless themes of indifference, the gulf between the powerful and the suffering, and the ultimate reversal of fortunes into a contemporary, secular narrative. Through the journey of its protagonist, Jamal Malik, the film presents a modern Lazarus, whose exploiters embody the anonymous rich man, forcing the audience to confront the same urgent warning given two millennia ago.

RELATED: Homily by Deacon Peter
RELATED: Homily Starters – 26th Sunday of Year C

Theme 1

The most striking parallel is the stark division between two coexisting but separate worlds.

• In the Parable of Lazarus: The chasm is represented by the rich man’s gate. He lives a life of opulent self-indulgence, feasting every day in fine linens, while Lazarus lies just outside, covered in sores and longing for scraps from the table. The rich man is not depicted as actively cruel; his sin is one of profound indifference. He does not see Lazarus. The physical gate between them is a symbol of the social, economic, and moral gulf he refuses to cross.
• In Slumdog Millionaire: The film masterfully visualizes this chasm. We see the sprawling, chaotic, and brutal poverty of the Dharavi slum juxtaposed with the gleaming, sterile, and air-conditioned television studio.
  • Jamal as Lazarus: Jamal’s entire life is an experience of being on the outside, looking in. He is the “slumdog,” a term of contempt. His existence, marked by loss, exploitation, and a desperate fight for survival, is completely invisible and incomprehensible to the privileged world.
  • Prem Kumar as the Rich Man: The show’s host, Prem Kumar, perfectly embodies the rich man. He is arrogant, condescending, and wrapped in a bubble of fame and wealth. He cannot conceive that a “chai-wallah” from the slums could possess the knowledge to win. His disdain and suspicion reveal a complete inability to see Jamal as a human being with a life story. For Prem, Jamal is an object of contempt and a fraud, much as Lazarus was likely seen as nothing more than a nuisance at the gate.

---

Theme 2

Both stories challenge the conventional definition of what it means to be “rich.”

• In the Parable: The rich man’s wealth is purely material. His identity is defined by his possessions and his lavish lifestyle. Lazarus, in contrast, possesses nothing in the material world. His “wealth,” revealed only after death, is his patient suffering and his faith.
• In Slumdog Millionaire: The film’s central genius is to redefine the nature of wealth. The prize is 20 million rupees, the ultimate symbol of material success. However, Jamal’s ability to win this prize comes not from formal education or privilege, but from the brutal currency of his suffering.
  • Each correct answer is linked to a traumatic and formative life experience: escaping a violent mob, losing his mother, being exploited by gangsters, and his enduring love for Latika.
  • This subverts the values of the rich man. The very experiences that marked Jamal as poor and insignificant in the eyes of the world are what constitute his true “riches.” His pain becomes his power, a form of wealth that Prem Kumar can neither understand nor possess. Jamal is not lucky; his life has prepared him.

---

Theme 3

Both narratives culminate in a dramatic reversal, where the last become first and the first become last.

• In the Parable: The reversal is absolute and eternal. After death, Lazarus is “carried by the angels to be with Abraham” and is comforted. The rich man finds himself in torment, begging for a single drop of water. Their positions are irrevocably swapped, demonstrating a divine justice that inverts the injustices of the world.
• In Slumdog Millionaire: The reversal is social, economic, and deeply personal.
  • Jamal, the “slumdog,” is elevated to the status of a national hero and a multi-millionaire. He achieves the material wealth that was once impossibly distant.
  • Prem Kumar, the powerful and respected host, is brought low. He is exposed as a cheat and arrested, his reputation destroyed. He experiences a social death, cast down from his pedestal of fame.
  • Crucially, Jamal’s ultimate reward is not the money, but his reunion with Latika. This is his “comfort,” the spiritual and emotional prize he sought all along. He crosses the chasm not just to become rich, but to find love and be whole.

Yet, even in its hopeful ending, the film echoes the parable’s solemn warning. The rich man, horrified, begs for Lazarus to be sent to warn his brothers, but is told they already have the guidance of the prophets. The film suggests that we, too, have our warnings—in the gospels, in the stories of saints, and in the faces of the poor on our screens. We cannot claim ignorance. The parable ends not with joy, but with an urgent, unsettling command: “Don’t wait.” It reminds us that the chasm between wealth and poverty, indifference and love, does not begin after death. It is here, now, in the gates we erect in our own lives. Both the ancient story and the modern film serve as a desperate wake-up call, urging us to identify the Lazarus in our own world and to bridge the gap with compassion before it becomes eternally, irrevocably fixed.

Discussion Questions for Deeper Analysis

1. The rich man in the parable is condemned for his indifference more than his actions. Besides Prem Kumar, who else in the film demonstrates indifference to Jamal’s suffering? Does the television audience share in this indifference?
2. How does the film’s tagline, “What does it take to find a lost love? A. A gun B. 50/50 C. A phone call D. It is written,” connect to the themes of fate and destiny in the story? How does this compare to the sense of divine justice in the parable?
3. While Jamal is the “Lazarus” figure, does his brother Salim also fit into the parable? If so, where? Does he represent a different response to suffering?
4. The parable offers a stark warning with an eternal outcome. Slumdog Millionaire has a joyous, hopeful ending. How does this change the overall message? Is the film’s message ultimately more optimistic or less challenging than the parable’s?
5. What does the film suggest is the “uncrossable gulf” in our modern world? Is it just money, or is it something else? Does the film believe this gulf can truly be crossed?

---