Gemma Atwal's documentary Marathon Boy, a film-festival favorite that
will be shown on HBO on Thursday night, is a wrenching experience
largely because it uses the moods and methods of true crime and pulp
fiction to tell a story that is nominally about poverty, politics and
the toxic mingling of celebrity culture and national pride in modern
The employment of those techniques may also leave you unsure of how to
respond to what you're seeing and troubled by the film's (intentional)
lack of answers. But it's unsophisticated these days to expect that sort
of thing from a documentary.
Judged by current standards of emotional impact and artful ambiguity Marathon Boy is an unqualified success.
The film recounts the story, already extensively reported, of Budhia
Singh, a child from the slums who became a sensation for his ability to
run long distances at very young ages - half-marathons at 3, marathons
and, in the most famous instance, more than 40 miles nonstop at 4. He
and the coach-guru who adopted him, Biranchi Das, became the stars of a
years-long national soap opera involving accusations of child abuse and
fraud, standoffs with police and government officials, imprisonment and
Marathon Boy covers the entwined stories of Budhia and Mr. Das from
2005 to 2010. (The events predate the film Slumdog Millionaire, to
which they are invariably compared.) Much of its immediacy comes from
the fact that even the earliest events are portrayed in the present
tense; Ms. Atwal apparently was there filming interviews from near the
start of the tale. None of this is explained in the film, which has no
narration and minimal explanatory titles, a choice that heightens the
drama while leaving niggling questions.
Another choice that gives the film much of its impact is the decision to
withhold, in a teasing fictional style, the tragedy that provides the
denouement, and which will already be known to anyone with a basic
knowledge of the case. We won't spoil the ending here, although it was
reported in The New York Times when it happened.
In the production notes, Ms. Atwal, who is based in London, says that
she was determined not to "pander to our Western sensibility" by
identifying too closely with the sad child, Budhia. The film takes pains
to show that in his environment, being exploited for publicity and
financial gain and made to run punishing distances in circus-like
conditions was not necessarily the worst outcome.
But in its dedication to being open-ended the film leaves many questions
unanswered or unpursued. Was Budhia actually physically damaged? Did
Mr. Das profit from his stewardship of Budhia, and if so to what extent?
Is Budhia an athlete, or just a child blessed with freakish endurance?
People on both sides of these questions state their views, often
stridently, but the film makes no greater effort to find the truth.
The entire thrust of the film - emphasized by the atmosphere-setting
scenes of littered slums and overwhelming crowds - is that in the Indian
maelstrom the truth can't be found. You could, if you were being
unkind, see that as a form of pandering to the Western sensibility:
"It's India, Jake." Shake your head and move on.
Story first published:
November 04, 2011 13:41 IST