| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 12/04/2008 : 17:31:34
|
Slumdog Millionaire
Still serving the diplomatic service as India's Deputy High Commissioner to South Africa, Vikas Swarup has won countless international awards for his debut novel Q&A, which tells the story of a penniless orphan from the Mumbai slums who becomes a contestant on the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire.
Considering the recent devastation in that city, it is with understandable mixed emotions that I watched Danny Boyle's film version. Actually I was familiar with the story, not because I've read the book, but because it was dramatized on the BBC into 15 minute segments over the course of a week.
At just under two hours the film proves Boyle is back on form, immersing us in a truly unfamiliar culture, leavening its pain with exuberance and even humour. The storytelling device is adapted from the book and proves as effective on film as on radio -- maybe more so.
We have a double set-up. Jamal, a personable young man -- played by Dev Patel with a patina of diffidence barely hiding his inner passions -- is a contestant on the famous game show. We recognize instantly the franchised set, lighting, and musical stings. Bollywood superstar Anil Kapoor plays the Indian Chris Tarant mixing charm and menace. As the film progresses we understand this is more than a host-contestant relationship, but one of confrontation.
Incised between the show's scenes as Jamal moves from question to question are disturbing, sometimes brutal encounters between Patel and the police. The premise for his arrest is a question on all India's lips: how can a mobile phone company tea-boy know enough to get even one question correct on this show of increasing complexity.
The main police interrogator solicits from Jamal his life story in an effort to eliminate or prove fraud or other behaviour outside the law.
It is these flashbacks from his childhood as a Slumdog to the present moment of the show which form the action. Its main structure derives from the triumvirate of Jamal, his brother Sanil, and Latika, their childhood friend with whom Jamal inevitably falls in love. All three are played at various stages of their lives by three sets of actors, from all of whom Boyle has drawn excellent performances.
In fact there isn't a duff actor among the entire cast, whether they're called on to repress emotion or give it full rein, they make you believe you're peeking into this unsettling world of people learning to survive however they can. Pustulent devastation of a city's slums as well as the emotions of its people contrasts tellingly with those who live in a luxury either inherited or acquired.
Boyle pulls out all the stops to question what success means. And though it doesn't shy away from the coarse realities, the end-credits which rehearse a typical Bollywood all-dancing all-singing finale form the perfect symbol of hope.
With what Mumbai's been going through, it couldn't come at a more appropriate time.
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/09/2008 : 22:48:51
|
Again, not so impressed with this effort from Danny Boyle. In fact I'm more and more convinced that he's ever made a truly satisfying film or even a particularly good one in a long time. It's hard not to get frustrated with his insistent showy camera work; he seems to have no faith in the story he's telling that every third shot has to be seen on a 30 degree angle. Understandable in the over-eager flourishes of a first time director trying to impress. Here it's truly annoying. Given the decent premise and the strong cast he has assembled it's a shame he doesn't have more faith in them to sit back and let them do the work.
The idea is a great one, but the screenplay is hugely flawed; it's numbingly predictable and logic crumbles for the sake of the "feelgood" factor, which as Baffy pointed out is something Mumbai could use a little of right now, but it's hard to stomach sometimes. There are desperate attempts to get a raw gangster "City of God" feel into the film later on, which is never convincing in the slightest, particularly when the final intent undermines all that high drama and is actually rather whimsical.
Plot spoilers:
I would much have preferred Jamal to have known the final answer all along and to have purposefully answered incorrectly at the end, as he was uninterested in the money, simply pleased to know that he has found Latika and that she is there waiting for him and safe (although given the gangster lifestyle Salim and Latika had gotten involved in, they of course aren't safe at all, with all of India knowing Jamal has won a cool 20 Million). Let's not go into the fact that Latika couldn't have spoken to him on the phone while watching the show on television as the programme is pre-recorded and not shown live for obvious reasons, or that the final question could be so simple that Indian school children would know it, or that he couldn't possibly be at the station at the end given the mobbing he would face for months as India's newest celebrity... just a few of the problems that the screenplay sidesteps for the sake of "a happy ending". Call me curmudgeonly, but I'd rather they'd tried to be a bit smarter than that. |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/10/2008 : 00:16:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by dem9nic
The idea is a great one, but the screenplay is hugely flawed; it's numbingly predictable and logic crumbles for the sake of the "feelgood" factor, which as Baffy pointed out is something Mumbai could use a little of right now, but it's hard to stomach sometimes.
Not an excuse, Demonic, but possibly enlightenting:
Considering the thing began as a novel, then was dramatized as a radio play stripped over a week and I'm assuming upon which the finance was achieved, I'm not sure exactly how much wiggle room Boyle or anyone else had to change the elements of the story. Sadly Boyle doesn't command sufficient cine-power to over-ride major story changes.
Majority funding came from UK tv and film company Celador, partly owned by Jaspar Carrott. On their board is Chris Tarrant, host of WWTBAM. Their "product" has always been on the light side, though they recently funded a film by Julian Fellowes. I first became aware of them when I got a running part in a [wholly forgettable] sitcom for London Weekend TV.
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/04/2009 : 18:10:07
|
| Right on, dem9nic. It's a nice gooey feelgood movie and not a lot more; a nice travelogue through an exotic culture as viewed through a foreigner's lens; a cute love story with just enough darkness to keep it from becoming TOO cute; a fucking fantastic end credits sequence; and inexplicably, the most acclaimed movie of the year. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 01/04/2009 18:12:36 |
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/04/2009 : 21:44:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Right on, dem9nic. It's a nice gooey feelgood movie and not a lot more; a nice travelogue through an exotic culture as viewed through a foreigner's lens; a cute love story with just enough darkness to keep it from becoming TOO cute; a fucking fantastic end credits sequence; and inexplicably, the most acclaimed movie of the year.
If it were just that, it still would have been good. What makes it great are the superb technical aspects (no other film aside from The Dark Knight impressed me more from an acting, directing, cinematography, editing, sound, production design, etc point of view) and its commentary on the class system of Mumbai. The screenplay is a fairy tale, but a superbly told one; one that deserves comparison to Dickens. The non-linear structure was bold and worked extremely well and deserves to be mentioned. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/04/2009 : 21:48:13
|
| Oh, right, yes: a very clever and intriguing narrative structure, that's also an excellent point. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/05/2009 : 08:38:41
|
My roommate just come back from seeing it. I asked him what he thought. He shrugged and said, "Eh. It was just ok." He said he preferred Kill Bill Volume 2.
He doesn't wash the frying pan when he fries an egg. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 01/05/2009 : 15:35:35
|
Sounds like he's a sensible chap when it comes to movie criticism, but a terrible flat mate.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 02:29:51
|
Slumdog Millionaire
I'm roughly with demonic on the film's flaws, although I enjoyed it more than him, as I tend to. (I don't know which faults are in the book or were invented for the film.)
I don't know why (given that they are mainly speaking English-pretending-to-be-Hindi throughout) but using the English title of the programme really annoyed me. (Admittedly, I was also annoyed at the prize money being double what I thought it was, but it turns out the lower amount was just in the original series.) I think it's to do with the fact that crore (ten million) is almost never translated, even in subtitles for Western audiences. I know it makes things easier but it seemed a bit lazy to me.
As demonic mentions, the questions are mainly ridiculously easy. Perhaps that is why they had to make the c. twelve-year-olds have no idea what the Taj Mahal was, i.e. even its name or the fact that it is not a hotel. Find me an Indian over ten who cannot at least name it and I'll give you a crore myself. The final question is (i) absurdly easy without even giving any answer options, (ii) hilariously easy once one sees those options and (iii) looming obviously from the very outset of the film. I find it very unlikely that Jamal would not have looked it up in his life. Given that that part is tweely done, I would have preferred if as a result of their first games together Latika had looked up the information at some point after they were separated. Indeed, better still would have been for the question to have been a very obscure one about the book, and Latika had read and re-read the book as a cherished memory. It would have been saccharine but at least less flimsy.
It doesn't make any sense to have neither Amitabh Bachchan or Shahrukh Khan as the host as themselves, although maybe they wouldn't want to be associated with the host wanting the player to lose, which also makes no sense at all. Contestants occasionally winning keeps those shows going. Bachchan in particular would have tied in nicely with the earlier story. I'd be surprised if he wouldn't have done it, since he's quite a whore for attention.
The devanagarised lettering in the credits is a very stale idea, and the version used is also a particularly rubbish and ugly one.
Dev Patel comes across as far too British and middle class -- no real slumdogs available amongst the Bombay millions, Danny? I was more impressed by the younger performers.
But... I did enjoy it and I can now see why it is so popular. Beforehand, I was wondering how it could be so good when it is such a cosy concept. One does care about the characters significantly, and is shocked by some of the events in their lives. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/12/2009 02:32:38 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 00:20:54
|
We just watched it, and we enjoyed it very much. Tech creds all lovely, etc. [some flashy stuff left over from 28 DAYS, hmmm?], kids and adolescents beyond gorgeous, the story's essential time-shifting very powerful and all, even a dance number at the end.
But really: was this the best picture of the year? Test of time and all?
Afterwards, we couldn't pull all the other nominees out of our minds quickly, b/c this one took its fellows by storm, much as LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE had done a few years earlier [like SLUMDOG, a well-made little film which was over-praised].
I'm very glad to see flicks come out of nowhere [I loved and cheered the noms for FROZEN RIVER and THE VISITOR], and it's great when what is essentially a "foreign film" wins the Oscar. But in five years' time, I predict we'll be looking at this Best Pic winner much like we now see AMERICAN BEAUTY, or Roberto Begnini's Best Actor triumph.
Nice job, but for the ages? Please. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 04/06/2009 : 05:59:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
We just watched it, and we enjoyed it very much. Tech creds all lovely, etc. [some flashy stuff left over from 28 DAYS, hmmm?], kids and adolescents beyond gorgeous, the story's essential time-shifting very powerful and all, even a dance number at the end.
But really: was this the best picture of the year? Test of time and all?
Afterwards, we couldn't pull all the other nominees out of our minds quickly, b/c this one took its fellows by storm, much as LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE had done a few years earlier [like SLUMDOG, a well-made little film which was over-praised].
I'm very glad to see flicks come out of nowhere [I loved and cheered the noms for FROZEN RIVER and THE VISITOR], and it's great when what is essentially a "foreign film" wins the Oscar. But in five years' time, I predict we'll be looking at this Best Pic winner much like we now see AMERICAN BEAUTY, or Roberto Begnini's Best Actor triumph.
Nice job, but for the ages? Please.
I'm inclined to disagree, but only time will tell. I think Slumdog Millionaire is the best Best Picture since Crash, which continues to hold the same power it had when it was first released three years ago. I haven't seen American Beauty since its release 9 years ago, but I remember thinking it was deserving of the award.
Then again, I still think Shakespeare in Love deserved the Best Picture Oscar more than Saving Private Ryan. That opinion may have been popular in 1999, but in 2009, it puts me in the minority. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/06/2009 : 09:17:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Then again, I still think Shakespeare in Love deserved the Best Picture Oscar more than Saving Private Ryan. That opinion may have been popular in 1999, but in 2009, it puts me in the minority.
Actually, the only movie that really deserved to win Best Picture that year was Life is Beautiful, and I still regret that it didn't win!
(And Emily Watson should have won best actress for Hillary & Jackie instead of Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love, but that's another debate altogether.) |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/08/2009 : 19:37:16
|
Welp, I disagree with both of you, cool and Chocky, re the rightful Best Picture winner that year [RYAN looks better and better as time passes, tho my response may be colored by an emotional trip we made to Normandy last November -- but, having screened the far inferior THE LONGEST DAY just afterwards, I don't think the trip affected my critical faculty all that much]. But isn't that what makes hoss races?
Oscar voters don't have the luxury of evaluating the test of time. For me, the worst Best Pic pick [aside from THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH over HIGH NOON] was ORDINARY PEOPLE over RAGING BULL. How many times since its coronation have you felt the urge to give O.P. a spin? As with most Kubrick films, BULL was pretty much shriveled by many contemporary critics, some of which came around later and judged it to be the best flick of the decade.
SLUMDOG has to sit and age, like a fine bottle of wine. Let's pull it out in five, seven years, and see what's really inside. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/11/2009 : 23:34:56
|
| I far prefer Life is Beautiful to Saving Private Ryan. The latter doesn't do anything for me at all. I'm also not too bothered about Raging Bull: I don't find the character interesting or compelling in any way. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/12/2009 : 14:56:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I far prefer Life is Beautiful to Saving Private Ryan. The latter doesn't do anything for me at all.
The first time I watched Saving Private Ryan I saw the first 15-20 minutes of it, then something else came on TV which I watched all the way through, and then switched back to Saving Private Ryan for the last 15-20 minutes. I felt like I hadn't missed a thing in the middle and was bored by what I did see. Then I tried to watch in again all the way through and gave up after about 30 minutes. I could never say the same about Live is Beautiful*.
As for Slumdog Millionaire, you might be right about the test of time, but before I see the movie, I really want to read the book.
(*But of course, I too may have a coloured view of certain movies due to my own ancestry/past.)
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 04/12/2009 14:58:19 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/12/2009 : 19:19:38
|
| No, Life Is Beautiful is wonderful for any viewer. Although it's not exactly realistic on a close-up basis, it came as a revelation because something obvious had never occurred to me before -- that parents would have protected their children from whatever realities of the camps they could. That's still a comfort to me. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Slumdog Millionaire
