Slumdog Millionaire (Danny Boyle, 2008)

[tavernier]

Of course it did.

[Ishmael]

Trainspotting promised a "hyper-charged East-meets-West crowd-pleaser feat. superb MTV editing, easy to read subtitles, and a metaphorically-rich story that hits all the right buttons"???

Yes, there was a note to that effect during the end credits.

[Barmy]

Slumdog Millionaire is a wonderful return to form by Danny Boyle. The film is witty and stylish, which keeps the attention of the viewer throughout. The visuals are simply amazing and even the slum dwellers look cute! The performances are striking especially from Dev Patel (Jamal), Freida Pinto (Latika) and Saurabh Agarwal (call centre manager). However it is Anil Kapoor's sinister performance as the creepy gameshow host that is the scene stealer in the movie! The performances are a major ingredient in what is a meaty and spicy film that will swallow loads of awards - including Oscars! Enjoy! 8/10

[tavernier]

The 2009 edition of Barmy is boring.

[nyasa]

I'm afraid I found it rather twee. Less City of God, more Billy Elliot.

[Barmy]

No, it's the feelgood movie of the year. And 2009 will be all about feelgood movies. People want escapism with their popcorn, thank you very much.

[Zazou dans le Metro]

No, it's the feelgood movie of the year. And 2009 will be all about feelgood movies. People want escapism with their popcorn, thank you very much.

Please define 'people'.

[Jeff]

I'm afraid I found it rather twee. Less City of God, more Billy Elliot.

Are you referring to Slumdog Millionaire or "the 2009 edition of Barmy"?

[Gregory]

I guess "people" means complacent movie-goers well-heeled enough to still order $5 bags of popcorn at the movies even as the economy goes down the drain. No offense to those who buy this popcorn, of course, I'm grateful to you for subsidizing my ticket.
There is some truth to Barmy's point. Look at how many films there were during the Depression about people who live in penthouses and drink rivers of expensive champagne. Then again, this ignores huge areas of the 1930s cinema, especially with the rise of the Popular Front.

[nyasa]

I'm afraid I found it rather twee. Less City of God, more Billy Elliot.

Are you referring to Slumdog Millionaire or "the 2009 edition of Barmy"?

I was referring to the film, but now you mention it the new Barmy could well be a combination of Billy Elliot and City of God. A bloke in a tutu packing heat.

[Gregory]

To get back on topic, I found Slumdog nauseatingly two-dimensional and simple-minded. The glitz of Boyle's direction added to the falseness inherent in the story. It's like a fable meant to entertain children, although I didn't spot anyone under about 17 in the crowded theater where I saw this last week. Spoilers ahead, although I don't think there's much to spoil in such a predictable feel-good film.

The main character decides to guess on the final question even though he doesn't know the answer, and even though he could walk away with half the grand prize, simply because he believes so much in destiny. What brings the happy ending is the underdog's pure heroism and the prodigal brother's heroic martyrdom. The latter is conveniently there to do the dirty work of killing the bad guys so as not to interfere with the moral purity of the protagonist. He can be disposed of near the end and because it's "redemption" that serves a morally good purpose it just adds to the overall feel-good quality of the film. At the same time, it's hard to believe that their virtuous actions really matter when everything is simply working according to destiny. I guess it's destiny for there to be such snarling villains and a thriving underworld within which they attain such great wealth and power. And apparently it's destined that all the other slum dwellers who can't get on a TV game show (and win big through sheer dumb luck) continue to live out their short lives in miserable poverty -- but I guess we're not supposed to think about any of that.
It's a fairly tale, and while there's nothing wrong with fairy tales per se it's a shame to see one so lacking in depth and imagination.
(edited for spelling error)

[Grand Illusion]

It's like a fable meant to entertain children, although I didn't spot anyone under about 17 in the crowded theater where I saw this last week.

Exactly. You can't take a child to see this. The film is rated R (in the States), and Boyle is trying to exploit some brutal, powerful imagery. It's not enough to dismiss the criticisms because the film is just a feeldumb fantasy. When Boyle opens the film on a torture scene, easily evoking thoughts of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, my first thought is not that this is a light film with no care to be taken seriously.

Boyle tries to have it both ways all throughout this film. We're expected to believe that children are harvested and then disfigured to make an extra dime while they are begging on the street. And we're expected to believe in magical happy destinyland where everything works out. Boyle wants the gravitas of a child watching his mother murdered in a race-motivated assault, but he wants the expired movie cliches central to the love story.

If I could pick an element of the film to epitomize Slumdog Millionaire, it would be the scar on Latika's face. On the surface, the viewer thinks they are looking at something severe, real, and violent. After all, it's a scar caused from a knife-wielding gangster. But looking closer, we realize how carefully art directed that scar was. The scar is a single clean cut. It perfectly frames the actress's face. It's not an ugly scar at all. It doesn't protrude onto her face; it doesn't ruin her symmetry. In no way does it obscure beauty. So while the initial impression is one of shock or sympathy, the fraud is that it's carefully designed to be pretty, not to convey any sense of truth. To contrast, see how the prostitute is treated in Unforgiven. It's not pretty when a woman is cut up. Boyle's film is one where he's not being honest about the situation, and the onus is on the audience not to think twice.

[conspirator12]

[tavernier]

^^^ Barmy '09?

[Nothing]

People want escapism with their popcorn, thank you very much.

industry rags and studio executives have been repeating this little mantra ad infinitum since the onset of the financial crisis - but I don't see any increased evidence of it. Pure speculation or, rather, any old excuse to carry on making crap, shallow films.

[Lemmy Caution]

Pure speculation perhaps, but personally I plan to invest everything I have in the escapism bubble ... but get out before it crashes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm surprised by all of the critical praise for Slumdog.
I liked the subtitles best.

[John Cope]

David Thomson for the defense.

[Nothing]

What a load of jingoistic nonsense from Thomson. So it's prescient, hip, current, etc, because it centres around a popular gameshow and it deserves to 'win awards' because it isn't American and has 'vivacity' (MTV editing). As for quoting the rotting dreg that is Scott Foundas... I'd take Armond, given the choice.

[Grand Illusion]

It's just so clairvoyant. As Thomson says, "You've never seen another film like it." No other film has ever dealt with money before. In fact, it's such a wise film that when we look back on it in a few years, as Thomson suggests, we'll realize that if we all had just believed in the destiny fairy, we'd become millionaires. No other film could provide such timely wisdom worth revisiting.

[Binker]

It's more that here is a film about money, which leads to this prediction: in the next few years, no subject is going to dominate our popular culture more than money.

OH SNAP, GUYS, HE SAID IT!!! What could have tipped him off, other than the past 100 years or so?

Twelve years ago, in Trainspotting, Boyle saw that drugs were the essential lubrication of the moment, and he made one of the few films that plays fair by both the exhilaration and the terror in drugs. Slumdog Millionaire has the same grasp on the insane way money has shattered our reality but commanded our dreams.

I mean, is Thomson really trying to argue that Boyle is some kind of topical filmmaker because he made a film about drugs in 1997 and a film about money in 2008?

EDIT: I take a 15 minute Planet Earth break and Grand Illusion comes in and makes the exact same point.

[royalton]

There is some truth to Barmy's point. Look at how many films there were during the Depression about people who live in penthouses and drink rivers of expensive champagne.

I was thinking the same about this film just a moment ago. Put it next to Gold Diggers of 1933 (a film I adore) on a double bill and see what happens. People would rather see Slumdog these days than Wendy & Lucy. Frankly I can hardly blame them though Wendy is vastly superior.

I think Slumdog is the least of Boyle's work that I have seen, but it is understandably popular, fun and infectious (even if I thought the pace was horribly lagging). Dev Patel is so doe-eyed and earnest that of course he will win the audience. It's precious, it's surface, and it's vaguely exotic so of course it will sweep awards. Along with Academy machine product Doubt, and possibly Revolutionary Road.

[Antoine Doinel]

I'm surprised by all of the critical praise for Slumdog.

I would have to agree. Slumdog Millionaire, while structured around a particularly clever flashback narrative device with the gameshow questions, is a barely plausible romance wrapped up in an exotic location. Had this starred any Hollywood actor playing "homeless" or "poor", the critics would've torn it to shreds, yet for some reason, this gets a pass. For me, it's Boyle's least interesting to film date and his most emotionally lazy. Thank God, Loveleen Tandan saves him on the India location shooting which makes from some truly breathtaking stuff. Otherwise, the film is as empty at the Bollywood dance sequence over the end credits.

[exte]

never the mind.

[eight_and_a_half]

I'm surprised by all of the critical praise for Slumdog.

I would have to agree. Slumdog Millionaire, while structured around a particularly clever flashback narrative device with the gameshow questions, is a barely plausible romance wrapped up in an exotic location. Had this starred any Hollywood actor playing "homeless" or "poor", the critics would've torn it to shreds, yet for some reason, this gets a pass. For me, it's Boyle's least interesting to film date and his most emotionally lazy.

Well put. I honestly believe had this film been set in the slums of a major North American city, critics would have been less receptive to the film and far more critical of its overly coincidental set of circumstances. I can see this film having a major critical re-think in about five years time.

[Cde.]

Make something better.

Only if you promise to make a better film than The Darjeeling Ltd.