Slumdog Problems

[bryant]

Backlash time! Slumdog Millionaire was pretty fun and I can always lounge back and watch Danny Boyle get all flamboyant with his camera, but it wouldn’t find a place among my ten best films of the year. Also I’m going to say snide things about its relationship to City of God.

Problem one: I’m too sensitive to the conditions depicted with such skill. The Mumbai slums are atrociously awful, and the poverty level we’re seeing is horrifying. Boyle’s really good at showing this. The early scene with Jamal covered in shit, running around oblivious — you laugh and you’re repulsed at your laughter, because it’s funny but guys. That kid is covered in shit and he’s going to get an infection and die or be scarred for life. This is bad.

So he gets out, which is great. The ending, everything from the shot of him returning to the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire studio onwards, it’s magic. It feels great when he gets the girl. So. Yeah. And the millions of other people who grew up watching their parents die and running around covered in shit… get to feel good because one of their own escaped!

Man, 20 million rupees is a really inexpensive way to give people hope and make them satisfied with the world around them. It’s a sophisticated lottery, and before we get all excited about the skill involved, the message of the movie is that it’s not about skill. In fact, that would be problem two.

Problem two: “it is written.”

Let’s unpack this a bit. You go to a country well known, among other things, for a rigid caste system. The idea that destiny controls you has been used for generations to control the lower classes. You make a movie that opens and ends with the bald statement: “it is written.” Jamal wins not because he’s smart, but because he’s had the right life experiences to know the answers to the questions. He’s lucky, and the ultimate answer reinforces that message.

That’s about as uplifting as a ten day old curry. Don’t try and save that sucker in the microwave; it’s done.

See previous disclaimer. I’m being overly sensitive to this, partially because I’m in a glum mood anyway. This is, in fact, classic melodrama and can be appreciated on that basis. But man, it’s not Dickensian. More like Horatio Alger.

Oh, yeah, problem three. I may have used up my entire head of steam on the first two. Let’s see.

Problem three: I’ve already seen City of God. Fernando Meirelles does not have a copyright on hyperkinetic fast cut overexposed cinematography in the slums. It’s still got to be a reference point, and when Slumdog Millionaire goes with the kid holding the gun and it’s all will he shoot? He’s too young to be a killer! Yes, I have seen that scene before. The comparisons are, thus, inevitable.

Slumdog doesn’t bring anything new to the table except the message that it can all work out in the end, and given that I feel that’s a trite message in the destiny context, that wasn’t really enough. So it goes.

So that’s the three big problems; and all that aside, it wasn’t a bad movie. I disliked the message and it suffered by comparison to one of my favorite flicks of all time. Well, Forbidden Kingdom was no Once Upon a Time in China but that doesn’t mean it sucked. Slumdog Millionaire only suffers because it’s gotten too much hype in a relatively poor year for cinema.

Originally published at Imaginary Vestibule.

Comments

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

Slumdog Millionaire only suffers because it’s gotten too much hype in a relatively poor year for cinema.

^ this.

It was a fine movie; I left with few complaints. But in any other year it would never have won (or be nominated for) so many awards.

[allegedly.livejournal.com]

Arg...spoiler warnings... :(

[bryant]

Iif the level of spoilers in this post was too high for you, you wanna skip my movie reviews. I am, however, sorry if it bugged or upset you. :(

I do think about spoilers when I'm writing these (depending on how old the movie is), but I don't promise to leave them out entirely. In this case in particular, I don't think there's much suspense about the ending -- that's clearly not the point of the movie. In fact, most of the story is told in flashbacks.

Also, the poster for the movie says "What does it take to find a lost love?" The ending is assumed in that statement. You know where the movie is going very quickly, both from publicity and from the first few scenes; the question is how the characters get there (and why).

I have a longish rant about spoilers and their role in pop culture, which I will spare you because it winds up sounding very lectury. :) But I already censor myself around spoilers more than I really want to when I'm discussing film. Apologies again.

[allegedly.livejournal.com]

Word. I'm with ya. :)

As soon as I typed my comment, I thought, "You know...tone of voice did not translate into my comment there. Not the one I actually intended." It was a goofy kind of "arg! oh well, that's not that big a deal" rather than "ARG! DUDE! WTF?!" ;)

I got yelled last year (2008) at for spoiling the Vicar of Dibley, which is a really frumpy (but I think funny) UK sitcom that ended in, what, 2006? ;p

Random curiousity question: why censor yourself? why not just put things behind a cut on lj? (is that because you're coming at us with this post via your external site?) Like I said, just curious.

I would actually be interested in reading your thoughts on spoilers and pop culture sometime!

[bryant]

Word!

OK, good. I've been yelled at before so I'm wary, and I really /don't/ want to make people unhappy, but this whole "you must never spoil ever" thing, man.

I censor a bit because I want people to read these and comment, mostly, and I figure I can find a good balance. And sometime I will do the controversial spoilers post. :)

[allegedly.livejournal.com]

Aw, damn! I'm sorry! I didn't mean to give you a momentary jolt there! (Seriously, your "spoilers" above were *very very light* - as you point out! I just sort of got to the gun part and metaphorically put my fingers in my ears, singing the "la la la can't hear you!" song. ;p)

Sometimes I actually solicit spoilers - particularly for media I know I'm not going to get a chance to consume in a timely manner. I often make the decision that I'd be happy settling for experiencing the version of whatever it is (movie, book) as told by a friend, rather than firsthand. ;)

[agrimony.livejournal.com]

I've noticed that the 'ARGH! DAMN YOU! SPOILERS!' scolding only applies to things that /they/ haven't seen yet and rarely apply to things they have seen but others may not. :)

For instance, I'm fairly blase about spoilers - it is very, very rare that learning something about a book/movie/whatnot ahead of time will ruin the experience for me. Would The Crying Game have been a different viewing experience if I'd known the 'twist' ahead of time? Possibly. Would it have been ruined? Not in the least. I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books or seen more than the first movie, but I've got a friend who is positively rabid about Harry Potter spoilers but doesn't bother to censor himself at all on the books that he's already read when talking to me about them. But he was utterly insane about someone mentioning something that seemed to me pretty minor about the latest one before he'd read it. :)

Anyway, interesting review. I've little to say to it, alas, because I haven't seen the movie. :)

[gentlyepigrams]

I want to read your spoiler rant.

I got yelled at once (as part of a massive group yell-at) because we discussed the details of Titanic in an email thread titled something like "why did you like Titanic?" that was going on 2-3 months after the movie was released. I'm afraid I wasn't sympathetic and now "the boat sinks" is my standard response to spoiler complaints.

[bryant]

The short form: "How good can it be if you can only enjoy it properly once?"

That is an unfair question, which is why there's a long form. :)

[gentlyepigrams]

Ha, yes. My long answer to the spoiler debate has a lot to do with the idea that few people get to see things the way the auteur intended and knowing the outcome or not is a personal preference that shouldn't be taken as religion, particularly not after the first run.

My short answer now should probably just be a link to this.

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

Well, Forbidden Kingdom was no Once Upon a Time in China but that doesn’t mean it sucked.

No, it sucked for other more intrinsic reasons. :)

I liked Slumdog Millionaire, and have yet to see City of God (I know, I know, it's on the netflix queue somewhere), but I'm pretty much with you on all points: if this hadn't been such a dreadful year for movies, we wouldn't be talking much about it.

[bryant]

I can't remember most of Forbidden Kingdom because of the pleasurable glow cast by the Jet Li/Jackie Chan fight scenes. I just wish they'd happened 10 years ago. And yeah, I liked 'em in part cause of nostalgia.

[dariusk.livejournal.com]

The thing I didn't like about Slumdog was how heavy-handed it was. It did the one thing I hate more than anything else in film: show a scene where they cleverly refer to something that happened earlier in the movie, then flash back to it in case you didn't get the reference. Screw you guys, I'm not an idiot.

[editswlonghair.livejournal.com]

Slumdog doesn’t bring anything new to the table except the message that it can all work out in the end

But everything turns out okay in the end of City of God (and City of Men too, so I guess Slumdog really doesn't bring anything new to the table... ;)

I have yet to see it, and have been dreading it frankly because of the overhype factor. If I can see it on DVD in like 3 years, I'll probably enjoy it a lot more on its own merits.

[editswlonghair.livejournal.com]

D'oh! Curse you un-closed italics! And me without a paid account! ;)

[glaciation.livejournal.com]

Slumdog is, in my opinion, basically the same movie as Forrest Gump, with a different setting and fewer shrimp. That said, I enjoyed both movies.