Film
Movie theaters, reviews and showtimes in Chicago, plus articles, trailers and more
- Home
- Box Office
- Listings
- Trailers
- Features
Bookmark this page- Edition:
What's all the fuss about 'Slumdog Millionaire'?
Danny Boyle's critical darling 'Slumdog Millionaire' has made a killing at the box office and is now being lavished with awards. Tom Huddleston can't quite understand why
Danny Boyle’s new film ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ has taken the movie world by storm. Adapted from the popular novel ‘Q&A’ by Vikas Swarup, it tells the story of a poor Mumbai street urchin who grows up to be a telemarketing assistant, and finally a contestant on India’s version of ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’ The film has already won Best Drama at the Golden Globes, and looks set to sweep the BAFTAS, and very possibly the Oscars.There’s no sense arguing that ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ is an out-and-out bad film, it isn’t. There’s a lot to enjoy: Anthony Dod Mantle’s vivid cinematography, some bracingly kinetic action sequences and, for the first hour at least, an exuberant and dynamic sense of adventure. The flashback sequences are, for the most part, well constructed, and nicely acted by a gaggle of precocious pre-teen non-actors. Simply as a window into another world, one most of us rarely get to see, ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ justifies it’s existence.
But best film of the year? Feelgood film of the year? This is a story which features every kind of degradation: poverty, child prostitution, murder, theft, blackmail, religious intolerance, vicious exploitation. A nine-year-old boy has his eyes burned out with acid, and yet audiences are still apparently strolling from cinemas whistling AR Rahman’s dire (yet inexplicably BAFTA-nominated) bhangrabeat soundtrack. There’s something disturbing about a film which depicts such abject horrors and still manages to end on such an upbeat note: it’s like if Schindler’s List ended with a song ‘n’ dance number. By allowing audiences to leave the cinema happy, doesn’t the film also allow them to conveniently forget all the earlier horror?
But the political aspect of ‘Slumdog’ could be debated endlessly, as could any film that hijacks a serious subject for entertainment purposes: ‘Blood Diamond’, ‘Milk’, pretty much any wartime adventure. The arguments for either side are clear: on the one hand, the filmmakers are exploiting real life suffering for financial gain, on the other they’re drawing attention to an otherwise ignored issue. ‘Slumdog’ throws this argument into sharp relief because the gulf between the horrors it depicts and the third-act outcome is so yawning, but it doesn’t, in the end, bring any kind of closure to a discussion that will doubtless rage as long as movies are being made.
And besides, ‘Slumdog’ has far more serious problems to contend with than a little cultural exploitation. Danny Boyle has a longstanding habit of making films which set themselves up competently – often battering audiences into submission with a combination of snappy camera moves, smash editing and loud, infectious music – before collapsing into nonsensical contrivance in the last act: think ‘Shallow Grave’, ‘The Beach’, ’28 Days Later’ and especially the tragic waste of a good concept that was ‘Sunshine’. ‘Slumdog’ follows this template slavishly.
The first hour of the film contains some genuinely memorable moments: a headlong chase through the slum streets, a shocking moment of mass racial violence and that excruciating, haunting blinding scene. But it’s all gone to hell by act three, as the script’s focus narrows and the three protagonists age from naïve, scrappy slum kids to increasingly unlikely and unlikeable teenagers. The love triangle that develops between them, with tedious inevitability, serves to completely stifle the film’s forward momentum, as it stops being an exploration of India’s poverty problem and becomes a trite, histrionic and predictable melodrama of coincidence played out between the three awkward, uninvolving heroes and a troupe of identikit snarling gangsters.
The common defence for the film’s wildly unconvincing finale, and particularly that shockingly crass climactic dance number, is that Boyle is appropriating and subverting the motifs of Bollywood cinema for his own ends. But this technique simply doesn’t work, so it feels like we’ve wandered from a fairly intelligent, well-made and compelling hardship drama into a cack-handed West End musical with as much narrative integrity and character insight as an episode of ‘Hollyoaks’.
I’ve refrained, thus far, from discussing the film’s framing narrative, but it can’t be ignored any longer. The idea of constructing a film around a quiz, and showing how the characters arrived at their knowledge of particular questions, is an intriguing one. But it’s as though Boyle can’t wait to shake off the restrictions imposed by this device and let loose – the narrative logic behind each new answer becomes increasingly strained and coincidental. We’re also asked to believe that a TV executive, albeit a particularly surly third world TV executive with a creepy beard, would tie a quiz contestant up and apply electrodes to his chest. We were expecting Jamal to face a few tough questions, but nobody was expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
The other problem with these sequences is right there up front: Dev Patel. Now, I’m not going to start gouging chunks out of a young, relatively inexperienced actor in his first big role, but Patel simply lacks onscreen charisma, particularly when compared to the sparky, naturalistic and compelling performances of his younger counterparts Ayush Mahesh Khedekar and Tanay Chheda. Just as we’re never told exactly how Jamal comes to learn English – and speak it with barely a trace of an accent – it’s also left to us to figure out where his personality disappeared to. The awards buzz surrounding Patel’s performance seems completely out of proportion, and even slightly patronising.
But we expect the big awards voters to get it wrong – they do so every year without fail, with the most deserving films receiving scant reward. What’s surprising is that audiences and critics seemed to have been sucked in by ‘Slumdog’ too – it’s arguably the best reviewed film of the past six months, and has been doing extraordinary business both here and in the US. It seems (and probably is) churlish to begrudge a homegrown hit a chance at success, but ‘Slumdog’ simply doesn’t deserve it, not when there’s so much out there more deserving of an audience’s time and hard-earned dollars.
Author: Tom Huddleston
User comments on this story
-
- Ed said...
- I agree with the entire review except for the fact that he thought the first hour was good. this movie was a total city of god ripoff. the characters and actors were bland, the cinematography looked like it was done by a film student who ate too many mushrooms and the soundtrack was earsplitting and annoying. if anything the style and theme of the movie made me want to root for the protaginists to suffer instead of prevail. i kept hoping the police would kill the douchey kid and that the girl would jump in front of a train at the end of the movie. would be a much better ending. i just don't get why when a movie that doesn't follow the usual hollywood formula and becomes mainstream that it is hailed as brillinat. this movie wasn't brilliant it was a root canal on the eyes and ears. i'd die a happy man if i read a headline that said "all copies and negatives of slumdog millionaire lost in a warehouse fire". i want a refund!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted on May 06 2009 15:19
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Jane Weir said...
- I too disagree with much of Tom Huddleston's review. The film is indeed full of contrasts and juxtapositions which our sensibilities may find a little difficult to reconcile. However, these very contrasts are surely what life in India is all about! Never mind Dickens - Shakespeare's plays are fashioned from the very same stuff - comedy and tragedy, life and death, horror and hope, love and hate - often all on the same page! As for Dev Patel, he has oodles of charisma - I was very impressed never having seen his work before and my two teenage children took great delight in advising me that they'd noticed he was very 'good' in 'Skins'. As for the artifice of the framework of the film - Well, heck, it is drama for heaven's sake and as such is allowed to adopt whatever devices it feels appropriate. I quite willingly suspended my disbelief and thogoughly enjoyed this thought provoking and very well made film. Posted on Mar 07 2009 16:44
- Report as inappropriate
-
- qqqqll said...
- i thought the film was fab..the music director ,the actors and danny did a gr8 job.. am a brtish indian..and i saw an article in some website saying tht this movie is carp and stuff..i dont supoort tht though.. Posted on Mar 03 2009 02:25
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Trish said...
- Why is watching children become blinded by predators "entertainment" especially when you know nothing will change as a result of this movie. Feel Good??????? That doesn't make me feel good. It is a disturbing film, but the fact that people think it's a feel good movie is even more disturbing. What has our world become? Posted on Mar 01 2009 07:30
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Humphrey said...
- Well I guess it's cool to be critical, but you know, audiences vote with their ticket money. I personally don't go to movies to watch some politically correct but boring crap. I go to be transported somewhere for a couple of hours and to have my emotions triggered by some chain of events. I must say that I was moved by this movie. I loved every minute of it. Get a grip critics. Try to look beyond your undoubtedly clever grasp of continuity errors. Look at the whole experience, for god's sake. Audiences vote with their ticket price, and I have a sneaky feeling that this film will recoup 100% and then make its owners a tidy profit. Well done Danny Boyle. I'd give you an Oscar if it was up to me. Thank you for a superb entertainment! Posted on Feb 14 2009 18:15
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Stan said...
- Yes, we all remember that tradition Italian folk dance ending to the tune of Funiculì, Funiculà at the end of the Godfather to signify Sonny Corleone's true love of machine guns and beheaded horses. It was magical....... Posted on Feb 12 2009 16:33
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Chutbaigan said...
- mjds: "crappy, corny, ending with no relation"...........why was the dance number crappy & corny? The majority liked it mate!! then there will always be critics....even Godfather had when it won awards... Posted on Feb 12 2009 06:13
- Report as inappropriate
-
- mdjs said...
- City of God did not end with a dance routine and neither should Slumdog Millionaire. I saw it coming and prayed it would not happen - and it did, turning the whole film into one gigantic turkey. If it wins an oscar over other more worthy films then it only goes to prove that hype counts more than quality. We wanted to like the film as everyone told us we should but as we left the cinema we turned to each other and said " was it just me or was that a really crappy, corny, ending with no relation to the first half of the film ?" Posted on Feb 11 2009 18:34
- Report as inappropriate
-
- DannyBoy(le) said...
-
Vanessa
I'll take that as a NO then? Back to the drawing board. Posted on Feb 02 2009 10:20 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Vanessa said...
- Hi, Danny, sorry if I wasn't clear enough - my point being that I SEE what those who praise your work see in it, even though my own vision of what good cinema is - differs. It is a question of taste/one's artistic preference. Let me draw a parallel - I feel about your films the same way I feel about Emir Kusturica's films - (equally appreciated in the film circles) which make me leave the cinema with a sour taste in my mouth and a heartache. Personally, I go to cinema to feel enriched, my horizons expanding, rather than hammered by the bad, the ugly, and the - what was the third one? Anyway, all the best from someone from those Cardiff days... Posted on Feb 02 2009 09:30
- Report as inappropriate
-
- DannyBoy(le) said...
-
Vanesa
Ddi yuo enojy teh mvie tehn? Posted on Feb 02 2009 08:36 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Vanessa said...
-
The comment you type in this box will appear on the sitI I have read the review carefully and fully accept the reviewer's arguments. There simply are people who can not appreciate Danny Boyle's cineastic sensibility. I had to literraly force myself to watch TRAINSPOTTING. The fact that many more people do like his films is a reflection of the changes our contemporary world is going through. The issues of ethics, aesthetics and traditional human values are often being replaced by - no more no less - an array of gimmicks which pass for originality but for some of us en up in a certain artistic muddle. Look at the French cinema - it bows not to the American model but sticks to eternal themes of human relationships in the simplest form. In fact, it is when American cinema immitates the
French that we get fantastic films like AS GOOD AS IT GETS, or many of Woody Allen's. The less is often more, and simplicity can go much further than show offs! But, the basic rule would be to agree that we can all disagree and follow our individual tastes. Posted on Feb 02 2009 08:18 - Report as inappropriate
-
- s kaur said...
- I went to watch this film and thought that it was another film, just showing povertiy in India. WHY CAN YOU NOT MAKE FILM SHOWING THE BEAUTY AND THE NICE CULTUER IN INDIA TO THE WORLD OUT SIDE. Posted on Jan 31 2009 04:43
- Report as inappropriate
-
- PERFECT DAY said...
- Sambit - good call, my son. However, it is clear that you did not pay attention to the film when you saw it. Were you one of those munching on pop corn, rather than listening to those important words being spoken on screen? Posted on Jan 30 2009 02:59
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Sambit said...
-
Scenes of poverty and squalour may appear romantic to Westerners and to our snooty elite but for ordinary Indians they are nothing new. They are an everyday reality. However, one wonders what sort of mind can find such images aesthetically pleasing. Party-hopping socialites (for example, Shobhaa De after all her bombast of "enough is enough" after the Mumbai attack, went and watched a pirated copy!) who are distanced from such reality may find this film an "eye-opener" but for us it IS just poverty-porn. Leaving that aside, I have eight other objections to the film.
1) The director seems to RELISH showing violence. Some of it (like the police-torture) is quite needless. And why was the boy arrested in the first place? On what charge? Was it realistic?
2) How can a boy growing up in slums speak such accented English? Even if one assumes that the language he actually uses to communicate with the game-show host and the police officer is Hindi (granting the director the creative license to use a language better suited for international audiences), there are 2 instances where it is stretched too far: (a) when the boy becomes a ‘guide’ for foreign tourists at the Taj Mahal & (b) when he becomes a substitute-operator at the call-centre.
3) When the boy uses his ‘lifeline’ during the game-show, his friend discovers that she has forgotten her mobile and has to run back for it. This is plain Bollywood masala! Did the director HAVE to make it so melodramatic?
4) How did the boy know who invented the revolver just by watching his brother use it?
How does his friend know about Benjamin Franklin?
5) “Darshan Do Ghanshyam” is NOT written by Surdas. It is written by Gopal Singh Nepali for the movie Narsi Bhagat (1957). This song is also credited as traditional and originally written by 15th century poet Narsi Mehta, whose life that film is based on.
6) After winning the game-show, the boy sits on the railway platform and nobody recognizes him! Considering the popularity of the show, is that realistic?
7) Two glaring omissions: To qualify for the show one has to answer several GK questions over phone or Internet. Even after making it to the show, a contestant can reach the hot-seat, only after “fastest finger first”. All this is conveniently forgotten in the film.
8) And of course the greatest flaw in the storyline: programmes like 'Kaun Banega Crorepati' and 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' are NOT telecast live. As a result the entire structure of the film becomes unrealistic. For a film that boasts of being realistic such a flaw cannot be overlooked.
Anyone else wants to say this is a g-r-e-a-t film despite all these flaws? Posted on Jan 29 2009 21:09 - Report as inappropriate
Features
Gray's anatomy
James Gray wants to push buttons—again.
The next big thing?
Gigantic Releasing tries to rethink indie distribution…without movie theaters.
Red Diva: Lyubov Orlova, First Lady of Soviet Cinema
So you think you can dance, comrade?
Puppet master
Coraline director Henry Selick takes stop-motion animation into 3-D.
Socratic method
Laurent Cantet's approach on the set matches the message of his film.
Wander woman
Kelly Reichardt's Wendy and Lucy puts a Bush-era spin on the road movie.
Oscars
Read our interviews with the nominees, our reviews of the nominated films and more.
What do you think?
Post your comment now