Film
Movie theaters, reviews and showtimes in New York, 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
-
- Paromita said...
-
POVERTY SELLS!! Especially with western audiences. And this is exactly why the film has done well...People are seing something that they don't get to see in 'First World' countries. The film maker has exploited the dark and grimy side of India,to earn himself a few bucks.
The film doesn't make you think and is certainly not deserving of a 'Best-Picture' Oscar! Posted on Jan 25 2009 14:23 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Arulraj said...
- The Fuss is "Hope".That's why we are humans. Posted on Jan 25 2009 10:49
- Report as inappropriate
-
- J. W. Riley said...
- There are many, many great and worthwhile stories (some lesser known than others) that finish on a high note but have also told of the horrors of life and the degradation of mankind. Are we to assume from your review that a story teller must maintain a sombre tone throughout in order to show respect to those horrors that he has previously presented? The reason for showing such horrors is to highlight the obstacles the protagonist has overcome in order to achieve his objectives. His objectives, in this case, being survival, freedom and love, an expression of which is amalgamated in the Bollywood-style dancing at the end of the film. Surely you must know this already otherwise you would not have achieved the position you have at Time Out? It is more than obvious that you have deliberately chosen to take a negative point of view in order to deride a story that has deservedly gained critical acclaim. Or perhaps you’re simply missing the point. Alternatively, it may be your prejudice towards the lead actor that has influenced your comments regarding the feel-good factor presented versus the horrors depicted. They are two sides of the same coin, and this is common to stories in almost every medium, whether it be literature, film or Television. Would you prefer it if the protagonist lost the competition, lost his true-love, and then lost his life? I agree, the lead actor is not a great talent and has perhaps received acclaim as a result of the film’s excellence, but you must not, as a reviewer, allow this to prejudice your view of the entire film and its structural integrity. My advice is to watch it again. And again. Posted on Jan 25 2009 09:31
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Daveyboy said...
- God what a prize bore! The author says it all by claiming that the awards system always gets it wrong - meaning that he always gets it right!! Get a life you saddo. The main gripe that people seem to have with this film is that it's suppossed to be "feelgood". I loved it but it didn't make me feel jolly. Quite the contrary it just brought to my attention more of the bad things about the uncivilised world that we live in - the fact that it did it in an entertaining and gripping way doesn't cause me any moral problems. I've read elsewhere on here that the director himself didn't want it billed as a feelgood movie but was overruled by the powers that be. If true then, again, this doesn't make it a bad film. I think you should stick to playing football you're much better at that - although with Spurs?????!!!! Posted on Jan 25 2009 08:58
- Report as inappropriate
-
- WillShakespeare said...
- Thank you! thank you! thank you! I have been saying just this to friend that left happy. I actually enjoyed this film and was certainly worth viewing. But I find it beyond shocking that people are calling this feelgood. After watching a film that begins with torture moves onto child rape and even during the "feelgood" ending a two men are murdered I left in shock and also sorrow for the life that some children are forced endure. Please someone tell me how winning some money changes anything? I mean his own brother rapes his girlfriend. Posted on Jan 24 2009 08:50
- Report as inappropriate
-
- filmfan said...
-
My thoughts:
- it has been massively hyped, and calling it 'feel-good' can't have helped audiences approach it, this film is so much more than that
- putting in a Bollywood scene to play to the Indian audience unfortunately makes it seem a bizarre ending to most western audiences
- I fully agree with the comments made that the child-actors outshine the main leads.
But it is still a wide-ranging portrayal of a complicated country and history, and that is what makes it both a fantastic film and one that may be difficult for everyone to appreciate - you probably need to be very broadminded or have spent some time in India to do so.
There are better films around, but this is well worth seeing. Posted on Jan 24 2009 07:12 - Report as inappropriate
-
- PERFECT DAY said...
- Thanks for adding some weight to the argument that this is possible the most undeserving film ever. The hype surrounding this film just goes to show how even the most educated adults can get swept along with popular opinion without a thought about the actual content of the film. Posted on Jan 24 2009 04:05
- Report as inappropriate
-
- daniel said...
- i cnt beleive this film is so hyped. how cud it wons awards? it had some good moments but it was really quite an average film. if u wana see a really good film go see 'rab ne bani jodi' - now thats a great love story and uplifting and moving film! I also reccomend the upcoming low budget indie film 'The last thakur' - which is releasing im may. Posted on Jan 23 2009 16:27
- Report as inappropriate
-
- William said...
- It's "The Emperor’s New Clothes", everyone says it is great, so thus…it is! Al Gore’s book “The Assault on Reason” deals with the subjects of media manipulation, and our complacency to think otherwise. That being said, IT IS THE GREATEST MOVIE…EVER!!! Alert the commoners! Posted on Jan 23 2009 13:57
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Mary said...
- Thank you. Good article. I'm delighted someone finally is suggesting such. I came out of the cinema nearly two weeks ago now, thinking well I've seen worse for sure but I don't understand why this could possibly be called the best film of the year. It was just a bit too contrived for me - the whole 'how did a boy from the slums win who wants to be a millionaire?' opening shot at the start and then the closing one - d- it was meant. Apart from that being slightly strange english - (maybe it's regular in India though?), well I nearly threw up at how simply someone could summarise a film like that. The subject of destiny is surely a meaningful and complex one but it didn't feel like that to me with this film and ending and that bothered me. I like some of the other reviewers thought 'um how come they can all speak english?!' Thanks again. Posted on Jan 23 2009 03:24
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Stan said...
- I agree with Tom Huddleston 100%. Although the movie had great promise in the beginning, the ending left me scratching my head. How did these abysmally poor orphaned kids learn English? Why were they so healthy looking (considering their circumstances)? Hollywood just does not generate quality movies anymore, so they grasp at mediocre, albeit, good movies (think "Little Miss Sunshine" & "Juno") and run (more like sprint) with the hype. I walked out of the theater disturbed by the horrific existence of these characters lives, and confused by the dance sequence in the end (more suitable for a romantic comedy). If this is the best movie of the year, all is not well in entertainment! Posted on Jan 22 2009 21:50
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Rob said...
- I first read a review for this at obsessed with film yonks ago and their reviewer said yeah it's great fun but just setting a realtively generic story in an unfamiliar locale doesn't make it oscar worthy... He was bang on then, you guys are now. Awards organisations all start to suffer from communal myopia when films like this appear.... Posted on Jan 22 2009 14:22
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Rick said...
-
I left the cinema happy after watching this film, but have not forgotten the horrors that are seen earlier on, as the reviewer suggests I may have vapidly done. I found the fact that the film didn't linger on these moments was more a reflection on the children's ability to move on and deal with life and what was happening to them.
Yes the film has cliches, yes parts are predictable and yes at times it goes a little over the top, but for me, it was stunningly filmed, with an enjoyable soundtrack and had me hooked from start to finish. I don't see what the big fuss about the credits dance sequence is. Surely this is just a bit of fun at the end of the film whilst the credits are rolling? Well that's what I thought...
I am skeptical that anyone has set out to exploit poverty for gain in this film, and I'm not sure this film is trying to compete with Bollywood films as has been suggested, and in fact, perhaps a film like this might allow Bollywood films to become more accessible to people who wouldn't normally opt to go and view such a film.
Not everything is made to be picked apart and have underlying meanings or sinister motives. Some things are just meant to be fun. Posted on Jan 22 2009 14:19 - Report as inappropriate
-
- pierre said...
- Why the fuss? Become people in Hollywood are interested in the Indian market. They want to get more of their prods to be distribute there. Slumdog is the good horse for that: Bad script, tacky editing and camera work, it looks like a music video, it says 'India is at the center of the world'. It fits, that's it. Everybody talk about it here in India. And 'everybody', here, is just a bigger and bigger market! Posted on Jan 22 2009 13:09
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Nick Marshall said...
- Took the words right out of my mouth. The issues it touches on are very grave, but are swept away by the banality of the ending. Could do so much better. My favourite film of last year, Persepolis, hit the nail on the head for this. Posted on Jan 22 2009 13:04
- Report as inappropriate
Most popular on this site
Features
To the letter
Forty years later, Costa-Gavras's Z still brims with fury.
Mind over matter
David Cronenberg reflects on a most bizarre body: his own corpus of work.
Fool's gold
Can an Oscar win lead to a cursed career? Here are five stories of postaward professional meltdowns.
We are the championed
Terrorists and teens abound in this year's "Film Comment Selects."
A history of violence
Matteo Garrone's kaleidoscopic Gomorrah wallops you with Italy's crime crisis.
True romantic
James Gray exchanges urban amorality for amour in Two Lovers.
Playing in the dark
MoMA salutes pianist Stuart Oderman's 50 years as the one-man sound of silents.
Junk bonds
Cast and crew recall the making of the classic NYC drug drama The Panic in Needle Park.
What do you think?
Post your comment now