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
-
- Roxanne said...
- Bravo to the reviewer - I couldn't believe people in the audience applauding this movie - it was manipulative and tossed the audience between horrific scenarios and a trite Hollywood romance and ending...Jamal's brother and mother die in appalling situations (not to mention the blinding of the other slum urchin) and yet they are glossed over for a silly one dimensional feel-good rags-to-riches romance. Overhyped and undeserving!! Posted on Jan 22 2009 13:03
- Report as inappropriate
-
- MGS said...
- What are the 'deserving' films please? Sorry I haven't been paying enough attention. Loved Slumdog. Life is hard. We need happy endings. Posted on Jan 22 2009 12:00
- Report as inappropriate
-
- A Patel said...
-
Thank you for this post! After hearing so much buzz and acclaim and the Academy Award win, I figured I had to see this "amazing" movie. It was good. It was sweet. It was touching. It was also forgettable. The director did not develop fully any of the characters, threw in shocking scenes for western gasps (come on, even with India's corruption, no police officer would electrocute a kid for fraud. A potential terrorist yes, a thief no). My major gripes:
1. Why were slum kids speaking English?? How unrealistic!
2. How can you put in horrifying scenes such as blinding children, religious intolerance and then completely forget them? They should be running themes! Jamal clearly wasn't that affected by his mother's death. And end on a happy note. Even the death of the elder brother wasn't a big whoop.
3. When the Indian police officer was beating Jamal and he tells the American tourists "this is the real India!" and the tourists were like well let's show you how it's done in America and gave him lots of money. How patronizing! The film totally made it seem as if Indians were out to get one another and failed to expose good relationships. Except for the damsel in distress, Latika
4. Fairytales do not win prestigious awards. This is an entirely unrealistic "feel-good" movie. Rags to riches is an overplayed theme. If you want to see real excellent films that truly show India, I recommend Salaam Bombay by Mira Nair. That should have won an award, but probably didn't because the director is not white. Another similarly excellent film dealing with slums, but in Brazil is City of God. This film is NOWHERE near those standards. Posted on Jan 22 2009 11:03 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Chriso said...
-
To some extent I agree with the reviewer. The movie is terribly overrated and does not deserve to win any awards.
Jamal and the female lead were average at best. There is chemisrty between them whatsoever and never at any point in the film, except the finale, does the female lead show any interest whatsoever in Jamal.
It is however entertaining for the most part - the second half really did drag though.
Danny Boyle, however, is a brilliant director. His films range from horror, to sci-fi, to feelgood (the brilliant and underrated Millions) to black comedy - Shallow Grave. I think he is one of the world's best directors. It is just incredibly bizarre that he is receiving accoloades for what is probably his worst film. Posted on Jan 22 2009 10:41 - Report as inappropriate
-
- annaslovA said...
- I have to admit to not being able to get my head around the wildly improbable plot, way too far fetched I felt. Of course it wasn't "B", I kept thinking Boyle would surprise me with a realistic ending or one of the "What happens next" crossroads would be a surprise, it was always so obvious..... People are citing it as an achievement to shoot on location and show Mumbai, saying it's captured the true spirit of Mumbai when I would question each on whether they have been, this access was only achieved via his status as a major film director with a budget anyway but I shouldn't rant about that... I felt the charactes were lacking something (especially the older one's) don't start me on the damsel in distress angle where she could've walked herself at any point, I mean come on!! I think in all honesty it was a vibrant movie, I must admit to not being a fairytale fan so asked to be disappointed really as I avoided reviews and poster reading prior, I just came out and said "Nyeh!" As for the tongue in cheek Bollywood finale that topped it for me, it was laughable and I feel completely unecessary....it's simply put overhyped, and critiqued it would appear in a wildly biased fashion which has lent to the Emporers New Clothes scenario where it's not acceptable to criticise it a little like dare I say it, anything Sofia Coppola Posted on Jan 22 2009 10:30
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Fauzia said...
- Tom, stop drinking so much haterade. Posted on Jan 22 2009 09:22
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Christine said...
- I have never read a more arrogant and ill-informed article about this movie. Has the author actually seen it, as he gets some facts wrong! I watched this film 4 times in previews, one came with a highly informative and interesting Q&A with Danny Boyle, and I continue to be blown away by the film. Every person I spoke to who has seen this film has loved it, and, what is also highly unusual, at each of the previews people clapped at the end. So I don't really care what some pseudo-intellectual critic thinks, of course the film is improbable in his happy-ending, but it's a film not a documentary! The film throws you right into the slums, it captures the energy of Mumbai, it lets you feel for Jamal, Salim and Latika, it makes you shudder at some scenes and laugh out loud at others (young Jamal as tourist guide at the Taj Mahal is fab!), and it makes your heart warm at the end! This film had me glued to my seat, and I was in tears at the end. It's very powerfully emotional and it really does not matter whether someone's English accent is correct or not! Learn to see a film for what it makes you feel instead of clinically dissecting every aspect and you might actually enjoy what you are doing! Posted on Jan 22 2009 08:28
- Report as inappropriate
-
- florryone said...
- It is a nice movie. Well marketed and hyped up. Thats the problem with it because of the hype it has to live up to it...Sadly it does not. If it does win awards it is just a sign that we have lost the ability to look at something on its own and make up our own mind regardless of the hype and marketing that pushed it. Posted on Jan 22 2009 07:23
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Ben said...
-
I agree completely with the review. Myself and my girlfriend left the cinema slightly bemused and myself feeling slightly confused - had I not "got it" or missed something? It was only afterwards I realised that I just didn't think it that great. Sure, the first half was full of energy and noise and colour and very enjoyable, but the incredibly cliched characters, plotlines and coincidences of the second half were unbearable - especially the whole gangster issue, the boss' moll and the heart of gold.
I liked it but would wait for the DVD, and even then I'm not sure if I'd buy it. Posted on Jan 22 2009 07:14 - Report as inappropriate
-
- GUS said...
-
In my opinion cinema is about reality and entertainment and a believeable storyline
It was just magic viewing for 140 minutes, kept me glued to my chair wondering what would happen next and 100% enjoyable
If you are a nerd and go to pick holes, then watch any old film over 30 years old as they all have problems
The views of Mumbai were extraordinary, the story interesting
But mainly, it was entertaining and I guess should hearten people to know that India has fortunately moved on
I personally would have liked to see a slight plot twist - when he met her at the end she should not have had a scar on her face- I think that would have lead you to question if he was telling the truth, but then the film is based on and assumes that
Oscars etc etc richly deserved- yes there was violence etc but it was equivalent to the News without gore or glorification-so loved by Hollywood
My advice, just go and see it and sit and watch it for what it is, a simply magnificent, brilliant entertaining film Posted on Jan 22 2009 04:12 - Report as inappropriate
-
- shaon said...
-
The only thing I liked about the movie was the plot. And that incidentally is borrwed from a book by 'Vikas Swarup' called 'Q & A'. Apart from that Danny Boyle has taken all the cliches that aid defining India to an international audience. Is it because the fairytale element of the movie
(albeit a fairytale set in the slums) appeals to masses because they have not seen anything quite like this before? I am in Indian, and have seen much better movies than this by the best of the movie makers worldwide. This has failed to strike a chord with me. I'm sorry, its definitely not a movie well made. Posted on Jan 22 2009 03:09 - Report as inappropriate
-
- nic said...
- I'm in the middle. Its a good movie, but i didn't think it was feelgood and I didn't think it was the best movie of the year. So worth watching but I hope it doesn't win the academy award. Posted on Jan 19 2009 14:52
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Dr W.Chaudhary said...
- By chance i bought the book Q&A from a charity book shop 06 months ago, but only came to know about the film a week before its release. I had huge expectations keeping all the hype in mind. FIRSTLY the BOOK is BETTER than film. Secondly the story has a lot of things which should have been more highlighted.Thirdly JAMAL,s accent didnot impress me as od someone from mumbai slums letalone a boy working in call centre, he sounded more from london than slums. Another crucial point is the acting and i think the two children who played the first part of the childhood jamal and saleem were brilliant and if anybody deserves any award based on their acting than them both would be by choice.A good film but not extraordinary in my humble opinion.Music has been excellent though. Posted on Jan 19 2009 11:34
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Andy Turner said...
- Finally a British crowd pleaser with substance I could criticise this film for some of the holes in the plot such as the phone a friend to a mobile. But I watch films for enjoyment and not to tear them apart. This is one of my favorite films, in the same league as Shawshank and Goodfellas, but Boyle did it without Hollywood stars. Posted on Jan 19 2009 08:27
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Chester said...
-
"We were expecting Jamal to face a few tough questions, but nobody was expecting the Spanish Inquisition."
That's because NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Sorry, had to do it. Posted on Jan 19 2009 06:55 - 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