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
-
- cisra said...
- I am not sure if Tom Huddleton has even seen the movie. Dev Patel does not play the role of a telemarketing assistant, but a person who serves tea in a telemarketing call center. Its the police who torture and not the tv executive Posted on Jan 19 2009 03:37
- Report as inappropriate
-
- brian said...
- Sophia - spot on "I totally agree with the author. I found something about this film very unsettling and couldn't understand why they were hyping up the feel good factor when the film was anything but. Tom, thanks for articulating what i was thinking. " I wish I has missed it Posted on Jan 18 2009 18:37
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Russell said...
- I am in full agreement with this review and grateful for Huddleston's articulation of what I didn't like - I hadn't realised that I was so uncomfortable with the frothy happy ending from a film dealing with such a sordid subject matter. I can't tell you how much I was looking forward to this film and how disappointed I was with the result - not because it is that bad, but because it could and should have been so good. Full Monty in India, rather than Trainspotting, I'm afraid. Then again, I never "Got" "Bend it Like Beckham" either, wich was nowhere near as touching or realistic as "East is East." Posted on Jan 18 2009 18:11
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Sam G said...
-
Hmm.
The film is "feelgood" in that is doesn't succumb to morbidity, apathy or nihilism, despite the abject depictions of poverty and exploitation.
I don't think it shirks socia or ethical responsibilities. The filmmakers have put aside trust funds and made provisions for the children in the film to attend school. They used an entirely local crew and cast (with the exception of Patel, who was great) and I think it reveals the great optimism the city enthused Danny Boyle with. In interviews, he is in love with the place. He also said in one interview that he would be delighted if charities and aid organisations used parts of the film/the buzz generated by the film to generate money in order to do more aid work in India.
Your article is ill-informed, kind of negative and slightly intellectual... as usual.
Which stands at a complete antithesis to the pilosophy of the film.
p.s. The talk show host doesn't attach electrodes to Patel's character, either. The police do it. Unrealistic? The police AUTHORISED the scene. Posted on Jan 18 2009 16:03 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Hannah said...
-
I managed to watch this film before reading much about it and I though it was excellent.
The story is extremely well told and I think believable.
The relatiobnship between the 2 brothers work sreally well, especially the elder one who feels he has to take on the responsibility of looking after the family and becomes tough. Yes there are some very harrowing scenes in the first half of the film, but why should that mean that the characters should contiune to have a miserable life? Even poor and destitute children from the slums in India still manage to laugh sometimes, although clearer the reviewer thinks they should stay miserable?
OK, we don't exactly learn how they learn to speak English, but, you do seem them in the classroom having a story read to them in English, and the children mimicking what the teacher said, so I imagine this had something to do with it.
I loved it and can see exactly what the fuss is about. Posted on Jan 18 2009 11:08 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Pankaj said...
- Thanks, Racheal for highlighting it...i reckon, i missed it :) Posted on Jan 18 2009 10:01
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Rachel said...
- OH AND TO 'PANKAJ', IT DOES MENTION COLT IN THE MOVIE BECAUSE HIS BROTHER CALLS IT A 'COLT REVOLVER'. hence why he answers Samuel COLT. Posted on Jan 18 2009 08:06
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Rachel said...
- I AGREE WITH WT U SAID ABOUT IT BEING UNSETTLING EARLY ON AND ENDING ON A HAPPY NOTE. BUT WHAT THE FILM SHOWS IS THE PAST AND THE PRESENT NOW.IN THE PAST THAT IS WHAT IT USED TO BE LIKE, CHILD PROSTITUTION, RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE ETC. BUT THAT DOES NOT CARRY ON INTO THE PRESENT AS INDIA CHANGES. THAT IS WHAT THE FILM SHOWS. ALTHOUGH I CAN'T FULLY AGREE THAT RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE HAS VANISHED COMPLETELY AS IT IS DIRECTED TOWARDS CHRISTIANS IN INDIA NOW. BUT OVERALL I LIKED HOW IT SHOWED A WHOLE NATION CHANGING. MAYBE YOU SHOULD WATCH THE FILM AGAIN WITH THIS IN MIND. Posted on Jan 18 2009 08:03
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Daniel said...
-
Granted the feel good factor of the year brandishing could be argued a bit excessive, but I feel Huddleston came to watch the film with a narrow mind and vendetta against Boyle. The film does deal with cultural and political issues and doesn't sweep them aside or make light of them. Yes the film does deal with issues of prostitution and violence and poverty but the main basis is that people can get behind and support someone who has nothing, use's what he knows to make money and get the girl, which everyone can identify as a feel good factor and basis for a film.
Dev Patel's acting particularly when at the game show is where he performs best, mixing nervous behaviour with the odd quip that upstages the host and shows glimpes of his cheeky nature which we have witnessed when he was younger.
You can pick holes with any films, but the English language reference is irrelevant and clutching at any vauge fault to downplay the film. Yes its noticable that he can speak English but not detrimental to the plot that it ruins it. You could for example slam Valkyrie for the same issue, a German soldier plotting to kill Hitler with an American accent?
Within the British film industry it is widely regarded that it doesn't function, that we cannot compete on the same level as Hollywood, which is true, but for once support some British talent that will hopefully bring more investment to an underfunded British industry and highlight and profile the talent we do have. Danny Boyle embodies passion for this film and the British industry, so don't beat it up because you want precise detail and accuracy, accept it for a film that is a fine balance of laughs, emotions and serious issues.
The film is subjective to opions but I just feel Huddleston expects too much maybe because of the hype or maybe because of his own standards, but even so you have to open your mind and acknoweledge that all the hype and awards press attention is not founded on the basis of poor acting or plot. Posted on Jan 18 2009 05:49 - Report as inappropriate
-
- sophia said...
- I totally agree with the author. I found something about this film very unsettling and couldn't understand why they were hyping up the feel good factor when the film was anything but. Tom, thanks for articulating what i was thinking. Posted on Jan 18 2009 05:29
- Report as inappropriate
-
- sophia said...
- I totally agree with the author. I found something about this film very unsettling and couldn't understand why they were hyping up the feel good factor when the film was anything but. Tom, thanks for articulating what i was thinking. Posted on Jan 18 2009 05:29
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Pankaj said...
-
Slumdog is not an excellent piece of work, but the critics made by the author are inappropriate. Firstly, the movie depict truth of Indian lifestyle; where child born in a slum is forced to do such act, due to lack of poverty. to get this point clear. the author needs to visit the city and personally identify the situation out there, as criticizing is different and reality is different. Secondly, whats the fuss of having a song in the end of the movie??? the boy finally found his beloved girlfriend after going through such immense trouble, isnt it time to get relaxed?? and moreover, it is a bollywood related film, songs are part of it...no two ways...i reckon, the author forgot the notion called 'flow', the amount time difference between those horrifying moments and the song is plenty. Those horrifying situations were jamal's past and the song was in the present. i completely dont understand what point the Tom Huddleston is trying to prove.
'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.'
for this particulare statement, you need to learn Indian politics. if you noticed every moment, then how come you forgot to notice when the host of the show (anil kapoor) says to jamal malik that you wont survive for long time here. how can you forget that each and every interval the host repeatedly says Jamal malik, who is a CHAI WALA (TEA MAKER/SERVER).
Before dissecting and criticizing completely, try to get together the other bits and pieces that films has shown...
the only two question whichi can critic is Jamal's accent, as indian does not speak English with such accent and second is, when jamal answer the question (who invented revolver). it is shown that his elder brother shoots at those goons with a revolver, but the story never mentions the name 'Samuel colt'. Posted on Jan 18 2009 02:11 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Bara Evans said...
- If you don't get it, you don't get it. But the article does say a lot about why Time Out consistently rates dreary, worthy films (Che, Winnipeg, the Katrina movie) that flop among ordinary viewers. Is it some sort of lefty puritanism? Who knows. Posted on Jan 18 2009 00:54
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Paul Nicolson said...
-
Slumdog Millionaire in my opinion is a very good film.
The basic fact of the matter is that from the first sight of Dev Patels anguish under questioning to the bollywood dance at the end, the audience is spellbound.
The content is uncomfortable at times, yet the film keeps bouncing back to a theme of hope versus adversity.
Boyle uses some old tricks from Trainspotting, early chase scene akin to that of Macgregor being chased down Princes St. Also the use of excrement to raise a laugh.
The children I thought were a revelation and the trio growing up were matched very well too.
I did feel the sudden turning by the older brother on his brother was slightly out of the blue considering all they had been through together.
The quiz master is a dislikeable character and grates on the nerves throughout, as he is supposed to.
I am not sure about the most uplifting film of the year tag.
You do leave the cinema feeling uncomfortable about eating popcorn and chocolate and a desire to travel to India to adopt a child.
So thought provoking yes, uplifting im not so sure.
The dance scene comes during the credits so for me is a bolt on to the film, rather than the end of the film.
All in all I really enjoyed it and have yet to meet anyone else whos seen it who did not.
Well done Danny Boyle. Posted on Jan 17 2009 10:33 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Yus said...
- Absolute twaddle. The Author has got it wrong on all accounts, the acting by Dev was full of charisma, the notion of where the central character picks up a good grasp of the english language is irrelevant to the central story and no, we didn't want a 3hr bollywood extravaganza to explain all the little quirks. Oh and the author says..there are other films more deserving of these accolades...then name me one? Posted on Jan 17 2009 10:03
- 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