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
-
- hiralp said...
- I completely understand that in some respect the characters in the film do loose there characteristics... apart from that this review doesn’t depict the reality.. go watch the film and see for yourself.. Posted on Jan 17 2009 09:35
- Report as inappropriate
-
- mike said...
- All things said the film raises many Human rights issues and I applaud the central theme of honour and integrity despite all the potential money flowing around .True Love wins the day despite all odds and shows that "You can get it if you really want it " Posted on Jan 17 2009 05:24
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Jasha said...
- I respect the The author review although I totally disagree with pretty much every comment. Dev Patel performance did have a lot of charisma, The Bollywood dance at the end was at must have, as you can't make an Indian Film without one. Unfortunately, all the cruelty and horrors seen on screen are a reflection of the reality as it happens in India as well as some other countries and give that real sense to the story. Slumdog Millionaire is a film that deserves all prizes and is definitely worth viewing Posted on Jan 17 2009 04:16
- Report as inappropriate
-
- mike ricketts said...
- it was a long fell bad frustrated anguished deapiring film with 5 mins of feel good at the end . over rated yes fresh and new but really over rated . what are these guys looking for in a film i thought seven pounds was far better. Posted on Jan 17 2009 03:54
- Report as inappropriate
-
- mike ricketts said...
- I saw the Film it was interesting but hardly deserves best feel good film of the year or any other similar title . You have to go through so much anguish, pain , frustrationbefore you get to the end. Which is feel good . Lets face it it had to have a feel good otherwise you would have slit your wrists or something . Posted on Jan 16 2009 13:28
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Preston said...
- Or, an even better example and more to the point: "Oliver Twist." Posted on Jan 16 2009 12:38
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Preston said...
-
This is an interesting article, and I felt compelled to address certain points:
1) "But best film of the year? Feelgood film of the year?" The consecutive placement of these questions seeks to conflate two separate judgments of a film, which is rhetorically sloppy. A work featuring degradation and poverty can certainly be the "best film of the year" without necessarily being a "feelgood film." Furthermore, I do dispute the point that a film displaying horrors is automatically forbidden from inspiring hope. I think that the Schindler's List comparison was unfair, because that, an egregious, intentional annihilation of human life, is in a separate league from what is frankly, the daily existence of millions of people. Whether you feel that these people have reason to hope is a reflection of your personal Weltanschauung, and not necessarily of the quality of the film in question. In other words, if you don’t buy into the notion that occasionally, the human spirit is capable of surmounting incredible odds, then you might not like the premise. Critics tend to like “dark” movies to stay “dark.” But—and not often, but isn’t that the very stuff of cinematic drama?—sometimes miracles do happen. As a citizen of a country historically rent by racism, I am currently living out that miracle with the election of our first African-American president.
2) The “trite” love triangle might have more motivating force in your analysis if you frame it as the philosophical safety net that enables Jamal to maintain his moral purity in a world so clearly militating against such a perspective. I think that this is a strong argument. Without his idealistic love for Latika, it would go against all logic to expect that a boy reared in the slums would not revert to the very behavior that his brother did, strictly in terms ofsurvival. Why are we to go along with the idea of a boy possessing such a singular spirit? Because he is the protagonist, and effective drama (usually) focuses upon the exceptional, for that is the material that creates drama.
3) In terms of the effectiveness of the framing narrative, that is debatable. One man’s “coincidental” is another man’s “complex.” In other words, I think that audiences would have been bored to tears had each episode contained such a simple explanation as the image of Rama wielding a bow and arrow in his right hand being seared into the memory of a child because of the trauma of just witnessing his mother being killed. In fact, I argue that the final situation with the answer of the Three Musketeers was a highly effective instance of narrative unity (going back to when the three were innocent children) and an implicit theme of the film: that little events in our lives can have huge unforeseen consequences.
4) And your reaction of surprise concerning the torture that Jamal endured on the quiz show is particularly telling. With all due respect, not all cultures have the UK’s respect for human rights. I think it is good that Western mentalites are a little shocked, since in my home country (before the US), you would probably be even more shocked at what the local police would do to a kid caught stealing from the “wrong” supermarket (that is, one under the protection of the mob/police).
5) The main point to take away though, is this: today, would you as a critic laud Dickens’ “Great Expectations?” Also a work showing degradation and all manner of filth, yet still manages to retain a sense of hope and, yes, improbable love. If your answer is no, then I respect your consistency. But if your answer is yes, I would recommend that you give “Slumdog Millionaire” another viewing. Posted on Jan 16 2009 12:33 - 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