Had it not been for the avant garde production of 2 Girls 1 Cup, America might not have been so receptive to Slumdog's poo play. Let's give credit where credit is due.
Uh, you guys? Don't forget that he loses his brother at the exact moment as he wins the money. So I don't really see the cloying sentimentality you lot are referring to.
Is it perfect? No. But no American would have made this movie (well, not unless Hilary Duff was cast as the titular character WHICH, YES, WOULD BE AWESOME).
@Ensconced: Yes, Salim is such an interesting character - how do their paths diverge so greatly? And despite Salim doing some bad stuff, he almost always saves the more passive Jamal. Is there any justice? Not much. Jamal might have the money and the girl, but look at all he's lost, and he's clearly marked by it; why else would those memories have stuck with him?
The gameshow is kind of an elaborate conceit for trawling through the life of a horribly abused person born into poverty. If it's analysed too much, it falls apart, but I didn't hear anyone complaining when about that when Bruce Willis was dead all along.
The dance at the end is misjudged, tonally - I have no time for Bollywood conventions anyway - but I took it as almost a DVD extra. I mean, dead characters come back to life and start dancing. It's like those fake deleted scenes that play next to the end credits of Pixar films.
@uptonogood: Well, a nerdy loser gets a bag of cash and some hot chick, which (if you are a nerdy loser) are the two most "feel good" things in the world that you could think of. And what's a few kids blinded with acid so they can make better beggars in comparison to that? Everybody, dance now!
@Niko Bellic: I don't understand the confusion people have when some refer to it as a "feel good" film: Guy gets money and girl at the end of the film, which ends with a Bollywood song-and-dance routine -- something that was already embellished in "Monsoon Wedding". This film is not just "feel-good" but also thoroughly American despite all the Subconty decoration.
@gawkimo: I agree with everything you wrote except the fact that Slumdog is "thoroughly American." It isn't. It's "thoroughly American, as imagined by a crew of cynical Brits."
@MrInBetween: Same difference. You don't have to be American to make a film that depicts that all-American sense of optimism and predictable happy endings (guy gets girl and money, the end).
@RoosiDesi: As I said, slapping on a Bollywood ending has already been done. As far the rest, it doesn't feel like a Bollywood film. I'm not saying it a bad film, I'm just saying it's feel good and American -- and IMO a bit overrated, but that's just me: I am allergic to precious and adorable things.
@gawkimo: Agree with you on the overrated bit. And yes, it is American too. Which is why I said it is Indian "as well".
While watching it, I never felt that I am watching something non-Bollywood. It probably depends on one's film-watching history. I had read the book long before they thought of making this film, so that must have colored my perception as well.
@RoosiDesi: ** Rushdie wrote in Britain's Guardian newspaper that the central feature of the film -- that a boy from the Mumbai slums manages to succeed on the Indian TV version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" -- "beggars belief." **
I kinda see what Rushdie means. It's a fantasy film, but the fantasy isn't believable and the fantasy has no larger theme. It's not like this surreal concept has any greater meaning (game show + Third World slum = WHAT? What exactly is the metaphor here?). It's just seems like a vehicle for some amazing cinematography (that's what I liked about it) and ultimately its just another cheesy love story about overcoming challenges, getting the girl and getting rich.
And as far as Oscar nods are concerned: Lord of the Rings II got like 896 Oscar statues. That movie was like watching somebody else play a video game.
I read that, because of the great uproar and general distress over the pitiful living arrangement spotlit by the Oscar broadcast, Mickey Rourke was allowed to move out of his South Central shopping crate.
What exactly does Harvey do to get these Academy to vote for his people? I would really like to know? Does he buy them cars, houses, hookers, blow? Does he threatens their family? Also, even if he did, does he hover over their shoulders when they vote. Everyone has free will and there is no excuse for voting Paltrow or Crash in for anything. I still blame the voting idiots whose ignorance goes way back before Weinstein was a major player, I mean how else can you explain Roberto Benigni?
@NoWireHangers: Indeed. I might not always agree with Defamer writers on movies, but I think it's some of the best writing on the Gawker network by far, and the most on-subject. (And I LOVE disagreeing with people on movies, spice of life!)
Maybe that's part of the problem - it is quite as diffusely snarky as Gawker, and maybe someone thought the tone didn't 'match', so they decided to simply 'absorb'. Sigh. May you all find emerald green pastures worthy of your talents and passions.
@MisterHippity: Indeed. The rest of the industry/media should blackball him until he fesses up to be a greedy bastard for striking the deal with Lifetime without talking to NBCU first. Then take his lumps, strike a new deal wherever it lands, apologize to PR fans, and then shut up and go back to making movies nobody wants to see.
I have never heard about Mr. Weinstein until this year and I can't stand him.
He got Paltrow the Oscar over Blanchett in 1999 along with Shakespeare in Love over every other nominated movie from 1999, he also got Crash over Brokeback Mountain.
If anyone else has more they'd like to name please feel free.
Now it's not that these movies or performances were bad it is that they won from Harvey's campaigning not because they were the best of the bunch.
@checkyaself: So first we get the news about Defamer being dissolved into the Gawker vat. And then immediately we get something like "I have never heard about Mr. Weinstein until this year".
This is by no means a personal poke, my dear checkyaself, but: I guess we'll have to look elsewhere for the lowdown on industry rumblings from inside the UTA mailroom, hmm?
03/02/09
03/02/09
Uh, you guys? Don't forget that he loses his brother at the exact moment as he wins the money. So I don't really see the cloying sentimentality you lot are referring to.
Is it perfect? No. But no American would have made this movie (well, not unless Hilary Duff was cast as the titular character WHICH, YES, WOULD BE AWESOME).
03/02/09
The gameshow is kind of an elaborate conceit for trawling through the life of a horribly abused person born into poverty. If it's analysed too much, it falls apart, but I didn't hear anyone complaining when about that when Bruce Willis was dead all along.
The dance at the end is misjudged, tonally - I have no time for Bollywood conventions anyway - but I took it as almost a DVD extra. I mean, dead characters come back to life and start dancing. It's like those fake deleted scenes that play next to the end credits of Pixar films.
03/01/09
I'm just spitballing here.
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
Also, yes.
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
While watching it, I never felt that I am watching something non-Bollywood. It probably depends on one's film-watching history. I had read the book long before they thought of making this film, so that must have colored my perception as well.
03/01/09
I kinda see what Rushdie means. It's a fantasy film, but the fantasy isn't believable and the fantasy has no larger theme. It's not like this surreal concept has any greater meaning (game show + Third World slum = WHAT? What exactly is the metaphor here?). It's just seems like a vehicle for some amazing cinematography (that's what I liked about it) and ultimately its just another cheesy love story about overcoming challenges, getting the girl and getting rich.
And as far as Oscar nods are concerned: Lord of the Rings II got like 896 Oscar statues. That movie was like watching somebody else play a video game.
03/01/09
02/24/09
02/24/09
02/23/09
02/23/09
02/23/09
WHY, DENTON, WHY?!?!?!!11?/?akl ;djacx.z.......
02/23/09
Maybe that's part of the problem - it is quite as diffusely snarky as Gawker, and maybe someone thought the tone didn't 'match', so they decided to simply 'absorb'. Sigh. May you all find emerald green pastures worthy of your talents and passions.
02/23/09
@NoWireHangers: Hold me, I'm scared!!!
02/23/09
That whole sorry tale pretty much puts the final nail in coffin of the "Weinstein as "canny businessman" myth.
02/23/09
02/23/09
He got Paltrow the Oscar over Blanchett in 1999 along with Shakespeare in Love over every other nominated movie from 1999, he also got Crash over Brokeback Mountain.
If anyone else has more they'd like to name please feel free.
Now it's not that these movies or performances were bad it is that they won from Harvey's campaigning not because they were the best of the bunch.
02/24/09
This is by no means a personal poke, my dear checkyaself, but: I guess we'll have to look elsewhere for the lowdown on industry rumblings from inside the UTA mailroom, hmm?
02/10/09
02/10/09
*Is* a pedantic schlub. (That's fun to write)
I think Richard has a thing for Billy's. Ok, off to talk to some Scientologists.