Just why did Slumdog millionaire win 4 golden globes?
May be I don't have a discerning taste for movies and can't tell the dregs from connoisseurs' delights. However IMHO, a good movie is one wherein you are at ease following the storyline. Movie is a medium where the director makes effective use of sound and light (audio and video) to convey his imagination to the audience. Now, when conveying his imagination, he needs to take care that there are no gaps; no assumptions left untold. The audience should make no "guesses" to fill the "gaps" the storyline. I think Boyle has failed on all these counts.
He made the movie in English, which handicaps it heavily given that in the social matrix he weaves, the knowledge of the language doesn't percolate to the bottom strata of the society. In fact, in India, one of the easiest signals into a man's education, career, and to an extent his social status is his proficiency in English. Exceptions to this rule do exist, especially with the profession that the protagonists in the movie take up (i.e., Tour guiding). However, the director made no attempt to educate us how the boys learnt the tongue. I just couldn't bring myself to believe that 2 fugitives jump out of a train and talk syllable-pure English with no formal education behind them. I later learnt that the book (Q&A on which the movie is based) offers a satisfactory explanation. Why this big gap?
I also thought that the "big brother" character (was his name Ajmal?) was very shallow. He turns a murderer one night, and turns a good man overnight again - as fast as you can turn a dosa over a tawa (Indian pancake over a shallow pan, for the uninitiated). Great movie stuff. But when somebody said that the character depictions were "raw" I was forced to look at the name of the movie he was referring to.
For some reason, I think that western audience like a lot of shit about some alien society. If you depict India as a land of snake-charmers where people go to offices over their private elephants and say that this is the underbelly of the country which you have exposed, you will be nominated for the Oscars before you finish your prints. I agree I wouldn't be lying factually there; just statistically. So what do westerners rate a movie on?
Lastly, I am so happy that I am not Amitabh Bacchan (or anybody of any importance); that I can call what I think is a spade a spade and NOT retract the statement later on.
4 comments:
"For some reason, I think that western audience like a lot of shit about some alien society" -- literally so in the movie :)
The elder bro was salim and if boyle had to show his turnaround he would have to put in a love angle and a couple of songs.:)
what was the explanation in Q&A about their english?I thought the english was just because its English movie..For example was the movie Troy made in Greek or Gladiator in latin? I dont think it spoils the movie that much..Being Indian you feel its artificial but for the rest of the world, they can understand it better because its in English.
Of course if it was mel gibson it would surely be a hindi movie.
Thanks for stopping by dude.
Q&A says that they studied English under an Australian for some months before they got onto their jobs.
Well. There are examples of films on the other side as well. "Passion of Christ" had dialogues in Armaic - to get the touch of reality. How would you enjoy if a movie shows Hitler speaking in English against the English, denouncing the people and language? There is another difference. As I stated in the blog, English knowledge in India is "costly" and hence it strongly signals the social status of the people who could afford learning it. And with the movie taken in Englishh, it loses the touch of "reality" it is praised with. It is a good movie - very cinematic, not realistic.
It's just as you said - very cinematic, not realistic. I felt it's a good cinema, if you leave the details behind.
And I think this wasn't lapped up because it showed the slums. In fact, except the Amitabh's scene, there wasn't anything shitty about the film. It was only about the 2 slum-dwelling boys. If the real slums were to be shot, I think it wouldn't be the movie that it is now.
I too agree buddy. That movie is a good entertainer, of course, only if you can stop worrying about India's image. I didn't feel anything magical in the direction section. Screenplay was good for the most part except a few big holes. As I'm used to ARR, I could enjoy the music. Surprised to see westerners voting for it. On the whole, I too felt the oscars were won based on sympathy and westerners feeling better about themselves.
Post a Comment