Jump to content


Photo

Slumdog Millionaire


  • Please log in to reply
165 replies to this topic

#101 Nick Alexander

Nick Alexander

    White Knight

  • Member
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 15 January 2009 - 01:57 PM

QUOTE (SDG @ Jan 15 2009, 03:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Nick Alexander @ Jan 15 2009, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I like the term "Food porn movies" (Big Night, Babbette's Feast, Mostly Martha, Eat Drink Man Woman, etc) that showcase mouthwatering delicacies that the viewer is deprived from actually eating.

I think this usage showcase's Nezpop's concerns. Excluding Mostly Martha (the only film you name that I haven't seen), none of these movies makes the appeal to the palate "the focus of the film," as Nezpop puts it. Babette's Feast in particular is way too ascetical to be called any kind of "porn." IIRC, Big Night and Eat Drink Man Woman are rather melancholy, subdued films that are much more about aesthetics than enticing the senses, which is totally contrary to what I understand "porn" to be.

I am open to the category of "food porn," but these films are not it.
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. These movies may have a melancholy feel, but that still doesn't deny that delicious and attractive arrangements of food are placed before the eyes of the viewer, unable to eat; and that the stories lend themselves to the moments where these delicacies are placed front and center. Likewise, a porn movie can take any story, or tone (melancholic or not)... so long as nudity is displayed.

BTW, if you wish to see Mostly Martha, be sure to catch the original, in German, and not the remake. It's a pretty good romantic film.


#102 Jacques

Jacques

    Member

  • Member
  • 129 posts

Posted 15 January 2009 - 06:18 PM

Heres a second impression of Slum Dog $ dialogue transpiring there in India.. with some salient points Click here! made by Nirpal Dhaliwal, former London Evening Standard columnist now working for a weekly newspaper in New Delhi.

exerpt:

The bitter truth is, Slumdog Millionaire could only have been made by westerners. The talent exists in India for such movies: much of it, like the brilliant actor Irrfan Khan, contributed to this film. But Bollywood producers, fixated with making flimsy films about the lives of the middle class, will never throw their weight behind such projects. Like Bachchan, they are too blind to what India really is to deal with it. Poor Indians, like those in Slumdog, do not constitute India's "murky underbelly" as Bachchan moronically describes them. They, in fact, are the nation. Over 80% of Indians live on less than $2.50 (£1.70) a day; 40% on less than $1.25. A third of the world's poorest people are Indian, as are 40% of all malnourished children. In Mumbai alone, 2.6 million children live on the street or in slums, and 400,000 work in prostitution. But these people are absent from mainstream Bollywood cinema.
Bachchan's blinkered comments prove how hopelessly blind he and most of Bollywood are to the reality of India and how wholly incapable they are of making films that can address it. Instead, they produce worthless trash like Jaane Tu, Rock On!! and Love Story 2050, full of affluent young Indians desperately, and mostly idiotically, trying to look cool and modern.

Slumdog Millionaire is based on the novel, Q&A, by Vikas Swarup. I know Vikas – an Indian diplomat, he loves his country as much as anyone and did it the service of telling its truth with great warmth and humanity. And Danny Boyle's film continues in precisely the same vein. His innovative brilliance, fresh perspective and foreign money was vital. As an outsider, he saw the truth that middle-class Indians are too often inured to: that countless people exist in conditions close to hell yet maintain a breath-taking exuberance, dignity and decency. These people embody the tremendous spirit and strength of India and its civilisation. They deserve the attention of its film-makers. I have no doubt that Slumdog Millionaire will encourage many more honest films to be produced in India. But they should be ashamed that it took a white man to show India how to do it.

Edited by Jacques, 15 January 2009 - 06:22 PM.


#103 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,611 posts

Posted 17 January 2009 - 12:01 AM

Overstreet wrote:
: And I also sighed in dislike for *starting* the movie with the torture scene simply because it's such a cheap device for gaining audience sympathy and drawing us in. For making us care about a character before we've met that character to find out if he has any... well... character.

FWIW, I disliked the introductory torture mainly because I found it somewhat alienating -- quite the opposite of drawing me into the character or his story. The fact that the film threw a few other things at us at the same time didn't help. It took a while for the film to begin to cohere for me, after that.

MattPage wrote:
: You mean you don't like metaphor porn?

Metaphorn? Metaporn?

FWIW, friends of mine were using the term "war porn" to describe films like Black Hawk Down well before the "torture porn" genre came along.

#104 SDG

SDG

    Catholic deflector shield

  • Moderator
  • 9,009 posts

Posted 17 January 2009 - 12:30 AM

QUOTE (Jacques @ Jan 15 2009, 07:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Heres a second impression of Slum Dog $ dialogue transpiring there in India.. with some salient points Click here! made by Nirpal Dhaliwal, former London Evening Standard columnist now working for a weekly newspaper in New Delhi.

exerpt:

The bitter truth is, Slumdog Millionaire could only have been made by westerners. The talent exists in India for such movies: much of it, like the brilliant actor Irrfan Khan, contributed to this film. But Bollywood producers, fixated with making flimsy films about the lives of the middle class, will never throw their weight behind such projects. Like Bachchan, they are too blind to what India really is to deal with it. Poor Indians, like those in Slumdog, do not constitute India's "murky underbelly" as Bachchan moronically describes them. They, in fact, are the nation. Over 80% of Indians live on less than $2.50 (£1.70) a day; 40% on less than $1.25. A third of the world's poorest people are Indian, as are 40% of all malnourished children. In Mumbai alone, 2.6 million children live on the street or in slums, and 400,000 work in prostitution. But these people are absent from mainstream Bollywood cinema.
Bachchan's blinkered comments prove how hopelessly blind he and most of Bollywood are to the reality of India and how wholly incapable they are of making films that can address it. Instead, they produce worthless trash like Jaane Tu, Rock On!! and Love Story 2050, full of affluent young Indians desperately, and mostly idiotically, trying to look cool and modern.

Slumdog Millionaire is based on the novel, Q&A, by Vikas Swarup. I know Vikas – an Indian diplomat, he loves his country as much as anyone and did it the service of telling its truth with great warmth and humanity. And Danny Boyle's film continues in precisely the same vein. His innovative brilliance, fresh perspective and foreign money was vital. As an outsider, he saw the truth that middle-class Indians are too often inured to: that countless people exist in conditions close to hell yet maintain a breath-taking exuberance, dignity and decency. These people embody the tremendous spirit and strength of India and its civilisation. They deserve the attention of its film-makers. I have no doubt that Slumdog Millionaire will encourage many more honest films to be produced in India. But they should be ashamed that it took a white man to show India how to do it.

This raises an interesting question. Can Slumdog Millionaire be seen as a subversion of the Bollywood aesthetic? For example, can the cliched elements be seen, not just as coming with the territory, but as specifically invoking the territory in order to show what you don't usually find there, as opposed to making a European-style film that just happens to be set in Mumbai? That might make it a more interesting film.

Either way, I'm totally skeeved by the acclamation of the film as "feel-good" and "exuberant" and so forth. I would feel better if I could believe that this is just sly critical spin aimed at selling the film to a reluctant American audience, but I have a sinking feeling it's not.

#105 SDG

SDG

    Catholic deflector shield

  • Moderator
  • 9,009 posts

Posted 17 January 2009 - 12:41 AM

QUOTE (Nick Alexander @ Jan 15 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. These movies may have a melancholy feel, but that still doesn't deny that delicious and attractive arrangements of food are placed before the eyes of the viewer, unable to eat; and that the stories lend themselves to the moments where these delicacies are placed front and center. Likewise, a porn movie can take any story, or tone (melancholic or not)... so long as nudity is displayed.

I have never seen a porn movie, so I can't say, but in my ignorance I find it difficult to imagine that one really finds a wide variety of moods and tones. I am open to correction from anyone in a position to speak to the subject (not, please, in excessive detail).

What I can say is that displaying nudity does not make a porn film. What makes a porn film, broadly speaking, is the voyeuristic, explicit depiction of sexuality for the purpose of offering the viewer the gratification of arousal, presumably as an accessory to masturbation.

Extending that principle, I would accept as reasonable (if arguable) Peter's interpretation of Black Hawk Down as "war porn," since Black Hawk Down can be plausibly (if arguably) interpreted as a voyeuristic depiction of war events for the purpose of gratifying the viewer's prurient interest in war and killing.

However, I would not accept the food-related movies previously mentioned as "food porn," since they cannot be plausibly interpreted as a voyeuristic depiction of the preparation and eating of food for the purpose of tantalizing the palates of the audience. I can imagine such a film, though I can't think of a real persuasive example.

#106 BethR

BethR

    Getting medieval on media

  • Member
  • 2,856 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 08:50 PM

"What do British Asians think of SL?" from The Guardian.
QUOTE
For a film that cuts Mumbai open like a cadaver and reveals all the ugly parts, it is also doing surprisingly well in Britain's Indian community who, when it comes to watching Hindi-spoken films, are used to a diet of Bollywood - mostly fluffy, singing-and-dancing confections that are upbeat because India's masses demand escapism. In Slumdog, Hindi accounts for at least a third of dialogue, and despite some visually painful scenes, the film has been fully embraced by Indian audiences of all ages - no mean feat considering we're a picky, diverse bunch.

"It was just really refreshing to see an uplifting film that had a good love story and featured Indian actors, but wasn't Bollywood. I wonder what other people will make of the depiction of Mumbai though," says Mal Sivapunniyan, 28, a business adviser.

In the cinema, when the first flashes of Boyle's Mumbai unroll across the screen - drawing in the fields of garbage, rivers of excrement and the constant grasp in the city - there are no angry mutterings. In fact, although Amitabh Bachchan, India's biggest Bollywood star, has blasted Danny Boyle for portraying India in a poor light, most British Asians are relieved that, finally, a slice of the real India is out there on display, warts and all....

One viewer also comments on the film having a western director.

#107 SDG

SDG

    Catholic deflector shield

  • Moderator
  • 9,009 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 09:16 PM

QUOTE (BethR @ Jan 18 2009, 09:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(SM, right?) From the piece:

QUOTE
Not everyone agrees though. Gundip Judge, 27, who works in human resources, insists that the book it is based on, Vikas Swarup's Q&A, is better. "It highlights that there's more to Indian cinema than just Bollywood, but I thought it was a bit clichéd in parts, which the book isn't. Some turns of the narrative and styles of shots seemed familiar, like they'd been nicked from other Indian independent films and Indian 1970s cinema. It is significant, however, that it takes an English director to make this type of film mainstream."

The more I read comments like this, the more intrigued I am with the notion of the film as a subversion of Bollywood.

"Some turns of the narrative and styles of shots seemed familiar, like they'd been nicked from other Indian independent films and Indian 1970s cinema" is an absolutely hilarious comment, considering how ubiquitous -- ubiquitous I say -- absolute theft from world cinema is in Bollywood cinema. My top 10 this year includes Jodhaa Akbar, a wonderful historical epic, with swordfighting sequences taken stroke for stroke and shot for shot from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, not to mention big battle sequences probably filched from some epic Hollywood production like Braveheart or something.

#108 vjmorton

vjmorton

    Member

  • Member
  • 512 posts

Posted 19 January 2009 - 02:55 AM

QUOTE (SDG @ Jan 17 2009, 12:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Nick Alexander @ Jan 15 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. These movies may have a melancholy feel, but that still doesn't deny that delicious and attractive arrangements of food are placed before the eyes of the viewer, unable to eat; and that the stories lend themselves to the moments where these delicacies are placed front and center. Likewise, a porn movie can take any story, or tone (melancholic or not)... so long as nudity is displayed.

I have never seen a porn movie, so I can't say, but in my ignorance I find it difficult to imagine that one really finds a wide variety of moods and tones. I am open to correction from anyone in a position to speak to the subject (not, please, in excessive detail).


Not perfectly to the point of your question ... but I've seen 11 "legitimate" movies that had at least a moment of clearly unfaked onscreen sex of all kinds (and I'm not counting stuff like LA PIANISTE or BODY DOUBLE, where you see already-made hard-core porn within the context of the movie's drama).

Most were actually pretty grim movies tonally or at least apparently serious in intent -- BAISE-MOI, INTIMACY, ROMANCE, KEN PARK, IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES, TAXIDERMIA, RED ROAD, NOVECENTO. A couple were clearly trying to be funny, however successfully -- RASPBERRY REICH, PINK FLAMINGOS, THE IDIOTS. I think a few of these films are great (the Oshima, Von Trier and Bertolucci) and a few more pretty good (FLAMINGOS, RED ROAD and TAXIDERMIA), and the others mostly vile trash.

But hardly any of these movies, regardless of the objective content on the screen or the overall quality of the movie, are films that I could imagine a normal person consuming as pornography. Would one really watch Bertolucci's 5-hour, half-century-spanning epic for the sake of a single scene of the brothers being masturbated by a prostitute? Or look at Breillat's ROMANCE and be left thinking anything besides, "you know ... maybe Origen had a point."


QUOTE
What I can say is that displaying nudity does not make a porn film. What makes a porn film, broadly speaking, is the voyeuristic, explicit depiction of sexuality for the purpose of offering the viewer the gratification of arousal, presumably as an accessory to masturbation.


Sure. And as you say later, this can be extended by analogy to "war porn" or "torture porn" (and "food/cooking porn" too)/ But the element of pornography that is most important **for the purpose of the extended meanings** is the element of viewer dishonesty or self-delusion on the matter of "why am I watching this movie."

Porn movies generally are ham-fistedly bad in every way except the sex scenes -- the acting, the staging, the lighting, etc. No artist with the real ability to make a legitimate movie would want to waste his talent on a porn movie where it'll just be ignored in favor how "how sexy are the thespians and how hot is the sex." So then ... why bother to make a good movie in "movie" terms at all? There really isn't any good reason. The "movie" is just parsley, a garnish on the plate surrounding what it is you want to eat.

Point being to call a movie "------ porn" is to say the real pleasure you're deriving from watching the movie is to see the "-------" for its own sake, not the movie as a whole or "-------" in the context of the movie. For example, I once called THE LEOPARD and RUSSIAN ARK "museum porn," and while that's an oversimplification of the Visconti (less so the Sokurov; though really, who cares in that case), what I was getting at is that the films basically give you pleasure in the manner of a museum exhibit, seeing all these old artworks, ladies gowns, cravats, Louis Catorce chairs, chandeliers, old uniforms, sculptures, etc. The movie-as-a-movie is as secondary as the "plot" in a porno movie -- just show me the sex paintings; that's what it's really all about.

#109 vjmorton

vjmorton

    Member

  • Member
  • 512 posts

Posted 19 January 2009 - 03:12 AM

Or to put it super-succinctly "------- porn" means the movie basically provides an excuse or occasion to watch "--------", which is the real point.

Sort of like musicals are often just occasions for music, and so could be called "music porn" if the term "musicals" didn't already exist. Though some serious critics have noted structural analogies between the porn film and the musical.

#110 M. Leary

M. Leary

    Member

  • Member
  • 5,456 posts

Posted 19 January 2009 - 10:40 AM

QUOTE (BethR @ Jan 18 2009, 09:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
One viewer also comments on the film having a western director.


Well, the majority of these incoming reviews from Eastern viewers is disproving the thesis that I wanted to be true. It is turning out that the film's Bollywood elements aren't Bollywood enough for those steeped in that culture to excuse its visual excesses and narrative flaws.

QUOTE (SDG @ Jan 18 2009, 10:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The more I read comments like this, the more intrigued I am with the notion of the film as a subversion of Bollywood.


A subversion or flawed imitation? I ventured above that the reason I don't like the film is because I am not schooled enough in Bollywood to "get" the way its narrative is cobbled together, but it seems that the general response has been that the film is actually pretty flawed in its employment of Bollywood convention. Wouldn't a successful subversion of a Bollywood film would be one that draws a Bollywood audience in by sheer Bollywood excellence, and then turns the tables of convention at key points throughout the film?

QUOTE (vjmorton @ Jan 19 2009, 04:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Or to put it super-succinctly "------- porn" means the movie basically provides an excuse or occasion to watch "--------", which is the real point.


D.F. Wallace talked about how pornography sexualizes real life by envisioning this narrative world in which sex is always one heartbeat away. "------" porn also has this effect. War porn, for example, makes "war" a totalizing perspective on how life works.



#111 SDG

SDG

    Catholic deflector shield

  • Moderator
  • 9,009 posts

Posted 19 January 2009 - 01:54 PM

QUOTE (vjmorton @ Jan 19 2009, 03:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Porn movies generally are ham-fistedly bad in every way except the sex scenes -- the acting, the staging, the lighting, etc. No artist with the real ability to make a legitimate movie would want to waste his talent on a porn movie where it'll just be ignored in favor how "how sexy are the thespians and how hot is the sex." So then ... why bother to make a good movie in "movie" terms at all? There really isn't any good reason. The "movie" is just parsley, a garnish on the plate surrounding what it is you want to eat.

That's more or less what I had gathered.

QUOTE (vjmorton @ Jan 19 2009, 03:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Point being to call a movie "------ porn" is to say the real pleasure you're deriving from watching the movie is to see the "-------" for its own sake, not the movie as a whole or "-------" in the context of the movie. For example, I once called THE LEOPARD and RUSSIAN ARK "museum porn," and while that's an oversimplification of the Visconti (less so the Sokurov; though really, who cares in that case), what I was getting at is that the films basically give you pleasure in the manner of a museum exhibit, seeing all these old artworks, ladies gowns, cravats, Louis Catorce chairs, chandeliers, old uniforms, sculptures, etc. The movie-as-a-movie is as secondary as the "plot" in a porno movie -- just show me the sex paintings; that's what it's really all about.
QUOTE (vjmorton @ Jan 19 2009, 04:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Or to put it super-succinctly "------- porn" means the movie basically provides an excuse or occasion to watch "--------", which is the real point.

Sort of like musicals are often just occasions for music, and so could be called "music porn" if the term "musicals" didn't already exist. Though some serious critics have noted structural analogies between the porn film and the musical.

However, in my view such accommodations of the word "porn" diminish the force of the word unless one has a moral point to make.

Thus, to call Black Hawk Down "war porn" is a reasonable critique of the film, if in fact one means to critique it. To say this is to say "This film treats war in a voyeuristic and exploitative way, in fact reducing war to its voyeuristic appeal and existing as a film for no other substantial purpose."

By contrast, to call Russian Ark "museum porn," besides being cinematically inaccurate (it is the stunt, or rather the achievement, of the singe shot, not the museum itself, that is the fundamental raison d'etre), diminishes the force of the term "porn" because there is no moral point to make. One cannot treat museums and the objects in them in a voyeuristic way, for the obvious reason that museums and the objects in them are there precisely for the sake of looking.

QUOTE (MLeary @ Jan 19 2009, 11:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, the majority of these incoming reviews from Eastern viewers is disproving the thesis that I wanted to be true. It is turning out that the film's Bollywood elements aren't Bollywood enough for those steeped in that culture to excuse its visual excesses and narrative flaws.
QUOTE (SDG @ Jan 18 2009, 10:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The more I read comments like this, the more intrigued I am with the notion of the film as a subversion of Bollywood.
A subversion or flawed imitation? I ventured above that the reason I don't like the film is because I am not schooled enough in Bollywood to "get" the way its narrative is cobbled together, but it seems that the general response has been that the film is actually pretty flawed in its employment of Bollywood convention. Wouldn't a successful subversion of a Bollywood film would be one that draws a Bollywood audience in by sheer Bollywood excellence, and then turns the tables of convention at key points throughout the film?.

It's not yet clear to me that the majority of critical Bollywood fans object to the same things you do. If that turns out to be the case, then I agree that is a good argument against the film. But if critical Bollywood fans accept the visual flourishes and the narrative conceits while complaining about other things, then perhaps the subversion model deserves some thought.

QUOTE (vjmorton @ Jan 19 2009, 04:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
D.F. Wallace talked about how pornography sexualizes real life by envisioning this narrative world in which sex is always one heartbeat away. "------" porn also has this effect. War porn, for example, makes "war" a totalizing perspective on how life works.

Oh, very, very good. In that case one can easily say that, for example, The Brave One is urban violence porn. Claims have been made to present it as a subversion of movie violence, but here is a case where I definitely don't buy the subversion argument.

#112 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,611 posts

Posted 19 January 2009 - 02:16 PM

SDG wrote:
: Thus, to call Black Hawk Down "war porn" is a reasonable critique of the film, if in fact one means to critique it. To say this is to say "This film treats war in a voyeuristic and exploitative way, in fact reducing war to its voyeuristic appeal and existing as a film for no other substantial purpose."

Just wondering, does it make a difference whether the "purpose" in question is the producer's or the consumer's?

#113 SDG

SDG

    Catholic deflector shield

  • Moderator
  • 9,009 posts

Posted 19 January 2009 - 02:35 PM

QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Jan 19 2009, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
: Thus, to call Black Hawk Down "war porn" is a reasonable critique of the film, if in fact one means to critique it. To say this is to say "This film treats war in a voyeuristic and exploitative way, in fact reducing war to its voyeuristic appeal and existing as a film for no other substantial purpose."

Just wondering, does it make a difference whether the "purpose" in question is the producer's or the consumer's?

Does it make a difference to whom? It's the difference between saying "This film is intended (by the filmmakers) as war porn" and "This film functions (for many consumers) as war porn." A similar distinction might be made regarding sexual content being created with pornographic intent and being used for pornographic purposes.

Having made that distinction, I take it for granted that such use would be most effectively served where that was the creative intent to begin with. By the same token, even where creative intent may be lacking, where the use is effectively served the creator may still bear moral responsibility for serving that use. (This presupposes my point that the term "porn" is helpfully limited to contexts in which there is a moral point to be made.)

#114 M. Leary

M. Leary

    Member

  • Member
  • 5,456 posts

Posted 19 January 2009 - 03:51 PM

QUOTE (SDG @ Jan 19 2009, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
By contrast, to call Russian Ark "museum porn," besides being cinematically inaccurate...


This is just great. Museum porn is something I could imagine being caught furtively watching on the internet.


#115 SDG

SDG

    Catholic deflector shield

  • Moderator
  • 9,009 posts

Posted 19 January 2009 - 04:38 PM

QUOTE (MLeary @ Jan 19 2009, 04:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (SDG @ Jan 19 2009, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
By contrast, to call Russian Ark "museum porn," besides being cinematically inaccurate...
This is just great. Museum porn is something I could imagine being caught furtively watching on the internet.

If you only imagine it, it's museum fantasizing, not museum porn.

#116 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,611 posts

Posted 20 January 2009 - 02:19 AM

SDG wrote:

: : Just wondering, does it make a difference whether the "purpose" in question is the producer's or the consumer's?
:
: Does it make a difference to whom?

Heh. So perspective is a matter of perspective? smile.gif

#117 Tony Watkins

Tony Watkins

    Simpleton

  • Member
  • 782 posts

Posted 22 January 2009 - 08:49 AM

It's received it's expected Oscar nomination for Best Picture, and Best Director for Danny Boyle. I'm delighted to see it there - especially up against some big hitters. Eight other nominations, too. Impressive!

The 10 nominations:

* Cinematography
* Directing
* Film editing
* Original score
* Original song - “Jai Ho”
* Original song - “O Saya”
* Best picture
* Sound editing
* Sound mixing
* Adapted screenplay

Edited by Tony Watkins, 22 January 2009 - 09:03 AM.


#118 BethR

BethR

    Getting medieval on media

  • Member
  • 2,856 posts

Posted 22 January 2009 - 09:27 AM

TWO "best song" nominations? Wow. How often does that happen? I'm sure Peter can tell us.
Also, the score was getting raves in India long before the movie opened, so I'm sure music fans there are very
excited.

ETA: BBC News posts some reviews from India:
"Mumbai slum-dweller's verdict"
QUOTE
I had never been to a cinema hall before I watched Slumdog Crorepati (the Hindi version of Slumdog Millionaire). I really liked the film. The areas where Jamal and Salim (the two brothers who grow up together but meet a different fate) live are just like it is near our place.

The way those children run to avoid a thrashing from the policeman and the lanes they go through are so real. That is how women wash clothes and children play in our "Ambedkar nagar" (the colony where she lives)....


BBC's Soutek Biswas has much the same response as Overstreet --check the comments for a variety of agreements and disagreements:

QUOTE
My quibble with Slumdog Millionaire lies elsewhere. The film doesn't move me.

I suspect what Boyle tries to do is a Bollywood film - the dirt-poor lost brothers, unrequited love - with dollops of gritty realism. But at the end of it all, it is a pretty callow copy of a genre which only the Indians can make with the élan it deserves.

The realism skims the surface, and in spite of some decent performances, style dominates over substance. And the film does not grip me in the way, say, the story of the life in Rio de Janeiro's favelas in the 2002 Brazilian crime drama City of God did.


Slumdog is a fast-moving visual feast, thanks to some kinetic cinematography and nifty editing. It's kitschy, but again not kitschy enough, to stand up to Bollywood....




Edited by BethR, 23 January 2009 - 02:45 PM.


#119 Darrel Manson

Darrel Manson

    Detached Existential INFP Dreamer-Minstrel Redux

  • Member
  • 6,665 posts

Posted 24 January 2009 - 11:09 AM

Some Indians not in love with Slumdog.

#120 Spoon

Spoon

    javaflix

  • Member
  • 258 posts

Posted 24 January 2009 - 12:47 PM

QUOTE (Darrel Manson @ Jan 24 2009, 11:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Absolutely Ridiculous. The wealthy minority of India wants to ignore the fact that 85.7% of the population lives on less than $2.50 a day.