I don't feel that any of the other four films nominated were small arthouse movies. They operate between the arthouse and the multiplex. Serious enough so people will be proud of themselves for seeing them, but not as demanding as proper art movies that ask something of the viewer.
You mean proper art movies which are self-indulgent, poorly made and are an insult to cinema? 8-) Sorry, JD, but I hate 'art' films. Jim Jarmusch, Gus Van Sant's 'arty' stuff, Dogma, Von Trier, Lynch at his most impentrable (read indulgant), Godard, I'm Not There and any French film in which the characters think that by discussing philosophy (alot of which is crap) they come across as impressive intellectuals, when in fact they come across as insufferable boors who should be made to watch the scene in Annie Hall, when Woody has a go at these intellectuals, dozens and dozens of times! X-( Art movies, proper or not, don't ask anything of the viewer; they just think they do! X-(
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I don't feel that any of the other four films nominated were small arthouse movies. They operate between the arthouse and the multiplex. Serious enough so people will be proud of themselves for seeing them, but not as demanding as proper art movies that ask something of the viewer.
You mean proper art movies which are self-indulgent, poorly made and are an insult to cinema? 8-) Sorry, JD, but I hate 'art' films. Jim Jarmusch, Gus Van Sant's 'arty' stuff, Dogma, Von Trier, Lynch at his most impentrable (read indulgant), Godard, I'm Not There and any French film in which the characters think that by discussing philosophy (alot of which is crap) they come across as impressive intellectuals, when in fact they come across as insufferable boors who should be made to watch the scene in Annie Hall, when Woody has a go at these intellectuals, dozens and dozens of times! X-( Art movies, proper or not, don't ask anything of the viewer; they just think they do! X-(
Wow,Dan!And here I thought YOU of all people, would be among the audiences for art films!!! And the more esoteric and convoluted the subject matter,the better.
Tony, you and I have very similar movie tastes in that we both love genre films (even if we may disagree on specific films), but I think that you're doing what you're accusing the Academy of doing. You say that they dismiss genre films, which can be certainly argued, yet you are dismissing all of these films because they aren't genre films and aren't box office successes. You're practicing a kind of snobbery in reverse.
I'm with NP. Although I loved IM, I don't think it was Best Picture potential, and I think that TDK was rightly shut out of the major catagories (Ledger aside.) That is not to say that I am completely happy with the Oscars (just read any of my posts on this thread) but I don't think that simply because TDK made a billion dollars, it is a better film than Frost/Nixon which made virtually nothing. Plus, let's face it. Slumdog Millionaire was a huge hit, particularly worldwide, so it's not as if the Best Picture winner was an obscure art house film.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
That's brilliant. It's got everything. Sex, Nazi's, rollercoasters, drunken Glaswegians on holiday and ice cream. I'll get working on the screenplay straight away. Blackpool: Gott Und Himmel (I have no idea what that means, but they always used to say that in Commando comics). Anybody got Laura Gemser's phone number. Do you think Kate Winslet would be up for playing Eva Braun?
I think that you're doing what you're accusing the Academy of doing. You say that they dismiss genre films, which can be certainly argued, yet you are dismissing all of these films because they aren't genre films and aren't box office successes. You're practicing a kind of snobbery in reverse.
Erm, Mr pot, may I introduce you to Mr Kettle? Dan you just dismissed an entire genre of film, the art movie, without a second thought. There are a lot of bad art films out there, but there's some great stuff too. The same applies to genre films. As for Woody Allen, well he may have mocked art movies, but that didn't stop him trying to make a few of his own, the unwatchable Shadows and Fog being an example. Still, I always knew you were a philistine.
Tony, you and I have very similar movie tastes in that we both love genre films (even if we may disagree on specific films), but I think that you're doing what you're accusing the Academy of doing. You say that they dismiss genre films, which can be certainly argued, yet you are dismissing all of these films because they aren't genre films and aren't box office successes. You're practicing a kind of snobbery in reverse.
Not at all Dan; there are plenty of past Oscar winners that I do enjoy - Amadeus and Danerous Liaisons are just two Oscar faves that quickly come to mind and there are more. However, I do think that this year's picks were a very forgettable bunch and are guilty of falling into the typical Oscar-bait categories of political statement (Milk), holocaust commentary (The Reader) and "prestige" literary adaptation (Benjy Button) rather than being genuinely entertaining movies.
When recognizing movies, I think you need to strike a balance between the "important" stuff and the more mainstream stuff that resonates with audiences and the Oscars rarely do that, certainly not this year.
I'm with NP. Although I loved IM, I don't think it was Best Picture potential, and I think that TDK was rightly shut out of the major catagories (Ledger aside.) That is not to say that I am completely happy with the Oscars (just read any of my posts on this thread) but I don't think that simply because TDK made a billion dollars, it is a better film than Frost/Nixon which made virtually nothing. Plus, let's face it. Slumdog Millionaire was a huge hit, particularly worldwide, so it's not as if the Best Picture winner was an obscure art house film.
Disagree completely; for my money the sheer scale and sweeping visionary scope of a Dark Knight makes fare like Frost/Nixon and Slumdog look positively pedestrian by comparison. It's something of an apples and oranges comparison since the films are so different, but I do think the academy was short-sided in this regard; they couldn't even be bothered to recognize the technical merits of Dark Knight and Iron Man, handing those awards out to the clearly technically inferior Slumdogs and Buttons.
As for boxoffice figures, Slumdog has made about $160 million worldwide according to boxofficemojo; a solid amount, especially considering its budget, but hardly a referendum on its merit or universal popularity - by comparison The Incredible Hulk did about the same amount of business yet was considered a box office disappointment.
Erm, Mr pot, may I introduce you to Mr Kettle? Dan you just dismissed an entire genre of film, the art movie, without a second thought. There are a lot of bad art films out there, but there's some great stuff too. The same applies to genre films.
) True, true. ;% I guess my point is that 'art' film is an artificial label. Like 'independent' films, is is completely debatable as to whether a film is even an 'art' film or not. Your 'art' film may be my 'mainstream' film, for example. But it's deeper than that. Just because a film is an 'art' film does not make it intelligent, worthwile or even remotely good. Similarly, a 'mainstream' film can be extremely intelligent, very worthwile and masterful. My opposition is not towards 'art' films; it is towards the idea that cinema can be divided between 'art' and 'mainstream' depending on quality.
Furthermore, I find that alot of lovers of so-called 'art' cinema can be rather pretentious and self-important (speaking of which, where's Dr Maybe? ) ). The idea that if a film isn't in a language other than English, or was made after 1970, or was shot with a fluid camera, or stars well-known actors, or was made by a major studio, it must be bad, is ridiculous and offends me, to be honest. I love great cinema, including works by Bergman, but I do not believe that in order to be great, a film must be an 'art' film, however one defines it. I don't need to tell you this. You are one of the least pretentious people I know. :v
As for Woody Allen, well he may have mocked art movies, but that didn't stop him trying to make a few of his own, the unwatchable Shadows and Fog being an example.
It's just a bad film full stop. I'm not a huge fan of Woody, although I did love Annie Hall and much of Hannah and Her Sisters (the parts which didn't feature Woody) but I really appreciate that he loves Bergman, yet also loves watching baseball games whilst drinking a beer. ) He's not pretentious in the slightest, and never really was.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Bloody hell mate! I only mentioned I like The Night Porter. ) I actually prefer Nazi zombie films Dan.
Aren't you a fan of Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS? ?:)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
This art-house vs. genre vs. mainstream debate is a red herring, IMO. What the Academy is guilty of time and again is bandwagon-ism -- loading up films with buckets of specific awards because it likes the overall film. I'm on record as saying Slumdog is the best film I've seen in the last five years -- and by far the best thing I saw last year -- so I certainly have no quibbles with its Best Picture victory. However, does that mean it was also the best film technically, in terms of things like sound? No. Was it the best scored? Not for me it wasn't.
I have no evidence to support this, but I am convinced that Oscar nominations and awards are often made by lots of people who see a limited number of films. I remember when Titanic won 13 awards or whatever it was, I said to my wife, "Do they mean to tell us it was the best written, the best looking, the best photographed, the best costumed, the best sounding, the most melodic, and the best directed? Really, no other film was better on any of these dimensions??" It was nonsense back in 1998, and to a lesser extent it was the same nonsense last night. Slumdog and Milk won more awards than they should have, because the Academy liked what they stood for overall. You can call that elitism, bias, or whatever you want -- I call it laziness.
The year after the Titanic landslide, Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture. As much as I disagreed with that decision, at least it felt like Academy voters were watching more than a handful of films. Didn't feel like it last night.
Not at all Dan; there are plenty of past Oscar winners that I do enjoy - Amadeus and Danerous Liaisons are just two Oscar faves that quickly come to mind and there are more. However, I do think that this year's picks were a very forgettable bunch and are guilty of falling into the typical Oscar-bait categories of political statement (Milk), holocaust commentary (The Reader) and "prestige" literary adaptation (Benjy Button) rather than being genuinely entertaining movies.
Sorry, I misread you. Yeh, I don't really disagree with this at all. Certainly Benjamin Button is a film that hugely disappointed me, yet it was nominated for 13 Oscars.
When recognizing movies, I think you need to strike a balance between the "important" stuff and the more mainstream stuff that resonates with audiences and the Oscars rarely do that, certainly not this year.
I think that Slumdog Millionaire did provide that balance, however I do think that if Wall-E, for example, had replaced one of the Best Picture nominees (such as The Reader) it could have made for a more satisfying Oscars. I mean; imagine that: Wall-E up against Slumdog Millionaire.
Disagree completely; for my money the sheer scale and sweeping visionary scope of a Dark Knight makes fare like Frost/Nixon and Slumdog look positively pedestrian by comparison. It's something of an apples and oranges comparison since the films are so different, but I do think the academy was short-sided in this regard; they couldn't even be bothered to recognize the technical merits of Dark Knight and Iron Man, handing those awards out to the clearly technically inferior Slumdogs and Buttons.
TDK had a huge scope, however IMO it's disappointing screenplay, lack of a central performance and complete lack of focus made it IMO a very ordinary film. I thought that IM was alot better. If Downey Jr. had been nominated for IM, instead of Tropic Thunder, I wouldn't have been horrified.
Although I don't think that Slumdog Millionaire is a great film, by any means, I do think it is a better film than TDK, while I think that Frost/Nixon is vastly superior to TDK. Pedestrian? Only if one thinks that big films are automatically better than smaller films. :v
I will agree with you on one thing. Visual Effects should have gone to Iron Man instead of Benjamin Button. (I'm happy with the other technical awards.)
As for boxoffice figures, Slumdog has made about $160 million worldwide according to boxofficemojo; a solid amount, especially considering its budget, but hardly a referendum on its merit or universal popularity - by comparison The Incredible Hulk did about the same amount of business yet was considered a box office disappointment.
The Incredible Hulk had a budget of $150,000,000, as opposed to Slumdog Millionaire which had a budget of $15,000,000 which is why The Incredible Hulk was regarded as a disappointment. But what does it matter anyway? TDK was by far the biggest film of 2008, however Slumdog Millionaire was also huge.
I enjoyed this year's Oscars (of what I was able to see of them ) but I will say this; perhaps Watchmen will win best Picture next year.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Disagree completely; for my money the sheer scale and sweeping visionary scope of a Dark Knight makes fare like Frost/Nixon and Slumdog look positively pedestrian by comparison.
Disagree that Slumdog's vision and scope were pedestrian, the movie was beautifully shot in various locations throughout India, giving the film audience a real feel for the environment the characters lived in. The shot of the two young boys riding on top of a train as it roared through rural India was one of the most beautiful scenes I saw all year. The Hindu mob attack on the Muslim's had a huge impact on the audience. Slumdog's vision was grand, not pedestrian.
BTW, what film one for Best Cinematogrophy?. I didn't see that during the telecast and I think that is an important category.
I'm not the only one who hates Slumdog. It seems Salman Rushdie deserves that knighthood after all.
What can one say about Slumdog Millionaire, adapted from the novel Q&A by the Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup and directed by Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan, which won eight Oscars, including best picture? A feelgood movie about the dreadful Bombay slums, an opulently photographed movie about extreme poverty, a romantic, Bollywoodised look at the harsh, unromantic underbelly of India - well - it feels good, right? And, just to clinch it, there's a nifty Bollywood dance sequence at the end. (Actually, it's an amazingly second-rate dance sequence even by Bollywood's standards, but never mind.) It's probably pointless to go up against such a popular film, but let me try.
The problems begin with the work being adapted. Swarup's novel is a corny potboiler, with a plot that defies belief: a boy from the slums somehow manages to get on to the hit Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and answers all his questions correctly because the random accidents of his life have, in a series of outrageous coincidences, given him the information he needs, and are conveniently asked in the order that allows his flashbacks to occur in chronological sequence. This is a patently ridiculous conceit, the kind of fantasy writing that gives fantasy writing a bad name. It is a plot device faithfully preserved by the film-makers, and lies at the heart of the weirdly renamed Slumdog Millionaire. As a result the film, too, beggars belief.
It used to be the case that western movies about India were about blonde women arriving there to find, almost at once, a maharajah to fall in love with, the supply of such maharajahs being apparently endless and specially provided for English or American blondes; or they were about European women accusing non-maharajah Indians of rape, perhaps because they were so indignant at having being approached by a non-maharajah; or they were about dashing white men galloping about the colonies firing pistols and unsheathing sabres, to varying effect. Now that sort of exoticism has lost its appeal; people want, instead, enough grit and violence to convince themselves that what they are seeing is authentic; but it's still tourism. If the earlier films were raj tourism, maharajah-tourism, then we, today, have slum tourism instead. In an interview conducted at the Telluride film festival last autumn, Boyle, when asked why he had chosen a project so different from his usual material, answered that he had never been to India and knew nothing about it, so he thought this project was a great opportunity. Listening to him, I imagined an Indian film director making a movie about New York low-life and saying that he had done so because he knew nothing about New York and had indeed never been there. He would have been torn limb from limb by critical opinion. But for a first world director to say that about the third world is considered praiseworthy, an indication of his artistic daring. The double standards of post-colonial attitudes have not yet wholly faded away.
I'm not the only one who hates Slumdog. It seems Salman Rushdie deserves that knighthood after all.
You hated Slumdog? :v Why aren't I surprised; I liked it alot. It's not a great film by any means, and it'll probably be forgotten in ten year's time, but I think it's extremely visceral and enormously cinematic.
Regarding Rushdie, who was given his knighthood for purely political reasons, he doesn't state anything that nobody else has already said. The plot is unrealistic and completely fantastic; well yes, and many critics have pointed that out. That's a major reason why I don't regard the film as high art. But thanks, Salmon, for rehashing this criticism. 8-)
He then talks about how it's 'tourism' and suggests a double standard. Well, that has also been mentioned before.
Sorry, JD, I have alot of respect for your views (even though I think you're often wrong :v) but I don't have the slightest respect for Rushdie whatsoever. He's a wildly overrated writer who has set himself up as a pseudo-martyr, and while I don't disagree with him (my affection for the film has to do with its performances, music and direction; its visceral elements), this further shows what an intellectual fraud he really is.
He states that "t's probably pointless to go up against such a popular film, but let me try" as if presenting himself as the lone man against the tide of Slumdog Millionaire euphoria, when there were actually quite a few critics who criticised the film or gave it less that glowing reviews. This was not like 2007 when No counrty For Old Men was being described as one of the greatest films of all time. Personally, although I quite liked the film, there were numerous films which I regarded as superior.
As I said JD, I very much respect your views but your bringing up of Rushdie causes me to wonder if I was being rather hasty in my estimation of you. :v
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I don't like Rushdie at all hence the dig about him finally deserving his Knighthood. His novels are unreadable. I suspect most people who claim to have read them are pretending to have done so.
I don't like Rushdie at all hence the dig about him finally deserving his Knighthood. His novels are unreadable. I suspect most people who claim to have read them are pretending to have done so.
) True, true.
I guess I haven't lost any respect for you afterall.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Rushdie's just bitter because Padma left him (can't really blame him there). If Khomeini hadn't issued a fatwa against this guy, no one would know who he is.
Rushdie's just bitter because Padma left him (can't really blame him there). If Khomeini hadn't issued a fatwa against this guy, no one would know who he is.
) I completely agree.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
JD's New Exploitation Film!!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Wow,Dan!And here I thought YOU of all people, would be among the audiences for art films!!! And the more esoteric and convoluted the subject matter,the better.
I'm shocked,sir!!!Shocked,I say...;)
I'm with NP. Although I loved IM, I don't think it was Best Picture potential, and I think that TDK was rightly shut out of the major catagories (Ledger aside.) That is not to say that I am completely happy with the Oscars (just read any of my posts on this thread) but I don't think that simply because TDK made a billion dollars, it is a better film than Frost/Nixon which made virtually nothing. Plus, let's face it. Slumdog Millionaire was a huge hit, particularly worldwide, so it's not as if the Best Picture winner was an obscure art house film.
That's brilliant. It's got everything. Sex, Nazi's, rollercoasters, drunken Glaswegians on holiday and ice cream. I'll get working on the screenplay straight away. Blackpool: Gott Und Himmel (I have no idea what that means, but they always used to say that in Commando comics). Anybody got Laura Gemser's phone number. Do you think Kate Winslet would be up for playing Eva Braun?
Erm, Mr pot, may I introduce you to Mr Kettle? Dan you just dismissed an entire genre of film, the art movie, without a second thought. There are a lot of bad art films out there, but there's some great stuff too. The same applies to genre films. As for Woody Allen, well he may have mocked art movies, but that didn't stop him trying to make a few of his own, the unwatchable Shadows and Fog being an example. Still, I always knew you were a philistine.
Not at all Dan; there are plenty of past Oscar winners that I do enjoy - Amadeus and Danerous Liaisons are just two Oscar faves that quickly come to mind and there are more. However, I do think that this year's picks were a very forgettable bunch and are guilty of falling into the typical Oscar-bait categories of political statement (Milk), holocaust commentary (The Reader) and "prestige" literary adaptation (Benjy Button) rather than being genuinely entertaining movies.
When recognizing movies, I think you need to strike a balance between the "important" stuff and the more mainstream stuff that resonates with audiences and the Oscars rarely do that, certainly not this year.
Disagree completely; for my money the sheer scale and sweeping visionary scope of a Dark Knight makes fare like Frost/Nixon and Slumdog look positively pedestrian by comparison. It's something of an apples and oranges comparison since the films are so different, but I do think the academy was short-sided in this regard; they couldn't even be bothered to recognize the technical merits of Dark Knight and Iron Man, handing those awards out to the clearly technically inferior Slumdogs and Buttons.
As for boxoffice figures, Slumdog has made about $160 million worldwide according to boxofficemojo; a solid amount, especially considering its budget, but hardly a referendum on its merit or universal popularity - by comparison The Incredible Hulk did about the same amount of business yet was considered a box office disappointment.
Furthermore, I find that alot of lovers of so-called 'art' cinema can be rather pretentious and self-important (speaking of which, where's Dr Maybe?
It's just a bad film full stop. I'm not a huge fan of Woody, although I did love Annie Hall and much of Hannah and Her Sisters (the parts which didn't feature Woody) but I really appreciate that he loves Bergman, yet also loves watching baseball games whilst drinking a beer.
Bloody hell mate! I only mentioned I like The Night Porter.
I have no evidence to support this, but I am convinced that Oscar nominations and awards are often made by lots of people who see a limited number of films. I remember when Titanic won 13 awards or whatever it was, I said to my wife, "Do they mean to tell us it was the best written, the best looking, the best photographed, the best costumed, the best sounding, the most melodic, and the best directed? Really, no other film was better on any of these dimensions??" It was nonsense back in 1998, and to a lesser extent it was the same nonsense last night. Slumdog and Milk won more awards than they should have, because the Academy liked what they stood for overall. You can call that elitism, bias, or whatever you want -- I call it laziness.
The year after the Titanic landslide, Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture. As much as I disagreed with that decision, at least it felt like Academy voters were watching more than a handful of films. Didn't feel like it last night.
I think that Slumdog Millionaire did provide that balance, however I do think that if Wall-E, for example, had replaced one of the Best Picture nominees (such as The Reader) it could have made for a more satisfying Oscars. I mean; imagine that: Wall-E up against Slumdog Millionaire.
TDK had a huge scope, however IMO it's disappointing screenplay, lack of a central performance and complete lack of focus made it IMO a very ordinary film. I thought that IM was alot better. If Downey Jr. had been nominated for IM, instead of Tropic Thunder, I wouldn't have been horrified.
Although I don't think that Slumdog Millionaire is a great film, by any means, I do think it is a better film than TDK, while I think that Frost/Nixon is vastly superior to TDK. Pedestrian? Only if one thinks that big films are automatically better than smaller films. :v
I will agree with you on one thing. Visual Effects should have gone to Iron Man instead of Benjamin Button. (I'm happy with the other technical awards.)
The Incredible Hulk had a budget of $150,000,000, as opposed to Slumdog Millionaire which had a budget of $15,000,000 which is why The Incredible Hulk was regarded as a disappointment. But what does it matter anyway? TDK was by far the biggest film of 2008, however Slumdog Millionaire was also huge.
I enjoyed this year's Oscars (of what I was able to see of them
Disagree that Slumdog's vision and scope were pedestrian, the movie was beautifully shot in various locations throughout India, giving the film audience a real feel for the environment the characters lived in. The shot of the two young boys riding on top of a train as it roared through rural India was one of the most beautiful scenes I saw all year. The Hindu mob attack on the Muslim's had a huge impact on the audience. Slumdog's vision was grand, not pedestrian.
BTW, what film one for Best Cinematogrophy?. I didn't see that during the telecast and I think that is an important category.
JD doesn't like SM, S&M, that's another thing!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
No, I gave it a bad review. But it's better than The Reader. At least it's honest about its intentions.
What can one say about Slumdog Millionaire, adapted from the novel Q&A by the Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup and directed by Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan, which won eight Oscars, including best picture? A feelgood movie about the dreadful Bombay slums, an opulently photographed movie about extreme poverty, a romantic, Bollywoodised look at the harsh, unromantic underbelly of India - well - it feels good, right? And, just to clinch it, there's a nifty Bollywood dance sequence at the end. (Actually, it's an amazingly second-rate dance sequence even by Bollywood's standards, but never mind.) It's probably pointless to go up against such a popular film, but let me try.
The problems begin with the work being adapted. Swarup's novel is a corny potboiler, with a plot that defies belief: a boy from the slums somehow manages to get on to the hit Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and answers all his questions correctly because the random accidents of his life have, in a series of outrageous coincidences, given him the information he needs, and are conveniently asked in the order that allows his flashbacks to occur in chronological sequence. This is a patently ridiculous conceit, the kind of fantasy writing that gives fantasy writing a bad name. It is a plot device faithfully preserved by the film-makers, and lies at the heart of the weirdly renamed Slumdog Millionaire. As a result the film, too, beggars belief.
It used to be the case that western movies about India were about blonde women arriving there to find, almost at once, a maharajah to fall in love with, the supply of such maharajahs being apparently endless and specially provided for English or American blondes; or they were about European women accusing non-maharajah Indians of rape, perhaps because they were so indignant at having being approached by a non-maharajah; or they were about dashing white men galloping about the colonies firing pistols and unsheathing sabres, to varying effect. Now that sort of exoticism has lost its appeal; people want, instead, enough grit and violence to convince themselves that what they are seeing is authentic; but it's still tourism. If the earlier films were raj tourism, maharajah-tourism, then we, today, have slum tourism instead. In an interview conducted at the Telluride film festival last autumn, Boyle, when asked why he had chosen a project so different from his usual material, answered that he had never been to India and knew nothing about it, so he thought this project was a great opportunity. Listening to him, I imagined an Indian film director making a movie about New York low-life and saying that he had done so because he knew nothing about New York and had indeed never been there. He would have been torn limb from limb by critical opinion. But for a first world director to say that about the third world is considered praiseworthy, an indication of his artistic daring. The double standards of post-colonial attitudes have not yet wholly faded away.
Go on my son! Gerrintethem, Heedfirst!
Regarding Rushdie, who was given his knighthood for purely political reasons, he doesn't state anything that nobody else has already said. The plot is unrealistic and completely fantastic; well yes, and many critics have pointed that out. That's a major reason why I don't regard the film as high art. But thanks, Salmon, for rehashing this criticism. 8-)
He then talks about how it's 'tourism' and suggests a double standard. Well, that has also been mentioned before.
Sorry, JD, I have alot of respect for your views (even though I think you're often wrong :v) but I don't have the slightest respect for Rushdie whatsoever. He's a wildly overrated writer who has set himself up as a pseudo-martyr, and while I don't disagree with him (my affection for the film has to do with its performances, music and direction; its visceral elements), this further shows what an intellectual fraud he really is.
He states that "t's probably pointless to go up against such a popular film, but let me try" as if presenting himself as the lone man against the tide of Slumdog Millionaire euphoria, when there were actually quite a few critics who criticised the film or gave it less that glowing reviews. This was not like 2007 when No counrty For Old Men was being described as one of the greatest films of all time. Personally, although I quite liked the film, there were numerous films which I regarded as superior.
As I said JD, I very much respect your views but your bringing up of Rushdie causes me to wonder if I was being rather hasty in my estimation of you. :v
I guess I haven't lost any respect for you afterall.