Slumdog Millionaire (2008) DVD

"The theatrical press campaign tagged Boyle’s latest as the little film that could and the feelgood movie of the year… The main thrust of the clumsy narrative is of exploitation, corruption and criminality, framed by a one-sided, old-fashioned and decidedly British vision of modern India; Slumdog Millionaire represents the Empire’s new clothes."

Completely agree with these statements, but it was the contradictions in these clashing elements that, to me, proved so interesting in this film, far more than any would-be 'feelgood' factor in and of itself. I'm hard-pressed to think of any other 'crowdpleasers' that feature a massacre, a graphic blinding scene, police torture and cold-blooded murder. That Boyle pulled this off while still tricking many of us into thinking we're watching a pleasant Bollywood-style romantic melodrama is some feat. It really is a film about who we (Westerners) are in the globalised Noughties – so happy to celebrate the bland cultural forms we impose on others, and so eager to turn a blind eye to any kind of social reality that might sully our comfortably illusory self-image.

Written by Anton Bitel on June 4th, 2009 at 14:20

Although not worthy of the accolades the film has garnered, it is hardly deserving of the scathing and rather pretentious comments contained within this review; random and vague statements that seem to simply want to buck the trend of the universal favouritism the film has gained, which lack any real explanation as to exactly why and how this reviewer came to make them, such as: “Beaufoy’s dialogue is a ghastly muddle of cliché mouthed by two-dimensional pantomime characters” – really? How? and: “Boyle’s frantic direction sits uncomfortably alongside the more sedate sections from the Millionaire studio” – does it? How? And so exactly how should it be done then?
Discussion and criticism of the lack of any real sense of social realism or the plot being contrived is a little simplistic and unnecessary, when its fairly obvious that the vibrant style, over-the-top narrative and plotting of the film seems to fit more within the confines of a modern fable, situated within an interesting and unusual (for Western audiences) backdrop. This is as much about realism as any of Baz Luhrmann’s films.
“The use of crowd-pleasing tales of triumph over adversity, of the underdog done good”, is simply a commercial commodity of world cinema, nothing more, and hardly something British filmmakers can be labeled with, apart from the occasional success such as The Full Monty (particularly with the unpopular glut of dreary, miserable, and tiresome cinematic treats that Britain does tend to release).
“The dearth of onscreen chemistry” comment is interesting, especially when the couple is rumored to have had an affair during the making of the film and possibly still dating in the real-world.
“The main thrust of the clumsy narrative is of exploitation, corruption and criminality”, it’s hardly a clumsy narrative, and is the use of corruption, exploitation and criminality supposed to be a bad thing, or just a good dramatic decision?
“…framed by a one-sided, old-fashioned and decidedly British vision of modern India”. Is it? In what way? Or does it actually touch upon an often overlooked part of India that is rarely shown in modern commercial cinema, and certainly rarely depicted in most Bollywood productions?
The fact is that the film is clearly not out to break new ground, or deliver some major political or social message, but work as an entertaining, hope-inspiring, dramatic story; of which it is fairly successful in doing. The review though seems to be a typical indication of the way most criticism is heading: an annoyingly shallow series of attention seeking, vague statements, written in a smart-arsed prose, that offers very little constructive criticism and seems more like an immature and deliberate attempt to defy the popular opinion toward a well-liked film.

Written by WHITEHEAT on June 5th, 2009 at 16:11

Always good to hear alternative views.
However:
1) critics are meant to express their own considered views, as Kingsley Marshall has done here, and not merely, as you suggest, to parrot and perpetuate so-called 'popular opinion' (an analysis-defying chimera if ever there was one).

2) it is an overstatement to claim that Slumdog Millionaire has enjoyed 'universal favouritism' – Kingsley is clearly not a member of this putative universe, there are others, too, who have felt discomfort with the film's projected values (check out http://www.filmint.nu/?q=node/149 for one longer, if not necessarily clearer, instance), and even those who have favoured the film have not all done so for the same reasons. If responses to a film – any film – could be reduced to a consensus position, the world would need only one prophet-like critic (and a team of translators);

3) In what might be termed the Eyes Wide Shut principle, actual chemistry between actors need not translate into on-screen chemistry between their characters.

4) In labeling as 'pretentious', 'random' and 'vague' Kingsley's abbreviated expression of his judgments – judgments that you condemn for not always being explained or exemplified – you appear to be expecting too much of the format to which he is confined. The upper limit of 300 words apportioned to LWLies DVD reviews demands a somewhat synoptic approach – yet in so narrow a word limit, Kingsley still finds room to contextualise, summarise and critique the film and its reception. By all means disagree with his conclusions – but I am not sure how he could be expected to pack *more* information into his review under these circumstances.

Written by Anton Bitel on June 7th, 2009 at 16:00

1) Of course, my point is how valid or ultimately how right is that opinion and why should I care? I myself stated that I thought it is an entertaining film, but certainly not the greatest made and worthy of the praise it has been given, no way in hell. Its primary aim is to be an entertaining, feel good movie. It has a few dark moments along the way for dramatic purposes, but by the end it does leave the audience feeling happy at the outcome (if not realistic). I’m not at all saying to go along with the status quo, that is ridiculous; but if you’re going to make a point, give a solid reason why. Anybody can make vague statements. One of my major problems with criticism today is the almost arrogance of many writer’s that make such sweeping statements, but lack the ability or just don’t care about being able to convince the reader of their views.

2)It’s not really an overstatement at all. A vast majority of critics do like the film, even with certain reservations, and it did well at the box office, particularly in the UK. The only real way to try and gauge if something is decent is to look at it from a wider perspective. If 90% of critics think something is bad, then there has to be a good reason for them to be saying so, and vice-versa. The other 10% may have some interesting points to make, but you have to question their personal tastes and whether they simply have an antagonistic personality and simply desperate for attention by being different; as there are a few out there. The article you linked to is a fairly decent one by the way, although it could be deemed as over reading into the film a little. Ultimately, everyone is entitled to an opinion, it’s all so subjective, down to personal taste; but sometimes personal opinion can also get in the way of giving something a fair and well-rounded review. I’m also sure it’s possible that there are even a few people out there that like the films of Uwe Boll and think he’s unfairly treated.

3)Yes, you’re right, and my point was that it was interesting to make such an observation despite such allegations within the media of the pair having a relationship; but I’m interested in what the reviewer actually meant, as I thought they were fine together (as I’ve since also read do many other reviewers as well as people I know that have seen the film). Besides, if a couple do not like one another on-set, the results of that do tend to surface on screen.

4)Okay, that’s fair enough; it’s not the reviewers fault. But it’s very annoying to read such reviews where little is fully explained, too many opinions expressed, without real evidence and reasoning why. Maybe more focus on a particular issue that he had with the film, rather than cramming in sweeping generalized statements? Again, another reason that criticism is getting worse in many instances, is that there is an increase on word limitations that is creating the loss of any real sense of depth for a reviewer to be able to comment on films; and it’s just not good enough. Although it must be said the reviewer did decide, despite the limitations they faced, to submit what they had written as being good enough to go into print, where their comments, fairly or not, will remain to be judged.

Written by WHITEHEAT on June 8th, 2009 at 18:01

1) "I myself stated that I thought it is an entertaining film, but certainly not the greatest made and worthy of the praise it has been given, no way in hell."
How is this statement (and what follows) less 'vague' than what is said in the review?

2) I don't particularly like the films of Uwe Boll, but I *do* think he's unfairly treated. The 90% majority can at times be a ravenous pack on a feeding frenzy. And criticism is, surely, about more than establishing whether a film is good or bad.

3) Actors act. The best actors can 'perform' chemistry where none actually exists. I had thought, though, that Kingsley's point was that the characters were so two-dimensional and so bound by the conventions of sentimental cinema that it was near impossible for viewers to relate to them as real people in a real relationship. To me, that seem self-evident, and hardly requires a lengthy argument to back it up. Slumdance Millionaire is overtly a larger-than-life melodrama. (Although I still feel – personally – that "its few dark moments along the way" are precisely what give the film substance by undermining and interrogating – Q&A-style – the film's cheesy feelgood veneer).

4) if we were to apply your consensus criteria, you would probably find that a vast majority of readers would prefer film reviews to be shorter, not longer…

Written by Anton Bitel on June 8th, 2009 at 22:12

1) You’re right, it is vague, but I’m not really reviewing the film; at least you acknowledge that the review is vague though.

2)Uwe Boll, maybe he’s treated unfair, maybe not; not many are lucky enough to be in the position to make films in the first place, so I can’t say I particularly feel sorry for poor ole’ Uwe. Besides, who cares? I was joking. Yes, the 90% majority can be a feeding frenzy, but on that notion you have to then question the validity of anything you read in criticism and simply judge for yourself by actually watching the film. Does the public really care what critics say? Why are so many critically reviled films, pretty much anything directed by Michael Bay, huge hits at the box office? I agree that criticism should be about more than establishing whether a film is good or bad. The problem: it rarely is anything but that.

3)Yes, actors act (well, some do…). But how do you truly fake or ‘perform’ chemistry? It’s like trying to say someone can fake having charisma, something that is pretty indefinable. You could be right, but I would imagine that the dark moments are simply needed to give the feelgood factor far more weight at the finale.

4)They possibly would, but it depends on how much they like to read I guess. Not to mention I was under the impression that Little White Lies is a serious film magazine. You have to question the kind of people reading and whether they are really that interested in film, or happy to just read brief synopsis styled fluff pieces that can be read in any other film publication, the TV guide or any online fanboy shite. To reiterate: my point is a good critic should back up their arguments to try and convince the reader why their opinion is more valid than anyone else. To say something does not work in a film and lack a reason why is meaningless. I imagine people want to know why a critic makes the decisions of why they like or dislike, or points they have to make about a film; surely that is what defines you from a serious critic to someone just out to make a living. An example of someone that does try to do so is Roger Ebert; whether you agree with his comments or not, he clearly gives examples, and is not just making unsubstantiated statements.

I will say no more on this matter; after all it’s down to personal opinion, right?

Written by WHITEHEAT on June 9th, 2009 at 00:09

Anton and Whiteheat….

GET A ROOM!

Written by adhesif on June 9th, 2009 at 09:58

Simplifying a bit – what is 'feelgood'? At the end of the movie, two youngsters were better off (I think). One stopped being a hooker, another won a fortune by sheer luck/coincidence, and his brother was murdered. No reference to the millions of ambitious Indians who try to get somewhere through hard work; sounds rather a lot like an endorsement of the 'sleb' culture which is poisoning the West, where children announce their (only) ambition is to be famous for – well, being famous. Sure, I felt happy for the young guy who was unexpectedly rich, but wasn't that rather overshadowed by the wall to wall misery and downright nastiness that remained totally unaffected by his good fortune? If this makes you 'feel good', aren't you worried you might be just a tiny bit shallow?

Written by JEJ on November 2nd, 2009 at 17:05