Slumdog Millionaire
If you’re a movie fan you’ve probably already been submerged in hype related to Slumdog Millionaire, the hit drama about a poor, orphaned youth who defies expectations to stand on the threshold of winning India’s Who Wants to Be a Millionaire game show. Not only do trailers and posters proclaim Slumdog Millionaire to be the “Feel-good Movie of the Decade” but the film swept this year’s Academy Awards ceremony, taking home a massive eight awards, including the biggie, Best Film of the Year.
Now that a few months have passed since its Oscar triumph, it’s possible to approach Slumdog Millionaire with a certain degree of objectivity. However, before you can do anything else, the question has to be answered: Is Slumdog Millionaire the best movie of 2008?
Unfortunately, I don’t believe it is.
The chief reason for this is that Slumdog Millionaire isn’t nearly as moving or emotionally involving as you expect such a high profile, self-proclaimed crowd pleaser to be. Fellow Best Picture nominee The Curious Case of Benjamin Button may have dragged at times but at least it managed to coax tears from the female audience.
Loosely based on Vikas Swarup’s novel Q&A, Slumdog Millionaire starts off well enough, touching on intriguing issues such as Hindu-Muslim conflict, the maiming of orphans by their gangster “patrons” to make them more sympathetic beggars, and the general disdain Indian society has for child outcasts and the poverty stricken. The child actors in these early scenes, genuine “slumdogs” themselves, turn in appealing performances, and the first half of the film has a great deal of engaging, frenetic energy, thanks largely to the outstanding cinematography and editing. Slumdog Millionaire’s many accolades in these two departments are well deserved – and the bright, choppy visuals are completely appropriate for the hodgepodge world director Danny Boyle, and Indian co-director Loveleen Tandan, present to the audience.
Unfortunately Slumdog Millionaire becomes far less gripping in its second half, with its focus on the orphaned heroes once they’ve grown up. The problem here is that too much time is devoted to the clichéd love story of Jamal (Dev Patal) and Latika (Freida Pinto). Considering what these characters have already been through in their lives, having them make saccharine declarations like “We can live on love” just doesn’t ring true at all. It isn’t credible.
Plus, I’m a little weary of the film industry’s insistence that most people meet the love of their life in childhood. The cynic in me doesn’t buy it. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button also focused on a love story from childhood, but that film at least introduced some realism – such as how bad timing and emotional immaturity can hamper the development of a relationship.
In Slumdog Millionaire there is no evidence that Latika and Jamal deeply love each other, or are even really compatible. She’s just very pretty and he’s been protective of her for years.
Ultimately Slumdog Millionaire is slick movie, well made and very attractive to look at, but also unfortunately quite superficial in terms of emotional depth. The film is worth seeing for a snapshot of a world you aren't normally exposed to in Western cinema, but you're advised to enter the theatre with moderated expectations.
Now that a few months have passed since its Oscar triumph, it’s possible to approach Slumdog Millionaire with a certain degree of objectivity. However, before you can do anything else, the question has to be answered: Is Slumdog Millionaire the best movie of 2008?
Unfortunately, I don’t believe it is.
The chief reason for this is that Slumdog Millionaire isn’t nearly as moving or emotionally involving as you expect such a high profile, self-proclaimed crowd pleaser to be. Fellow Best Picture nominee The Curious Case of Benjamin Button may have dragged at times but at least it managed to coax tears from the female audience.
Loosely based on Vikas Swarup’s novel Q&A, Slumdog Millionaire starts off well enough, touching on intriguing issues such as Hindu-Muslim conflict, the maiming of orphans by their gangster “patrons” to make them more sympathetic beggars, and the general disdain Indian society has for child outcasts and the poverty stricken. The child actors in these early scenes, genuine “slumdogs” themselves, turn in appealing performances, and the first half of the film has a great deal of engaging, frenetic energy, thanks largely to the outstanding cinematography and editing. Slumdog Millionaire’s many accolades in these two departments are well deserved – and the bright, choppy visuals are completely appropriate for the hodgepodge world director Danny Boyle, and Indian co-director Loveleen Tandan, present to the audience.
Unfortunately Slumdog Millionaire becomes far less gripping in its second half, with its focus on the orphaned heroes once they’ve grown up. The problem here is that too much time is devoted to the clichéd love story of Jamal (Dev Patal) and Latika (Freida Pinto). Considering what these characters have already been through in their lives, having them make saccharine declarations like “We can live on love” just doesn’t ring true at all. It isn’t credible.
Plus, I’m a little weary of the film industry’s insistence that most people meet the love of their life in childhood. The cynic in me doesn’t buy it. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button also focused on a love story from childhood, but that film at least introduced some realism – such as how bad timing and emotional immaturity can hamper the development of a relationship.
In Slumdog Millionaire there is no evidence that Latika and Jamal deeply love each other, or are even really compatible. She’s just very pretty and he’s been protective of her for years.
Ultimately Slumdog Millionaire is slick movie, well made and very attractive to look at, but also unfortunately quite superficial in terms of emotional depth. The film is worth seeing for a snapshot of a world you aren't normally exposed to in Western cinema, but you're advised to enter the theatre with moderated expectations.
Comments