Rant about SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
Apr. 3rd, 2009 02:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
So, earlier this week I went with my friend Jesus to see SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. It was interesting (if often difficult) to watch, but I have been upset ever since by a number of aspects. And why else does one have a blog if not to rant about these things? :-)
If you haven't seen the film, I'll give you a chance to skip the rest of this post if you want to avoid spoilers. (For the triggery, you should know that the film includes numerous scenes of torture and violence, which is certainly NOT what I was expecting from what everyone keeps calling a "feel good" film.)
In fact, I think only in America could this film be considered a feel good film, because it is such a facile retelling of the rags to riches story, which happens through pure luck. Only in the US is this considered a viable plot (and a commercial one at that).
I was a bit surprised when it ended because to me, the only interesting part of the story STARTS there. It's hard not knowing before going in to the film that a boy from the slums wins 20 million rupees on a quiz show (can we say "deus ex machina"?). And the structure of the film, interleaving between the quiz show present and his growing up past, also makes this quite obvious. You root for him, but you also know all along that he's going to win. And that's it. It's all just so flat.
I knew all this before going in. What I what to know is what does he do with the money. What happens now that he's won the girl, after they've suffered so much to find each other again? Can they overcome those scars and find happiness together? We don't know; the curtain is drawn there, just where things get interesting. How does he react when he hears about what happened to his brother? How does he feel?
It was all so frustrating for me.
We suffered through all the scenes of torture and the difficult childhood. Yes, he triumphed, a mix of luck and loyalty from friends/family, although a loyalty which stabs him quite often as well.
And there was just no payoff for all of that, at least from my point of view.
We don't know what sort of person that made him into, because he's never allowed to do anything. Things happen to him, and that's it. He wins 20 million rupees and that's it. End of story.
This is one reason I have such problems with commercial movies, in general, and how its stories are told, and therefore wind up going so seldom to the cinema; it's about how I consume narratives, and what works or doesn't for me. (I no doubt will see the new Almodovar at some point, although I'm in no rush. His VOLVER was structurally so flat as well; 20 minutes in I knew exactly what was going to happen throughout, yawn.)
In many ways, I can stomach American TV much better than its film, because the format is tighter: 30 minutes, with breaks for commercials, it's structured in little story arcs with an overall arc to hold the episode together but still leave things open enough for next episode(s). It's a tighter, cleaner format in a lot of ways. And it doesn't have the forced endings of so many films.
The only director I find interesting these days is Turkish-Italian Ferzan Ozpetek, whose LE FATE IGNORANTI I (with the horrible English title of HIS SECRET LIFE) think is just superbly structured, with each scene setting up resonances for later scenes in addition to the surface action, and ending in such a way as to give us closure but leave everything open. But many of his other films are juicy and interesting, even if (like HAREM SOARE) they ultimately fail, or fall short of their ambitions.
As my friend Jesus pointed out, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is probably the first film with a Muslim protagonist to win an Oscar, and that's a data point in its favor.
But I still found it a very frustrating and ultimately unrewarding viewing experience.
If you haven't seen the film, I'll give you a chance to skip the rest of this post if you want to avoid spoilers. (For the triggery, you should know that the film includes numerous scenes of torture and violence, which is certainly NOT what I was expecting from what everyone keeps calling a "feel good" film.)
In fact, I think only in America could this film be considered a feel good film, because it is such a facile retelling of the rags to riches story, which happens through pure luck. Only in the US is this considered a viable plot (and a commercial one at that).
I was a bit surprised when it ended because to me, the only interesting part of the story STARTS there. It's hard not knowing before going in to the film that a boy from the slums wins 20 million rupees on a quiz show (can we say "deus ex machina"?). And the structure of the film, interleaving between the quiz show present and his growing up past, also makes this quite obvious. You root for him, but you also know all along that he's going to win. And that's it. It's all just so flat.
I knew all this before going in. What I what to know is what does he do with the money. What happens now that he's won the girl, after they've suffered so much to find each other again? Can they overcome those scars and find happiness together? We don't know; the curtain is drawn there, just where things get interesting. How does he react when he hears about what happened to his brother? How does he feel?
It was all so frustrating for me.
We suffered through all the scenes of torture and the difficult childhood. Yes, he triumphed, a mix of luck and loyalty from friends/family, although a loyalty which stabs him quite often as well.
And there was just no payoff for all of that, at least from my point of view.
We don't know what sort of person that made him into, because he's never allowed to do anything. Things happen to him, and that's it. He wins 20 million rupees and that's it. End of story.
This is one reason I have such problems with commercial movies, in general, and how its stories are told, and therefore wind up going so seldom to the cinema; it's about how I consume narratives, and what works or doesn't for me. (I no doubt will see the new Almodovar at some point, although I'm in no rush. His VOLVER was structurally so flat as well; 20 minutes in I knew exactly what was going to happen throughout, yawn.)
In many ways, I can stomach American TV much better than its film, because the format is tighter: 30 minutes, with breaks for commercials, it's structured in little story arcs with an overall arc to hold the episode together but still leave things open enough for next episode(s). It's a tighter, cleaner format in a lot of ways. And it doesn't have the forced endings of so many films.
The only director I find interesting these days is Turkish-Italian Ferzan Ozpetek, whose LE FATE IGNORANTI I (with the horrible English title of HIS SECRET LIFE) think is just superbly structured, with each scene setting up resonances for later scenes in addition to the surface action, and ending in such a way as to give us closure but leave everything open. But many of his other films are juicy and interesting, even if (like HAREM SOARE) they ultimately fail, or fall short of their ambitions.
As my friend Jesus pointed out, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is probably the first film with a Muslim protagonist to win an Oscar, and that's a data point in its favor.
But I still found it a very frustrating and ultimately unrewarding viewing experience.
Uhm
Date: 2009-04-03 02:12 pm (UTC)It's not a very American film or American plot. British. Director Danny Boyle wuz born in Manchester, England. Screenwriter, Simon Beaufoy, British from an Indian (posted in South Africa) novel by Vikas Swarup. Main actor, Dev Patel, English. Couple of Indian actors too.
There's a lot that keeps it from being a Disney movie. It's a fairy tale, but there's no magic wand. The girl's carrying a scar at the end. The hero's brother is dead. There's a cost paid for the fairy gold. It wasn't just found at the end of the rainbow. The hero's life is the training for the quest.
As my
EnglishShakespeare profs always ustta say: "Comedies always end at the marriage -- that's when the tragedies starts." Ittsa comedy. You're supposed to imagine them happy ever after, and not see how the rest of their lives can never measure up to those glorious few minutes on the stage as national "heroes."It sounds like you wanted to see some other movie. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think you're placing too much value on plot.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 02:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 02:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 02:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 02:52 pm (UTC)http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,614355,00.html
no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 03:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 05:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 07:32 pm (UTC)The part I missed most--and I realize this is my issue as a viewer, because it wasn't necessary for the film as it was constructed--was how he had gotten the job as the tea wallah and how he was living at that point, because he had made a "step up" (if you will) already just by doing that.
As a female viewer, I noted that the girl was literally there only as a prize. She had no agency. While I realize that she was in circumstances that allowed her very little agency, and that it was his story, she was still more or less a pretty cipher.
Out of curiosity, have you seen The Wire?
no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 11:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 11:50 pm (UTC)Thank you for putting into words why I didn't want to see this movie. I still don't.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 06:30 am (UTC)I don't begin to pretend that the movie was representative of anyone, much like soap operas or Hollywood productions. They are all glorified views of life; many people I know - myself included - go to movies to escape.
What I found most interesting was your comment about how the story ended. And that is a trope; it seems once the gal (or guy) is won, the story is up. And I have been actively looking for stories that depict couples well into their relationships. Stories where the couples are are solid; not the ones that are falling apart, because those too are too dramatic. I actually wonder sometimes if we see such a high divorce rate because breaking up is what is reflected in so much media.
What would have redeemed the film for you, out of curiosity?
no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 04:36 pm (UTC)I thought this movie sucked, for all the reasons already enumerated. I have no idea why people found it captivating. None.