And it took a white director to make sure we got there! OK, OK, I will try to be less cynical. I know, I should be totally psyched that Slumdog Millionare won so many Oscars, including best picture. Any visibility for South Asians is good right?
Right. And wrong. I personally didn't think Slumdog Millionare was an Oscar worthy movie. I thought it was creative, beautiful, interesting and had a great soundtrack, but I didn't understand how it was Oscar worthy. Where was the complexity of the characters? Where was the deep cross-cultural analysis that helps us understand the South Asian condition? Where was there any agency displayed in the character of Latika? How did this story help the plight of the South Asian national citizen outside of reinforcing stereotypes of India?
I guess I have more questions than I have answers. And the questions I ask were certainly not the ones considered by the Academy in choosing this film. To be clear, I loved this movie and I saw it twice. The second time I brought my family, and my father a staunch Indian nationalist, hated it. He didn't like the way it portrayed India. I do not hold the same politics as my father and I felt that it actually held more truth about poverty and corruption in India than we would like to admit. But once you sift through the amazing imagery, adorable kids and soundtrack you are left with a coming of age story, only the story is not really for Indian audiences.
And despite its attempt at a narrative of social progress, Slumdog reinforces that which is hopes to ameliorate. Mitu Sengupta has an excellent piece up at Alternet about the policy implications of films like Slumdog Millionare that lump together the stereotypes of the poor.
It is ironic that "Slumdog", for all its righteousness of tone, shares with many Indian political and social elites a profoundly dehumanizing view of those who live and work within the country's slums. The troubling policy implications of this perspective are unmistakeably mirrored by the film. Since there are no internal resources, and none capable of constructive voice or action, all "solutions" must arrive externally.After a harrowing life in an anarchic wilderness, salvation finally comes to Jamal, a Christ-like figure, in the form of an imported quiz-show, which he succeeds in thanks to sheer, dumb luck, or rather, because "it is written." Is it also "written," then, that the other children depicted in the film must continue to suffer? Or must they, like the stone-faced Jamal, stoically await their own "destiny" of rescue by a foreign hand?
Go read her whole piece, it gives a vastly different view on the film than what has been discussed in the mainstream media.
Finally, as a feminist, I had a really hard time with the character of Latika. I understand that in Boyle's imagination, Latika was like any third world woman. A helpless victim that can't speak up for herself and stays in an abusive relationship, until she is saved by another man. Outside of oversimplifying the complex ways that women of color experience AND resist violence within their own communities, it reinforces stereotypes of helpless third world women. I must say, I tried to ignore this plotline in the beginning. Perhaps if I thought about it too much, I would come out against a film that is supposed to "help" my people or because I just wanted to enjoy something for once without the nagging reality that this story doesn't make sense without the depiction of a violent patriarchy. But the unfortunate reality is that in order for South Asians to make it into the mainstream, they have to cater to the lowest common denominator of universal experience. And that is of course one where women have no agency, especially in the context of the third world. I mean that is why we are fighting all these wars right? To save women!
So yes, of course I am excited that Slumdog did so well at the Oscars. It makes me happy that all these South Asian actors are in the spotlight along with the genius of AR Rahman and MIA. However, it is only one step and we must resist the desire to homogenize the Indian experience that we know so little of in actuality, based on a fictitious film directed by a white man.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Slumdog Millionare wins Picture of the Year!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12122
Other than the obvious issues with the movie what no one is talking about is what happens to these kids now. The media patted itself for flying the kids in for the Oscars and not a single person thought about the fact that they were only going to be returned from the poverty from whence they came. Once you know about a situation of inequality does that not give you the responsibility to do something about it, or does the white mans burden only go so far? At least those are the questions I asked.
There was a college fund set up for the kids, because the filmmakers were afraid that the money would be squandered by the children's families (as it happened many times before with child actors and their parents).
Education is an important tool, and I hope these kids will stay in school up to college, gain new skills, and get good jobs for themselves.
Anyway, NOT all of the child actors are poor. I think it was just two of them in the cast who come from the slums.
From what I understand, they ONLY have access to the money if they graduate. What if that is impossible? What if they *have* to get a job rather than continue school? What if they *want* to get a job rather than continue school? Why can't they automatically get the money when they are adults, that would allow room for their own choices and non-choices which might be forced by their circumstances.
If they were living a lower-middle class life in the US, then yeah, the college fund would be great and reasonable. But it seems the people who set up this payment scheme didn't seem to consider the fact that things *MIGHT* not be that simple given their situation of poverty. And it doesn't seem that whoever set up the payment scheme cared.
An easy trip to Wikipedia can answer your quesitons:
Boyle and Colson have stated that they have "set up trust funds for Rubina and Azharuddin and paid for their education," although the exact amount of the trust funds is not known. This has also been met with criticism as there is question as to how children growing up in the slums have any expectation of being able to attend higher education, making the trust fund potentially useless. Boyle has explained that, "We don't want to reveal exact figures about what's in the trust fund, what's in the bank account for them for when they leave school because it will make them vulnerable and a target really but it is substantial, and they will hopefully gain benefit from the film long after the film has disappeared and long after the media who are chasing them at the moment sadly have lost interest in the film and that's been our approach throughout and I think it's the right approach."
Personally, I'll see the movie if only to bask in the glory that is Irfan Khan's talent. He's said himself that this isn't the best movie in the world but that it might open up Western audiences to Bollywood in particular and Southeast Asian stories in general.
I haven't seen the film yet, so I cannot offer any insights, but this came across my desk at work and I thought it provided an interesting perspective.
For background, the author was born in Austin TX but currently lives in Mumbai. This article is also posted on her blog: http://indiarevisited.blogspot.com
http://www.statesman.com/editorial/content/editorial/stories/insight/02/22/0222slumdog.html
"However, it is only one step and we must resist the desire to homogenize the Indian experience that we know so little of in actuality, based on a fictitious film directed by a white man."
Uh, yeah, and the screenplay was based on a book written by an Indian.
And wasn't the film co-directed by a WOC? I heard someone mention that Boyle forgot to thank her in his Oscar speech.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, the woman to whom you refer was the second unit director and had something to do with casting. Second unit directors don't often get a lot of credit. I'm not sure how much input they have into the finished product.
And I'm about to contradict myself. She was a second-unit director, but according to this article (admittedly, an article she wrote herself), she was unofficial co-director in India.
Ok- i just read the article you linked.
After 10 yrs in this industry I can tell you that it is hugely unlikely that a male would ever step aside and give the credit completely to Doyle as she has.
The work she did as co-director would have had any male up there at the globes, the spirit and the oscars.
As women we have got to step up and take credit and accolades - men do it and no one thinks badly of them for it-
thinks badly or not-
we have got to start taking credit where it is due.
Boyle could not have made that film without her and to me- he comes off as just another credit hogging, white man, profiting off of POC.
You are mistaken. Co-director and 2nd unit director are two very different credits.
She was given the credit Co- Director, which apparently means something different to Boyle than it does to the Cohen bros.
She was also the casting director for the Indian talent.
She is Indian and much of the cast were Indian, so I am thinking she directed them. I'd like to know more about it from her and him - or the DP's perspective.
Boyle was quoted as saying that Loveleen Tandan was absolutely co-director and deserved accolades, yet, he shared none with her.
Not enough publicity questioning that imho
She herself said that she doesn't want any more credit than being called an A.D for this movie (I saw this on MTV News's website if you guys don't believe me).
She has her own directing projects in the works right now, so this movie has given her more exposure to the film industy, which is a good thing.
I repeat:
As women we have got to step up and take credit and accolades - men do it and no one thinks badly of them for it-
thinks badly or not-
we have got to start taking credit where it is due.
I was just getting ready to say basically exactly this, that she is officially the co-Director, and should have been given credit for her part in the movie at the Oscars. I believe she did attend, so for her to not even be mentioned is appalling. I wrote a post about some of the controversies surrounding the movie over on the CA NOW blog: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2009/02/the-slumdog-millionaire-controversy-race-class-gender-and-colonialism.html
I had/have the same feelings regarding Latika, however though she hesitated, I feel like she did make a brave step by going and meeting Jamal at the train station. This, of course, ended poorly and her face would likely bare the scars of that for the rest of her life.
I felt that the movie lacked the depth and richness that the Indian experience gives. It also felt like a western story with Indian characters. Maybe I'm crazy, but I thought that The Darjeeling Limited showed a much more beautiful and realistic depiction of India than Slumdog...
Wow, I really have to disagree, I thought the Darjeeling Limited was grotesque in the way that these 3 white (asshole) male characters used the people and landscape for their own sexual purposes and "spiritual" enlightenment. To me it represented the worst stereotypes about the "east" as a spiritual, more primitive, female landscape.
I also had huge problems with the character of Latika - especially as I read the book (Q&A by Vikas Swarup) that the screenplay was based on prior to seeing the movie...(Spoiler alert)In the book, the character of Latika is only a small part of Jamal's life when he is very young, but she returns as a lawyer who secures his release from prison and is the character who he relates his story to (as apposed to the male police officers). It is the surprise ending of the book when she reveals to Jamal who she really is, after hearing the story of his enduring love for her through all their years of separation. Not only is her character much stronger and more interesting in the book (she in fact acts as his savior) but her entire story line makes a lot more sense. I really wanted to enjoy Slumdog Millionare, but these changes from the book to the screenplay just seemed lazy and unimaginative on the part of Simon Beaufoy...I found it really depressing that he had to take this beautifully written strong female character who saved the man she loved, and rewrite her into a stereotype of a helpless woman waiting for a man to save her.
Is it a stereotype though, or is it often the sad truth about domestic violence?
wow! I didnt know that. I wish that had kept that in for the movie.
may I quote you?
Feel free!
I haven't read the book, but I do see the value of highlighting the domestic violence that Latika went through. I don't see her as a weak character, but as an oppressed one.
However, I also understand that the changes were made to market the film as a love story. I think calling Slumdog Millionaire a love story is like saying Forrest Gump is a love story. It sells the movie short.
How depressing. I'm glad I know that she was originally a lawyer, because the character did bother me in an otherwise lovely film.
I didn't understand how it was Oscar worthy. Where was the complexity of the characters? Where was the deep cross-cultural analysis that helps us understand the South Asian condition? Where was there any agency displayed in the character of Latika? How did this story help the plight of the South Asian national citizen outside of reinforcing stereotypes of India?
I mean...if I'm being honest I don't really see the Oscars as something that answers or deals with most of these questions. And I had a hell of a lot more problems with Crash than Slumdog.
And furthermore, it was directed by a white man, but the story came from a book by an Indian man, and had an Indian WOC co-director. So I feel like its not TOTAL cultural appropriation
Anyway, I'm not discounting the issues with Slumdog. You have every right to feel that is has a "hollow message" and it does in a lot of ways... but I still think it was a really entertaining really good movie and I don't think it was too negative... it didn't bother me as much that it wasn't the most feminist film or incredibly profound.
Gah! I had about a thousand problems with this movie, and I don't think it deserved an Oscar. After hearing so much hype, I expected more.
Why I Kind of Hated It:
1. Moral of the story: if you're a good person (male, anyway), you can rise up from poverty just based on being good and honest!
2. If you're a bad guy who rapes and beats women (the brother), you need only do something honorable in the end and your audience will forgive you and find you instantly redeemable.
3. If you're a traditionally beautiful, fair-skinned woman, you're a victim (Malika and the mother who is shot). If you're dark skinned or not built like an Indian Barbie, you're a prostitute/background that's never humanized or worth pity.
4. The main character is an outdated ultra-hero. He grows up submerged in gritty poverty but never curses; never gets too close to drugs, alcohol or any other substance; never has sex while waiting for his true love; never even lies. This does nothing for advancing, well, ANYTHING.
5. I could hardly tell the mother and Malika apart -- two idealized examples of Western beauty.
And reasons I think it didn't dare deserve an Oscar:
1. It's the generic Hollywood formula!! Total good guy and total bad guys, all battling for power over helpless, objectified women. No characters are complex, no decisions are difficult. It's just one ridiculous, grand heroic gesture after another. This is the most reused, overdone plot/formula of pretty much EVERY Hollywood action movie. And yet, because the people are brown and the saris colorful, all the critics hail it as so exotic and different and representative of Bollywood.
2. Cheee-zeeeeee. So cheesy. The ultra-villain with the beard, earring, and villain laugh? C'mon.
3. Majority of the praise I've heard from white people (and I'm white) revolves around how "different" this movie is and how much insight it provides into poverty, neither of which is true. Most of the hype seems to be about this being Cinema Lite -- an international piece that's white-washed and mainstream enough for mass consumerism.
All that negativity said, the soundtrack is great and there were moments of good cinematography, though they generally ended about 30 minutes into the film.
I'm Indian and I happen to LOVE this film. My father, another hardcore Indian nationalist, loves this film. We come from Bihar (one of the poorest areas in the nation), so seeing the slums was like a flashback for me, from what I've seen in Bihar (and in other Indian cities).
It's not just white folks who love this movie, thank you very much.
Word my bf is Punjabi and so is his father and they both loved it.
Sure. I know lots of people who loved it. But just because something is likeable doesn't mean it a) doesn't have problems and b) deserves awards. I like lots of movies/shows for their entertainment value, but that doesn't mean they don't have problems, flaws in representation, etc.
SPOILER ALERT:
It sounds like you didn't see the movie. I don't know who Malika is. Do you mean Latika? And the reasons for you hating it make no sense to me.
First, Jamal might have escaped poverty by being good, but Saleem didn't. Neither did Latika. Neither did any of the other little kids that were taken to "the orphanage." Neither did any of the gangsters. Most of the characters in that film didn't escape poverty at all. The characters that did escape poverty did so by joining gangsters, either voluntarily or involuntarily. The only person who escaped poverty by being good was Jamal. He probably saw what the gangster lifestyle was doing to his brother and decided to go a different way.
Second, there's no indication that Saleem is a rapist. And this redeemable thing you're talking about is committing suicide. That's the only thing he could have done to gain forgiveness from the audience.
Third, Latika and Jamal's mother aren't light-skinned. There are darker Indian people, and their are lighter Indian people. Both of them fall somewhere in the middle. And whose mother gets shot? Jamal's mother gets hit in the face and drowns. Latika, who you label as fair-skinned, is forced into prostitution. There are lighter-skinned women working at the cell phone company and on the set of Who Wants to be a Millionaire. There could have been some racial politics in this film (like in Monsoon Wedding) but there wasn't.
Fourth, you're pissed that Jamal was a good person. But he did lie. He pretended to be a tour guide at the Taj Mahal to take money from ignorant tourists. He stole money and shoes from some more ignorant tourists. So at least when he was a kid, he lied and stole to survive. The difference between him and Saleem was that Saleem had little self-control and was power-driven. Jamal wasn't, and you see that as a bad thing!
And fifth, I could tell Latika and the mother apart. They looked completely different. Latika was the one who wasn't face-down in the river after getting hit in the face by a terrorist. See the difference? If you couldn't tell them apart, I think that says more about you.
Seriously, I'm convinced that you did not see this movie.
I agree with everything you said EXCEPT that Saleem was a rapist.
Saleem definitely raped Latika. She didn't want to have sex with him and he knew it. She may not have physically fought him off, but he bullied her and intimidated her and threatened the boy she cared about with a gun until she caved in. That's rape.
I haven't seen it yet, but my dad actually had an interesting comment: mainstream America has been exposed to a cast of faces and characters for the countless Indian phone voices we interact with on a daily basis.
As far as Danny Boyle's track record, don't forget that Selena was the real star of 28 Days Later.
Yes! That scene was amazing, where he's trying to deal with the Scottish woman who comes on the line. I mean I've been there, ringing faceless Indian call centres from Edinburgh trying to get help, and I just loved that whole section of the film. Your dad raises a very good point!
Good point re 28 Days Later. That was one of the better zombie flicks I've seen if only because of the treatment of the male & female characters.
On THIS movie. Did it win the Oscar for being the quintessential Indian movie? Was it supposed to EXPLAIN for everyone else the situation of India? It's insulting to assume that is even possible in a MOVIE.
Latika was a character in this story primarly about Jamal. Her issues were not depicted as irrelevant, but again, THIS movie in particular was concerned with Jamal. In addition, she made several choices along the way - deliberate choices that led her down one path or another. So...agency? Yes - she had it.
Slumdog was a nice enough picture, and though I liked other movies much more I can understand why Hollywood appreciated it. They need a new way of depicting underdog struggles globally to fit the market and to satiate a rising consciousness of the connection between countries.
It's NOT an Indian movie. It's a British movie about Indians, set in India.
The Western media can't seem to see the goddamned difference between Indian-themed movies and Indian movies. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING, PEOPLE.
(by the way, that wasn't targeted at you)
I thought this was a pretty film to watch but other than that it struck me as just another cheesy feel good movie. I was really surprised it was nominated, and I just assumed hollywood wanted to feel extra good by supporting a movie about poor children in India.
The thing that kind of really pushed the ridiculousness over the top for me - and it's admittedly a small thing, so I don't know why it irritated me so much - was that scar on her face. Near the end where they meet and it's all this "can you still love me with this hideous scar?!" drama....give me a f* break. The woman is so damn beautiful I actually forgot the scar was there, that's how stunning she is.
I didn't see this movie, but I greatly liked The Namesake as an ongoing tale of a family that bridges generations from India to the USA. I think if you want an India meets the West movie, rent this one.
That is a really good movie. I totally cried at the end (rare for me).
I know SDM has its problems, but seriously, I was just ecstatic to see a movie where all the main characters where poc..and There wasn't the feeling of "we need add a white person to the cast so white ppl won't feel so alienated"
Again, Irfan Khan made that movie brilliant. Well, Khan and Tabu, the Indian actress who played his wife. They were both just brilliant and a joy to watch.
Thanks for writing this Samhita. I could not agree with you more. While I did like it, I can not understand for the life of me how it won an Oscar. It did give a certain level of publicity to South Asians, but I think it was very shallow in doing so.
It also didn't dawn on me until you said it, but the director is white and the main character Jamal is from Great Britain. Your analysis of Latika was spot on as well. All in all, I just can't imagine that the story was a true reflection of what people who live in Mumbai experience. And sure, the rags to riches storyline makes a good movie, but it doesn't address broader issues that impact the lives of the people of Mumbai.
(This is totally picky, but I was really bothered that the director and the man who played the host of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire did not know the names of the children in the movie when they gave their acceptance speech at the Golden Globes.)
"It also didn't dawn on me until you said it, but the director is white and the main character Jamal is from Great Britain."
Please correct me if I'm just not getting this, but while I can understand the concern surrounding a movie about India in the hands of a white director, I'm not so weirded out by Dev Patel being from Great Britain. While it's true that there is a historical legacy between Britain and India, Dev Patel is not directing or writing or taking artistic control of the project the way the director is - he is acting which, by definition, is becoming something that you're not. Dev Patel is from Britain, Jamal is from India. Considering that the majority of the cast is from India, I personally feel that this can be chalked up to Dev being the best man for the role as opposed to the casting directors going out of their way to cast a British citizen in the lead.
Again, I'm no expert on the subject, just wondering.
wow. i'm a south asian feminist and i felt the same ambivalence about the movie as the OP. now i'm not saying that all south asians feminists feel the same way about this movie, but i think the ambivalence may be common.
the main reason for my ambivalence is that this movie got nominated, and won so many oscars (best movie being most problematic). if it didn't get so much recognition, it would've been just another feel good, entertaining movie about a male protagonist. even the theme of rags to riches is common in bollywood movies. so why so much hoop-la about this movie? a few years ago, the movie "water" was nominated for an oscar in the foreign film category and it didn't win. it was also about historical india, cast by indians and it was really really good. but the director was an indian woman, the movie was about women, and it was more realistic than fantastical. less feministic was the movie "lagaan" and that didn't win an oscar either.
i can't help but think the slumdog millionaire appealed to the oscar people for the "wrong" reasons. it's a movie of cliched themes that's made different by the context of indian slums. and while i'm happy that a movie about indian lives is popular, i find it problematic that it's this movie, not others that were better.
i'd compare this movie to "my big fat greek wedding." a superficial, entertaining movie that lends to many different interpretations. good for feminist discussions. i might blog more about it at www.desifeminists.wordpress.com (this is my new blog alert at Feministing, since for some reason i don't have permission to post).
Is it possible for a white man to direct a film about people not his skin color without it being exploitative/evil?
yes, but you have to be awfully careful.
nobody is saying that slumdog millionaire is "exploitative" or "evil" but rather that the issues it deals with could have been handled more sensitively. coincidentally, it was probably received by american audiences (such as the academy) for all of the wrong reasons. i am american so i'm only speaking based on the reactions i've heard personally and don't want to speak for those from different countries, and i'm aware that non-white americans also enjoyed the film. but that doesn't mean it isn't problematic.
at the end of the day, my main problem with the film was that it was cheesy. cheesiness often comes with its fair share of cliches, many of which draw upon stereotypes. sad fact.
Could it be helpful to consider the fact that Jamal's character was not the stereotypical macho man? He was relatively weak and vulnerable as well.
weak?
I saw strength
I'm sorry. That was a bad choice of words. What I really meant to say was the Jamal's strength lies in his overwhelming compassion for people around him, and that he is able to triumph by remaining a good person. He wasn't quick witted, muscular or caustic.
As a 1sr generation American- I LOVED!!!!! Namesake-
and it's directed by a woman.
oh yeah, i forgot that one. it was really good. and dare is say, oscar worthy.
I'm another South Asian feminist...the whole Indian community where I live is in love with this movie. I mean, my mom was literally cheering everytime Slumdog won an award (at the Golden Globes, the BAFTAs, the Oscars...). When my parents came back from seeing the film, my dad commented on how the film made the slums of Mumbai look full of life, and that's the same impression I got.
I acknowledge the problems with the film, but I'm surprised people are saying it didn't deserve an Oscar, as if the Oscar is some sort of bastion of excellence. The Oscar is essentially an award for the best middlebrow entertainment, and Slumdog was damn good middlebrow entertainment.
I thought it was a better movie than the last 10 Best Picture winners (except perhaps 'No Country for Old Men').
the South Asian condition? really?
Really everyone? What movie should have been chosen instead?
I don't think that every movie needs to speak to every aspect of a culture and I don't think that everything needs to have deep reflections and profound revelations that makes sure to be as politically correct and sensitive as possible.
One side of my family is from India and the majority of them still live there. I can't say that this movie spoke to me on any personal level but it was entertaining and I really enjoyed it.
Something I can tell you for sure is that those children are astonishingly talented and more deserving of honors and acclamation than any of our egotistical and overpaid Hollywood usuals.
i agree with you here.
"slumdog" is only one work of art of a huge culture, and i think it borders on ridiculous to suggest that THIS ONE MOVIE, which was essentially a old-fashioned love story with a postmodern story structure, is somehow not a successful work of art because it doesn't comment on the wholeness of the indian experience. it wasn't TRYING to be one of those movies which creates rich characters and unveils their development, a la "the insider" (one of my favorites). it's not aiming for "deep cross-cultural analysis", fer chrissakes. it's like reading a love sonnet and asking why it doesn't convey the pain and horror of war. or why the "lethal weapon" movies didn't comment on the crisis in the middle east.
guess what? "the sopranos" doesn't convey the wholeness and complexity of my italian-american existence, either. but i think you all knew that.
i find it a bit ridiculous to hold a work of art up to your own value system rather than that of the filmmakers. i think the resentment here isn't so much toward the movie, but there's an idea that because the movie got so much positive attention that it should somehow be a "better example". as merely one (well-made, uplifting) movie of a whole diverse, beautiful culture, i think we should cut the filmmakers a bit more slack. if few movies are made with strong female characters, or you NEVER/rarely get the deep cross-cultural analysis, then i agree you have a problem.
the film itself uses real life social tragedies to pull at your heartstrings and then asks you to forget about them so it can make way for the soppy love story. it isn't reading a sonnet and asking why it doesn't talk about the pain of war. the first 2/3 are about "the war" and then it's like, just kidding, let's forget about everything you just saw so we can shoehorn in some fairytale ending! it's manipulative and, to me, rather exploitative not only of the audience but of the people suffering for a good duration of the film who go by the wayside when it's time for hollywood cliche #10.
So any movie in which sucky things happen to the characters repeatedly can't possibly have a happy ending?
The happy ending didn't feel forced. Salim's sudden change of heart, maybe, but they set Jamal up to win big from the very beginning.
The movie is a fairytale set against a very realistic, incredibly difficult background. The happy ending packs much more of a punch than it would if it was happening to a couple of rich kids.
I think there has been a lot of motivation to make the Oscars more accessible and relevant to a broader audience.
I mean, maybe Atonement was an amazing film, but how many people saw it? How many people really enjoyed it? To be honest, I fell asleep in the theater.
Considering that, I think it's perfectly fine that a hugely entertaining movie with a killer soundtrack and amazing cinematography won for best picture. A friend asked me what kind of movie Slumdog was, and I didn't know how to answer -- it's a love story, a coming-of-age story, a gangster pic, an action film, all at once. And it pulls it off without seeming awkward or overextended. Perhaps this did require trading depth for breadth, but I found that the characters were believable and even multi-dimensional.
I'm more bothered by the Academy's continuing use of the word "actress", as in "Best Actress", when it seems to have become more common for female actors to call themselves actors. I'm all for "Best Actor in a Female Leading Role", or something. Hopefully, one beautiful day, female roles will actually constitute an equivalent number of quality leads and the gendering of award categories can be entirely done away with.
The Oscars are hardly the forum for really intriguing and complex movies to get attention. I agree with Aint I a Woman that movies like "Crash" that also got Oscar attention are a lot more problematic.
It's a minor miracle this film got any notice; Americans love underdog; most of the ancient Academy voters respond to ebbs and flows of film politics than actual viewings or appreciation of the films at issue.
Given these facts, it's a little unfair to the filmmaker to make him and his cast responsible for the projected hopes and fears of any segment of the population, given it wasn't a sure bet this would even get wide release in the U.S.
So like Rainey said above me, if you have problems with the film, the fact that the same people that honored abysmal shit like Crash or Forrest Gump honored Slumdog Millionaire shouldn't actually bother you.
The movie is great and they really deserved awards. The storyline is different from from usual. I'm gonna watch it again ; )
I finally got to see this movie (Netflix) and I thought it was very good. It reminded of City of God and Ghosts of Cite Soleil, movies about the Brazilian favelas and Haiti except it had a more fanciful feel to it. I too am uncomfortable with making a movie responsible for being all things to all people.