Movie review 'Slumdog Millionaire' ultimately pays off Mick LaSalle, Chronicle Movie Critic Wednesday, November 12, 2008
________________________________ Print E-mail del.icio.us Digg Technorati Reddit Facebook Slashdot Fark Newsvine Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Buzz Share Comments (3) Georgia (default) Verdana Times New Roman ArialFont | Size: <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N2998.centro.netOX4600/B3177566.12;abr=!ie;sz=88x31;ord=[timestamp]?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N2998.centro.netOX4600/B3177566.12;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=88x31;ord=[timestamp]?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N2998.centro.netOX4600/B3177566.12;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=88x31;ord=[timestamp]?"; BORDER=0 WIDTH=88 HEIGHT=31 ALT="Click Here"></A> </NOSCRIPT> ________________________________ "Slumdog Millionaire" is best savored later on. Then it's easier to appreciate its scope and world. The movie takes audiences to the poorest sections of India and shows a level of poverty and human misery that's almost beyond our imagining - and yet so pervasive that people seem to take it in stride, as an unalterable fact. The movie provides an indelible education into how other people live, and that's a noble function. ________________________________ Images View Larger Images ________________________________ We get the range of modern Indian life, from the technological sophistication of its television stations to the primitive shacks in which people live in crushing proximity to one another. The film is so vivid that you can almost smell it, and there are images that will linger with viewers for a long time. But "Slumdog Millionaire" has a problem in its storytelling. The movie unfolds in a start-and-stop way that kills suspense, leans heavily on flashbacks and robs the movie of most of its velocity. The filmmakers' motives are sincere. The story is interesting enough. Yet the whole construction is tied to a gimmicky narrative strategy that keeps "Slumdog Millionaire" from really hitting its stride until the last 30 minutes. By then, it's just a little too late. The setup is certainly promising. Jamal (Dev Patel) is a teenager from the depths of poverty who becomes a contestant on the Indian version of the "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" quiz show. As the movie opens, he is coming close to winning the grand prize, but because no one can imagine that a "slumdog" could know what he knows, the police arrest him on suspicion of fraud. He is tortured and then interrogated. The police review the questions he has been asked on the quiz show, and, one by one, Jamal explains how he happened to know each answer. Do you see where this is going? Each time Jamal explains how he came by his knowledge, we get an extensive flashback into his horrible childhood. Then, flashback completed, the movie goes back into the interrogation room, and he's asked about another answer. This brings on another flashback, etc., etc. By a wild coincidence, the quiz show's questions, taken in order, correspond chronologically with traumas in Jamal's young life. Now, for viewers who want to know everything about Jamal's painful boyhood, this presents no difficulty. But for others, who are captivated by the drama unfolding in the present - how will he elude the police? What will happen on the quiz show? What will happen if he wins? - every retreat into the past feels like a suspension of the story. Moreover, the drama of the flashback scenes is somewhat diminished by our knowledge of the present. There's something else, too. The movie's arbitrary structure has a fable-like quality, similar to the "Arabian Nights" tales. But Danny Boyle's direction is straight-up realism: quick cutting and handheld cameras that are constantly moving. That Boyle ("Trainspotting") should feel an impulse to push this film along is only natural. A movie made up mostly of flashbacks needs all the propulsion it can get. But in this case, the style sets up an expectation that the movie can only frustrate. In retrospect, "Slumdog Millionaire" might have been better served by a style that didn't run counter to its dreaminess and languor but rather made those elements into virtues. Or maybe not. Boyle's approach certainly pays off in the last section, which is hands-down the best part of the film. In fact, it's fair to say that the movie ends so well that it will redeem the entire experience for many viewers. It all depends on how you feel about the sluggish 90 minutes that went before. -- Advisory: Violence, strong language, sexual situations http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/12/DDU9142B25.DTL&type=movies
