Too bad most of the world doesn't agree with rediff.
--- In [email protected], Vithur <vith...@...> wrote: > > Blame it on the hype. > > The reviews -- mainly from the United Kingdom and the United States, where > the film was released first -- for *Slumdog Millionaire > [Images<http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=slumdog > millionaire> > ]* compete with each other in discovering superlatives. It is being billed > as *the movie* of the year gone by, and has catapulted its protagonists Dev > Patel and Freida Pinto into competing with Oscar heavyweights in major award > nominations. > > So expectation is par for the course, I hope you will agree. > > But after watching director Danny Boyle's attempt at encapsulating the India > story with a miraculous tale, I for one was majorly under-whelmed. > > Let me try to explain why. > > - *Also Read: Showcasing Slumdog > Millionaire<http://www.rediff.com/movies/slumdog09.html> > * > > And for those of you who want to watch the movie first unencumbered by > premature knowledge of plot turning points, please click away to another > page, because it is impossible to critique this particular film without > giving away what classify as 'spoilers'. > > So where was I? The film. Do you remember a recent movie that had the > tagline -- 'he was arrested for raping his daughter'? Well, > *Under-trial<http://www.rediff.com/movies/2007/feb/09ut.htm> > * too was based on 'real events'. > > The point I am trying to make is that a film about real events need not end > up real enough, or engaging enough. That is precisely what *Slumdog > Millionaire* suffers from, IMHO. > > The premise is brimming with potential. A slum kid rises above fate to > win *Kaun > Banega Crorepati *-- the sets are ditto, as is the background music for the > show -- and the love of his life. He is helped by destiny, as each of the > questions on the quiz show is linked to an event in his life. Wow. > > But the execution falls very flat because of two basic flaws: The language > barrier, and a wishy washy story line. > > It starts off with Jamal Malik being given the 'third degree' in a police > station because the cops are sure the slum kid has cheated on the game show. > > > I agree custodial torture is not limited to Abu Ghraib. But what is not > taken into account is the usual fall guy in 21st century India -- the media. > If a 'slumdog' -- as the police inspector (Irrfan Khan > [Images<http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=irrfan khan> > ]) calls Jamal -- were to be poised to win Rs 20 million on *KBC* and if the > country knew it (as it does in *Slumdog*), I doubt he would be subjected to > any other grilling apart from that most profound of television journalism > questions: "*Aapko kaisa lag raha hai?*" (How are you feeling?). > > And if he was arrested for cheating, it would be an even bigger story, with > reporters grilling the police and PYTs (pretty young things) doing PTCs > (piece to cameras, the bit where the reporter faces the camera and signs off > with usually insights like: 'What will happen next remains to be seen. With > cameraperson in Mumbai > [Images<http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=mumbai> > ], , ') in front of Jamal's slum. > > Instead, Jamal narrates to the police inspector just how he knows the answer > to each question. > > So we flashback to him as child diving into potty -- isn't once enough, > given that Boyle's gritty and edgy *Trainspotting *featured such a > nauseating scene too? -- to get Amitabh Bachchan's > [Images<http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=amitabh > bachchan> > ] autograph. > > For all the Amitabh-crazed fans, maybe the megastar does oblige children > caked in faeces; be sure to try it the next time. > > More such flashbacks reveal the scars life has inflicted on Jamal and his > brother Salim. The Bombay riots that orphaned Jamal; how he and his brother > Salim met Latika, the love of Jamal's life, as children; the underworld don > who has children's eyes gouged out so that they can earn more as beggars; > how Jamal and Salim escape him and land up in Agra > [Images<http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=agra> > ]; how they come back; how Jamal and Salim and Latika are thrown apart; and > how, eventually, love conquers all. > > Again, fantastic -- and seemingly real -- premise; but shoddy experience. > > For starters, the kids (who deliver heart-warming performances, faring way > better than those who play their adult avatars) and his brother speak in > Hindi, and suddenly when they turn adolescent they start talking in > *pucca*English. Huh? > > *Arre,* that's because the film is meant for a world audience, and you can't > have an entire film in subtitles, you might say. Fine, but then why do the > police officers have to speak 'Indian' English and why does the 'slumdog' > have an accent? > > And no, a semi-literate office help in a call centre does not develop an > accent. > > In fact, a lot of the 'how he knows the answers' flashbacks are too > contrived. Sample this, Jamal knows Samuel Colt invented the revolver > because Salim got a gun -- it is never explained how -- and shot dead the > vile man who heads the beggars' racket. In my hometown, the pistol goes by > monikers like 'machine' in the netherworld; I doubt the average underaged > Mumbai underworld operative knows a Colt 45, or Samuel Colt. The first gun > is usually what is called a 'country' revolver. > > And then there is the stereotyped, half-baked, black and white > characterisation, almost bar none. For example, Prem Kumar (Anil Kapoor [ > Images <http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=anil kapoor>]), the > *KBC *host, is the typical villain who taunts the *chaiwallah* on his show; > and the audience joins in with jeering laughter. Agreed, slum children get > life's rawest deal, but not on live television. More likely, sugary > treatment on the show, and bitter backstage. > > It is also not explained just why Prem goes after Jamal with such malice, > beyond a muttered 'It's *my *show'. > > I can go on and on -- like point out that call centres serving customers in > Scotland don't keep telephone directories of Indian cities accessible at the > click of a button, and that mobile phones are not listed in telephone > directories yet (that's how Jamal finds his brother again) -- but the point > is that *Slumdog Millionaire* is miles short of what I had expected it to > be. > > The really key events, the struggles of survival, are glossed over, and > instead we get montage (albeit beautiful) shots hurrying towards a climax > that leaves you untouched. A R Rahman's music is good, but not the master's > best. But then, maybe on second hearing it will grow on you. > > But -- maybe it's just me -- you never really feel for the adult Jamal. > Maybe it has something to do with the acting. > > I have no problems with the 'West' taking up themes of poverty and > highlighting the real India. I can completely understand a foreigner being > obsessed with the filth and the poverty -- I too was stunned by the plight > of the homeless in New York -- of India. I thought *Slumdog *is brilliantly > shot, and I am willing to forgive Ram dressed as a mix between Shiva and > Krishna in a foreign film. > > But I do have a problem with a story that pretends to be real when in > reality it is just a *masala *film -- the kind we churn out by the dozens in > Bollywood. > > Yes, *Slumdog Millionaire *is just superficial fluff, mainly because of its > gaping plot holes. It should have been much better researched, and they > really should have stuck to one language. > > Maybe the makers -- and half the world, apparently -- believe they have > married Bollywood escapism with Western sensibilities, but it is not a match > made in cinema heaven. It is more along the lines of 1970s Bollywood > tear-jerkers, the kind where the hero transforms from street urchin to gang > lord in one running shot and where long-lost brothers are reunited by > tattoos. > > Blame it on the hype. > http://www.rediff.com/movies/2009/jan/09review-slumdog-millionaire-sumit.htm > > -- > regards, > Vithur >
