Slumdog Millionaire – a post hype review
(this was written a week before the oscars)
A pip-squeak of dissent is peeping through the fog of euphoria.
Slumdog was going straight to DVD but it was pulled from that fate and lo – 10 Oscar noms?
I said, Really?
If people like their social realism packaged like a cake of detergent with large letters and bold graphic design, so be it. Flock to the cinemas and let Fox Searchlight clean up behind them, but ‘masterpiece’, ‘brilliant’?
Really?
Even last year’s best pic winner – the scorching No Country For Old Men by Hollywood outsiders, Joel and Ethan Coen, would find it uncomfortable dragging that kind of obligation around.
So what to make of the universal, unquestioning adulation Slum has received from the world? Why are ordinary people are finding this ordinary film exceptional?
I guess public perception is driven increasingly towards homogeneity and stick figure fantasies sell easier than nuanced realities blah, blah, blah. We know all about hegemony. More Blah Blah Blah.
What Slum interestingly shows is the power of mass conversion, and how advocates are made in this world of instant coffee; where generic, uncomplicated social realism is intravenously consumed – no need to tax the taste buds here, needle straight to the blood stream and the rest is a joy-ride through wonderland.
All of it made even artistic by the slick, visceral visual style of an unquestionably talented director at the height of his magic; squalor throbbing to the the pulsating grooves of a talented composer; and populated by unidimensional munchkins masquerading as people thanks to an unrelenting screenplay by a fine screenwriter, though one that seems to be written at the first-class bar in the nine hours it takes to fly Virgin Atlantic to Bombay.
A miscast lead, the tortured, awkward Londoner nearly equalled the embarrassment of Sir Alec Guiness in brown paint and lungi (harking back to the awkward reincarnation of Obi-Wan-Kanobi as Godbole, the Hindu priest in Sir David Lean’s Passage To India). In the case of Slumdog Millionaire, this time the British casting director left the cosy corridors of RADA (Royal Academy of Dramatic Art) stepped out of the familiar streets of Kensington and braved the wilderness of Wembly or Southall to deliver a casting coup of sorts.
No, she didn’t do even that.
Someone at Danny’s local saw their Dev Patel on a popular television show. The color was brown this time and the accent slightly North London but hey remember, colonialism is long behind us. The rest, including Dev’s unfortunate north London accent jerked me so hard out of the film each time he opened his mouth that I felt I was being shunted around through Bombay in a taxi without suspension.
Wither the emotional connect of Kaun Banega Crorepati hosts Shah Rukh and Amitabh Bachan with their middle class audience – the bond of affection, encouragement, love even – and whither this portrayal of the same game-show…? Every adult in Boyle’s Bombay is uniformly evil and twisted – but none more so than the crabby talkshow host. Contorting his way through contrived and overly plotted devices – c’mon, who uses hot water to wash hands in sweaty Bombay, other than a talk show host who has to write the wrong answer on a mirror – seemed a tad convenient didn’t it, Mr. Beufoy? And just to vindicate his overblown reaction to Dev Patel’s triumphant march through improbable knowledge, like a taxi in Andheri, we are asked to suspend disbelief to spring-busting limits. A two line throw away bathroom accounts for Mr. Kapoor’s bizarre behavior…
Noh! Really? HE was a slumdog too.
‘I have it all, I come from where you did, and I will make sure your ascent is stymied’. There you have it too – the famed Indian crab mentality covered by what’s rapidly becoming the great Indian film. Another box checked.
As to the hammy love affair between Mr. P and the to-be misses, suffice to say, my skin crawled as it became alarmingly apparent that this was the motor, the engine, the flux capacitor of Slumdog Millionaire. ‘No’ I screamed inside, ‘this can not be the reason why I am watching this movie’.
But, what of the children! Those wonderfully innocent, wide-eyed, mischievous slum-pups, who jumped on trains, got their eyes taken out, sang plaintively – weren’t they just brilliant? And what of the imagery – the Star-Trek child-Krishana energized into a Hindu-Muslim riot, the Taj Mahal appearing in the gold-dust of tumbling kids. B’jeez, this film has magical realism too – its grog that would make Tim Burton flush.
I, for one, was having nightmares. Images of matka-filling-belle-at-village-well-and-the-jhatka-of-the-walking-across-the-dunes-in-the-slanting-suns-of-the-twilight-hour – yes, that kind of cringe movie; the heaving of the collective Indian mid-riff, the fakirs on a bed of nails and the snake-charmer before it; in the rich tradition of Sabu and Godbole – aye, Danny, that’s the rub – that really sold it to ‘em.
Unfortunately, if and when the magical cow-dust is allowed to settle, the film did not amount to more than an entertaining, larger than life (overlong) music video celebrating an ascent of a cartoon character from crap. But with marketing dollars strapped to it like an emergency parachute, its managed to pull off nothing short of a miraculous leap out of DVD hell screaming – ‘we are legit cause we can slum wash, and do it doggedly, till we do it so much that everyone says so, we’ll keep barking till you buy the ticket, tune-in and pick up the DVD version too’.
This is 21st century entertainment by a decidedly 20th century fox who figured that once the obligatory box of social relevance is checked, its all legit; in their euphoric way members of the academy, the Globers, the Screeners, even the BAFTAS shall obediently fall into line.
This is briefer-than-match-light illumination of a dark continent for the underexposed waspy American (who’s box office drives the global film business), who is (of late) finding it kinda cool to engage with the rest of the world. Perhaps its because of the new dude in the white house, perhaps its a seeking of enlightenment cause America is searching for its soul, being out of work makes people introspective, meaning-of-life questions appear meaningful. Perhaps its simpler than that. Just a purging of collective guilt through a convenient screen, or even the visceral thrill of catching a fleeting glimpse of poverty – a wide-eyed backpacking teenager – ready to absorb, believe and frighteningly conclude without history, geography; without context or parameters.
Whatever the state of the world, and the complicated forces that contribute to public sentiment, Slumdog Millionaire is not a cinematic masterpiece.
Sorry. It just ‘aint.
I watch a lot of entertaining yet soulless films and after the obligatory post-film-dinner conversation, in which the falafel off a freeway in Los Angeles feels more authentic than the film that preceded it, the memory eases into the recycle bin of images – a blur.
Slumdog engaged me in a simmilar way. I saw the film a few months ago at a Fox premiere in LA, and similarly forgot about it till now – that is, till the universal adulation and the carpet bombing of awards. I was forced to sit up and wonder whether the world had gone collectively cuckoo.
There are films that slam you in the gut, that take the wind of out you, that render you speechless, that wrench your heart till you think its going to pop, that cause a rock to form in your throat, that creep under your skin – films that make you squirm and realize how shitty things really are or those that lift your spirit in a collective sigh. There are films that reveal something between the folds of our world, or show us mindscapes twisted or elevated, or landscapes that make us gasp. From those cinematic experiences we emerge stunned, educated, sensitized, horrified, mesmerized.
Trainspotting, for instance, was one such film.
I don’t doubt the sincerity and genuine effort on Mr. Boyle’s part to frame the milieu in which this unfortunate yarn is set; and by all accounts, he is a humble, generous man. A great spirit on set and saintly to those who come in touch with him. But for all his goodness and talent this is potential belied, a promise unfulfilled and particularly so, because it was Bombay, it was India and it was Danny Boyle. And this is one that I REALLY wanted to like.
Hmm. Anyway, enjoy the Oscars but don’t go looking for Bombay here – you may not find it.
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Ashvin Kumar is back and how!
Agreed with every word.
Brilliant writeup sir…looking forward to the debate which will invetiably follow here!
Very nice write up…fitting reply to the hysteria.
Hardly an exclusive. He posted this some time back on his blog. But yes, agreed entirely Mr. Kumar. ^_^
brilliant…
Ah, but you forget. Colonialism isn’t really over – not when it can be repackaged as cultural imperialism. Once again, Indian discourse is completely reinterpreted by the West. And Slumdog defines the new Mumbai. We better get used to it before the next batch of tourists come in. Tour guides should start offering A/C bus trips through Dharavi. Imagine. A picture with your very own slum dog. Maybe a staged blinding or maiming or two. And the elites could put on their own show – where they sit on the skulls of dead slumdogs and gloat, “Mogambo KHUSH hua!”
The tragedy of the whole thing is that I quite enjoyed the movie, as a random timepass flick, before the whole hoopla started. And Americans started greeting me with a smiling, “Jai ho!” Ugh. I still don’t know what we’re supposed to say Jai for by the end of the movie. Woohoo, obsessive childhood infatuations! Or YAY Jamal, you become a “MILLII-NARE!” but your brother just like covered himself in more money than that and shot himself. So the money wasn’t Jai-ho worthy either apparently. Triumph over adversity? REALLY? I thought it was just luck and destiny and everything being “written”. So, if you become a “MILLI-NARE”, its nothing you did – it just happened. And if you’re a blinded beggar because your friends ditched you and ran away, oh, it’s “written” too. Tough luck. Maybe you should have worked on your bloody karma.
I saw the movie again just to see what all the hype was about, and this time, I felt a lot more sympathy for people who complain about India being shown in a bad light. Initially, I was like STFU you rich, privileged people. No one wants to hear you complaining about image problems while street kids are being maimed. Now, I’m more like, hell yeah! I know what you mean. I don’t agree with the way India was portrayed either. I think it should have been portrayed MUCH more terribly. Because you know what? Latika would probably not have been living in a posh South Bombay mansion if she was a REAL slum kid. And Jamal and Salim and Slumdogs Inc. would DEFINITELY have been into some pretty serious dope. Where was the glue? Why no drug peddling? Why was Mr. Salim, trusty right-hand gangster man, listed under his ACTUAL name in the phone directory? That’s like finding Abu Salem listed in the Yellow Pages. Why was the sardar who beat up teen Jamal RIGHT about him ACTUALLY having been a thief? The sardar should have just been kicking him blue for the heck of it. We are like that only. OI! And I was offended by the crappy electric motor thing the cops brought in to shock old Jamal. L.A.Z.Y. Okay, deputy cop might’ve been too fat to really take a lathi or rod to Jamal but Irrfan Pathan was in good enough shape. And why was there no acid thrown in the face of the women working at the call centers? Ram Sene, couldn’t you have volunteered your services? Oh, and one last grouse. Cell phone reception in India always fails you when you need it the most. That call from the show should never have gotten through in the first place.
@ Anushka
brining out flaws is ok, that speaks about your observation and passion, but some ppl get judgemental, ke these flaws make a film – bad.
give credit to the story. danie boyle wanted to tell a story and these so called flaws were a part of it.
ok. you say how this is possible. how that is possible. but make sure you also add, instead of this, the director could have done tht. pointing it and leaving it, jus doesnt serve the purpose.
@Sunny
>.< I should have put SARCASM in bold at the top of that last response. I apologize.
And I didn’t call the film BAD at all, just mediocre. The characterization was weak, the plot was cliched and apart from the cinematography, nothing really commanded attention. The movie was paced very fast, which did injustice to everything they wanted to talk about. If Boyle had concentrated on giving each of his characters a defined arc rather than worry about fitting in as many scenes of gratuitous misery as possible, the film could have been much better. There, that’s what I think he could have done. A movie is GREAT when it makes you really think about the details you’d otherwise miss or never notice. There was nothing about the themes, motifs or characters in Slumdog that could surprise or englighten me. If everyone just needed a wake-up call to life in the slums in India, there are plenty of documentaries for that purpose.
Boyle was inconsistent with his characters and didn’t give them enough shades. Why did Dev run away from the motel, only to come back and try to find Latika again? If he couldn’t deal with her sleeping with his brother, he shouldn’t have been able to deal with her sleeping with the mob boss. Also, that would’ve made him more interesting. He loves Latika as he IMAGINES her to be. She’s some ideal goal in his head. And yet, when he finally finds her, they go and have a totally sterile conversation in the kitchen while cutting sandwiches. It’s so mundane, and yet, it’s supposed to be so grand. This is what comes of shoddy writing – when you’re trying to move a plot forward, but totally butchering your characters’ sensibilities and attitudes to make it happen.
I thought maybe Slumdog harped on details that everyone knew
… and didn’t focus on little, seemingly unimportant details that are in reality, the most important of all.
Ahushka – no@ got me wrong there, you dont have to put a disclaimer, i was trying to bring out wht i think many ppl do, not pointin any fingers at you, but reading your latest post, i am happy tht you are asking questions and not pointing flaws. i hope you understand wht i am trying to say.
i don’t like it when ppl seriously bring out flaws. like my own friends, are yeh kaise ho gaya woh kaise,
latest – delhi 6, my frnd says – are yeh kaisa kala bandar kab toh b aa jara and all, yeh flaw hai.
in pointing and bringing out flaws, they miss the essence of the story, i was trying to talk abt tht, sarcasm is ok, pointin out and trying to act smart ke dek i noticed this and tht is bad, i again hope – you understand wht i am trying to say
@ Sunny
Yeah, I know what you mean. ^_^ I had the same reaction to people who kept harping on Delhi 6 being bad just because it didn’t follow conventional story-telling patterns. But, while I thought Delhi-6 might have tripped with the mainstream audience, because it focussed VERRRY much on little details (which I loved), I thought Slumdog won over the audiences because it had a very fast pace and crammed in as many elements of high drama as possible.
@ Sunny, I agree. It almost seems easier to write something bad about something, or say something bad about someone, especially in today’s world, where we are all figuratively “pitted” against one another.
Ultimately, my personal standpoint is that I liked the film. I hate the fact that YES, they are already offering special tours for superficial idiots through Dharavi and the A/C buses aren’t far behind that… Though may be hard to fit through the narrow lanes. But flaws and inconsistencies aside, the story gripped my heart. The heart of a woman who loves Bombay, loves to find the good in life, and is a hopeless romantic. I am sorry to generalize and write that I find critics of the film typically not to be very tender…
Oh, and wasn’t that supposed to be Ram, not Krishna, in the riot scene?
Awesome – everytime I see the adulation received by this film – the exact same thing goes through my mind – ‘Has the world gone collectively cuckoo?’
the reason i think search fox light picked it up, as it saw a potential for awards in the cinema, it was neatly marketed for that. “It’s the sort of film that wins awards this time of year because it’s the sort of film that encourages audiences to applaud themselves for their tolerance of ——– people from the safety of a theatre full of people of the exact same socio-cultural strata.”
The argument is that there’s a moral problem with portraying human degradation and desperation as objects for the blissful contemplation of the voyeuristic middle class. Described with brilliant succinctness by one Indian academic as “poverty porn.” Jai Ho!
Did Danny Boyle or anyone associated with SDM ever declare that they are making a realistic potrayal of india or Mumbai in particular? As far as I know the only delaration was that the movie was based on ‘Q&A’. Moreover, Is it necessary that all movies be about reality? If that’s the case, how will we get those great Sci-fi movies, like ET? Whatever happened to the idea of different genre of movies? IMHO, I saw the movie as a universal rags-to-riches story and found it really entertaining. Now looking at the collections of the movie, I believe more than half the world agrees with me.
Though there were flaws, I did not see it while I was watching the movie. So the credit goes to the superb execution of the movie which did not allow me the time or will to identify flaws in the movie. Probably the jury of all those award shows saw it as well and awarded all possible awards to the movie. I know it will be a pain to accept for any person who believes that a mere entertainer should not be get an Oscar. But again, who decides that an entertaining movie cannot?
Makes me sad that after all these years 82% of Indians have to live on less than Rs 3000 per month. (with India’s riches lying you know where)
@Sushant, if some one does not see the flaw in a product, does not make it “brilliant” product, it just might be the case of lack of discerning vision on part of the viewer. the author here is not against entertainment, but ascribing terms like masterpiece and brilliant cinema to rather mediocre piece of work. and there is whole lot of politics, lobbying and biases about why did it won bunch of awards, do u think SM was by any means more entertaining or better executed than Dark Knight?
agree with Susant and Nina here….the movie is an adaptation after all and people are taking the Oscars a bit too seriously. A masala entertainer can also be a masterpiece, I see no reason why the two can’t go together. The vast majority of the people in this world are hopeless romantics and this IS a movie for hopeless romantics. The Brit accent and most other points mentioned in the post don’t even matter to such people. I personally thought the direction, sound design, editing and background score were exceptional and the film actually deserved all of the Oscars it got.
So many great Hindi films are flawed but we still like them. Why such a ruckus about Danny doing the same shit too? The Oscars are not better than Filmfare and if Hritik can pass off as Akbar and the film wins awards then we have no right to judge Slumdog so harshly.
Slumdog is not a documentary on Dharavi(or Mumbai) and neither is Jodha-Akbar a History Channel special. The key concepts to understand fully here are:-
1. FICTION
2. MAGIC REALISM
3. ROMANTIC FANTASY, and
4. SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF
(u can google them if u will, i personally find Wikipedia to be a great help in such matters)
Some films only seem more ‘real’ than others but ultimately they are all works of art that are supposed to entertain you.
And lastly, there is nothing wrong in being a hopeless romantic. I, for one, belong to the category. People should to appreciate all kinds of films. Its a shame how everyone tries to be Ebert these days….and even HE loved it!!!
@Kazoom: I was so tempted to write about Dark Knight which according to me was the best movie of the year 2008 and SM was only the 2nd best. I was one of the most disappointed guys when DK was not nominated for the Oscars.
And yes I have seen all the other nominated movies and this “discerning” viewer found flaws in all those movies, some during the course of the movie and some after watching the movie. Some of the flaws that I found during the course of the movie and which did not go well with me were:
* In TCCBB, why does a baby born as an old man die as a baby again? If we even assume that reverse aging is possible, then wouldn’t it have been more “real” if he died as a fully grown man with the brain of a baby?
* In the Reader, I found the nudity in the 1st half very unnecesssary. 1-2 scenes is Ok but the whole first half is spent with unclothed actors.
I can go on and on about the flaws in other nominations too.
I see some reviewers here watching the movie again to find flaws in it. That, to me, fails the whole idea of watching a movie. I am sure there would be hardly any movie in which you can’t find a single flaw if you sit to identify flaws in it. If nothing, it would challenge your own intelligence if you can’t find a single flaw, isn’t it? :-)
The point that I am trying to make is that the joy in movie watching is in trying to enjoy it as it comes and not in trying to identify flaws in it.
It is like you are looking at the finger when somebody is trying to point you moon. If you still find flaws while you are trying to enjoy then you can say that the movie didn’t work (for you).
Regarding “politics, lobbying and biases”, I bet you could have used this line even if any other movie had won. The fact is that this statement has been used loosely for any win in any field since time immemorial but has never been proved. And I wonder why a BIG prodn house like Warner Bros with all its money, muscle, lobby and favorable critics and user reviews could not buy an Oscar for Dark Knight while a minnow like Fox Searchlight did.
I would have been really happier, had it happened. :-)
slumdog millionare is one of the best films ever made….I don’t understand why we indians can’t except that fact…it is the tribute to both hollywood and bollywood…everything was masterpiece..and what is this non sense about showing mumbai underlly..oh i forgot it does not exist..wat a joke..and the movie recieved an oscar so please show some respect for the people behind it. Much better some pseudo crap you guys like. This is one thing i don’t understand about PFC. Movies are meant to engliten and entertain. Most of the post in this website is for the movies that engliten and the ones that entertains and educate are nitpicked so much that it sucks the fun out of it. So please guys enjoy the great (one of the greatest ever) movie called Slumdog Millionare with open heart and trust me, it will blow you heart, soul and mind.
I do agree Slumdog Millionaire is no “cinematic masterpiece”, yet one can’t deny its one of the best films to use the ingredients of Bollywood masala (as a genre), and give the film a makeover with some “cinematic style”. Which made it watchable and definitely one of the best in this genre per se.
One is definitely not looking for realism while watching this film or docu-drama, its ala fantasy and should be seen in those manners. As a matter of fact, Slumdog Millionaire is Bollywood personified. And why are we complaining about “realism”? Here Bollywood does not even deal with themes, or “realism” that is part of everyday India.
So why to complain, when we ourselves are not indulging in making movies that is not ready to move beyond the clutches of metros of India. Or our filmmakers make films solely catered to satisfy NRIs.
Had this film been made in India, one would not have questioned it, and simply replied. “Film hai yaar” be entertained, don’t look for “art” cinema.
Beside, as far as its 10 Academy award nomination is concerned, the Academy always likes to take things way too far. And this is what happened with Slumdog.
Neither is this Boyle’s best cinematic effort, but even a minor work of an auteur is greater than best work of craftsman. This may be Boyle’s Sunday outing but it definitely worth the visit.
perfect. I wish i had the pen with which you wrote this article. slumdog is nothing but a give-the-brilliant-trainspotting-something movie.. it sucked ass
.. i meant.. give-the-brilliant-trainspotting-director-something
@Sushant, why Warner Bros. can’t buy awards? Oscar jury is predominantly occupied by intellectuals and elites, who have year after year neglected summer blockbusters and successful movies(exception Titanic and Return of king in recent past)its their way of saying that anything popular is not worth seeing for the elites and class, u may equate them loosely as intellectual snobs. However, Academy awards are loosing their popularity due to this attitude, as most of the people are not able to relate to the art house cinema that win awards( previous years Oscars ceremony was the lowest viewed ever, this years was third lowest in the history Academy awards)
To quote from a blog of Arnab Ray-
“Faced with the tension between “popularizing” (”dumbing down”) the awards (let’s have “You got Served” and “Spiderman” as nominees) and making it into a “nobody cares” snoozefest like the Tony’s, the Academy finds movies like “Slumdog Millionaire” God-given get out of jail cards. Shamelessly feelgood with its underdog story, cloying romance and the “This is the third world. Look at how sub-humanly they stay in their own country” subtext “Slumdog” is intellectually untaxing, visually spectacular, full of “human interest” and unabashedly “exotic”.”
Slumdog is essentially a cinema the crowd can connect to, and i loved it, but objectively speaking to call it worthy for the awards that is equated to excellence in cinema would be fallacy.
I am loving the debate thats been sparked here…
Check out Tarun Tejpal’s elegant special on Slumdog Millionaire in the latest Tehelka.
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main41.asp?filename=hub070309the_missionary.asp
Agree with what you say Kazoom about the state of Oscars. Strange how diametrically opposite the Oscars and Filmfare are, both caught up with their own image that they have built over years. While Oscars are so much fascinated with so-called intellectual meaningful cinema, Filmfare boasts of only awarding the popular movies. But both somehow are equally biased and biasing is never a virtue for a jury.
I would like to believe that SM was the redemption for the jury for not selecting DK in the first place. But on second thoughts, the competition was not that tough for SM either. It may not be great excellent cinema but it was relatively better than the other competitors this year.
‘However, Academy awards are loosing their popularity due to this attitude, as most of the people are not able to relate to the art house cinema that win awards( previous years Oscars ceremony was the lowest viewed ever, this years was third lowest in the history Academy awards)”
I dont agree. By that token, MTV Viewers’ Choice Award should be having a bigger audience, because they celebrate popular cinema. The The fact is viewership would go down further if they do not keep themselves relevant by doing this balancing act: rewarding popular fare like Titanic and LOTR once in a while and celebrating intellectual cinema generally.
The spurt in box office of Slumdog after the Oscars shows how much people still care for the Oscars.
@Kushal (14) – “The argument is that there’s a moral problem with portraying human degradation and desperation as objects for the blissful contemplation of the voyeuristic middle class.”
So, it’s morally problematic to portray human degradation but OK to turn a blind eye and ignore it in our midst?
Just my two cents on this whole debate http://thepeterpan.blogspot.com/2009/03/some-rides-are-so-heady-you-dont-wish.html
dear ashvin kumar,
why we fail to acknowledge the fact that the movie has been acclaimed as a masterpiece the world over by all and sundry.Almost all the great filmmakers across the globe have nothing but praise and great admiration for the film.i mean they were not exactly giving 8 oscars to the movie including best picture as charity but were truly mesmerized by the brilliance of the film.If i am not wrong the movie won oscar due to prominent board members of academy awards committee voted for it.So sir when everyone in west goes hammer and tongs praising the movie why should we deride it.i am certainly not an expert but as a avid movie buff i enjoyed the movi immensely and think that it is worthy of every accolade it is recieving.
p.s. loved your movie the forest.
@nisheeth kumar, are you serious? SDM is a masterpiece because it won eight Oscars. LMAO
There have been many movies that won best picture Oscar award that were mediocre or just plain bad. Can we say Titanic?
Just as there have been many deserving movies that have been completely overlooked when it comes to the Oscars.
Please stop being so naive. SDM will be looked at years from now as one of those movies where the academy screwed up and people wonder what were they thinking?
dear lee
happy to ss my comments gave u a few moments of laughter.but if u seriously think that titanic was bad i can only rest my case and lmao in reciprocation.sdm worked big time for me personally and i think it wastruly a great movie.it opens the doors to hollywood for our artists.the world now sees the genius of rahman as we always have.besides the movie is not only critically acclaimed but a great commercial success with around $235m gross and counting.of course the figure pales in comparison to titanic but i think u were refering to that great james cameron love epic as bad only in jest. jokes apart nice hearing your point of view.u may be right in ur way but i would still say sdm is one of the greatest films ever made.kudos to the underdogs.
Ashvin,
thought provoking write-up!
keep it up
cheers!
Gurudas
But a nice article about Media and Marketing in context of Slumdog
http://www.livemint.com/2009/03/10223322/Porn-or-a-brand-with-character.html
a nice read!
I really don’t know where to put this-i guess latest slumdog post will do.Though i am slumdog hater but for cinematic reasons not because portrayal of poverty.
hi ashwin r u making any new film?if so what is it
The Academy Awards are decided by democratic voting by the members of the Motion Picture Academy, not by a jury.
There are rules about who can vote in what category and the votes are tallied by an independent accounting firm, and outcomes kept secret until the awards are given in the big show.