is the word 'diary' better than the word 'blog'? probably not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slumdog Valentine?
I think the advertising and publicity campaign for Slumdog Millionare is really misleading. In fact I doubt that it really is a �soaring crowd-pleasing fantasy� (Wall Street Journal) and a �hymn to life� (TIME). Nor do I think that it is, as I saw its female lead say on a news show recently, a timeless love story. Of course all of that stuff is in there. But the strangely relentless sentimentalism of one strand of the narrative is simply not able to overwrite the unsentimental bleakness of the life of those slum-dwelling children who are its basis.
I saw Slumdog Millionaire a few months ago, having no expectations about it. In fact I think both Gus and I weren�t planning on seeing it because its trailers made it seem like a cheesy love story without much depth. But then numerous friends of ours told us that it was really worth seeing, and it was a Saturday afternoon, so we went. And I remember, very clearly, that during the first 20 minutes of more of the film, I was crying and upset and not sure that I would be able to take what the film had to offer. I�ll try to say this all without spoilers. The film is about how an uneducated �slumdog� could end up knowing the answers to all the questions leading up to a million dollars on a game show. And the plot tells us in flashbacks how he came to that knowledge�it�s a great narrative device and it is put to good use. But none of the stories are pretty. It is upsetting. And I say it is upsetting because what it depicts is something we all know is not a fiction: children living in dire poverty, subjected to violence, starvation, trafficking, desperation, discrimination, abuse, you name it. It is not a hymn to life!
But there�s also the love story. People love love stories. I am one of the people who loves love stories. And I also have no problem when movies require that I suspend my disbelief for the sake of a good narrative. But I can�t get past the feeling that in this case disbelief-suspension might be unethical. I say that because I think in order to embrace the film as a love story with a happy ending, you have to get past the social realities it depicts and treat them as a background against which people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And let�s face it, that is a kind of story Americans love (even when there is less and less evidence that it is possible even in this country). But there, in the slums of Mumbai? How did the protagonist end up with a polished English accent in a job serving tea wearing nice clean clothes? We don�t know. And do we really believe that the woman who escapes her �owner� to be with the protagonist happily-ever-after is going to be allowed to live by the thugs attached to her �owner�? It�s a fable. But what kind of fable is it?
Another way to think of it: Even if it is possible for a few to do this, what does it mean to �pull yourself up by your bootstraps� and leave behind such utter human misery? I�m not saying you shouldn�t get out if you can, OK? I�m saying that a huge percentage of the human population on this planet lives in dire poverty from which there is little hope of escape unless outside help is offered. That outside help is mostly not on its way. And that means that in addition to living in dire poverty, many people also live in conditions where self-determination and freedom have less worth because of those very conditions. I�m uncomfortable with a story that begins in those conditions and then seems to say: look at how happy this outcome is! Not only because the outcome depicted is unlikely, but because it ignores to the point of irresponsibility the intractability of the problem. The autonomous self-determining individual who happens on a spot of luck is not the answer.
That�s why it disturbs me that the press and the stars of the film on media tour are emphasizing one part of the film over the other. When I first saw the film my assessment was that it was an utterly strange but somehow successful combination of deeply unsentimental and over-the-top sentimental. Now I�m convinced that the film can only work if it is left in that state of inner conflict�where you can�t decide if you believe in the happy ending in part because of the content of the stories that lead up to it. If you purge the film of all its truly troubling realities, it doesn�t make it a �massively cool cross-cultural crowd pleaser� (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) or �the best old-fashioned audience picture of the year� (LA Times). It can�t be that. Or at least it can�t be only that.
Even the clips the producers choose to show on talkshows are not at all indicative of what the movie really accomplishes. It is insulting, and irresponsible.
(This review seems OK, though, or at least closer to the truth, �Both tragic and joyful, it's like a musically accented Oliver Twist, a lightly curried Frank Capra� (Newark Star-Ledger).)
I do think that Danny Boyle did a great job translating the story to the screen. The shots are beautiful, the story�s pace is compelling. Perhaps he can be faulted for making the scene of dire poverty look so attractive (a London writer called it �poverty porn�) but that�s not what I�m going to worry about with that film. And perhaps Boyle�s choice of title betrays an insufficient familiarity with the local culture�since there is nothing more insulting than �dog� to an Indian, I hear, and thus there are lots of protests and even burnt effigies of Boyle in the slums of India. But those protests are mostly waged 1) by people who haven�t seen the film, and thus don�t comprehend that the writer/director is not calling them dogs at all and 2) in some cases are put in motion by conservative forces in Indian life who don�t want things to change much and thus benefit from unrest in slums. (And there ends my very tiny knowledge of the utterly complex truths of Indian politics.)
The movie is well worth seeing. But it�s not going to be your Valentine.
12:24 p.m. - February 22, 2009
sduckie - 2009-02-22 20:31:14
I saw this film and was not that impressed by it. Having been to India I thought it was accurate in its chaos and depiction of a country rich in spirituality but poor materially. And I wanted to believe that Jamal could come from the slums and reinvent himself in life and yes, even be a tea challa. But my biggest problem was the love story- the tiresome stereotype of the abused woman that can be "rescued" by the love and the hero and then she is fine. Realistically an orphan left behind in the slums, used by the orphanage owner then intended to be sold as virgin chattal, raped and who knows what else - how did she end up married to that guy- yet retain all this sweetness and light? And, anyone who stays in an abusive relationship has self-esteem issues that is clear, (I speak from experience not just judgement) so to see this story of how she could run away and be all right just because Jamal loved her- that just irritated me. Her character was a complete two-dimensional fantasy and if they wanted to make it at all buyable, they should have made her much more complex and shown how wounded she would truly be. The truest character was probably the brother, because he was angry, sadistic, fucked up and greedy as soon as he became a teenager. He was the most believable in the whole movie. That's my take!
-------------------------------
Fifi - 2009-02-23 01:51:27
I totally understand what you mean. And, as usual, you have got me thinking more! xoFifi
-------------------------------
Becky - 2009-02-23 18:18:02
I saw it pretty early before all the hype, since a friend urged me to see it on the big screen (and movies in my town come/go really fast). My friend's review was a little more realistic (yet still enthusiastic) so I wasn't *totally* blindsided by how bleak and hard it is to watch.
I am amused/appalled by the Hollywood machine.. even I got sucked in by the cute lil costars endless appearances in all US media the past few weeks.. "go get 'em, kids!" I'm not saying it didn't deserve to win (like the Oscars are the be-all end-all measurers of film quality anyway), but I agree, feel-good it ain't.
�poverty porn� -- awesome phrase. I was describing Boyle's eye -- his ability to make unexpected subjects (junkies, slums) seem invigorating and exciting -- to my nephew, who said "Oh, yeah, that guy! The guy who can make you feel really good about really bad things!"
Thanks for the post. You articulated what I was thinking. B
-------------------------------
js - 2009-02-23 23:35:42
i do think it is a good movie, and that boyle has a good eye and a good sense of how to tell a story. i saw it pretty early on, too. and i also got brainwashed a bit by the feelgood machine--until two friends/colleagues of mine saw it last week, and their reactions reminded me of how wrong the feelgood assessment is.
-------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
