NB: This is not a classic. Not even close to it. I am writing this review because I cant tolerate the hype that this movie is generating.
If you want to see a good movie on the life in slums, see Dharavi or Salaam Bombay. If this gets to Oscars, Salaam Bombay should have swept it. This movie lacks the basic tenets of a classy movie. The premises of this story are so stupid that even a 5 yr old kid would recognize the fallacy. If you could know who invented the revolver just because you saw your elder brother use one, you would know who came up with the idea of mobiles just because you use them everyday!!!! And lots more...infact almost all the premises are improbable to say the least...a blind Indian beggar in Mumbai knows that Benjamin Franklin is on a 100$ note.
This movie has been made with a deliberate attempt to sell misery. There are lots of ways to show it, this is just a commercial way. The worst part of the movie was when a policeman was hitting the protagonist(Jamal) for being an aide to car thieves. Jamal told 2 American tourist, "This is the real India". The tourists gave him a 100$ bill saying, "This is the real America son". Mind O mindless arrogant money beasts, Indians are not beggars....
Whats even more enraging is the way the quiz host, Anil Kapoor behaves with Jamal in this movie. If a chaiwallah really has the skills to come up to a quiz show, the audience and host will actually help and empathize with him,praise him. Not act with contempt. Mr Rehman, you must be ashamed to be associated with this movie.
After all the scathing review, I must admit it corresponds to a well made Hindi movie with a happy Bollywoodish ending making it a good watch. The 2nd half was lot better than the first part. Music is good but probably AR has delivered better before this.
Nevertheless go and watch it, you will come to know how to make a movie that sells well though will not go down in history. Fortune favors the brave.
Overall 6/10
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I agree, Salaam Bombay is a much better movie. If the director wanted to show what the "real India" is, he should have made an unbiased documentary. Probably he did not do so because he would then have had to show the HITEC City of Hyderabad. If he just wanted to show the slums of India then he should have spent a little more time researching on what the real problems/issues are.
agreed buddy........
even i fail to understand the hype around the movie... its not a moviue which should win the oscars and defitely not one that u would remember... i feel it is an attempt to represent a bad way to represent things... host of the show definitely being one and so is the way india is represnted as a country of beggars and slums , blah blah....... i feel that it is an endeavour to represent india the west feels about us.... crazy about dollars.... if it wins the oscars i'll have a doubt on the genunity of oscars...
Some questions to you :
1. Would you have the same problem with this movie if it was made by an Indian director, say, Ray ?
2. What in your opinion are the "basic tenets of a classy movie" ?
3. What do you think --- Danny Boyle was a 5-yr old kid, who did not think of the premises of his movie ? Or do you think he thought his audiences would be 5-yr old kids ?
4. Salaam Bombay "shows" misery, while Slumdog "sells" it. Why the change of verb ?
5. Now the worst part of the movie : did you at all realise it was actually a scathing remark not on India, but on the "mindless arrogant money beasts" ? Don't you feel that Jamal actually used those words to squeeze money out of the American tourists ?
6. And I suppose you know that Danny Boyle did not write the story --the storyline was based on a novel written by an Indian. Did that change your opinion ? And if Danny Boyle gets "best director", surely you will not hate him for the storyline ?
I asked these questions because I feel you missed the whole point of the movie because it used a language you were not comfortable with---the language of exaggerations. Of course, the premises are extremely improbable, but the merit of the storyline lies in building together a coherent story which ties up so many (and I mean that) issues facing India today. Write me a two and a half hour story that could do that and not use the language of extremes and be as effective as this one in conveying its point and I would take your comments hands down.
indeed i agree angik da.... outrageous bastards !!!! picturing a wrong image of INDIA with a fallacious script sucks big time .... And, yes, I agree with you once again, when u say rehman has produced better scores than these award winning ones... But, possibly you shouldn't blame Rehman for being associated with the movie...
@Kalpurush
I think you have the answers to your questions when you look at the Academy Awards... That's why the movie was made - to fetch Oscar(s). And Danny Bolye knew very well what America/Hollywood would savour.
@Kalpurush
I think you the answers to all your questions lie in the 81st Academy Awards... That's what the film was made for - to fetch Oscar(s). And Danny Boyle knew very well what America/Hollywood would savour.
It is good to see that not everyone is part of the hype.
Great post Angik...especially about the point that it does not follow the basic tenets of a classy cinema...
Yesterday we were talking about Titanic in Exotic Thai, when I said that it was a very cliched story, I never actually meant that it was not well made...It was really, that's what took it off as a great film to watch...
My criteria of truly great movie or any art rather does not arises from any intellectual process, any art should hit you emotionally first, intellect comes next as you explore the art and find layers and layers of hidden meanings and possibility, a lot many that even the creator didn't intend to put in the first place...so I guess a lot of "greatness" is subjective...any art has to parts to it, the creator and the spectator...
So I guess a lot of people would feel that slumdog is a classic, even when you and I are irritated by its constant harping of struggle of the protagonist (who couldn't even evoke a feeling of sympathy from the spectator, too dull) , that I found had no cohesiveness or theme, neither was it a collage, it probably tried something to be in between and failed...
As for the story being by someone else, that does not absolve Danny Boyle from the blame...we have had a number of Devdas, the story is same, but so many interpretations...case in point the Bhansali one and the latest one by Anurag Kashyap...its the focus that matters...Danny put in a lot of effort towards the technical side...and they are quite good...but story telling was vacuous...
I was waiting for some reply from the blogger himself before launching my defense, but it seems he does not want to come into the field, so I am replying the commentators here.
@ Samiran,
You are right about the "greatness" of a movie being mostly in its emotional impact and is therefore subjective to the viewer, and by this yardstick, the fact that such an overwhelming section of the viewers loved the movie ( to say nothing of its Oscar booty) actually makes its "greatness" self-evident.
As for the "vacuous" storytelling, I am really interested to hear some alternative way to fill up this vacuum. "Salaam Bombay", now let's come to that. The first thing that everyone here is missing is that the movies actually go about their subject in completely different ways --- Danny Boyle has not even made any pretence of being grimly realistic. Despite taking its roots from reality, it has deliberately stretched every point --- that's a cinematic device and here comes the subjective part, that's a cinematic device you did not like. Okay, that's fine, go ahead and say the movie did not appeal to you. In fact, Samiran, you did just that, but the problem I had with the blogger was that he went one step ahead and started launching a kind of anti-propaganda sort of thing (like predicting that this would never go down in history and that kind of thing) and that's what caused me to be so scathing in my sarcasm.
@ Sourav :
Here's a story for you :
When Satyajit Ray went to the State Government looking for funding for "Pather Panchali", the State Goverment initially put in a clause insisting that he had to end the story by showing that the State Government launched an effective plan for the upliftment of the villages and as a beneficiary of that, Apu and his parents live happily ever after. You know what, your "HITEC city of Hyderabad" stuff reminds me of that. And I thought that the Indians had grown up somewhat since those days.
And I have another question for the blogger (to be added to my previous list if and when he pleases to answer):
Would you have a problem with the story if this was a movie based not in India, but say, in Sudan or Brazil, places about which you are not closely familiar but maybe you know the issues they face ?
@ Kalpurush and others, the blogger is angry on this movie because 1. it shows India in bad light unnecessarily.
2. There are plenty of movies as good and unrealistic as Slumdog. Plenty of rags to riches stories in Bollywood. y such a hype over Slumdog. I wouldnt have wasted my time in such a hectic schedule if I hadnt felt it is insulting my country and making a mockery of lot others.
Detailed replies are pending and will be jotted down after my assignments are completed.
See this comment in Telegraph http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090205/jsp/opinion/story_10485740.jsp
@ Kalpurush
here are my answers to ur queries and some more
1. Yes, the problems I have with this movie are not at all related to the fact that the director is a foreigner, its with the theme.. and please lets not insult Ray, Boyle is nowhere even close to the greatness of Ray.
2. The basic tenets of a classy movie for me:
a. The movie should have a coherent storyline free of obvious fallacies. Obviously some stalwarts have created great movie with fallacies deliberately. I dont think Slumdog falls into that criteria.
b. The movie should have a theme. The audience should leave with a feeling about that movie which should carry on for long. A movie is an art that tries to impart some view/feeling to the audience. Even a good slapstick movie follows this. You would remember the funny situations and laugh at it later. That the director has made you laugh is a big achievement.
c. The movie should not romanticize in a way that offends people. What Slumdog did was romanticize misery in Mumbai slums.
There are others.. will put in later.
3. Danny Boyle didnt care a shit about the fallacies, just like Swapan Saha doesnt think about his movies. (That might be too rude on his abilities but thats wot he deserves)
4. Already answered, Salaam Bombay portrayed misery so that it moved you. Slumdog was more inclined towards the awards-a normal rags to riches story with all spice elements (that sells well).
5. The way Jamal was shown doing it was not to extract money but to save himself from the thrashing. My personal opinion is, that scene had no such intention. It was comic but the feeling that pervaded is that Indians are beggars. Jamal gave away the 100$ note to the blind boy to get the Benjamin Franklin answer later. Why the hell did he accept the money then!!!
6. There are so many trash novel written by so many authors. But then I havent read the story so I should not comment.
Mind you I never said that this movie is not good. Its just that this is not worth an Oscar. Every year atleast one Indian movie is released which is atleast as good as this movie.
If I could write a script that can get an Oscar, I wouldn't be sitting here in my lab on a Friday evening. But there are lots of scripts around that do a better job. Salaam Bombay was one. Mumbai meri Jaan, A Wednesday in recent times, Bombay, Satya.. there simply are so many.. There's nothing special about this movie.
I think the movie is well made. The movie does not want to portray a slum probably..that is why probably it is not that realistic as Salaam Bombay.
Also I dont know what people mean by "Classic"...like if you see the Good the Bad and the Ugly..it has no story--but it is something you will like to watch...but even if you think it is not a Classic it is....
My opinion abt the movie is:
It is pretty well-made movie, the cinematography is really good...music is also good...it has own caveats and something like the 100$ note.....but after all it is a movie--it is called Show-Business.
Also as some of you brought Satyajit Ray..he is totally different than danny boyle..it is like comparing Ed Witten to Steve Chu.....I am sure if chu is asked to do the theory he could not do it--similary Witten cannot get laser coolign---though both are in Physics....and both are great in what they are doing...
One notices what one wants to notice, and unfortunately for you, it’s the misery, fallacies and attempts to show India in the bad light. Nobody said this movie was a classic. For people who like it, it’s a fun movie with good cinematography and music, compared to many of its counterparts that were made at a similar time. The movies’ fictional character who never seems to give up in the face of adversity eventually is rewarded with what he wants and learns new things along the way, and this gives a sense of positive feelings to the viewers who’ve notice this. It’s a pity you’ve missed it!
Moreover this movie has given a worldwide exposure to few of our own Bollywood stars. As far as I’ve noticed, “the-misery-of-Indian-slums” was not the intended idea of the film and so have not made a deep impression upon most non-Indian viewers, unfortunately it’s many Indians who bring this fact into the limelight.
Post a Comment