The Hot Blog

I'm really getting tired of all this Slumdog Millionaire backlash. Enough already.

DP, I don't mean to be a jackass, but do you really think that Slumdog is in the same league as Titanic, and not something like, say, Brokeback Mountain?

I know it's the frontrunner and everything, but you sound a bit sure of yourself.

Beautifully worded declaration about why Slumdog is the front-runner and why it deserves it.

Hey, every film has a backlash - last year, a strong one was mounted against Juno and it probably kept at least Ellen Paige from winning. But....

I don't think the Academy will be able to stomach pouring cold water on this one. I still can't get over the fact that Danny freaking Boyle will get his Oscar before Ken Loach or Mike Leigh. Amen to that!

Deaf: he makes a good point, and this award is apparently a reflection of the Academy. Can the Academy see them reflected in Mumbai? Can they? That's the question.

While I have been all sorts of militant towards the film. I get carried away. I've got a lot of a emotion.

Nevertheless; it's an interesting time for this film. Will the Academy go with it? Will they? I'm not sure. It does seem a bit much for the Academy to award a film celebrating their competition.

I'll say it again - Slumdog is one of the few truly exceptional "feel good" films of the past decade, which is really saying something. Wonder Boys, Eternal Sunshine, The Incredibles, Once, Juno, that's about it for me.

It is a shame about Milk - I love that film, despite years of pentup resentment building towards Penn and Van Sant. Just a truly emotional experience to watch it, regardless of politics. If it came out last year, it probably would have won.

I enjoyed the column, but I'm not sure I buy the argument that Slumdog will win because it's the underdog story. After all, all three nominees with a non-zero chance of winning this year -- Slumdog, Button, and Milk -- surely qualify as underdog stories. (At least, as much as the BP winners mentioned in the column.) For that matter, about three-quarters of all movies ever released are underdog stories.

Similarly, I don't get the reviewers who promote Slumdog as Oscar-worthy because it's a "crowd pleaser." Being a hokey crowd pleaser makes a movie special? I must have missed the gold statues for Rudy and Mr Holland's Opus.

Whatever people see in this movie, it isn't the plot, which is as corny and generic as they come.

Mr. Holland got Dreyfus a nomination, and I think Rudy got a nomination or two. So... there?

Geoff: You see Wonder Boys as a feel good story? It depresses the hell out of me.

It's just a shame that the only film that ever had a chance that I could have gotten behind truly was Milk or the two Summer releases (Wall-E and Dark Knight). Other than that the main contenders this year have been so vanilla.

Geoff chose some really strange "feel good" titles there, I must say. But, then again, the same people who thought Slumdog Millionaire was the feeliest goodiest movie ever made probably would see Eternal Sunshine as a story about love conquering all (or whatever).

DeafBrown, is it backlash if you never particularly liked it in the first place? I don't hate it or anything, I just thought it was derivative, cynical and confused. I'm not backlashing against the film, but merely this idea that it's a feel good hymn to life, which seems to be misplaced when the film seems hardly heartwarming at all (You go you poverty-stricken stalker!!! woohoo!!)

On a lighter note, I just want to say that I like what you have done with the nominations' page. It is much better and easier to see them all on the one, instead of having to click back and forth.

The year overall may have been weak, but I think each of the films and their talents are certainly there on merit. I enjoyed them all for differnt reasons, but the film that startled me most was, by far, Slumdog. It did things that worked on film, but must surely have caused concern when still only on the page.

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT

Can you imagine pitching a story to ANYONE in which you detail a sequence where a child is smothered with morphine and then acid is poured on his eyes. Surely, most if not all financiers would simply walk from the room. But once on screen, it works.
Is it not a sign of a talented director that he or she can do things that others can't? Danny Boyle, the trans-national humanist, found a way of showing something truly shocking and potentially debasing for audiences and yet somehow the context of the story and the truth of the reality remain intact.

Also, "Van Sant, who obviously has no fear of making films with gay themes in them, hired straight actors for almost all of the lead roles here… to an effect which, like the movie itself, leaves people in different mind sets."

What gay comunitees are you referring to? As far as I can tell we have no right to be angry at straight actors being cast since there are next to no high profile gay actors around that work in cinema (TV has plenty for whatever reason). From what I've read and experienced gay audiences are more than pleased by Penn, Franco and Hirsch especially. Diego Luna on the other hand...

I am very happy that a movie mostly in a foreign language, with no stars, highlighting the poverty and desperation of millions of people, is probably about to win Best Picture.

I just wish it was a movie that I liked, from a director who was something other than an opportunistic hipster.

Sorry to rant, but I just finally saw the movie on Tuesday night.

Oh, and:
"It is Written"? Blechh. So it was written for the other billion people in the country to remain poor, terrorized by crimelords, and begging in the filthy streets? Sucks for them.

An opportunistic hipster? You REALLY have no idea what you're talking about on that front, jeff.

Kris, in the last few weeks I've watched or re-watched 28 Days Later, Millions, and Slumdog, and I have fresh memories of Sunshine, Shallow Grave, and Trainspotting. And that's the conclusion that I've reached - that Boyle is primarily a slick entertainer with no particularly coherent ideology or worldview beyond what he thinks is hip at any given moment. Granted, 'hipness' includes environmentalism, skepticism of authority, and a certain interest in non-Western cultures, but I feel that in each of these areas he walks in the footsteps of other, much stronger earlier filmmakers.

I should add that I'm not out on some kind of vendetta - the multicultural, progressive, crowd-pleasing aspects of Slumdog are definitely enough for me to not begrudge its apparently inevitable win, even though I personally dislike it.

It's not like this is three years ago, where a clearly superior movie was up against something lame, because none of the other four nominees are movies that I'm super crazy about (Milk and Benjamin Button are my favorites of the five, but each of them is pretty flawed as well).

Look, with regards to the "feel good" argument, there are LOTS of films who claim to be in that realm that I don't think reach the stratosphere of great cinema - Mamma Mia is probably an extreme example, but these films try to make you feel good, but they don't really take you on a compelling journey to get there IMHO.

SPOILER ALERT

Eternal Sunshine has been hotly debated and no, it's not a simple "Love conquers all" message - I just love the simple cynicism that works in that ending. "So what?" Love is never perfect for any one, that's the point. Just ends on a great note - them running on the beach on a loop, with that fantastic Beck song. You have no doubt that they will go through all of the same crap again and again, but you just don't care....it's honest and it just worked for me, because you never doubt they have genuine chemistry and complement each other.

Wonder Boys? Grady Trip basicaly finds his redemption - giving up pot, finally hooking up with a woman his old age, realizing that he just can't keep writing his way out of "choices," and James Leer gets recognition for his brilliance at a young enough age that he might just have a chance to not let it destroy him. Sure, it's a bit of a cliched ending, but the journey there makes you buy it.

I know there are some who still think Once has a bummer ending, because they don't end up together, but.....they both do what's best for them (it makes sense for the guitarist to move to London to see the woman he has really pined for and probably kickstart his music career AND of course, the pianist should try to stay with her husband for her little girl's sake) - the gesture of buying that piano is just about as romantic a thing I have seen in any film in years.

This is all open to intrepretation, but these films made me feel good about life - not just put a smile on my face like Mama Mia or make me laugh like Role Models. Genuinely moving films that left me feeling positive at the end.

I still get a kick of Wonder Boys - Downey, Douglas, and Maguire just click together. "I guess I just don't fit the new corporate profile...." "What's that?" "Competence??" (Just love how Downey delivers that line)

One of the best lines in recent movie history.

And just establish a key difference: Memento, City of God, and The Departed are probably among my favorite films of the decade - just dazzling cinema that I walked out of each wih a goofy grin on my face. But they did not make me "feel good" about life, that's a rarity.

God I love Wonder Boys. Need to watch that shit again.

Gotta agree with Jeff re: Boyle. I don't know why all these people are coming out of the woodwork acting like some major artist is finally getting his due.

He makes some enjoyable, pulpy stuff, but I haven't seen anything from him even approaching masterpiece status.

I happen to think that both Trainspotting approaches masterpiece status - he actually has you rooting for and emphasizing with some pretty despicable characters.

Millions is not far off - it's on IFC all of the time and just a beautifully done film. It's right up there with Babe and Toy Story in the modern fairy tail realm.

I think what truly sets Boyle apart is his use of music to drive the story - I'm not talking about ham-handed period showtunes in the vein of Robert Zemeckis or Nora Ephron, or the distracting irony that Tarantino likes to display with the '45's he inserts into scenes. I'm talking about using modern music (mostly) to really help drive a story - outside of Scorcese, he is probably the best out there. Think about the "Perfect Day" scene in Trainspotting or the use of "Born Slippy" as an inspirational tune at the end - Boyle is very canny at picking the right sound for the right moment.

....I know people out there are going to point out Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs as shining examples and I agree. I'm referring to more recent Tarantino - was there any need to put an instrumental version of "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood" during the climactic fight scene of Kill Bill other than to draw attention to itself?

I'm glad that the music that A.R. Rahman did for Slumdog is getting some recognition - it's a great soundtrack and the MIA song is beyond catchy.

Wonder Boys ... the dog dies ... Boyle and music cues ... Shallow Grave and "Happy Heart" ... priceless

RE: The Pope’s comments on financiers possibly walking away due to violence depicted towards children.

I think the overall tone of the film or in this case the script must’ve helped. While graphic, the scene from Slumdog that you mentioned didn’t stand out in terms of context to what had already been portrayed. I would think if you’re reading the script by the time you get to that point you’re pretty much on board. I would think that objections would’ve been raised about the piece on the whole. It’s the other shoe dropping of the story. It’d be hard for a development exec to say can you change that one scene. I think it’d just be pretty much, “umm, nah.” Which is pretty risky but at least the integrity of the story stays intact.

There was an Italian film that came out a couple of years called The Unknown Woman written and directed by Giuseppe Tornatore who did Cinema Paradiso. Really amazing film but in it where some rather unsettling images against a child. But it was central to the plot. Visually, emotionally, intellectually it worked on every level and the director deserves his props. It didn’t make the Academy finals, though it apparently cleaned up at the Italian Oscars, which I wonder if that was part of the reason it didn’t get a US release because of a perceived view that it wouldn’t be marketable. The other reason was that I don’t know if the graphic scenes wouldn’t have been considered too much for American audiences.

It’s kinda amazing how we can take our violence in certain forms of doses and regulate them. Gun shots, prisoner torture, even slasher pics or the drunken abusive step farther so often portrayed but when things fall outside of boundaries…everybody takes a step back.

It’s not that I think people should rush toward these kinds of images to duplicate but it’s a reminder of how effective film can be. Not necessarily w/big sets, big explosion, lots of blood and gore but just the disturbing of innocence.

I just recently saw The Wrestler and I'm pretty sure Penn's got a lock on it. Not that Rourke is bad, I quite enjoyed it for what it was, but that's a movie about physical torture and I didn't buy the meat-grinder scene at all. And the story about Rourke going on WWE, sort of seals it for Penn.

My main disagreement with DP is Supporting Actress, I think Viola Davis has a real shot there.

How is "Slumdog millionaire" multicultural? It has an Indian cast playing Indian characters in a story set in India. Is it because it had an English director? So did 'American Gangster'. I agree its a very universal story, and should appeal to audiences worldwide; but it is still pretty unicultural.

It's multicultural if you're an American audience member. Sort of like how Indian food is 'exotic' if all you eat is hamburgers.

It's exotic to foreigners, not multicultural. There's no other culture in there.

Okay, this is what I meant:

When there's one culture on the screen, and another culture in the audience, that's multicultural.

Of course "Slumdog Millionaire" is multicultural.

They're just all Indian cultures.

Hop: the Wrestler is not about physical torture. It's pretty much Michael Clayton set in a ring. This is a man whose craft has given him no equity, no family, and no one who really gives a crap about him. All he has is the ring. This is why he makes the decision that he does at the end of the film, and looks up to see before applying his finisher. After all is said and done, he has the fans, and he has the ring. That's all he has.

Also, really, the Academy award Penn again is unlikely because he's Sean Penn. Mickey paid his dues, and his essentially playing himself in the Wrestler to a certain degree. While Harvey Milk is an inspirational person, that spawn a great performance. The Ram is a special sort of character, and the Academy usually awards these kinds of characters.

Oh yeah: it's called "CUTTING A PROMO." The Ram doing what he does to his finger, is nothing more than him cutting a promo to exit the store. He's a performer, he needed an out, and he gave himself an out.

If you have never watched wrestling, or understand the dynamics of a wrestler. You would not buy that scene. However, if you have any clue as to how wrestling works, that scene is ridiculously funny.

Finally, Kam, that was good shit. People do like buying into Eternal Sunshine as LOVE CONQUERS ALL story, and that's fucking silly. It's a movie about six assholes and how each one of them deals with love. If anything; the movie is more cynical about true love than most films. Gondry at least did make a love story, and it's called BE KIND REWIND!

THE SPECIAL EDITION of PARAGRAPH 2! Why? IT SUCKED... THE END.

Also, really, the Academy giving Penn an Oscar again seems unlikely because he's Sean Penn. If David Fincher is an alleged ASSHOLE. What does that make Penn?

Mickey paid his dues, and he's essentially playing himself in the Wrestler to a certain degree. While Harvey Milk is an inspirational person, that spawned a great performance. The Ram is a special sort of character, and the Academy usually awards these kinds of characters.

Oh yeah: multi-cultural has nothing to do with the people sitting in the fucking theatre. If you are going to give me crap all the time over DEFINITIONS. I will not let you slide on stating a film set in the east but shot in the WESTERN style is a MULTI-CULTURAL film. When it's not. It's an English film with Indian people in it.

If the audience is American and the movie isn't, then between the two groups it's a multicultural experience.

And all of that is meant semi-ironically.

It's a chore to explain things to you, IOI.

Jeff: I actually went to college for anthropology. So please do not act as if you are smarter than me in this area. It would be a multi-cultural experience. If it were not a WESTERN MOVIE. It's a western movie you arrogant ass. So you are wrong like you are wrong about countless fucking things... you fucking ginger :D!

Yeah, I know. And I was an English major, and this is a discussion about semantics, and you're wrong.

Jeff: only someone like yourself would think, that viewing another culture on film. Would make that viewing experience MULTI-CULTURAL. It's so ponderous to think this way, that it's pretty much ethnocentric. Once again Captain Fail... you have failed.

So when "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" gets released in South America, it will become multicultural too?

Apparently.

The movie is not the 'multicultural' part. The interaction between the movie and the audience - i.e., between the culture represented in the movie, and the culture of the audience - means that there's more than one culture involved.

More than one = "multi".

Do I think this is an enlightened way to view the world? No. I'm just explaining how to understand what David Poland originally wrote (which he has since edited, I think).

You have a tiny brain, IOI.

Jeff: why are you such a piece of shit to me? Seriously people: the guy is attacking me, and I am a scumbag? How is he not labelled as the grandiose scumbag in the history of this blog?

Again Jeff: you are defending an improper use of the word MULTI-CULTURAL! If David meant it that way. He used it wrong.

It's not a multi-cultural experience to see a bunch of Indians in an English movie. It's a WESTERN MOVIE. If it were an Indian movie, spoken in what ever language they use in Mumbai, then you might be experiencing a MULTI-CULTURAL EXPERIENCE. Instead you are not. You are simply watching a film shot in the Western Style.

If I have a tiny brain. You must be epically stupid to state what you have in this thread.

You are a mean, vindictive, and spiteful ass of a man. Who should pray that Lex never finds you, and gives you an atomic belly-bump. Seriously man... you are 43. Stop acting like an asshole online, or at least get better at it.

IOI, this is what I think of when I think of you:
http://www.toonopedia.com/angriest.htm

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: