The Hot Blog

Yeah. You need to try and keep yourself from being shocked a week from tonight. Ding ding.

Apparently Slumdog is the best produced, directed, acted, written, edited, photographed and sound designed movie of the movie, huh? Is it literally the greatest movie ever made, which the posters are claiming?

I'm surprised some organisations didn't sneak it into their foreign language category.

It's not the best acted. If it were. The actors would have been nominated. The rest you can state that opinion, but no Indian kid beats a pair of great tits. May the Reader blow minds, lead to investigations, and Harvey Weinstein dropping a "ZOINKS" as he grabs his Oscar, and runs off stage.

Anyone else annoyed by those "Jai Ho" banners they keep using to promote the movie? They only show the credit sequence which is really gives people a wrong impression of what the movie actually is moodwise (I'm not even talking about the content here).

I know it's not really used much for advertising purpises but it still reinforces the wrong view of the film.

Then again, even those people who have seen the film reffered to it as an uplifting feel good movie of the year... I guess the damage is irreparable.

Pouring acid on a kid is not uplifting and feel-good? Aw come on Roman. You are being too cynical man.

Assuming he wins director next week, any chance when he gets up to the podium, Boyle will thank Mereilles, Kevin MacDonald, Tony Scott, and Ridley Scott?

Considering EVERY. SINGLE. SHOT. and lighting scheme is "borrowed" from Constant Gardner, City of God, Domino, Man on Fire, Last King of Scotland, and Black Hawk Down, it only seems fair.

Man on Fire was crap. Tony Scott was so proud of the way he staged that kidnapping sequence but it was totally devoid of any tension. Someone needs to tell him that when you slow down the action you kill the pulse.

While I agree that the way Boyle framed his shots was reminiscent of the directors mentioned above (not to mention some others), at least the way the way the complete film was made felt more deliberate than anything done by Scott in the last five years. None of that psudeo random crap.

What interests me a lot more though, is how much of the actual directing was done by Loveleen Tandan and how much of her personal visual style (or lack of thereof) impacted the picture.

Man on Fire was hilarious. One of the funniest films I have ever seen.

I agree, Man on Fire was crap.
Hacks borrowing from hacks (except maybe Ridley)? They'll just steal back from Boyle to compensate.

Sheck out McDouche making the age-old "clueless Internet know-it-all" mistake of taking the word "hack" to mean "directors I don't like."

You should get back whatever you paid attend USC, 'cause between this and your lack of ability to recognize directors' trademark visuals, you apparently didn't learn shit.

Epic fucking fail. But I hear one-way plane tix to Colorado are pretty cheap these days.

ON TOPIC:

Thanks to Roman, for the best laugh of my night:

"What interests me a lot more though, is how much of the actual directing was done by Loveleen Tandan and how much of her personal visual style (or lack of thereof) impacted the picture."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Personal visual style." "Her." DO THE MATH, SON.

Well, considering that The Last King of Scotland and Slumdog Millionaire were shot by the same d.p., it's reasonable to suggest some visual comparisons...

""Personal visual style." "Her." DO THE MATH, SON."

I've got two words for you: Julie Taymor, daddy-o.

Is it too late to call off next Sunday's shindig?
I mean, why not just mail all of the trophies "Slumdog" is going to win directly to Fox Searchlight and let them worry about dispersing them?
Seriously.
And anyone attempting to generate faux suspense by pretending that "Slumdog" peaked too early, yadda-yadda-yadda, is clearly pandering to ABC's Sisyphian attempt to NOT make this year's telecast the lowest rated in Oscar television history.
Went into the TV station this morning to tape my annual Oscar "preview" segment (with who-gives-a-****? predictions), and I could barely suppress the yawns.

..nice to see Mazursky win something last nite, although I'm not really sure what the connection between his ouevre and sound mixing is.
Now if only MGM would finally release "Alex in Wonderland" on dvd...

The groupthink re Slumdog is breathtaking, isn't it? I still haven't seen the film, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that even the organizations who are throwing awards at it now will be second-guessing themselves by April. What's the deal? Are they so drunk on the feel-good ending that it's the cinematic equivalent of beer goggles?

If The Blair Witch Project had a feel-good ending, would it have won top prizes for best cinematography, sound and production design of 1999?

And IO: While the Slumdog actors haven't received much individual attention, they did take SAG's ensemble trophy. You know, the one for which Cadillac Records didn't even rate a nomination (not that I'm surprised -- I imagine few of the eligible voters even saw it).

"The rest you can state that opinion, but no Indian kid beats a pair of great tits."

Then I guess the makers of Slumdog can breathe a sigh of relief that The Reader only has Winslet's.

Maria Conchita Alonso?!

Was Rae Dawn Chong not available?

I saw slumdog yesterday and am barely thinking about it today, at least not in the way that something like There Will Be Blood or Children of Men stuck with me for a few days. I don't know, it's a fine film, but doesn't strike me as being anything people are going to be talking about in film school in ten years. It's a better Best Picture candidate than Crash was, sure, but it's still a pretty slight choice.

I love the relentless Slumdog negativity amongst some of you... there HAS to be something wrong with it... the world has come to an end!!!

Even more boring than the relentless onslaught of success.

People like the movie because it is good and surprisingly feel-good in spite of its darkness... much like The Departed. Like The Departed, it is not breakthrough work. It is just the most entertaining movie of the five and of the list of films that were seriously considered by this particular group (a grouping which does not include Dark Knight).

As for Man on Fire, it contributed a lot of new stuff to the visual lexicon, particularly with the non-sub subtitles. Yes, versions of that were done before. But not in American cinema.

As for this crap that Boyle stole from other directors... fucking DUH! So did Chris Nolan... endlessly. That is what great directors do. They steal and refine and redefine what others have done in the past. And every once in a blue moon, someone actually breaks a new cherry. But it is very, very rare. And aside from using the IMAX camera, Dark Knight certainly can't claim breakthroughs.

What really strikes me about all of this crappiness is that no one is serious arguing an alternative within the five. So any of you really think Ben Button deserves a Best Picture Oscar? Do any of you think that it broke any new ground that was not technological? How about Milk? How about The Reader? How about Frost/Nixon?

Do you REALLY see the criteria as innovation? What films that won DO qualify under this concept?

Chris Nolan is HERE. Do you see my other hand? Well it's down on the floor where Danny Boyle is right now. The fact that you dare to compare Nolan to Boyle. Demonstrates a total lack of getting how it fucking works. Boyle could not pull off the action of TDK. Let alone the drama. Seriously; the fact that the Director's nominated that guy who directed The Reader over a guy who never uses a B-UNIT on an ACTION FILM. Really Academy? Really?

Oh yeah; do you know what year we just went through, and you really believe Slumdog is the best of the best? Really? Come on, man. This freakin film will be seen as one of the worst Oscar picks in history. Excuse some of us for getting on the train early.

Maybe Nolan should have used a second unit, so that when there was an action scene you could get a vague idea of who is where in relation to anyone else.

You could possibly get your eyes checked. If you cannot discern one figure from another. The Bourne films must have given you a migraine.

The truck chase was pretty abysmal. A real action director like John McTiernan or George Miller or Walter Hill would have let you know at all times where the Joker's truck was in relation to the van, and where the Batmobile was. Not Nolan. I think he's a good director, but not for action scenes.

"I love the relentless Slumdog negativity amongst some of you... there HAS to be something wrong with it... the world has come to an end!!!"

Maybe we just didn't like it.

"People like the movie because it is good and surprisingly feel-good in spite of its darkness..."

No it wasn't. Not for me anyway. I thought it was a seriously tasteless and exploitative flick. I felt kind of bummed by the end of it, as in the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of how I was supposed to be feeling. So you going to call me a hater or group me with "relentless negativity" just because I didn't like the film and said as much about it? Does a couple of comments on this blog even consitute as much?

"it is not breakthrough work. It is just the most entertaining movie of the five and of the list of films that were seriously considered by this particular group (a grouping which does not include Dark Knight)."

I don't see what the point is here. They could have picked a different five movies to chose from. I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying that I don't see your point.

"As for Man on Fire, it contributed a lot of new stuff to the visual lexicon, particularly with the non-sub subtitles. Yes, versions of that were done before. But not in American cinema."

So do you consider it "a breakthrough work"? Not only did Man on Fire not contribute anything to the visual lexicon, American or otherwise, it's sheer ineptness detracted from it. (I hate to say it but Michael Bay has been doing that shtick for longer - this ain't True Romance Tony Scott, this is Tony on the way to Domino - abd what'd you think of that?) And it doesn't matter because innovative or not, the movie sucked. And the original was a lot better. Check it out.

Oh and here's the real question, do you seriously advocate that other directors should start learning from Tony Scott's work in this movie. It's not a contribution unless other people take it up, innit?

By the way, I don't much care for innovation unless it actually serves the movie in question. A good movie is a good movie.

DP, you can count me as someone who thinks Benjamin Button does deserve Best Picture, at least out of those nominees.

Fair enough, Roman... I don't agree with you on much of that, but at least it is a fuller argument.

There is no question that there is a group of people - a small minority - that hate Slumdog for very much the reasons you do. And while I disagree, I can understand it.

As for Man on Fire, again, if you don't realize that directors steal from one another, shot by shot, scene by scene, small innovation by small innovation, then you don't know much about directors.

As for hating, I think, "I guess the damage is irreparable" is pretty strong.

The "damage" is not damage for most people. It doesn't need to be repaired. It's not broken. You just didn't like it... or hated it. And that's fine.

I am still easy to enrage when discussing Driving Miss Daisy. But I must acknowledge that some people love it intensely.

"As for Man on Fire, again, if you don't realize that directors steal from one another, shot by shot, scene by scene, small innovation by small innovation, then you don't know much about directors."

You are talking to the wrong guy here. I never accused Boyle of stealing and I'm actually on record for saying that he did great work on Slumdog. Directing-wise, the movie is topnotch.
(There's certainly a very long and respected tradition of directors turning to other directors for inparation. From Orson Welles and David Lean to contemporaries like Ridley Scott and Tarantino. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a good thing, in general.)

Back to SM. This may sound strange but I don't hate the movie. That's too extreme a word. I may even "like" though current circumstances and awards focus make that hard to show. What ticks me off though, and makes me concetrate on the negatives, is how the movie is being promoted as something it isn't. This is what I meant when I talked about "damage". I didn't imply the people themsevles were damaged but I'd be damned if some of them aren't stretching and strainig the definion of what feel good is. There has got be bandwagon effect at work here.

Sure, lots of people think that this is what it actually is. Sure the makers of the movie may be acting completely in good faith and were trying to make the best, most honest movie the could. Yet, whole groups of people in India were offended by it and I think that counts for something too.

And it's not like I can offer you an antithesis by showing you another, more entertaining, truly feel good movie. There just isn't much in the way of that this year. So were left with with what we have. And I wish I loved Ben Button more than I do so I can make a better case for it like you want. As it is, it's just a movie I deeply admire and while I think it has it's share of flows, I'd personally pick it over Slumdog Millionaire (even as I'd pick Boyle over Fincher for Best Director).

Well said, Roman.

Lex, congratulations: You actually managed to make me mad with a substantive point instead of merely incessant whining. Suffice to say that a director's mere ability to have 'trademark visuals' does not make them a good filmmaker. Tony Scott has lots of camera and editing tricks and tropes that he likes to use over and over again.

And guess what? He still hasn't made a good movie in a decade.

But if you prefer, I will refer to Kevin Macdonald and Meirelles not as hacks, but as 'pretentious overblown fauxteurs' from now on, instead.

I know plenty of exceptionally smart people who call Slumdog "feel good" and "heartwarming" and I just don't get how it is either of those things.

As I've said before, I generally like the movie, but far from being Best Picture worthy and far from being the hymn to life and the greatest movie ever made that the ads and the posters say it is. It is, according to this award season, the best at everything! THE BEST AT EVERYTHING! It just seems so strange that this is the movie to be that movie, ya know.

I really do think that in the coming years it will be 2008 that will be pin pointed as the year that the awards season well and truly, once and for all jumped the shark and became completely and utterly useless. It's nothing more than a homogeneous circle wank with the Academy in the middle.

Poland threw down the gauntlet upthread:

"What really strikes me about all of this crappiness is that no one is serious arguing an alternative within the five. So any of you really think Ben Button deserves a Best Picture Oscar?"

I really want to write some epic defense of Ben Button here, but I think it really is a hard film to pin down, not just to praise but also to defend against its (now curiously many) detractors.

It's just a weird thing all around, because my own reaction to the movie was 100% emotional... after some mild resistence near the beginning and a kind of dread over the epic runtime, once I settled into it, I was hooked, and other than maybe Snow Angels, no film of 2008 was exhaustingly emotional to watch.

Yet almost all of the complaints now, two months later, from others are that it's "cold" and "off-putting" and "they felt nothing during it." Hey, if that's someone's personal reaction to it, I can't really say that's "wrong." More and more I'm looking to be in the minority, ie those who were moved by it. Personally, I don't know how just about anyone can't find personal resonance in a narrative about blown opportunities and time passing and the cruelty of aging, or whatever else you think it is or isn't about. Fairly universal themes there, and if anything the film's slight remove would seem to make it more of a "blank canvas" for viewers to project their own feelings, failings, longings, regrets and fears upon the Button character.

But as I've opined elsewhere, many-- probably most-- viewers don't really watch movies for that kind of personal and visceral investment and self-recognition. They're generally looking at things from more of a remove, and maybe if it's a movie you're actively looking to "connect" with, you're just wondering why you're watching this weird guy moon over Cate Blanchett or move overseas or hang out on a boat.

Ben Button was kind of a "one-week wonder," in in the immediate wake of its release, the critical reviews were fairly effusive, and the hoi polloi on movie message boards seemed to love it... The backlash did set in VERY quickly, often from people who seemingly liked it two days earlier.

As a result, having had a strong positive reaction to it (I immediately declared it my favorite film of '08), it's one of those movies where I probably won't watch it again any time soon, both because my initial reaction to it was strong, but also because the naysaying over it has grown so bitter, I doubt I'll be able to watch it without hearing those complaints rattling around the whole time.

In two months I've gone from loving it to just keeping quiet about it since apparently the whole world turned on it, to now just kind of having pushed it out of mind. Most movies I like I'll get all worked up, like any good film dork can, defending it and hurling insults and detractors and whatnot... But with CCOBB I'm probably just waiting for a few years to pass to see if it ends up an underappreciated classic, or where it now stands: Alongside Forrest Gump and Titanic as one of those "everybody loved it when they saw, now go out of their way to diss it" kinda flicks. Difference is, those backlashes took YEARS to kick in. Fincher and Pitt had about five days before everyone turned.

I think Button will look better in a few years. The early backlash almost ensures an eventual backlash-to-the-backlash. It was named an Oscar frontrunner sight unseen, and people wanted it to be an overwhelming emotional experience. But Fincher don't play dat, except in isolated moments. It's an unusual movie, with themes that are profound yet simple. It uses a sci-fi gimmick that in some way robs the protagonist (and therefore the audience) of a traditionally satisfying arc. But it'll sure be interesting to see how the film plays every few years.

No alternate? How about Milk? For all the talk of Slumdog being the first film of post-Obama cinema or whatever claptrap that's all about, I would've thought Milk - a film that celebrates a worthy and honourable politician who did nothing but good and all in an easy to digest package from a director that the Academy has been fond of before - would be right up there.

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: