The inevitable Slumdog formula

So Slumdog won, as expected, and as I mentioned in my previous post, I couldn't help but feel like a downer for being so down on it. From Danny Boyle's smile that seemed to be damaging his face to the cute little kids, no one could have been more appreciative of the awards, and it was nice to be spared the false humility (see Penn, Sean*).

Although, as the butterflies in my stomach subsided, the realization kicked in that we could be in for a slew of Slumdogs as Hollywood hit-makers try to make the film into a formula. It's what they do.

So don't be surprised if movies about slums - from Africa to Asia and beyond - are suddenly the next big thing. And be as equally unsurprised if none of them live up to even the low standards of its standard-bearer.

I've since read a few more reviews of Slumdog, many of which praise it for being a Dickensian fable.** They point to the Bollywood-style ending, and say, "Well that didn't make much sense, so who says the film itself has to be completely plausible? The film's magic lies in its implausibility."

Maybe so. But good movies are supposed to make you think. And what I could not help thinking about is, while the new president has to go on TV and make a commitment to not torture, and while Mumbai, India was just attacked in a vicious and unthinkable way by Muslim terrorists, why would you have a scene in which Indian policemen torture a game show contestant?

And not just allude to it, but show it? In detail? Is this supposed to get us thinking about torture in any meaningful way? Or is it just the "larger-than-life" Bollywood style to throw in stuff like that?

And the other scene I mentioned before, the one where the kid jumps into a small pond of shit to get an autograph from the guy who hosts the game show. Where does this ridiculous celebrity-worship fit in a film like Slumdog? What does it mean? What is it saying? The answer is disappointing: Almost nothing.

Everyone crows about the film because it's "entertaining," as if that justifies its complete lack of control over the vignettes that make up the film. I've seen nothing that proves to me this film resembles anything close to intelligence. The only thing offered is that you gain a certain intelligence by growing up poor. That is probably true, and an interesting observation, but it is lost in all the running, running, chasing, dodging and quick cutting. And it is lost in the muddled handling of torture and celebrity-worship and ... just about everything else.

Let's be honest. This movie got a break because it's set in an exotic location, with a Brit director, and a cast full of unknown Indian stars.

Uh...I was going to have more, I think, but I'm running out of time here.


*Although I did enjoy Penn's well-done call to those who voted for the same-sex marriage ban to consider their "shame." It was a solid moment, and a necessary one.
**In fact, Dickens is mentioned by so many separate reviewers, I can't help but think the reference was included in a media packet. If you ever read a handful of reviews about the same movie, and almost all of them include some inside reference (i.e. this was shot entirely in Chicago! The filmmakers used cotton balls and Vaseline to make him look old!) you can assume it was in a media packet somewhere, handed out to reviewer, probably accompanied by merchandise or something.