I'm pretty satisfied with everything, although I really, really, really don't think Ledger should win for supporting actor. As crass as it sounds, I don't think he'd even be nominated if he were still alive. We've seen a lot of crazy/evil sidekicks and villains through the years, and while Ledger no doubt did a good job, the character itself was pretty self-contradictory and most importantly, fell kind of flat in scenes with the lead (which is the entire purpose of a supporting role, anyway).

CW seems to say he wins, and I can't imagine anyone passing up the opportunity to honor a dead man who seemed by most accounts to be a great guy. It would just be disappointing to see it go to him for that performance, especially compared to winners of the same category in the past few years.

I think your perspective on Slumdog is inside out. Slumdog is fundamentally a fairytale - and a Bollywood one at that. Which is what makes its depictions of poverty and the life of the urban poor razor sharp.

Are you such a communist that even in fiction you want redistribution -- there cannot be a hero, a person of exceptional fate and fortune? Whose good luck is not shared by others? When all men are equal, that's when you get communist art. You should be forced to watch old Soviet films for two days running. Everyone takes equal pride in working in factories, or bringing in a bumper harvest! Good times!

Agreed. Slumdog Millionaire does not hang together and Wall-E was the best picture of the year.

I'm with the commenter above, and pulling for the film all the way.

This film just puts some knives into a fantasy.

No office pool this year for the Oscars, so I don't really care who wins.

I agree that WALL-E was the best film the year. It's a shame that because it's animated and rated G that is really has no chance at winning any major awards (maybe not a shame; I don't care much for the Oscars and such).

I disagree with your thoughts on Slumdog. I thought it was a truly fantastic film. Engrossing, beautifully shot, wonderful music, unique narrative, and fascinating characters and relationships. I follow the belief that it was at its core a fairytale movie, and its depictions of the extreme poverty and hardships made the fairytale aspects that much more moving. Plus, things were so bad for the main character and the girl that I wasn't sure everything was going to work out for them until the credits started. That made it even more powerful when you are left with the idea that things are finally okay for them. Although, my wife thought after the movie ended, the gangsters probably found them, stole their money, and killed the both of them.

Slumdog is fundamentally a fairytale - and a Bollywood one at that.

It's not so much Bollywood as Dickensian. And while I'm clearly not making a like-for-like comparison, Dickens relied on gimmicks and couldn't really do romance either. Treat it as a costume drama set in modern India instead of Victorian London and you can understand its appeal to Anglo-American audiences.

Isn't using realistic - and often depressing - environments as backdrops for fantastical events pretty much how magical realism works, though? It's not like Danny Boyle invented the concept. Clearly Slumdog isn't, first and foremost, a commentary on the crushing poverty in South Asia; it's a love story that uses realistic settings to leverage some emotional weight into the proceedings.

I agree that the love story isn't exactly nuanced, but the clear divide between the characters (and their fairy tale love) and their ugly, messy world is not some deceptive filmmaking technique, it's the central tenet of the genre Boyle is working in.

There is a strong cultural tradition that blends realism and fantasy, with the occasional improbably happy ending--from Charles Dickens and H. G. Wells to Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Rohinton Mistry, from the films of Frank Capra to the films of Bollywood. So reading Ezra's and Dennis Lim's comments on "Slumdog Millionaire" makes me wonder if literature and film begin and end for them with the novels of Upton Sinclair and Theodore Dreiser or with the films of Martin Scorsese and Darren Aronofsky.

(Oddly, however, Ezra feels that mixing fantasy, realism, and a happy ending is perfectly fine, as long as it's done only in an animated sci-fi film featuring romantically linked robots.)

Don't get me wrong: naturalism/realism is a valuable addition to our heritage. I enjoy a novel by Frank Norris or Willa Cather as much as the next reader. (And I also liked "Wall-E.") But it is a remarkably narrow cultural aesthetic that regards realism as the only valid artistic perspective.

I call it Slumdog Grand Theft Auto. It turns poverty into a video game

"it's a love story that uses realistic settings to leverage some emotional weight into the proceedings."

This is where I disagree: Fundamentally, I don't think the love story is well integrated. It's tacked on. They never set up why he even loves her: She's allowed into the bin where they sleep, then they're friends in the orphanage, then he's obsessed for life. My issue with the movie -- which I still enjoyed greatly -- is that it was two different movies in one with weak connective tissue between them, and that's not great filmmaking. We are, after all, talking about the Oscar for best picture here.

You wouldn't make a bad film critic, Ezra. Certainly better than David Denby.

Also: isn't it fairly agreed upon that the Best Picture Oscar really has little to do with quality? It is far more interesting (and useful) as a view into the cultural and political thinking of Hollywood-types.

"They never set up why he even loves her: She's allowed into the bin where they sleep, then they're friends in the orphanage, then he's obsessed for life." - Ezra

Well, I think most people fall in love for largely random, unexplainable reasons. He met this girl while going through a hugely traumatic moment and they could relate to each others pain. It's not hard for me to see why they'd fall in love. Plus, she's beautiful and sweet.

Ezra: "Fundamentally, I don't think the love story is well integrated. It's tacked on. They never set up why he even loves her:"

Similarly, thousands of pages have been written trying to "explain" the impossible passion between Heathcliff and Catherine, and I'm sure hundreds more will try to deconstruct the love-at-first-sight encounter between Wall-E and Eve. But the curious thing about fantasies and fairytales is their premise that love can never be explained, that you don't need to "set up" the relationship between Prince Charming and Cinderella.

slumdog backlash, indeed!!!!!
well, they dont make movies like they used to!!!!

slumdog millionaire up for an oscar?
on turner classic movies, in the past twenty-four hours, they showed,"raintree county" with elizabeth taylor, eva~marie saint and montgomery clift..."gone with the wind" with the BEYOND STELLAR performances of vivian leigh and clark gable...and then, "the band wagon" with sets that were so breathlessly artistic and with fred astaire and cyd charisse...dancing that could leave you utterly astonished.
for goodness sakes.....these were movies!!!! these were unforgettable scripts and actors whose performances could change your lives.
one bette davis film, ANY bette davis film is worth twenty "slumdog millionaires."
why bother paying money at the cinema when you can see these treasures. i would rather see them over and over again, than the stuff in the theaters today. plus....there is no spilled soda or dusty popcorn under my feet.
thank you turner classic movies...for keeping a living museum of the world's best performances alive for all generations to enjoy.
long live bette davis, fred astaire, vivien leigh, elizabeth taylor and all of other artists in front of, and behind the cameras, who have given us so much.

The relationship between the brothers is complex and compelling.

Huh. I count myself among the naysayers as well, but the relationship between the brothers I found particularly half formed. Basically, they have a Second Act falling out only because the screenwriter (and genre convention) requires them to.

Seconded on Wall-E. This is the weakest crop of Best Picture nominees that I can think of.

and i dont know which year that film, "mamma mia" came out....
but that is another FAR CRY from the musicals of yesteryear.
turner classic movies showed "my fair lady" several nights ago, with the GREAT AUDREY HEPBURN.
with costumes by cecil beaton.
that was a MUSICAL!!!
and they also showed several of the amazing and perfect Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracey films, including "woman of the year."
these were amazing motion pictures.
and what a gift on the least expensive cable service!!!!! every night, a feast!!!
thank you, turner classic movies....for transporting us galaxies away from the financial crisis.
and also, try to catch "the nun's story" with audrey hepburn if you want to see REAL ACTING.

Wall-E?

Anti-consumerist messaging from the good folks at Disney.

Right.

I'll take the Ultimate WALL•E Remote-Control Robot for $290.

It'll look great in a landfill in 18 months.

Ezra, I challenge you to tell me a story where they explain why two persons fell in love. Heck, this makes FAR more sense than most of relationships in movies. She was the only good thing in his life after his mother was murdered and vice versa.

I said as much as Ezra does in my review over at newcritics (www.newcritics.com), and I think it's why Slumdog will win: Slumdog is the cheerful, upbeat tour of poverty that City of God was not; while it uses similar elements to City of God in terms of time shifting and sped up narrative, it is fundamentally framed by a more cheerful scenario: a "shopgirl's dream" story of getting both material wealth... and the love of your dreams.

But no, aside from the love story eing poorly developed (one could point out, on top of a number of already good observations, that Latiks disappears from the storyline, and his life, for long stretches of the film; it's hard to believe that you can call their love "timeless" when their contact with each other is about 20 minutes of the overall film). More fundamentally, the fantastical element is Latika - a brutalized, orphaned, pre-teen prostitute, sold into sexual slavery, who nevertheless remains pure and unspoiled in our hero's eyes. That works because he is mainly a cipher... but to call it a "timeless romance" is to do a disservice to the kind of "timeless romances" jacqueline brings up (though, to be fair, I think jacqueline's overstating the case for Old Hollywood, as well).

Will Slumdog win? Of course it will; it's the feel good movie about our impending poverty, wish fulfillment that says we'll all feel better if just one poor person becomes a millionaire based on capricious chance. That's the kind of blinkered liberal guilt the Academy's shown in recent years... or do we need to review why Crash won Best Picture, too?

sleepyirv....
i will take the challenge.

it was a very dear love story....
and all love stories with happy endings are beautiful and tender.
but how was this any more textured than "serendipity?"
if you want to talk about remarkable cinematic love stories, look at "mrs. skeffington" with bette davis, or "cat on a hot tin roof" with paul newman and elizabeth taylor or "streetcar named desire" with marlon brando, kim stanley and vivien leigh, or "gone with the wind" with clark gable and vivien leigh, or "an affair to remember" with deborah kerr and cary grant, or "love is a many splendored thing" or "a farewell to arms"....
these are only a handful.
hollywood has produced love stories that are so deep and iconic that they can leave an indelible imprint on your life forever.
it is all a question of taste, of course...and ...
all of these love stories explain why these people fell in love....their love is explained and expressed and FELT profoundly and timelessly by us, the lucky vicarious viewers.
oh, and let us not forget "bus stop"
and "the misfits"....two remarkable love stories with marilyn monroe, who was one of our greatest dramatic actresses.
and..."love in the afternoon" with audrey hepburn and gary cooper.

"Anti-consumerist messaging from the good folks at Disney."

There can be critiques of certain activities without being entirely opposed to it, or even mostly opposed to it. Especially when those critiques are being used a plot device.

weboy

how am i overstating the case for old hollywood?
i am not talking about the system, but the legacy of amazing films and flawless performances and stories.
the vaults overflow with infinitely talented performances, beautiful scripts and films of a quality that will last forever.
dont you agree?

and regarding animation....
i liked wall~e very much....
and i dont miss too many animated features.
but i feel that the money, technology and effort is often wasted these days on formulaic animated features.
even the children that i go with, are rather bored with some of them after a while.
i still would put the best of many of the recent animated features against the original "snow white" or "fantasia".
the animation in those two films still remains unrivalled, in my opinion....and brilliantly original, after all these years.
i think it is disappointing that the technology of animation doesnt yield more treasures of brilliance and originality, than just the trite fare with blockbuster and actors and actresses supplying not so clever, formulaic jokes.

I am a movie lover, jacqueline... of course I love the classics. But I also try to be honest about it - a lot of the myths we have about who we are as Americans - our conception of the "American Dream", the illusions we have about class (or the lack of it) in our scoiety, the lies we tell ourselves about women's lives and desires and roles in society... film has helped shape and construct them. I'd urge anyone to see/read the Celluloid Closet, to understand better how film has shaped, and distot=rted, our perceptions of what it is to be gay in America. I love the films, I love the images and the stories... but they are stories, and many of them are lies. And unless we keep that in ind... I think we're just fooling ourselves.

Weboy: In your comments here and the post on newcritics, you basically claim that "Slumdog" is "City of God" (an excellent movie, by the way) with a happy ending.

But I saw "Slumdog" and compared it to "Oliver Twist" (or even "Oliver!") with far more grit and violence. "City of God" never even came to my mind.

I suppose it depends on one's own predilections. But I'd like to think that the spectrum of greatness in our culture could include both "City of God" and "Oliver Twist."

I think Allie is exactly right and Ezra is exactly wrong. Slumdog is a Bollywood film turned on its ear (if you couldn't figure that out during the film the closing number clobbered us over the head with it - it wasn't subtle) and works extremely well as such. If you're watching it through the filter of "Raintree Country" you're missing something really basic about Slumdog.

I just saw it last night and walked out of the theatre flattened by the full-on emotional assault of this movie. True, the female lead is underdeveloped and stereotyped and it has severe limitations as a political film. But I haven't seen anything recently that so fully embraces the idea of being a big movie and a total pastiche of everything: from bollywood to dickens, from gangster movies to fairy tales, with an chase scenes that rival any action picture and a host of small but effective artistic flourishes in the filmaking. I would call it a "postmodern melodrama" - its story is emotionally manipulative and doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. But using the double flashback conceit and the visual imagery to push back on and even critique this simplistic set up until it adds up to a wholly new take on a very old art form. And you know what, I enjoyed it. So there.

epecially as time passes, these old films become timepieces and representations of social commentary of the times in which they were made.
as more time passes, it is unmistakably true.
but regarding many of the actual love stories done in hollywood with the great performers, such as "mrs. skeffington" or "a streetcar named desire," "butterfield 8" the love stories themselves, are profound, with much depth...and many of the psychological aspects of the actual love stories as they are performed, are fairly timeless.
many of these classic love stories do not have happy endings....they are not formulaic at all. in that sense, i dont see them as lies at all. they actually explore the more complex aspects of love.particularly a number of the ones that i mentioned earlier.
and they certainly do that in incomparably more depth than "slumdog millionaire."

One of the nice things about not being a high-profile blogger is that I'm not obligated to write any thoughtful opinions on what I think of movies and the Oscars. Maybe Slumdog will win. Maybe it won't. It seems to be a movie lots of people liked, but odds are that, like many Oscar winners, it's "pretty good." Yeah, you can critique the specifics of Slumdog, but is it any less deserving than Gladiator or Shakespeare in Love?

money, technology and effort is often wasted these days on formulaic animated features.

Which is what made Wall-E good: it's a departure from your typical formulaic animated feature.

tyro

i agree.
i liked wall-e!"
by the way, if you are looking for great animated stories,
the best i ever saw, is...
"night on the galactic railroad" an animated remake of the great 1927 literary classic, by miyazawa kenji.
it is hard to find, but you will never forget it.
and
"strings"
by anders rennow klarlund.
very beautiful.

I'd like to think that the spectrum of greatness in our culture could include both "City of God" and "Oliver Twist."

I would absolutely agree, D. Cloyce... the point being, Slumdog is neither.

"Fundamentally, I don't think the love story is well integrated. It's tacked on. They never set up why he even loves her..."

I would argue that the improbability of the love story is a big piece of the "magical" in magical realism. Art is full of wildly improbable loves carried to unrealistic extremes, an it's just the use of a somewhat realistic contemporary setting that makes it jarring in Slumdog. To be honest, I also think the separation between the film's two different stories is actually a positive - otherwise, you risk transforming the moral of the story from a feel-good "Love conquers all" to something more political: "Love conquers crime and poverty."

I'm not the film's biggest proponent, although I think it might be the best of the Oscar lineup. But I think its problems are more with characterization than with structure or tone - those are the things that make it so unique.

how am i overstating the case for old hollywood?
i am not talking about the system, but the legacy of amazing films and flawless performances and stories.

Because "Old Hollywood" was not filled with amazing films and flawless performances. Such films were simply the cream of the crop build upon an era of cheap westerns and other detritus. Even "classic" films are overrated: Citizen Kane is notable mostly for the technical innovations that were amazing in their day but which we now take for granted. The Third Man is merely a decent, interesting movie.

"night on the galactic railroad" an animated remake of the great 1927 literary classic, by miyazawa kenji.

From reading the description, this sounds similar to other Japanese children's animated films like "Spirited Away." While they are innovative and beautiful, they are also boring and appeal only to niche audiences within the USA. Just because something is "different" doesn't make it "better."

"But Millionaire is much worse: An unconvincing and poorly drawn fantasy."

The fantasy is not believable? Isn't that why they call it fantasy in the first place?

"The love story makes little sense, and mistakes a near-pathological fixation for romance."

Right, because in real life nobody ever mistakes obsession for true love.
As if. ;)

Which is it Ezra? Are you criticizing the movie for not meeting your expectations of what a properly realistic fantasy should be (what ever that may be), or are you perhaps, just perhaps, mistakenly assuming that what seems so unbelievable when viewed through your Hollywooded cultural lens might actually be much more real than you would like to admit.

In other words, maybe you would have enjoyed the movie more if you had accepted the film on its own terms instead of projecting your own.

Weboy: "I would absolutely agree, D. Cloyce... the point being, Slumdog is neither."

Yet I would argue that Slumdog is far, far better than "Oliver!" and certainly better than any screen adaptation of "Oliver Twist"--which has yet to get its due on film (and I include here the glossy, overacted David Lean farce).

tyro

"night on the galactic railroad" was not beautiful or innovative.
it is a haunting and profound story and the animation captured that.
the story itself, a japanese classic.
how can you judge something you havent seen?

and i beg to differ with you, but old hollywood was filled with many amazing films.
and many of the great female actresses took on very complicated roles....far more so than most of the films of today.
katharine hepburn, bette davis, vivien leigh,elizabeth taylor, barbara stanwyck, joan crawford, greta garbo, susan hayward, ingrid bergman, marilyn monroe....
they exposed so much of their inner lives in their acting, and broke through the stereotypes in such powerful ways.
many of the characters these women played were deep and unconventional and powerful...and not afraid of exposing their dark sides.
these women broke ground with very courageous, deep performances.
you could keep your tv on for months, and there would still be enough great old movies to enjoy.
who are the unforgettable female actresses of today?
not many compare to the likes of those in the golden age of hollywood, in my opinion.

Oh, great post! I just saw Slumdog today, and I walked away feeling exactly this way. But the two people I saw it with loved it.

I saw The Reader and Milk, both of which I thought were better films.

Slumdog was an enjoyable confection, but the narrative device was such a gimmick and so lackiing in credibility that I pretty much rejected the whole thing as much more than clever and quite pretty by the time I'd left the theater. The children's performances were the best thing in the movie and made it worth going to see. But that this candy bar of a film is nominated for Best Picture and they passed on The Wrestler, clearly the finest film of the year, is another one of those "Greatest Show on Earth" moments when the Oscars reveal themselves as pretty much of a joke.

"I think your perspective on Slumdog is inside out. Slumdog is fundamentally a fairytale - and a Bollywood one at that. Which is what makes its depictions of poverty and the life of the urban poor razor sharp.

Posted by: Allie | February 22, 2009 2:08 PM"

Exactly. Ezra is rather weak when it comes to any topic related to India. I'm guessing Ezra hasn't watched more Bollywood or if he had, doesn't really understand its aesthetics and the types of narrative structures used. Ezra's post would be like an Indian film reviewer watching "The Virgin Suicides" or "The Dark Knight" and complaining about the lack of musical song and dance scenes.

homage to courageous actresses
on oscar night

these actresses deserve a debt of gratitude for taking on provocative roles which challenged social conventions at the time.
imagine the redefining impact of these films on the society that was watching them at the time.

kim novack in "picnic"
natalie wood in "splendor in the grass"
greta garbo in "anna karenina"
sophia loren in "two women"
gloria swanson in "sunset boulevard""
elizabeth taylor in "suddenly last summer"
and later in "who's afraid of virginia woolf"
joan crawford in "mildred pierce"
bette davis in "all about eve"

through their lasting portrayals in these films, each one of these women continues to change the world.

I think you could use much the same criticisms against Citizen Kane, or The Tempest come to that. Movies and plays don't have to be "realistic"; they don't have to be "plausible". And apart from the "dogme" movement - movies with no artificial lighting, no makeup, and no extraneous music - *every* freaking movie in the multiplex is an enormously artificial construct.

Isn't it kind of obvious that Slumdog Millionaire isn't aiming for "realism", when two six-year-olds can fall off a train and land on the ground as teenagers ?

I've seen a couple of Bollywood movies, enough to realize that Slumdog borrows some stock characters and plot devices from that genre. Though you can trace a lot of stuff back further than that: the search for a lost family member has been around at least since Oedipus Rex; the ambiguous character dran into a life of crime could be Macbeth.

The question is what you do with all that stuff: Boyle assembles a nicely-structured enjoyable couple of hours with a mostly satisfying conclusion. It isn't King Lear or Rashomon; it won't make you think a whole lot about anything. But it's a lot more enjoyable that any of the Hollywood product I've seen recently (e.g. Cadillac Records, Defiance, the last couple of Bond movies). A solid A grade.

Slumdog did many things, some not too well. But it did have Dickensian descriptive elements a structure that made it fairly unified, and actors who were enjoyable. It does not need to be viewed through the ultraspecific lens of our current discomforts, just as I don't have to go see Batman movies. To each his own.

Fnor,

I think in a lot of cases, and actor is awarded an Oscar less for an individual performance than for their body of work, recently epitomized by one good performance. As it's the Academy's last chance to recognize Ledger- who did produce an impressive body of work in his short career- it wouldn't surprise me at all if they chose to do so.

If he wins, it will be as much for his Brokeback Mountain performance as for Dark Night.

I call it Slumdog Grand Theft Auto. It turns poverty into a video game.

That may be the first time David Ehrenstein and Armond White have the same EXACT opinion regarding a movie.

Scary

I don't care what anyone else says. Kung Fu Panda was a better film than Wall-E. There, I said it. Someone has to say it.

And before you say, "How can you hate Wall-E?" I will say that I loved Wall-E. I thought it was better than most of the films nominated for best picture. But I had more fun watching Kung Fu Panda than any other movie this year.

How about the creepy fuck gender and sexual politics of Wall-E?

They should have called it "Nice Guy(TM)".

If you want "Slumdog" without "Millionaire" you should watch "Salaam Bombay" (also with real slum-kids as main cast).

Unlike Millionaire, there is no happy ending. When the movie ends you feel like you've been punched in the gut.

Salaam Bombay is an amazing movie. But it does not lift your spirit. It depresses you. It imbues hopelessness.

I still love Slumdog Millionaire regardless of backlash.

Jesus Christ People. It's a good, Dickensian tale. The problem is not the movie. The problem is the awards-orgy hype based on the pervasive, crass Western poverty fetish that tries to make this movie more than it is.
Its ovexposure has given way to perverse heights of dissonance. It's being celebrated in the gleaming hallways and spiffy carpets of Hollywood and -- of all the most perverse juxtapositions-- in the fenced-in tiled Mumbai getaways that sit next to the very slums it portrays.

The movie is good. The post-movie-hype is poverty porn (a new, disgusting, but accurate term I heard recently) insults real depictions of poverty in Salaam Bombay (granted, you feel hopeless afterwards, welcome to f-cking poverty), or the excellent Children of Heaven (less hopeless.)

From Katherine Boo's article:
"The fences insured against a time when a scavenger in Gautam Nagar might learn that a shot of rare Scotch consumed in ten minutes at the Sheraton's ITC Maratha cost exactly as much as he earned in seven hundred fourteen-hour days picking up aluminum cans and used tampon applicators, and find that information too much to bear."

"...This was the marvel of many great twenty-first-century cities, including New York and Washington, whose levels of inequality now match those of Abidjan and Nairobi. Maybe they should have looked like [violent video game] Metal Slug 3. Instead, ingenious social constructions--democracy, charity, subtle and blatant articulations of caste, hope, electrified fences--were keeping things more or less in order."

Slumdog is not just good, it's a great film. All the haters calling it poverty porn must have think The Grapes of Wrath was Okie Porn and Huck Finn was just racism porn. And calling something "a Dickensian tale" is not an insult. But it is shallow, and unjustly limiting. Slumdog is possibly the most modern film ever to win best picture.

As to Slumdog being overexposed, that's only to a certain type of hyperbolic windbag you only seem to find on the net. Out in the real world, half the country didn't even know much about the film until tonight. But they're going to now.

I was so bored by the interminable self- congratulations of the Oscars -- particularly excruciating was the segment in which Oscar-winning actresses took turns lavishing icky publicist-porn praise on each Best Actress nominee in turn -- that I kept flipping over to Patton on AMC. Now there was a movie; as many times as I've seen it, it never fails to amuse, enthrall, and move me. Seven Oscars for Slumdog Millionaire? I enjoyed it once, the cinematography and music are lovely, but I know I'll never sit through it even a second time.

The love story makes little sense, and mistakes a near-pathological fixation for romance.

So you root for Wall-E, instead? Really?

I didn't find Slumdog "uplifting" and I didn't think it had a happy ending at all. It had a ridiculous ending. That would never happen. You'll never win the mega millions.

It's a lie constructed by a society where the majority have no hope and live a life filled with despair. The only difference between there and here, is that right now, a miniority lives in that kind of despair. But that's changing. And the big lie of the American dream - you can be anything! - is just going to get bigger.

God, Slumdog depressed the shit out of me.

"Ezra's post would be like an Indian film reviewer watching 'The Virgin Suicides' or 'The Dark Knight' and complaining about the lack of musical song and dance scenes."

That might be a fair angle of criticism if Slumdog were an Indian film. I'ts not. It's a British film - one reason I didn't buy it at all once the pretty colors and pretty music stopped.

"We are, after all, talking about the Oscar for best picture here.

Posted by: Ezra"

Which is why, of course, the "best picture" is hardly likely to get the award, or even be nominated.

Is this the first time there has been a non-American host of the Oscars? It would have been better not to outsource that job -- though maybe it is in line with our new globalist president. Something of what we experience as distinctively American humor was missing there. Also missing were older actors, particularly men. Where was Jack Nicholson? Warren Beatty? Instead we had in the front center Streep flanked by ladies in waiting. Agree that the new feature of slobbering praise on each nominee by a committee of past recipients, in place of showing clips from the nominee's movie, was a mistake. Now that Obama is president, there was a lack of impassioned leftist outcry/shenanigans that used to liven up the oscars. Objecting to prop 8 is all that is left to do in the world? Our new Obama era Oscars: worshipful, collectivist, globalist, youthful. Stripped of its authentic past and distinguished men. It was a long night, and it's gonna be a long four, eight, or whatever years.

Yeah, Obama ruined the Oscars. I noticed that too.

The thought running through my head for much of the film was that it was trying to be City of God crossed with Life of Pi. Which it certainly was. Unfortunately it took the least satisfying bit of the latter work, namely the affirmation/celebration of providence.

... You know, I always wondered if there were people nutty enough to blame the president for a dull and bloated Oscar telecast. And now I know. Considering the Oscars broadcast over the last two decades, I feel safe in saying that a dull Oscar night is a bipartisan affair.

Sigh, just let me know when they start broadcasting the Razzies. I'd watch that.

As for the movies themselves... I didn't see "Slumdog", but I did see "WALL-E". And while I enjoyed the latter, I wouldn't give it best picture, and from what I hear I wouldn't give it to "Slumdog" either. It sounds like the heart of both is not love, but infatuation. I can tell you why WALL-E falls for EVE, as they make it perfectly clear in the movie. He falls for her because he's built up an ideal for romance, and she's the first possible recipient for romance that he's encountered. That's not love at all.

I was personally hoping that Milk (which I couldn't go to see because, well, I knew what was going to happen and was depressed about it) or Frost/Nixon was going to win. Ah well.

Also, I'll also offer a vote against Heath Ledger, but only because I don't think he was the best Joker. I still think Mark Hamill did better in the role (with more limited material, no less). Ledger did it well, but I feel like I've seen better.

three more great performances by actresses who deserve be remembered
for their work in the 1959 film, "imitation of life."

lana turner
juanita moore
susan kohner

in the 1959 film, "imitation of life"
this film bravely dealt with many issues
that were rarely depicted in films at that time.
i was nine years old when i saw it, and that film had an enormous impact on my thinking for the rest of my life.
what a great film can do.

Who has ever heard of a "Mumbai"? What is a "Mumbai"? I say, we invade this "Mumbai" and change the name back to BOMBAY! Bombay is a vacation destination, not some "Mumbai".

I enjoyed Slumdog Millionaire immensely when I saw it in the theater - I'd rate it an A or A-. It's at least a good movie - time will tell whether it's a great one. The energy that pours from the screen is exhilerating, and the framing device of the game show is clever.

It's not the bestest most realistic piece of art in the history of the cosmos, but in a decade in which Gladiator, Crash, Million Dollar Baby and Chicago have all won Best Picture I can't see it going down as the least of these.

Aren't you the guy who wrote glowing reviews of Iron Man and the Dark Knight? Yet you dislike Slumdog because it is "unconvincing," "the love story makes little sense," and it has a "gimmick"? I would think it was right up your alley.

Note to Ezra: Stick to Healthcare and Politics.

The Foulness,

"It's a great film" -- your opinion.

Half the country didn't know about The Reader, either. Or The Wrestler. Compared to every other film in it's category, it's trajectory from small to hyped (Access Hollywood anyone?) was over the top. It's that overfawning that was ALL ABOUT Western fetish. Not the movie itself.

"That might be a fair angle of criticism if Slumdog were an Indian film. I'ts not. It's a British film - one reason I didn't buy it at all once the pretty colors and pretty music stopped.

Posted by: brucds | February 23, 2009 8:40 AM"

Fair point. However, it was going for the Bollywood aesthetic. In fact, Ezra's criticisms of the film (combined with praising the music) sound like just about the basic criticisms of Bollywood I've heard from people who hate Bollywood movies. I can only think of a handful of the better relatively recent musical Bollywood fair where the relationship developed over time, such as "Hum Tum" where the romance grew out of a long friendship - and even then that movie was rare for Bollywood in that the romantic leads slept together before marriage. The romances are often "love at first sight" youthful fairy tales, not "Closer." Bollywood musical romances end in one of two ways: happily ever after or the main character(s) (and possibly more people) dying.

you're a poor film critic, bud.

"Ezra's post would be like an Indian film reviewer watching 'The Virgin Suicides' or 'The Dark Knight' and complaining about the lack of musical song and dance scenes."

Actually, my wife and I became big fans of Air thanks to their soundtrack for The Virgin Suicides. Just sayin'.

The love story makes little sense, and mistakes a near-pathological fixation for romance.

So you root for Wall-E, instead? Really?

Posted by: apm | February 23, 2009 8:09 AM

apm, FTW.