I will go where I will go, and I will jettison all dead weight, and I will use these words for kindling, and I will sleep by the garden gate. My garden will grow so high. My garden will grow so high that I will be completely hidden. The Mountain Goats' "Island Garden Song"
It may be a little late to talk about the Oscars but whatever.
Since "Slumdog Millionaire" won all those awards, I've been thinking about why it was so successful. Now I liked 'Slumdog.' I went to go see it without any preconceived notions or ideas about it and came out of the theater pretty happy that I had seen it. It was the feel good hit of the year and certainly that added to it's popularity.
But I can't help but think that movies like 'Slumdog' make us, as Americans, that much more desensitized to the world around around us. Some atrocious things happen in that movie but in the end the hero gets the girl, wins the money and everything is great. I feel like this movie has (incorrectly) given people the right to think that they don't have an obligation to help those in need because hey, they win a million dollars. I realize that I'm really not giving people a lot of credit but I think people rally behind movies like this because recognizing something like it seems like doing some sort of favor to those involved in making it.
Maybe I'm being too cynical.
In other, geekier news Joss Whedon (creator of Firefly and Serenity among other fantastic things) agrees with me. I have always said that the reason that Marvel Comics just work better is because their characters always seem more human. Even Thor bides his time between immortal god and human doctor! Of course, I will give that Batman has all the qualities of great Marvel characters. Mr. Whedon does have a point there. Still Spider-Man. He's from Queens. I could practically be him.
/endwishfulthinking
Glad to have good ol' Joss on my side.
Posts
March 13, 2016 at 9pm EST
7 years ago
5 comments:
'Slumdog Millionaire' shouldn't make people think they don't have to help poor people. Actaully, quite the opposite. There are many scenes in Danny Boyle's fable about India where we see poverty and truly a realistic picture of India. Little does the media in America protray India as a country where religious violence breaks out (forgetting that terrorist attack for a minute) but often betrays it as our computer helpline. I remember watching a report on ABC News a number of years ago protraying India as the hip new place to be in the world. In 'Slumdog Millionaire', we see a scene just like that where people go running towards the innocent bystanders, and where the mother is lost. There's many scenes of poverty that bring the issue to the frontfont, including one where a kid slips through the outhouse and into poo. What the children go through is betrayed honestly. The sexual trade the young girl is sold to is protrayed honestly. You are looking at the plot about the game show the wrong way. It is a plot device and meant to be there for story purposes, not politicial purposes. Though, one can agrue that the game show, even with the winning of millions, isn't really that wonderful. This game show host has the poor kid totured, and besides, the emotional scars this guy will have will not be cured by getting the girl or a million dollars.
I still feel like the ending was too neatly packaged. You don't leave that movie thinking "Wow, it's really awful over in India." You leave thinking "Hooray! Good for him. Everything is great."
While I think it does attempt to accurately portray India, I don't think it even holds a candle (nor do I think it should) to documentaries like "Born into Brothels." The film cares more about it's characters than the overlying problem of poverty in India. Do I think that makes it a bad movie? No. Do I think that it is necessarily the job of this film to address and fix this problem? No. But I still hold firm on the idea it can give viewers the wrong impression.
Pierce,
In all due respect, your agrument makes no sense. Comparing "Slumdog Millionaire" to "Born Into Brothels" doesn't make any sense. "Born Into Brothels" is a documentary while "Slumdog Millionaire" is a fictional film based on a novel. One is meant to be a non-fiction account, and a form of film activism while the other is meant to have entertainment value. "Slumdog Millionaire" is based on a novel by Vikas Swarup titled "Q&A". I felt that the film did show elements of India in a ways that showed the viewer a glimpse into that world, though you have to account for the fact that 'Slumdog Millionaire' does have a entertainment value to it. Interestly enough, Roger Ebert does discuss this in his review. "Born Into Brothels" is a documentary, a different genre, and different goals.
I realize that "Born into Brothels" is a documentary. I mean you reiterated that point about three times. I get it.
All I was saying was that it could give people the wrong impression. I am skeptical of people who rally around it because I think they do so for the wrong reasons.
I'm not really sure how many times I can say the same thing to you. I think you are taking my point a bit too far.
Yes "Slumdog" is supposed to be entertaining. It's supposed to make you glad that you spent that 11 bucks.
I felt that maybe this movie could have been a little less entertainment value and a little more film activism because at some point the entertainment value of it overshadows any of the horrors that are portrayed.
Post a Comment