Slumdog Millionaire.

Review #1547: Slumdog Millionaire.

Cast: 
Dev Patel (Jamal Malik), Freida Pinto (Latika), Madhur Mittal (Salim K. Malik), Anil Kapoor (Prem Kumar), Irrfan Khan (Police Inspector), Saurabh Shukla (Police Constable Srinivas), Mahesh Manjrekar (Javed Khan), Ankur Vikal (Maman), with Ayush Mahesh Khedekar and Tanay Chheda (child and teenage Jamal), Rubina Ali and Tanvi Ganesh Lonkar (child and teenage Latika), Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail and Ashutosh Lobo Gajiwala (child and teenage Salim). Directed by Danny Boyle.

Review: 
"I don't want to make pompous, serious films; I like films that have a kind of vivacity about them. At this time of the year you think about awards and if you want to win one you think you should make serious films, but my instinct is to make vivacious films."

Sometimes you just have to have a bit of lively entertainment to go along with interesting British cinema, or at the very least one that makes a name for themselves with certain audiences. With a variety of subjects covered in thirteen career films over a career that has spanned over 25 years, I'd say Danny Boyle has made quite a name for himself. He grew up in a working-class family that emphasized faith, but he found himself going towards drama instead of the seminary as a teenager (while becoming interested in movies as a kid with stuff like 1965's Battle of the Bulge), and he studied drama and English at Bangor University. He did a bunch of work in the theatre (where he honed himself as a director along with teaching him about the benefit of loving actors) before going along to television for the BBC. His debut film chance came when approached for the script for what became Shallow Grave (1994), which became a hit with British audiences; his next film however was even more well-noticed - the black comedy crime film Trainspotting (1996), which the British Film Institute found to be one of the best British films of the 20th century. Boyle has done a variety of genres in his career, whether in adventure (The Beach), horror (28 Days Later), or sci-fi thriller (Sunshine). In regards to this film, he was not interested initially in the idea of doing this film at first because of what he perceived to be about the show Who Wants to be a Millionaire? (which production company Celador had owned for a couple of years since its start in 1998 of British origin - I actually didn't know it started there before being adapted subsequently to America). However, he changed his mind when approached with the script done by Simon Beaufoy (writer of The Full Monty (1997), a favorite of Boyle and many others) that made him change his mind. Beaufoy had been approached to do a script based on Vikas Swarup's novel Q & A (which he described as "vibrant, sprawling"). Q & A was inspired in part by the scandal involving the show and British Army major Charles Ingram, who had won the top prize but was found guilty of "procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception" and lost the prize that led Swarup to the idea of if an major could be thought of as a cheater perhaps a kid from the slums could be accused of it too. There were quite a few characters lost in adaptation, most notably with the lawyer character along with a few others in the youth storyline. It was Beaufoy's yearning to shift the structure towards one unwavering narrative besides just focusing on the game show and money that led him to travel to Mumbai. It was in his visits to the slums that he found the idea to do a love story as the true crux to the film (it should be noted that Loveleen Tandan also proved a part in the film as a "co-director", going from a casting director to helping out with the sequences in India).

Sometimes the feel-good yarn just wins out. After all, who can resist such charming energy in its inevitable yarn towards hope that seems familiar without being the 200th different pastiche of rags-to-riches? What exactly is different about the type of film this is than something like Rocky (1976, also a winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture)? After all, that was a film that dwelled in a bit of rough living and someone being plucked to have a chance at making something for themselves while dealing a chance at romance and the struggles of just getting to the big event (there are obvious differences yes, but hopefully you get what I mean). Technically speaking, that film is actually less predictable than this one (at least for one who literally pretends to not think about subsequent films), but in general underdog stories are the straw that stirs the proverbial drink for those into its mood (Miracle (2004), has been watched on one particular night in February two years running precisely because of that). Maybe it is a case of the ordinary for some being quite extraordinary for others. Is it a film that deserves its various praises or critiques that range from being a riveting sort of fairy tale to patronizing, or is there something different on the surface? The way I would go by it is pretty simple: It's only a movie. Did I like what I saw in the long run of something that lasts exactly two hours? Sure, I guess I can say that. But I'll be darned if I can find much reasoning for it to be anything other than just fine that explains what all the hubbub is about. It appeals to anyone having an interest in wanting to see a feature with a type of view of a different country along with featuring Hindi dialogue for a time. Of course it also just happens to be a film that has built itself as a global phenomenon of clichés, one that seems so strangely predictable with its building of contrivances and flash of imagery that can only go so far. At least one can say there is determined actors here to make it worthwhile. Patel (known for his year-run on BBC's Skins with no prior film experience) shows himself well in resilience that makes easy to follow along with in his telling of a story/playing for something a bit different than money while basically spending a good chunk of the film sitting down. Pinto (a model who had auditioned for other films without success before drawing luck with this) doesn't exactly fare too well, although that is more because she doesn't really have much to really do besides inspiring a shadow of chemistry with our lead - it all relies on seeing the child actors to build upon the stuff that follows it, since it can only build up to the idea of a kiss for so long anyway. Mittal does fine with what is given in a rough edge that reflects the underlying foundation from earlier with some conviction, although it is up to the viewer if his last scene really sells with whatever philosophy is meant to be shown here. I found more interest with Kapoor in his arrogance and attempts with humor that bounce off Patel with thorns, even if it only could be a section of the film rather than the whole. Khan makes a fair observer to those framing sequences needed from him with patience. The child actors do fine, in that it never seems like I'm watching a maudlin story wind itself up, but it always seems like I could be watching a film about children living through tough circumstances somewhere else (Los Olvidados, perhaps for another time). It is one of those films where circumstances are the real adversary rather than just one main figure, but there never really seems to be a shadow of doubt in any conflict it tries to show because it is like a wind-up toy that goes back and forth to the points drawn out on the map. It seems way too sweet in its trail of tourism, but I see why it made the impact it made in bright charm with feel-good ambition to show a slice of life of folks trying to live without losing one's sense of self or others. Objectively, it does just enough with holding itself together without collapse, so it can be recommended for being just greater than the sum of its parts to win out in the end, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.