When I first saw Shakespeare in Love, god how I adored it. I went to see it two times in one day. And then I’m pretty sure I saw it a third time after that. The premise was just so clever! The dialogue so witty! Everything fit together so perfectly! It was utterly and completely impossible to duplicate. It was a feel-good movie that catered to smart people.
I basked in its glow for a couple of weeks. Then it started to pick up steam in the press, and with the public. By the time it won the Academy Award for Best Picture, I was so done with it. The premise was just too clever. The dialogue too witty. Everything fit together too perfectly. It was utterly and completely superficial. It was a feel-good movie that flattered people who wanted to feel like they were better than the groundlings in the pit because they actually “get” Shakespeare.
And so I find myself reliving the same pattern with Slumdog Millionaire. I absolutely loved it when I first saw it. The premise was so clever! The setting so gritty! Everything fit together so perfectly, etc, etc, etc. In the theater where I saw it, when the movie ended, there was a moment of silence. So I started clapping… and soon, the whole audience was clapping too.
Funny thing is, whenever I told people about it, I would point out its flaws even as I gushed. “It was WONDERFUL! I mean, it kind of bothered me how the romantic leads grew up from dark-skinned kids into light-skinned model types! And how it reinforced the fate narrative that’s fucked up India through the caste system for thousands of years! But it’s just so clever, the way the game show fits in with the story!”
Needless to say, now that it’s won Best Picture… Well. Did I say I ever liked it? I deny your slander uncategorically. It’s cotton candy. It’s the same old crappy story about people who succeed because the sky fairies want them to. And it uses the beautifully trashy slum setting to get in under the defenses of people (like me) who would normally know better. Damn. I led the clapping. Man, I feel lame now.
I really dug Mitu Sengupta’s criticisms:
It is no secret that Slumdog is meant to reflect life in Dharavi, the vast sprawl of slums at the heart of Mumbai. The film depicts Dharavi as a feral wasteland, with little evidence of order, community or compassion. Other than the children, the no-one is even remotely well-intentioned…
But nothing is further from the truth. Dharavi teems with dynamism, and is a hub of small-scale industries, whose estimated annual turnover is between US$50 to $100 million. Nor is Dharavi bereft of governing structures and productive social relations. Residents have built strong collaborative networks, often across potentially volatile lines of caste and religion….
In the end, Slumdog presents a profoundly dehumanizing view of the poor, with all its troubling political implications. Since there are no internal resources, and none capable of constructive voice or action, all “solutions” must arrive externally. After a harrowing life in an anarchic wilderness, salvation finally comes to Jamal in the form of an imported quiz-show, which he succeeds in thanks only to “destiny.” Must other unfortunates, like the stoic Jamal, patiently await their own destinies of rescue by a foreign hand? While this self-billed “feel good movie of the year” may help us “feel good” that we are among the lucky ones on earth, it delivers a patronizing, colonial and ultimately sham statement on social justice for those who are not.
Yeah. What she said.
And also that I’m a shallow wannabe hipster who can’t handle liking things that other people like.
Recently