Danny Boyle cast very poor children in his films and shot them very compassionately. During filming he made sure money was held in trust for their education. Since the movie did well, he has bought or tried to buy them bigger homes. Yet there has been loads of press on how he hasn't done enough.
Sacha Baron Cohen used poor Gypsies (adults and children) as part of a joke in Borat, calling them racist savages but not letting them no he was calling them racist savages. In exchange they were paid scale and the village got a few computers. Last I heard, they were trying to sue him.
I really do not understand why Danny Boyle gets so much crap for not doing enough (although this piece is interesting in showing the different ways the families reacted to the money) and so little was said about Sacha Baron Cohen.
@clevernamehere: Agreed. Danny Boyle had several choices when he made this film - he could have made it on a soundstage in London, with non-Indian children wearing dark makeup. He chose, I think, a means to make the most authentic and compassionate film, and he gets crapped on for it. I wouldn't be surprised if his next film is set in NY and LA, but shot in Toronto and Vancouver, with big-name actors, and a huge happy Hollywood ending.
@Luckwouldhaveit: with non indian children wearing dark make up? really? i beleive that is called black-face, and last i checked, thats pretty unacceptable.
@rd2uk: Yeah, I don't think that was an option. Plus, there are plenty of actual Indian children in London, some of whom I'm sure would love to act, there's no reason to go painting non-Indian kids. I do think it's good that he used kids who were not just the appropriate ethnicity, but had life experience that reflected the movie. I guess my discomfort was more with the movie itself, and the fact that it did have a big Hollywood finish, and was billed as a feel good movie, which seemed to erase the reality of the slumkids it was about, none of whom were winning game shows. And I also do think there's something paternalistic about all the restrictions on the use of the kids' money. I understand the reasons for it, but I also understand why, especially given the historical context of colonialism, which treats grown people like children, some people would find it objectionable.
Everything was true, Ziyan Contractor? Including the scene where the kid wins a million dollars and magically escapes from the gangsters on his long-lost love's tail?
I appreciate that Slumdog was a well-executed, well-scripted and well-acted movie, but this is exactly why I couldn't enjoy it. It was entirely too real. Personally, I watch movies to be entertained, not stressed out and horrified the whole time (same reason I couldn't get into No Country for Old Men). Sure, it shed light on very real problems, but I'm not sure that's really Hollywood's job. At all.
@annebreal: I disagree, art has always functioned on some level as a commentary on cultural and social issues. It mirrors society; how can in not then critique it on some level.
Hollywood's "job" is to make a wide range of movies. Some will be entertaining and expose you to a new world and others will be just mindless fun.
Film is a powerful medium. The business is already knee deep in mindless fun. Thank god once in a blue moon there is a film like Slumdog or No Country.
@CurtCole: Truly. We have a plethora of mindless entertainment on both the big and small screens. Why on earth would we not want (and desperately) some form of content with real meaning?
More art should comment on cultural and social issues. As long as it's executed well (and even only decently), it's often more satisfying than the vapid films and TV shows out there.
@annebreal: Absolutely it's commentary on societal issues and society as a whole. But condensing some 20 years of history in 2 hours isn't going to educate or expose anyone very much. I'm not nearly as educated in Indian history as I should be, but throughout the movie I was thinking "holy shit, WHY are they chasing those kids with sticks?" and the like. If Slumdog's aim was to make us aware and understand the plight of India's poor, I don't think they really succeeded. If their aim was to take you on a complete emotional roller coaster with beautiful imagery, then they absolutely did. I think movies work under too many constraints to encapsulate complex social problems. There's exceptions, sure, where some movies managed to be that thought provoking (I personally don't think Slumdog got there), but by in large I think there's way better places to go for enlightenment and education than a theater seat.
@annebreal: Oh, I totally agree that it was a problematic film, but one would hope that some members of the audience would leave with the thought, "Hey, I don't know shit about India...I'm going to educate myself." Sadly, this is probably not the norm, but one can hope. I took issue with how neatly everything was resolved in the end, how it became a feel good movie for the last five minutes, as the characters that the audience sympathized with most got themselves out of the slum. So, movie goers could rest easy on their ride home not having to worry about those cute little kids, and as Katy has shown us, that is clearly not realistic.
@annebreal: I don't agree with that. I think there is certainly a role for the cinema in raising social awareness and humanizing problems. How much press was the situation in Mumbai's slums getting before Slumdog? For better or for worse, the film has put these kids' plight onto the map for a lot of people. I think it's valid that you prefer entertaining movies over documentaries and cinema verite. No one is making you watch them. But I disagree that there's no place for these types of films just because they are not what you prefer to see.
@annebreal: "by in large I think there's way better places to go for enlightenment and education than a theater seat."
Sure there are, but most people wouldn't seek them out. One of the advantages of cinema is its wide reach, because nearly everyone goes to the movies and just might be accidentally exposed to what's going on in the rest of life outside their own neighborhood. To that end, cinema does serve a function in teaching us things we didn't know. And if you didn't know why the police were chasing the slumdogs with sticks in the movie, you just might get interested enough afterward to find out.
By your reasoning, Hollywood shouldn't make movies like Hotel Rwanda or Rendition and just stick to making movies like GI Joe, and I don't agree. I'd be hard pressed to find it fun to watch Hotel Rwanda again, but you can't deny it certainly raised awareness of the brutality and murder going on in the country at that time.
@annebreal: I think it did show the plight of the poor, what it didn't show was why things were so bad.
Schindler's List basically did the same thing. Its about concentration camps but its doesn't go back through the Nurnberg Laws, the Beer Hall Putsch and World War I to show how it all happened.
I think most well done political films work on two levels- the entertainment level (or the gut wrenching pain level) and the socio-historical level (but only if you're pretty familiar with the history already). People who don't get the socio-historical level can decide to learn more after seeing the film.
My grandpa is going to be 90 next year and it makes me so sad that we are losing this wonderful generation of people. These are the people that were born in Depression, went to World War II, saw the invention of the television, saw a man walk on the moon, etc etc. Imagine all of the stories they could tell. People - talk to your grandparents and preserve these wonderful histories!
Post-teens don't appear to have any dignity and self-respect. I wouldn't humiliate myself by talking trash about an ex (except to my friends, who know it's part of moving on). It makes a person look petty and ridiculous. Cue to you Lindsay.
A colleague worked with Lindsay's publicist Leslie Sloane for years during Lohan's crazy/cokey period. Apparently Lindsay came out at like 16, Dina freaked out and had her PR cranking out the slutty manwhore image and the faux boyfriends for the next four years. Lindsay was of course a miserable mess, became a raging cokehead and cutter. After the last round of rehab her career was so damaged she had no need to hide the Samantha thing. I feel for the girl and though she's made her mistakes she's had a lot more to deal with than the average 22 year old. She's still incredibly young, fairly talented, and will hopefully get her shit together and learn to accept herself eventually.
Interesting that her idol is Marilyn Monroe, a lovely, marginally talented actress known more for her substance abuse and her notoriety than her work. And possibly prescient, considering MM's untimely end. But I kind of feel like we haven't seen rock bottom from LL yet. If she actually is back on the drugs and borrowing fancy cars from porn producers, I have a sickening feeling about how ugly it's going to get for her before it's over.
Last night there was a rerun of SNL from 2005 or 2006, maybe. The one where Amy Poehler brilliantly plays the ghost of Lindsay Future. She's hosting Night Passions on Cinemax and married to Tommy Lee. At the end, LiLo asks "Am I happy 30 years from now?" and Future LiLo says "30 years? I'm from the year 2007."
08/20/09
Sacha Baron Cohen used poor Gypsies (adults and children) as part of a joke in Borat, calling them racist savages but not letting them no he was calling them racist savages. In exchange they were paid scale and the village got a few computers. Last I heard, they were trying to sue him.
I really do not understand why Danny Boyle gets so much crap for not doing enough (although this piece is interesting in showing the different ways the families reacted to the money) and so little was said about Sacha Baron Cohen.
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
Hollywood's "job" is to make a wide range of movies. Some will be entertaining and expose you to a new world and others will be just mindless fun.
Film is a powerful medium. The business is already knee deep in mindless fun. Thank god once in a blue moon there is a film like Slumdog or No Country.
08/20/09
More art should comment on cultural and social issues. As long as it's executed well (and even only decently), it's often more satisfying than the vapid films and TV shows out there.
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
Sure there are, but most people wouldn't seek them out. One of the advantages of cinema is its wide reach, because nearly everyone goes to the movies and just might be accidentally exposed to what's going on in the rest of life outside their own neighborhood. To that end, cinema does serve a function in teaching us things we didn't know. And if you didn't know why the police were chasing the slumdogs with sticks in the movie, you just might get interested enough afterward to find out.
By your reasoning, Hollywood shouldn't make movies like Hotel Rwanda or Rendition and just stick to making movies like GI Joe, and I don't agree. I'd be hard pressed to find it fun to watch Hotel Rwanda again, but you can't deny it certainly raised awareness of the brutality and murder going on in the country at that time.
08/20/09
Schindler's List basically did the same thing. Its about concentration camps but its doesn't go back through the Nurnberg Laws, the Beer Hall Putsch and World War I to show how it all happened.
I think most well done political films work on two levels- the entertainment level (or the gut wrenching pain level) and the socio-historical level (but only if you're pretty familiar with the history already). People who don't get the socio-historical level can decide to learn more after seeing the film.
08/20/09
And eventually, like so many child stars, her life may return to that, when the luster wears off and the movie is long forgotten.
08/18/09
08/18/09
08/18/09
08/18/09
08/18/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
And there is no ugly talk about my pretty, pretty girl.
04/05/09
04/05/09
My pretty, pretty girl is going to be just fine.
04/05/09
04/05/09
So prescient.