> Let’s say I made a movie about the US where an African-American boy born in the hood, has his mother sell him to a pedophile pop icon, after which he gets molested by a priest from his church, following which he gets tied up to the back of a truck and dragged on the road by KKK clansmen. Then he is arrested and sodomized by a policeman with a rod, after which he is attacked by a gang of illegal immigrants, and then uses these life experiences to win “Beauty and The Geek”.
> Even though each of these incidents have actually happened in the United States of America, I would be accused of spinning a fantastic yarn that has no grounding in reality, that has no connection to the “American experience” and my motivations would be questioned, no matter how cinematically spectacular I made my movie.
It would probably be a flop in India, but I'm not the best person to judge that.
I think depictions of the US in overseas movies are pretty much as silly as that, though. Everything takes place in very rich or very poor parts of NYC or LA.
As for "I would probably be accused" -- maybe in India. In the US it wouldn't even rate a review.
If it's entertaining, I'd watch that movie. It'll be a lot better than most Hollywood movies, and frankly, most Hollywood movies are pretty far off from reality (almost every movie involving the police or detectives is crazy unrealistic).
I'm not a fan of Slumdog Millionaire, but that's mostly because it's a poor story, and one that could have been a great one. Arguing it's portrayal deviates like crazy from reality is, well, like most other Hollywood movies.
Whether something is a "good story" is hard to be objective about. It depends heavily on whether the actors sell it or not. Why do you say Slumdog is a poor story?
"Poor boy makes good" is the plot of a zillion movies and books. The audience knows going in that he's going to get rich and/or get the girl. It's how that either works or doesn't.
They story had many interesting arcs that could have been richer, but halfway through it was clear there wasn't any interest in developing them, and that it was just about finding/connecting with the girl. Also, the fact that the trivia questions always seemed to align with his accidental experiences was just not that interesting.
A story about a poor boy making it big by things other than "always being lucky" would have been better.
He wasn't lucky. In fact the point of the movie was that the totality of his crappy life experiences before the trivia game ultimately led to him making it big. Essentially, it was a metaphor for karma.
(Spoiler: he almost died several times, his mom and brother died, his friend was sexually abused and he only narrowly escaped similar fates by running away, and he was working as an entry level food cart guy at the present day of the movie. He was beaten by the cops after his initial success at the show. What part of this do you consider lucky? )
The part where the questions just happened to align with his misfortunes. And not even in a meaningful way.
This definitely isn't a movie about someone who made it big by struggling hard. He struggled for sure, but the fortune came not as a byproduct of his efforts, but by being lucky. I mean sure, luck is a factor in everyone's success. In his case, it wasn't merely a factor. It was almost all luck.
The questions align chronologically with his misfortunes, essentially providing a roadmap of the major events that determined the course of his life.
Yes, they're lucky. It's a game show. A large part of trivia game shows is a matter of luck with respect to the questions asked.
But the point of the movie was that his luck on the game show was good karma for the decisions he made at the major points of his life. (Contrast with his brother.)
> But the point of the movie was that his luck on the game show was good karma for the decisions he made at the major points of his life. (Contrast with his brother.)
Sure, but perhaps very unsatisfying to a Western audience where one wants stronger connections between decisions and consequences.
Consider "It's a Wonderful Life": Although the struggles and misfortunes were not that great, it's also a movie where the protagonist consciously made decisions that led to a poor life, and in the end benefited significantly because of those decisions (and not just materially). The connection between his decisions and the outcome is much stronger.
Still, that was only a small part of why I didn't like the movie much - it merely added insult to a greater injury - that of not developing the various arcs that appeared. Imagine watching Forrest Gump where each of his life adventures was significantly reduced. The story would still be the same, but a lot less satisfying.
Slmudog Millionaire was 91% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, grossed $378 million, was nominated for 8 Oscars and won Best Picture, won 7 of the 11 BAFTA Awards for which it was nominated including Best Picture, and launched the careers of both of its stars.
Humbly, I suggest that "western audiences" enjoyed the movie a great deal and had no problems with it and that the issues you are having are your own and stem from your inability to understand the thematic issues of the movie rather than a failure of the movie itself.
Interesting that you cite Forrest Gump as your example, since your problems with Slumdog are the same problems that I have with Forrest Gump: it jumps so quickly through Forrest's life that it fails to meaningfully explore the significance of any of the individual moments of his life other than his connection to Bubba and Sarge.
I'm mostly staying out of this, but I can't resist this one:
Please don't ever use a Rotten Tomatoes score as "proving" anything.
People are entitled to their opinions, and Rotten Tomatoes is just an average of a bunch of nobodies who happened to get a "critic" gig at some media outlet. OP didn't like the movie, while I did (and you did).
The substantive arguments about western audiences and Danny Boyle are fine, too. Bring 'em on. But don't use external awards as "proof" of anything.
reply