| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 12/04/2008 : 17:31:34
Slumdog Millionaire
Still serving the diplomatic service as India's Deputy High Commissioner to South Africa, Vikas Swarup has won countless international awards for his debut novel Q&A, which tells the story of a penniless orphan from the Mumbai slums who becomes a contestant on the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire.
Considering the recent devastation in that city, it is with understandable mixed emotions that I watched Danny Boyle's film version. Actually I was familiar with the story, not because I've read the book, but because it was dramatized on the BBC into 15 minute segments over the course of a week.
At just under two hours the film proves Boyle is back on form, immersing us in a truly unfamiliar culture, leavening its pain with exuberance and even humour. The storytelling device is adapted from the book and proves as effective on film as on radio -- maybe more so.
We have a double set-up. Jamal, a personable young man -- played by Dev Patel with a patina of diffidence barely hiding his inner passions -- is a contestant on the famous game show. We recognize instantly the franchised set, lighting, and musical stings. Bollywood superstar Anil Kapoor plays the Indian Chris Tarant mixing charm and menace. As the film progresses we understand this is more than a host-contestant relationship, but one of confrontation.
Incised between the show's scenes as Jamal moves from question to question are disturbing, sometimes brutal encounters between Patel and the police. The premise for his arrest is a question on all India's lips: how can a mobile phone company tea-boy know enough to get even one question correct on this show of increasing complexity.
The main police interrogator solicits from Jamal his life story in an effort to eliminate or prove fraud or other behaviour outside the law.
It is these flashbacks from his childhood as a Slumdog to the present moment of the show which form the action. Its main structure derives from the triumvirate of Jamal, his brother Sanil, and Latika, their childhood friend with whom Jamal inevitably falls in love. All three are played at various stages of their lives by three sets of actors, from all of whom Boyle has drawn excellent performances.
In fact there isn't a duff actor among the entire cast, whether they're called on to repress emotion or give it full rein, they make you believe you're peeking into this unsettling world of people learning to survive however they can. Pustulent devastation of a city's slums as well as the emotions of its people contrasts tellingly with those who live in a luxury either inherited or acquired.
Boyle pulls out all the stops to question what success means. And though it doesn't shy away from the coarse realities, the end-credits which rehearse a typical Bollywood all-dancing all-singing finale form the perfect symbol of hope.
With what Mumbai's been going through, it couldn't come at a more appropriate time.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| GHcool |
Posted - 04/15/2009 : 23:32:22
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
However, I'm sure you know a lot about them, but perhaps not so much about four-year-olds. How old were the witnesses whose accounts you've read when they were imprisoned? Adults and older children would have suffered from the fear and indignity in a way that young children* just wouldn't. The camps also, as I'm sure you know, varied considerably, so there are very few people in the world who can say with certainty what could not have happened at any time in any camp.
*Again, I'm talking about those lucky enough to be with at least one parent and survive disease.
The memoirs/biographies/autobiographies I've read and personal testimonies I've heard are from survivors whose age when they arrived in the camps varied between roughly 12 years old (Eli Wiesel's age) to roughly 40 years old (Victor Frankl's age). Regardless, if a child survived the camps, he/she would have had to have been hidden by the parents and he/she would have had to have been interred close to the end of the war. Life is Beautiful satisfies both requirements. Where Life is Beautiful is purely fantastical is that it assumes that in the process of hiding, the child will never figure out that this is not a game, that his hunger is real, that death and danger really is all around him. The idea that a prize is waiting for him at the end of the imaginary game is not enough to sustain a child's discomfort for very long in any circumstance. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/15/2009 : 08:22:20
Oh, C.L., actually I doubt that the book can really add anything in that way. What I mean is that the simple idea of the choice is all that is needed to convey all its emotional repercussions. No one needs any exposition of that. I'll still read it when I get the chance, though.  |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/15/2009 : 08:17:58
P.S., I feel the need to state again that none of the above is any kind of defence for the camps' existence. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/15/2009 : 08:15:43
People didn't beat gay prisoners to death in order to survive: they beat them to death because they were gay.
GHc., I've already said again and again that that film is not realistic, and that that's not the point of it. Another typical portrayal of the camps would serve no function whatsoever. However, I'm sure you know a lot about them, but perhaps not so much about four-year-olds. How old were the witnesses whose accounts you've read when they were imprisoned? Adults and older children would have suffered from the fear and indignity in a way that young children* just wouldn't. The camps also, as I'm sure you know, varied considerably, so there are very few people in the world who can say with certainty what could not have happened at any time in any camp.
*Again, I'm talking about those lucky enough to be with at least one parent and survive disease. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 04/15/2009 : 07:22:42
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Actually, there were quite a few "bad" camp prisoners during the Holocaust. They were the ones that spied on the other prisoners and ratted them out to the guards in exchange for privileges and extra food. The stories about those in the ghettos are probably better known, but they certainly did exist in the camps as well. Take Sophie's Choice as another example (read the book, don't watch Streep and Wood in the movie - blech!) Of course, self-preservation can be used as an excuse for doing all sorts of unsavory things - although the line is pretty fine.
I don't really remember that from Sophie's Choice. I mainly remember the choice.  She and her son get involved with one of the Nazis, but does that involve her ratting on anyone else? Or do others do that? But yes, there should have been more of that shown, and also prisoners who are just unpleasant without betraying anyone. Gay prisoners were often beaten to death by others, for example, although I don't know whether that was by other 'anti-social' groups, Jewish people or both.
Ratting out others, beating up fellow prisoners, or doing any number of things that are generally (in the Western world) considered immoral in order to survive - either directly or indirectly at the expense of others - is what I'm talking about. And there are those who believe that any kind of collaboration with the Nazis that allowed them to survive instead of anyone else was wrong - even if what they did wasn't something immoral under normal circumstances. Like I said - a fine line indeed.
(Read the book - you get a far better idea of both the depth of the difficulty in making that choice as well as the conflict and guilt that came from it.) |
| GHcool |
Posted - 04/14/2009 : 20:30:07
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Firstly, for moral ambiguity in the camps, check out The Counterfeiters, which is based on a true story. I don't think that we're going to see Jewish concentration camp prisoners as villains any time soon because that would be soft core Holocaust denial. "Good guys and bad guys" simply doesn't apply in the camps except in the broad, universally accepted notions that the Nazi guards were bad and the prisoners were innocent of any real crimes and had no reason to be imprisoned and tortured.
The ones in the The Counterfeiters are more like loveable rogues. I don't mean people who had committed crimes and thus should have been in the camps (as of course no one should have been in them): I mean people who were just horrible people. I hope by softcore Holocaust denial you mean some people would view it as such rather than that is what you think: it's not Holocaust denial to say that the Nazis immorally and illegally killed some coincidentally bad people. Let's face it, out of any six million people, there are likely to be some uncaught murderers etc. (This shouldn't be necessary, but since some people around here like to wilfully misinterpret things and misrepresent what people have said, just to be clear -- this is separate from the unbelievable things that the Nazis did and does not ameliorate their crimes in any way.)
quote:
Secondly, the situation proposed in Life is Beautiful, namely that a father can protect his son from ever figuring out that he is starving in a concentration camp and that death is all around him, is absurd beyond measure. As I wrote before, I remember liking it as an allegory and I was willing to suspend my disbelief, but there is no way that there is even a grain of historical truth in this story. The premise of Slumdog Millionaire, unlikely as it is that an urchin could get exactly the right questions on the "Millionaire" show, is at least conceivably possible.
Life is Beautiful is definitely not supposed to be gritty realism -- I think it sets this up very well with the first half. But while the presentation of the camp is not realistic and the main character is not typical, that doesn't mean that the latter cannot be realistic (at least in essence). Young children get used to being hungry and living in appalling conditions -- those who grow up in slums don't look back on their childhoods as pure misery in most cases. Those who lived in the woods with the Bielski partisans looked back on the time fondly. Sure, the situation in the camps was even worse, but much of this is in ways that would have impacted less on four-/five-year-olds. They would have had little sense of loss of freedom, for example, and would have been young enough to protect from the fear of death (even when they saw others dying), unlike the characters in The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, who are a little too old. (Once again, I am not saying that it is at all acceptable that they were imprisoned, just that the adults suffered more than any children lucky enough to escape disease.) Also, the boy in Life is Beautiful knows that he is hungry etc. but thinks that that is all part of the game. I agree that it's still a little far-fetched, but not that it's too far-fetched.
It's not that surprising that a slumdog could answer all the extremely easy questions in the film. It would be more surprising if they could answer a set of typical questions, but yes, even that would be more realistic than Life is Beautiful. I don't see that as a problem for the latter, though.
Sorry, but the situation in Life is Beautiful is simply an impossibility. I've read enough books about the Holocaust and memoirs from survivors to know that. I even produced a short documentary in which I interviewed a Holocaust survivor about her experience. I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I'm fairly well versed in what life was like in the camps and what occurs in Life is Beautiful does not merit any serious consideration at all except as an allegory for the triumph of the human spirit in the face of evil (on that level, the film works remarkably well). |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/14/2009 : 13:54:58
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Actually, there were quite a few "bad" camp prisoners during the Holocaust. They were the ones that spied on the other prisoners and ratted them out to the guards in exchange for privileges and extra food. The stories about those in the ghettos are probably better known, but they certainly did exist in the camps as well. Take Sophie's Choice as another example (read the book, don't watch Streep and Wood in the movie - blech!) Of course, self-preservation can be used as an excuse for doing all sorts of unsavory things - although the line is pretty fine.
I don't really remember that from Sophie's Choice. I mainly remember the choice. She and her son get involved with one of the Nazis, but does that involve her ratting on anyone else? Or do others do that? But yes, there should have been more of that shown, and also prisoners who are just unpleasant without betraying anyone. Gay prisoners were often beaten to death by others, for example, although I don't know whether that was by other 'anti-social' groups, Jewish people or both. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/14/2009 : 13:41:49
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Firstly, for moral ambiguity in the camps, check out The Counterfeiters, which is based on a true story. I don't think that we're going to see Jewish concentration camp prisoners as villains any time soon because that would be soft core Holocaust denial. "Good guys and bad guys" simply doesn't apply in the camps except in the broad, universally accepted notions that the Nazi guards were bad and the prisoners were innocent of any real crimes and had no reason to be imprisoned and tortured.
The ones in the The Counterfeiters are more like loveable rogues. I don't mean people who had committed crimes and thus should have been in the camps (as of course no one should have been in them): I mean people who were just horrible people. I hope by softcore Holocaust denial you mean some people would view it as such rather than that is what you think: it's not Holocaust denial to say that the Nazis immorally and illegally killed some coincidentally bad people. Let's face it, out of any six million people, there are likely to be some uncaught murderers etc. (This shouldn't be necessary, but since some people around here like to wilfully misinterpret things and misrepresent what people have said, just to be clear -- this is separate from the unbelievable things that the Nazis did and does not ameliorate their crimes in any way.)
quote:
Secondly, the situation proposed in Life is Beautiful, namely that a father can protect his son from ever figuring out that he is starving in a concentration camp and that death is all around him, is absurd beyond measure. As I wrote before, I remember liking it as an allegory and I was willing to suspend my disbelief, but there is no way that there is even a grain of historical truth in this story. The premise of Slumdog Millionaire, unlikely as it is that an urchin could get exactly the right questions on the "Millionaire" show, is at least conceivably possible.
Life is Beautiful is definitely not supposed to be gritty realism -- I think it sets this up very well with the first half. But while the presentation of the camp is not realistic and the main character is not typical, that doesn't mean that the latter cannot be realistic (at least in essence). Young children get used to being hungry and living in appalling conditions -- those who grow up in slums don't look back on their childhoods as pure misery in most cases. Those who lived in the woods with the Bielski partisans looked back on the time fondly. Sure, the situation in the camps was even worse, but much of this is in ways that would have impacted less on four-/five-year-olds. They would have had little sense of loss of freedom, for example, and would have been young enough to protect from the fear of death (even when they saw others dying), unlike the characters in The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, who are a little too old. (Once again, I am not saying that it is at all acceptable that they were imprisoned, just that the adults suffered more than any children lucky enough to escape disease.) Also, the boy in Life is Beautiful knows that he is hungry etc. but thinks that that is all part of the game. I agree that it's still a little far-fetched, but not that it's too far-fetched.
It's not that surprising that a slumdog could answer all the extremely easy questions in the film. It would be more surprising if they could answer a set of typical questions, but yes, even that would be more realistic than Life is Beautiful. I don't see that as a problem for the latter, though. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 04/14/2009 : 08:43:04
Actually, there were quite a few "bad" camp prisoners during the Holocaust. They were the ones that spied on the other prisoners and ratted them out to the guards in exchange for privileges and extra food. The stories about those in the ghettos are probably better known, but they certainly did exist in the camps as well. Take Sophie's Choice as another example (read the book, don't watch Streep and Wood in the movie - blech!) Of course, self-preservation can be used as an excuse for doing all sorts of unsavory things - although the line is pretty fine.
As for an urchin knowing the answers to all 12 questions in the game - yes, it is totally possible. |
| GHcool |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 19:50:44
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Yep, I'd say 1,500 people surviving in the Polish/Byelorussian woods is less likely, for example.
I'd say it definitely is a comedy, just not a comedy all the way through or one about the Holocaust. It's the comedic first half that builds up investment in the characters.
I wonder if we will ever reach a fully mature stage about it? For example, how often are camp prisoners depicted as baddies? Out of six million, some would also definitely have been no good, selfish, double-crossing villains, just like out of any other six million.
Firstly, for moral ambiguity in the camps, check out The Counterfeiters, which is based on a true story. I don't think that we're going to see Jewish concentration camp prisoners as villains any time soon because that would be soft core Holocaust denial. "Good guys and bad guys" simply doesn't apply in the camps except in the broad, universally accepted notions that the Nazi guards were bad and the prisoners were innocent of any real crimes and had no reason to be imprisoned and tortured.
Secondly, the situation proposed in Life is Beautiful, namely that a father can protect his son from ever figuring out that he is starving in a concentration camp and that death is all around him, is absurd beyond measure. As I wrote before, I remember liking it as an allegory and I was willing to suspend my disbelief, but there is no way that there is even a grain of historical truth in this story. The premise of Slumdog Millionaire, unlikely as it is that an urchin could get exactly the right questions on the "Millionaire" show, is at least conceivably possible. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 09:35:45
Yep, I'd say 1,500 people surviving in the Polish/Byelorussian woods is less likely, for example.
I'd say it definitely is a comedy, just not a comedy all the way through or one about the Holocaust. It's the comedic first half that builds up investment in the characters.
I wonder if we will ever reach a fully mature stage about it? For example, how often are camp prisoners depicted as baddies? Out of six million, some would also definitely have been no good, selfish, double-crossing villains, just like out of any other six million. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 09:00:18
I remember my Mother-in-Law refused to watch it, since she said she couldn't watch any film that is a comedy about the Holocaust (she was a survivor, but thankfully never in any of the camps - got out of Vienna about a year after Kristalnacht). As far as it being a comedy, it really wasn't, and I found it both moving and believable, no matter how unlikely it was that anything like that could ever have happened in the camps.
(Stranger things have been proven to have happened.)
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/12/2009 : 22:10:07
It's not like it portrays details of the camp etc. at all realistically, but it doesn't pretend to. It's just about possible human responses, even if that is taken to extremes. And out of six million people, there of course would have been some extremely different individuals. When it came on television a couple of years ago and I watched it, I was blown away. |
| GHcool |
Posted - 04/12/2009 : 20:55:46
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
No, Life Is Beautiful is wonderful for any viewer. Although it's not exactly realistic on a close-up basis, it came as a revelation because something obvious had never occurred to me before -- that parents would have protected their children from whatever realities of the camps they could. That's still a comfort to me.
Its been a while since I saw Life is Beautiful. I remember loving it when I was about 15. I'm afraid to watch it now that I have a bit more knowledge of the history of the Holocaust. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/12/2009 : 19:19:38
No, Life Is Beautiful is wonderful for any viewer. Although it's not exactly realistic on a close-up basis, it came as a revelation because something obvious had never occurred to me before -- that parents would have protected their children from whatever realities of the camps they could. That's still a comfort to me. |
|
|
