I loathed Slumdog


By Stephen Pollard
January 22, 2009
Share

I think I might be the only human being on the planet who didn't like Slumdog Millionaire.

It's not that I didn't like it; I hated it. I despised it. I was revolted by it.

Let's leave aside the red herring of the marketing campaign which billed it as a feel-good film, and even - heaven forbid - a comedy. It's not the film makers' fault, and I took the film on its own terms.

What annoyed and repelled me was the almost pornographic wallowing in violence and moral squalor on  which the film is built. The camera doesn't just show the violence; it embraces it as if it is a necessary precondition for the main character's love story. And the flashback-based plot is so cheaply manipulative as to be worthy of Leni Reisenthal. We are voyeurs, drawn in by the director, Danny Boyle, to watch the digsusting violence in the full knowledge that everything is going to turn out wonderfully for the main character and his love interest, as if the redemptive power of love doesn't just redeem the violence and squalor, it somehow makes it necessary.

A revolting film which cheapens its subject matter and its audience. 

COMMENTS

joemillis

22 January, 2009 - 11:16

Rate this:

0 points

But apart from that, what did you really think about the film? Stop sitting on the fence.

jakemanlee

23 January, 2009 - 10:02

Rate this:

0 points

"I think I might be the only human being on the planet who didn't like Slumdog Millionaire."

No, you're not, you may be relieved to hear.

Foxglove

23 January, 2009 - 19:26

Rate this:

0 points

I'm pleased that someone agrees with me (apart from my mother) - if you're interested, here were my personal slumdog grievances.

- the two main characters were v v lucky (in a society such as India) to have progressively lightening skin as they got older. the 'evil brother' remains dark.
- the relentless MIA soundtrack. ('you know that she's Sri Lankan and not Indian, don't you Danny?'
'erm, what? yeh, yeh, but you know, it all sounds a bit ethnic and feisty.')
- the young lady is beautiful and completely ok despite a young life characterised by violence, rape and other abuses. more of a hint of 'let's see your rape scars then, love' about it.
- the main character only witnesses appalling things; he himself is not the victim. that the audience are thought not to be able to handle that, but they won't mind watching a child have his eyes burnt out, is the yukkiest form of manipulation.
- the general impression that 'slum knowledge' is so much more rich and unusual than, you know, having a house, or not having your mother murdered in front of you by marauding hindus (wtf?!) so 'they're probably ok, just leave them yeh? everyone knows that there's no neurosis in developing countries cos of...stuff and shit...yeh?'
- the nasty orphanage director looked like an Indian Jermaine Clement.

there's more - bad writing, bizarre and clunky plot contrivances and the layer of smug that floated above my fellow cinema-goers which suggested that they felt that they were doing Some Charity just by sitting through it. if you call charity Danny Boyle's spilling wallet and fat self-regarding head.

I won't go into those though.

Ricahrd

23 January, 2009 - 20:44

Rate this:

0 points

Bugger - apologies, I'm always mistyping my name...

Stephen, I would suggest reading Omer Bartov's Murder In Our Midst. We have not come to terms with, in fact we have avoided dealing with the implications of mass killing. We are drawn, as your correctly put it, like voyeurs to watch the violence. We pretend to be disgusted but secretly enjoy it. It is hypocritical but then that is modern Western society.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

STEPHEN POLLARD ON TWITTER

    FOLLOW ME

    LATEST COMMENTS