A Racist Exploitation Film up for Best Picture?

If you haven’t seen Slumdog Millionaire yet, I urge you to see it, either now at your local art house movie theater or eventually on DVD. It is a great movie by one of my favorite directors, Danny Boyle (28 Days Later, Sunshine, Millions). It is one of my favorite movies of 2008 and is the favorite for winning the Academy Award for Best Picture.

That being said, since Slumdog has been nominated for Best Picture and it has received almost universal acclaim from critics nationwide, a few dissenting voices have arisen, calling the movie exploitative of India’s poor and blaming it for the perpetuation of negative Indian stereotypes in the west.

Jamal, the main character, rises from the poverty-stricken slums of Mumbai and there are depictions of police torture, child mutilation and exploitation, and Indian gangsters. Some Indian critics have accused Boyle of taking these negative images of India and using them to his advantage to play on the heart strings of a western audience, to excite their emotions improperly.

Although it is true that some of the power of the movie derives from the depiction of Jamal and his brother’s surroundings as they face a hard life of child labor, crime, and fear of Hindu violence against Muslims, it is also true that the movie focuses on Jamal’s struggle to overcome these circumstances.


Personally, I don’t see a lot of Bollywood movies. In fact, I have never seen a Bollywood movie—unless you count Bend it Like Beckham, which I don’t. As a result, I don’t know what kind of image Indian filmmakers are trying to portray to western audiences. As well, I’ve never been to India, so I can’t testify as to the truth of Boyle’s depiction of India. But I do know that Boyle has said that this movie is a “love letter to India.” And in interviews, I’ve seen he has been nothing but respectful of Indian culture. (Let me note that Boyle is British.) In fact, because India does not have the strict child labor laws that are enforced in the UK and US, Boyle decided to use western-style child labor laws while shooting the child actors in the movie, in order to avoid even the suggestion of impropriety.

When was the last time you saw an American movie that depicted a person rising above their station? A victim of child abuse or poverty who grows up to make something of him or herself? This is a very common theme in western cinema, especially American cinema (In fact it is a key American mythological archetype). Maybe part of the problem lies in the idea that Indian critics do not appreciate the archetype that resonates so well with western audiences. To back this up, I have heard that at screenings in India the movie has been perceived as boring and confusing by the general population.

I don’t know. I would like to say that the film transcends time and place because it is really about the triumph of the human spirit and the will to rise about your circumstances. It is a celebration of life (both the good and the bad) that just happens to be set in India, but could have been set anywhere. But am I being culturally insensitive when I say I don’t think the movie was exploitative of Indian society?

Come Oscar night, sitting among the bowls of dip and chips on my couch, I’ll be rooting for Slumdog Millionaire to win Best Picture, for Danny Boyle to win Best Director, and for Simon Beafoy to win Best Adapted Screenplay, because—in the end—I think Boyle’s film is a superb example of what movies should be: uplifting, unflinching, visually beautiful, well written and well acted. But a small part of me will also be wondering if I’m a perpetuating cultural ignorance. I hope this is not the case.

Trailer posted below.


Have you seen Slumdog Millionaire? What did you think?

Screenplays Galore!

We've already established that I'm a geek, right? Well here's some more geekiness to add to the case against me. I happened to hear about this website that archives movie scripts: simplyscripts.com.

Mind you, these are not synopses or plot outlines or novelizations, but the actual shooting scripts of big movies free for download in pdf. For example, the site has the complete scripts for all the Golden Globe nominated movies, and has an archive of past Oscar winners for best screenplay.

Usually these types of scripts are not available to the general public; it's not as if you can walk into your local Barnes & Noble and walk into the screenplay section. But now they are all available for free download.

Granted, I really wanted to see the script for The Fountain, one of favorite films of all time, but it was not available. So not all film scripts are in the archive, but a good portion of them are. If you get a chance, click the link above and visit the site and have fun comparing the script in your hand to the movie you see on screen (but, of course, only real film geeks do that sort of thing).

Video of the Week: The Business of Being Born

I thought I would post a movie trailer this week for a documentary that my wife and I saw recently. It's called The Business of Being Born. The documentary examines the business of birthing babies in the united states and questions our current system of OB/GYNs and hospital deliveries. It's eye opening to see that the US has the 2nd highest infant mortality rate in the developed world, it has the highest rate of C-sections, and lowest number of natural child births in the world—by a wide margin. The documentary is very obviously on the side of midwives and home births, but it presents its message in a very loving and informative way. It doesn't finger wag, or call for the eradication of OB/GYNs. And although, you may roll your eyes and think that this kind of thing is only for hippies, this movie shows you that it's not and backs up its argument with great research and interviews. It is very informative and well made, and I highly suggest watching it. (It is currently available on Netflix.) Check it out below.

Oldie but Goodie: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)

Director:
Philip Kaufman
Starring:
Donald Sutherland
Jeff Goldblum
Veronica Cartwright
Leonard Nimoy
Brooke Adams

I just saw this film for the first time a few weeks ago and I was really surprised at how well it holds up today, and how relevant it is in today’s society. This is the first Invasion movie I have seen out of the three that have been made, including the original 1556 and the 2007 remake with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig. Whereas the first Invasion takes place in a small town, the 1978 version takes place in San Francisco and follows Matthew Bennell (Donald Sutherland), a department of public health worker, and his coworker Elizabeth Driscoll (Brooke Adams), as unexplainably strange things begin to happen around them, namely, that ordinary people are being replaced by alien clones.

What I found most terrifying about this movie was the characters’ inability to explain anything about the odd occurrences around them. Not only are their friends and family turning into emotionless zombies, but they are at a complete loss as to how they can communicate what is going on. Building terror in the movie, in large part, stems from the fact that those who know what is going on cannot explain it to anyone, and no one believes them. And as a viewer, you can see that something is wrong, so you feel their frustration as they try and explain to others what is going on and no one believes them. In particular, a good portion of the movie is devoted to convincing Dr. Kibner (Nimoy), a friend of Bennell’s, that something is going on that cannot be explained by psychology, but to no avail. Eventually, the small group of survivors find themselves fighting for their lives and trying to stay awake so that they are not turned into invaders themselves.

Taking place during the cold war, there are obvious themes of a silent take over and assimilation into an alien collective with no individuality. However, at the same time, there also seems to be a general distrust for authority figures, academics, and scientists. In this movie, those who are supposed to be the guardians of rationality and scientific advancement are the very same people who are trying to convince you that nothing is wrong and that there must be something wrong with you if you believe differently. It’s very scary to think that those who are supposed to make you better, both physically and mentally, are the very ones trying to turn you into a zombie “for your own good.”

Invasion of the Body Snatchers is still relevant today for some of the same reasons in struck a chord in 1978. In a post-9/11 world, we are told to fear the terrorist among us, the sleeper cells that are just waiting for the order to strike. They don’t look different than you or I, but could strike at any moment. At the same time, especially under the Bush administration, there is a fear that the government is taking over our lives, intruding into our space, eves dropping on our phone calls, all in the name of preventing an attack—in other words, “for our own good.”

But perhaps more important than any of the political of social reasons that make this movie relevant, is the fact that Invasion of the Body Snatchers is just a well made movie. It has a solid script and has some great performances from Sutherland, Cartwright, Goldblum and Nimoy—who deftly leaves Spock behind in a great nuanced performance. Overall, Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a great thriller that keeps you guessing and delivers a smart story with good action and great suspense.

Oldie but Goodie: Alien

Alien is turning 30. That's right, Alien was originally released in 1979. It was directed by Ridley Scott who went on to direct Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, and is currently making a new Robin Hood movie titled Nottingham. But Alien was the movie that first got him noticed as a director.

The story follows the crew of the interstellar mining ship Nostromo as they are awakened from their cryogenic sleep early by the ship's computer. The computer, named Mother, has detected a signal from a nearby uninhabited planet. The crew is ordered to investigate and finds the remnants of a crashed alien spacecraft in which they find alien eggs. Shortly thereafter the crew is forced to bring an alien on board after which they find themselves the unwitting prey of a dangerous beast.

Of course, the movie stars Tom Skerrit, Sigourney Weaver (who made a name for herself as Ripley), Ian Holm, John Hurt, Yaphet Kotto, Henry Dean Stanton, and Veronica Cartwright.

As a thriller, this movie is pretty good. It has some really good plotting and some jumpy moments. Scott does a good job of using the cramped, dark mood of the ship to really create a sense of creepiness. And, like Hitchcock, Scott holds back on showing you too much in order to give the viewer a sense of uneasiness, which build on the tension that is already present. Also, the movie is not content with simply deteriorating into a predator and prey movie, but instead throws in some curve balls related to the "real" mission of the spacecraft and the duplicitous nature of one of the crew members. It's smart in the sense that it keeps you guessing and thinking about what's going on, making the viewer take some jumps of logic rather than spelling everything out.

My only real criticism of Alien is that it seems to borrow too much from Star Wars, released only two years earlier. Some of the sets seems to follow the style of Star Wars (and 2001: A Space Odyssey). And the full classical score (something very distinctive to the Star Wars movies) seems, at times, to conflict with the tone of the film. That is to say, soaring classical music complemented the soaring themes and storyline in Star Wars. In Alien, a similar musical style seemed to distract from the action because it seemed out of place in a smaller, simpler story line and physical space.

Overall, I would say that Alien is a great sci-fi horror movie. And if you're in the mood for a smart, creepy movie, it might be time to revisit it.

Oldie but Goodie

I've decided that it would be silly of me to post movie reviews on my blog. This is because I don't normally see brand new movies when they come out, and I certainly don't get invited to advanced screenings like "real" critics. For these two reasons, I don't think writing movie reviews here would be helpful to anyone reading. For example, I saw Eagle Eye last week at the dollar theater, but it's been out for at least a month now. If I reviewed it now, I'm not sure it would really help anyone decide what to go see this weekend.

On the other hand, I just like watching and writing about movies, so I've decided to create a new feature for one guy's movie blog: Oldie but Goodie. In these postings, I'll just review movies that are not at the movie theater currently, movies that you may have heard of but have not seen, or movies that you may have seen but may have forgotten about. In Oldie but Goodie postings, I just want to revisit these movies, discuss them, and maybe look at them with a fresh perspective.

I find that, often, new movies are judged according to what other movies were released that weekend, that month, or that summer, in conjunction with the immediate social or political climate, to say nothing of general movie trends or movies that seem to be "in style" at the moment. For example, Citizen Kane opened to mixed reviews and was booed at the Academy Awards. But now it is cherished as one the greatest movies of all time.

Therefore, I think there is value in reexamining movies outside of their original context, to judge how they stand up now, or to see if they take on new meanings as they age.

I am constantly rediscovering older movies thanks to Netflix, but I would certainly welcome suggestions from anyone out there who would like to know more about an older movie that they've never seen but always wanted to, or a movie they have seen but would like to see a different perspective on.

Pixar's UP: Up in the air.

You might have recently heard about Pixar's next movie, to be released this summer: UP. Not too many of the details of the story are known just yet, but it revolves around a grumpy old man who ties a bunch of balloons to his house so that he can get away from everyone and be left alone. But his plan hits a snag when he finds that a optimistic boy scout from the neighborhood has stowed away.

As you can see from the picture above, Pixar again looks to be bringing us some beautiful animation. No doubt the visuals will be creative, interesting, fresh, and beautifully rendered, as they always are at Pixar. But recently, I got into a bit of a squabble with a fellow commenter on one of the movie blogs that I follow. I expressed concern that a story revolving around a grumpy old man might not hold my children's attention. For example, some of Pixar's stories tend to skew more adult in theme, like Cars and Ratatouille. Cars follows the existential crisis of a talking car sandwiched between two exciting race scenes at the beginning and the end of the movie. My kids loved the race scenes but were completely bored by everything in between—as was I. As well, Ratatouille deals with the same sort of internal crisis. And, to boot, the antagonist that my kids are supposed to be afraid of is a mean food critic. Needless to say, the threat of a negative restaurant review didn't exactly have my children sitting on the edge of their seats. Keeping this in mind, I expressed concern that UP may turn out to be the same sort of thing, a story that has no real villains or moral choices, but rather focusing on the internal struggle of a jaded, all be it beautifully animated, old man.

I was attacked mainly for implying that Pixar movies are kid's movies, and that the strength of a Pixar movie lies in my children's enjoyment of it. However, notwithstanding the fact that Pixar often makes good films that both children and parents can enjoy, I would argue that Pixar makes children's movies, or at least they aim for a family-friendly audience. For example, Pixar's best movies (Toy Story 1 and 2, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, and Wall-E) all deal with issues that are central to the lives of small children like loss of family, learning between good and evil, fitting in, loneliness, and believing in yourself. And the characters in these stories have clear objectives and a clear line between right and wrong, good and bad. (We're not talking Ghost in the Shell, here, people.) And whether we like it or not Pixar movies are marketed to children with toys, sponsorship of Happy Meals, and commercials during Saturday morning cartoons.

Adults can deal with moral ambiguity, and we can identify with existential crises because we realize how complicated the world is. But children need to see clear lines drawn in order to better learn those lessons and understand the world around them. They need to know that the challenges they face are large, but they need to know they can overcome them. They feel reassured and safe when the good guy wins and the bad guy is punished.

This is what I hope Pixar can achieve with UP, but I'm slightly skeptical. As I said before, not much about the story's actual plot has been released, but I hope that the old man in question can face a series of insurmountable tasks and overcome them instead of simply ruminating over his own existence. I have faith in Pixar, and they've come through before. I hope they can do it again this summer.

Watch the teaser trailer below.


What do you think? Does Pixar make kid's movies? Does UP look commercially viable?

Video of the Week: A Couple of Great 2008 Movie Retrospectives

Here are a couple of great videos that I came across this week that both do a good job or reflecting on the past year in movies. They are different, but both good in their own ways. Check them out below.




What did you think? Leave a comment.