Slum Dog Millionaire... through a viewer's lens

Feels a bit strange to come out after being "snowed under" - hibernating - for a good length of time - the ciliary muscles of the brain probably may take a bit longer to adjust to the luminescence of blogging..
************************************

Had been to see 'Slumdog Millionaire' a day ago. Basking in the lime light of glory, bathed in the choicest of superlatives by reviewers, the film rides on a high - both in critical acclaim and at the box office, probably the world over. But to be honest, I am a bit lost now, strained for words that will best describe my feel..

"...This is a breathless, exciting story, heartbreaking and exhilarating at the same time, about a Mumbai orphan who rises from rags to riches on the strength of his lively intelligence. The film's universal appeal will present the real India to millions of moviegoers for the first time....'

Writes an acclaimed critic...

"..It is a Dickensian tale set in a merciless, mesmerizing city with no time for minor detailing quibbles, with characters speaking not as they naturally would but as the madcap narrative demands, and reality itself breathlessly bending over backwards to accommodate the frenzied energy of Anthony Dod Mantle's disarmingly honest camera...".

Writes another, and let me be honest - I'm lost. Having been through this movie, I asked myself this question several times - where would this movie calibrate itself, when pitched against an array of brilliantly cast movies - a few of those not being able to catapult itself into the world of fame notwithstanding. I threw that question upon myself as I do firmly believe that any creative work will find its own slot, its own niche. It will position itself where it rightly belongs - like water finding its level.

Incontinence of the critical acclaims, syndicated reviews and journalistic narratives notwithstanding, IMO 'Slumdog millionaire' is certainly not a great movie - an above-average movie at best. It is a 'Micheal Bevan' in the world of the celluloid - may have grossed millions of greenback at the box office, but lacks in the poise, the grace, and the class that a piece of art at higher levels of greatness, superlative levels of creativity (which this movie is attempted to be placed at) ought to have. Yes - the production quality is excellent, the framing by Anthony Dod Mantle is superb, the sound recording is good, the editing pattern is "differently" different etc., but do such things by themselves make a movie - or 120 minutes of celluloid frames that, for its very existence, essentially rely on human eyes' persistence of vision - a stand-out creation? Those are integral components of a good cinema, yes admitted - but they do not by themselves make up the 'whole'? There is that uncanny knack, that a movie-maker ought to get a handle on, of getting the right blend of creative contributions from several people and of being able to mix them up in the crucible of one's own creative fire, that results in a good movie - in a way no different from 2 parts of hydrogen combining with one part of oxygen to form one measure of water. The molecular organics of a good movie remains similar - neither abundance nor scarcity of its constituent elements will get it right.

I once again introspect - am I being unfair to the creators of this movie if I write such? Probably yes, if I just end the post here, without writing a few lines about my 'why's..Why do I think SDM is perhaps over-rated, and not substantially worthy of the acclaims that are being showered on it.

The most singular, perhaps the stand-out, reason, IMO, where SDM did not get it right is the brittle, fragile story-line of its. There could be a sparkles in patches, but it falls way short of the brilliance of a story line that gives the movie the strongest back bone. Vikas Swarup, a career diplomat by profession, is the original author (see here). I haven't read this novel of his, so am unable to comment on it, but his web-site indicates that changes have been made on, or adaptations have been done to , his story, and probably expectedly so. In fact, that he himself admits that it is hard for any author to be completely happy with adaptations done to his story speaks for itself. A few patches - to list some:

• The movie opens with scenes in which various kinds of torture are being perpetrated on Jamal Malik. In which country is this taking place? India - of all places? Come on - gimme a break.. can anyone imagine a contestant of a popular TV show, on the verge of creating history, being whisked away by the police on suspicion that he was cheating? That too in a place like Mumbai almost enveloped by the prowling vulturous eyes of print-media, visual-media, citizen journalists, what not - leave alone members of the public?
  
• The producer of the show chooses to remain a mute helpless witness to the entire sequence, without being able to do anything, without an iota of thought as to what happens to the shoot the next day??? What kind of TV producer is him??
  
• Jamal Malik, an 18 year old, being tortured to the third degree for the whole night and then being released the next day - that is to say in captivity for almost 24 hours, but he remains fresh as a cucumber for the shoot .. after such torture including electrocution in high voltage? Can the script writer go to such ridiculous levels?
• Can you ever imagine for a TV show like this, that the host PremKumar, the celluloid hero that he is shown to be, tries to make fun of Jamal - saying he is chaiwala, etc. etc.?
  
• If it is "his show" as he is shown murmuring to himself, for what reason on earth is he trying to do all this?
• Does the scrip writer try to imply that PremKumar is slowly falling jealous on Jamal - else what else explains his animosity - subdued and innate though, towards Jamal? Can anyone pick out a reason why the host of a popular show, besides being a popular actor himself, shows such malice towards a young boy, who happens to be born in the slums and has the job as a call-centre assistant?
  
• Even assuming that PremKumar believes Jamal is cheating, does he have at least a shred of an evidence to give a secret tip-off to the police? Will, or can the police, take the boy into custody without any provable, cognizant crime having been perpetrated? Which police will extend such kind of custodial toture, with none whosoever seeming to have filed any complaint?
  
• A host of factual errors line up in the script, which is indeed unpardonable, the notable among them being the song "Darshan Do Ghanshyam Naath" being shown attributed to 16th century poet "Kavi Surdas", whereas it was written by Shri Gopal Singh Nepali for the movie Narsi Bhagat (1957).
  
• This link will in fact present a number of goof ups that the script has made - both major and minor.

We can possibly go on and on, but to me the point is already made. A script with so many of holes is simply pedestrian, but a mountain is being made out of this mole - that is where I think the problem lies. One does not need to show nauseating scenes to imbibe and inject such a feel into viewer's minds. If a movie has to evoke a feel of "reality" is it a must that the so-called "realistic" scenes need to be interjected into the movie like that scene in which a constipated young Jamal goes through a long defaecation process and thereafter taking a full dive into the pot of human faeces with his nosedrills closed with one hand, to have a glance of "Amitabachan" ? What was that scened supposed to be conveying - I don't have a clue really!!!

There are films that have attempted at selling poverty and slum life to the overseas audiences for obvious gains. I hate to believe that this is one such movie, but be that as it may, my stance is vehemently opposed to doing so with pretensions - under the guise of pretended greatness. Film making is a sublime art that needs deft touches, sensitive eyes, superlative artistry, and above all unqualified honesty and intelligence. It is indeed an art to translate feelings of agony, pathos or happiness into celluloid frames by reflecting such emotions as undercurrents or shades permeating through the frames, and make the viewers feel such emotions. Doing that by over-playing emotions is sheer mediocrity.

Mediocrity is not a crime, but pretension is beyond pardon - to me..

Dark Knight - through a viewer's lens!!

It may not entirely be an over-statement, if one were to say that of late, particularly during the last decade or so, watching a movie, or rather sitting through the reels of celluloid that unwind before us, has become more of an agony than excitement, pleasure, or even a positive jolt, which it used to be previously. On many an occasion, the scenario gets to such decadent a level that one would be forced to leave his or her brain back home and go through this anguish with a kind of clinical blankness. In a majority of cases, by the time he or she gets up from the seat for the drive back home, most of the scenes would have gone amiss from his or her mind anyway..

It was after a fair bit of time gap (possibly more than 5-6 months since the last movie at a movie hall) that I went to see a movie - the much acclaimed Dark Knight - at a multiplex ten or so days ago. The trigger was a text message that my son sent me after he'd been to see that movie. The message read something like this. "Dad, forgot to tell you yesterday - Dark Knight is running in the movie halls in Doha; why don't you and mom go see it - surely you will like it". In his Orkut page, I also saw some comments of his about Chris Nolan's (director of the movie) genius and a quote from the Joker - the villain, or rather the actor in a negative role, in the movie.

These things might have raised my expectancy level several notches up from the normal 'blankness', when I decided to be a part of the Dark Knight audience. Alas, I should say that expectations belied on me, one more time (and to my son I should say that I record my disagreement with his opinion on the movie).

While sitting through the reels, my memories went back to my childhood days - about the first few movies that I saw when I was, say, 5 or 6 years old. The movie hall nearest to my house was Kodungore Nirmala 'talkies'. It was a 'C' class theatre, or what we used to call 'ola (ഓല)theatre', or a movie hall which has thatched roof and bamboo-matted walls. During matinee shows, the sun-god used to make his presence felt inside the hall - several lighted circles used to come in from outside and adore the silvery screen, I remember. There were a few RCC theatres in the immediate vicintiy such as Ponkunnam Srikrishna and Kanjirapply Baby, and of course in Kottayam there used to be Raj Mahal and Star. Anand came later, followed by Abhilash & Asha (twin theatres) and Anupama. Trips to those theatres were far and few in between, though. Nirmala used to be the main destination, most of the times..

Coming back to 'Dark Knight', yes, on my exit from the multiplex screen, my mind quietly made a compare of what I'd just seen with what I saw in my childhood days. I still remember a film called 'Nadodi', a Prem Nazir starrer. The villain (could have been Jose Prakash - can't remember ) is all powerful, negatively omni-potent, omni-present, capable of wreaking havoc wherever whenever at the beck of a finger, and remains one-up on the 'detective' until the very last minute. Thieves plant bombs at will, including inside the Police Station with not even God being aware. The 'sada' policeman as usual is one who slips in the mud at every two minutes, and the police team (at those time wearing shorts, and not trousers) joins in after the detective catches the culprits through a thrilling archery session or 'vaal-plate', as it used to be called by the public. And finally the detective acknowledges the support given by the lady detective (who in most cases used to be Sheelamma), and the side-kick (who used to be Adoor Bhasichettan). In those days, there used to be 'Jana Gana Mana' too, at the end, and thereafter it was "Shubham" :-)

My good god - how many times have we seen this formula being enacted and re-enacted ad nauseum, the same wine with only the bottles changed? Isn't high time that the tinsel world put some sort of an end to this? Aren't those who pay from their pockets fed up of these yet? Or just because the production standards are superb, where unbelievable things are made to happen in a credible, technologically sophisticated manner, is it that the movie will still be accepted by the public the world over? Does increasing sophistication in the use of technology including the use of IMAX cameras (the bank robbery shots in DK were shot by IMAX cameras) make a film 'more equal'? I'm told Dark Knight has broken one too many a box-office record, and I'm amazed, to say the least.

What does this film offer you? What do you take home with, after sitting through the reels for 152 minutes - other than possibly having witnessed a different kind of villainy being exhibited by Heath Ledger ? Incidentally he had put up a commendable performance - the only one worthy of a special mention in this movie - to my mind. Have you seen anything which you haven't seen before - I wonder? In James Bond movies, at least the story line changes, the setting changes, the scenario changes - but what about this? Supposedly, the car and later the mobike used by Bruce Waynes are technological marvel, it seems - so what? Do such things make a god movie? Have you ever seen a villain who can rob a bank but in the process kill a score of his accomplices, yet manage to have thousands of his gang-members still ready to lend life for him, one who can plant hundreds of bombs in a city where there are expected to be thousands of surveillance cameras fixed, does not get tired even after getting "questioned" by several top-notch investigation officers who use third degree torture methods, and after all these several rounds of third degree torture, even "seduce" a trained senior police officer into questioning him with absolutely no protection around, so much so that the police officer then gets into the hands of the villain and....finally the villain escapes from the high security prison, and then plants hundreds of bombs in a hospital....

Sir, I thought the world of the celluloid was a world of "make-believe"..but wasn't this a bit too far?

Time out, time out sir,... and that takes us to cardinal issue - what should movie do to the viewer as a minimum. To my mind, a movie should in some way relate to a viewer, as a base line. Just as a reader of a book relates to the text that he reads (lest he or she will stop reading it). Just as we look at a smiling baby. Just as we look at a blooming flower, or a speck of sunlight that comes out of a dew drop....The moment an artistic creation becomes devoid of such a connect, then it no longer belongs there - it ceases to be itself. Such a disconnect divorces the movie from the viewer, and what is called a "loss-of-specie" happens, which is what happens in many cases. However, here we're only talking about the basic requirement. The level of greatness, the level of quality, the level of largeness of a creation increases with the intensity of such a relationship. It can reach out to your inner self, it can touch your heart, it can connect to your intellect, it can overwhelm you, it can overtake you, it can identify with you, it can make you think, laugh or cry... else it can make you wish you were the creator of that work...

I think this also answers the question of when does a viewer start relating to a movie? There should be something in it that reaches out to you, to the inner chords of your heart. Emotionally, intellectually, aesthetically, artistically, there should be a vibration within you...When the bow of a violin touches its strings, music comes out. When air is blown through the empty space of a flute, melody flows out. The work of art should, in a similar manner, resonate within you... and that happens, as the laws of physics stipulate, when the other body's frequency of vibration reaches your natural frequency. When that happens, you identify with that work, and it remains with you, sometimes for ever. To name a few, just a few - think of the he famous staircase scene in the greatest of movies 'Batteleship Potemkin', the scenes from 'Bicycle thieves', scenes from 'Padher Panchaali', the scenes from 'Swayamavaram', scenes from 'Elippathayam', scenes from 'Esthappan', scenes from 'Kireedom'..they will not leave your mind, as long as you are able to think, remember...

It is not that this movie was ever expected in that level of class at all. No, far from it. But sir, while coming back from the temple festival, shouldn't there be at least a broken piece of bangle that I should be able to take back...?

*********************************

The credit titles read as under:

Directed by: Christopher Nolan; screenplay by Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan; photographed by Wally Pfister; production design by Nathan Crowley; edited by Lee Smith; music by James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer; produced by Charles Roven, Emma Thomas and Christopher Nolan. A Warner Bros. Pictures release.

Actors: Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman); Heath Ledger* (The Joker); Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent); Maggie Gyllenhaal (Rachel Dawes); Gary Oldman (Lt. Jim Gordon); Michael Caine (Alfred); Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox).

*Note: While checking some reviews, I learned, with deep sorrow, of this 28-year-old Australian actor's death earlier this year (January 2008) due to an accidental overdose of prescription medicines for insomnia and anxiety.

PS: You can see a couple of other reviews which I stumbled upon here or here,