How to steal a million

This is a brilliant, witty, feel-good movie that’s deftly directed. I try to watch this movie once each year to laugh and sigh and smile. Like reading an old, familiar, happy book, this movie brings joy, peace and comfort. Audrey Hepburn is at her charming, gamine best. Peter O’Toole is his suave, dashing, debonair self. And the whole movie is just a pure delight to watch.

Director: William Wyler
Genre: Comedy (Romantic)
Rating:

Slumdog Millionaire

I watched Slumdog Millionaire in mid-November and I’ve had the fortitude to not write about it till mid-Feb.

And now I cave, a few hours before the Oscars. In the interests of full disclosure, here’s what I thought about it -

I loved it. And I still love it. The movie captured me. It made me laugh, it made me cry. It made me care about the characters.

I saw it before the hype cycle started. And I reacted before the criticism cycle started. But since the film got to India, I’ve wondered at the negative reaction. All the criticism about poverty porn. Sure it shows the girtty parts of Bombay. So? Apparently citizens of Bombay feel it doesn’t show the beauty of the city, all the other parts that Bombay has.

If the worry is that the movie will give the wrong impression to people who don’t know India, get over it. First, the movie did show high-rise buildings, well-equipped call centers and posh mansions. Second, no one really thinks that Bombay is exactly what is shown in the movie. And third, for the small group of numbnuts to get all their information from a narrative film, do you really care what such idiots think of your country?

Now then, is it a filmmaker’s duty to show every part of every city? To show every strata of every country a film is made in?

What if a filmmaker came in and made a movie about the crème de la crème of Bombay – South Bombay society. What would the reaction be? Hmm… let’s see… It would be that the filmmaker is showing one small section of Bombay. That Bombay is not filled with people who spend more on their handbags than most people spend on rent. That houses are not usually adorned by Gaitonde’s and Raza’s. That the middle class uses CST to commute and not just BMWs and Maybachs. That Dharavi exists in the heart of the city. The critics would talk about how all this India Shining stuff is crap and we have tons of poor people who suffer on a daily basis.

Yep, that’s right – that’s what they’d say. So then, what if a filmmaker came and made a story based in Dharavi…

You see the point? You can’t win either way.

Why on earth should any filmmaker be burdened with representing a city or a country? He’s not making a documentary. There’s a story to be told. It involves a sliver of a view of a city. From the point of view of one ficititious life. The filmmaker’s job is to tell that story to the best of his/her ability. And that’s exactly what Danny Boyle did. And I for one, loved the result.

I’m rooting for it to sweep at the Oscars, but in particular for the Best Song and Best Original Score categories, for my fellow Madrasi, A R Rahman’s brilliant music and my favorite, Jai Ho!!

On creativity and “genius”

If you’re in any creative field, watch this video by writer of Eat, Pray, Love, Elizabeth Gilbert. It doesn’t matter if you are a beginner who’s struggling along or established and successful in your field – you will get a lot from this clip. Twenty minutes, completely absorbing and has little nuggets that may help you be creative.

Doubt

The acting was exceptional. Across the board, every actor excelled. These are the roles that Meryl Streep was born to do. And Philip Seymour Hoffman – wow. He was so cleanly-creepy that I cringed every time his long nails were displayed.

And there were a few moments where I felt like I was a lucky fly on the wall, listening in on conversations, watching the drama in the Catholic school unfold. But overall, the movie fell below expectations, mostly due to decisions made by the director.

In a movie where the acting is exceptional and emotions run high, I feel it is best to let the camera be as unobtrusive as possible, but director John Patrick Shanley in his first real directorial effort, does the opposite. There are scenes where the camera suddenly drops down and frames the character from below, immediately snapping the viewers attention away from the conversation and onto where the camera is instead. Ugh. The one-on-one scenes between Meryl Streep and Amy Adams and between Hoffman and Adams are scenes where there is a lot being said between the lines and the actors carry the scenes – instead of cocooning the audience and making them feel unobtrusive, they are suddenly thrust into the conversation – breaking the spell the actors have cast. Unfortunate.

The strange and forced camera angles to emphasize mood and tone is repeated at various points in the movie – in a shot where Streep walks in out of a storm and through a corridor in the school, Shanley chooses an off kilter camera angle to emphasize the emotional state of the characters. Why, why, why?? Please don’t beat us over the head with it.

I had similar issues with the screenplay too (written by Shanley) – when there is a tense scene, the setting is a storm. High winds are constantly blowing branches to the ground. It’s all a bit much. A lighter touch would have given the solid story and intense acting the space they needed to make the movie truly top-notch.

Here’s my initial reaction to the movie on twitter:

Just saw Doubt. Great acting. Don’t love some of the directing, cinematography choices. *Movies 7.5*.

Six weeks later, the only change I would make is downgrade the 7.5 rating to a 6.5.