Slumdog Millionaire - a Review

As mentioned in an earlier post, Wales and I saw Slumdog Millionaire yesterday. I clearly enjoyed it, because I was able to forget the fact that I crunched into a seat like a twisted sardine. Contorting my legs so they could fit. Cobble Hill cinema's leg room is similar to the leg room you find in the coach section of domestic flights - which is about two inches maybe less. This in a nutshell is why I don't go to the movie theater very often.
But it is also a good litnus test to how much I'm enjoying the film, that and how often I've checked my watch. I didn't check it at all. I forgot I was uncomfortable. And I stayed until after the credits rolled, I usually leave during them. We all - the entire audience - stayed until they rolled - because of the cool bollywood number.

Wales has become a bit obsessed with Slumdog. She sent me three emails regarding it last night, after we discussed it at the bar over magrittas. She's not into writing, her emails consist of two links and a two sentences regarding the character of Salim who she can't get out of her head and really became fascinated by, more so, than Jamal. I'll include the links below. The first one gives a complete synopsis on the film. By the way - the casting director of the movie - was promoted to co-director. She's an Indian woman by the name of Laveen Tandan. The movie was directed and produced by the British - which is sort of ironic, if you know anything about the history of India.

Slumdog Millionaire, a film directed by Danny Boyle - who is the same guy who directed the cult hit Trainspotting , is about an uneducated poor young man who goes on the Indian version of "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire" and astonishs everyone by winning and answering all of the questions.

I was surprised by the movie, even though I had read a smattering of reviews concerning it.
What surprised me was the narrative structure and the depth of the content. I'd gone in expecting a fairly run-of-the-mill poor boy does amazing thing story - the sort of tale that is told repeatedly on Hallmark or in American cinema. I was not expecting the layers of irony this one contained. The film begs to be analyzed on a sociological-political level, but I'm wary of that type of analysis. It can, if you are not careful, lead to emotionally charged and unconsciously self-righteous exchanges. Also if you are wrong about something, you can without knowing it - offend. So I will leave that analysis to those who are more familar with the sociological and political history of India as well as the UK, than I. I'm only peripherally familar - in that I know about the British Colonization of India and it's rather divisive effects on the culture, as well as, the religious and ethnic turmoil that exists in a country of extremes today. But, I've never been to India, even though I've known quite a few people native to the country, read books written by Indian writers, and watched a few Indian films. Most of my knowledge, unfortunately, comes from British and American films as well as books on the country, which have a definite slant. So my knowledge is cursory at best.

( potential spoilers for the film, I saw the film more or less blind, in that I knew very little about the plot or story, except that it was loved. )

I highly recommend this film. It makes you think. The only quibbles I've read regarding it are subjective complaints that seem to be isolated to that critic or reviewer. I have not read any objective ones.

The Sociologically and Politically Incorrect Meme

I have a rather interesting and at times aggravating relationship with my younger brother.
Every Xmas and birthday, I struggle over what to get my neice, my brother and his wife. It's not as simple as one might think. My neice is 4 years old. My brother and his wife both have Masters degrees in Art, and spent a good portion of their education analyzing film and media.Specifically from a sociological and political perspective. If you give them something that they consider offensive - they will tell you, often in a patronizing and condescending tone.

It is rather annoying. They've informed my parents and myself that Disney and anything done by Disney is off-limits. My mother asked about Dumbo - which we saw as children, and my brother launched into a fifteen-twenty minute rant about the racism and violence in the film. I considered getting the film Born Free - bought it even, then quickly cancelled, after I read a plot synopsis and summary. It is to say the least, politically incorrect. The annoying thing about all of this - is my brother likes things that are politically incorrect too. He just rationalizes that they are okay, while the things I like aren't. Also, he doesn't like how I and my mother analyze things - which is from a psychological and plot perspective. We hated Titantic for example - because from a plot perspective, psychological and literary perspective - it was predictable, cliche, and somewhat hollow. Not to mention obvious. He adored it - because from a design, production, style, and sociological/political perspective it was interesting.

My mother once made the mistake of taking my brother and his wife to on of her favorite musicals, something she loved and wanted to share with us - The Fantastiks . They walked out in the middle of it, and ranted for twenty minutes about the political incorrectness of the musical - how it had a rape, and was offensive and misogynistic. My poor mother was in tears. And I was furious at them, for being self-righteous, patronizing jerks.

Granted The Fantastiks does have some rather weird bits, it's a weird musical, very ironic, and if you view it from a psychological perspective, fascinating. It's about the human condition, the dark side of our nature, our hopes and dreams and nightmares. It's also at times, an anti-romance. I understood why my mother liked it, and why my brother and his wife hated it.

What annoyed me is why my brother could not understand what my parents saw in it. Instead of judging them and it, he refused to see it from another perspective. Theirs. He refused to put himself in their point of view, instead he judged them, he made assumptions. Not realizing that they may not be looking at the play from the same perspective. Or see the things he saw in it. I can see where he's coming from. But I disagree with the attitude that the play should only be judged or critiqued on that criteria. I don't believe the world or art is that starkly black and white. It's grey. And its not that simply resolved. Also I think we project our own issues and our own experience onto things, often without realizing it. Then are shocked when someone else sees it completely differently. Like I've said before, my brother and I are opposites. Yet we share the same DNA, the same upbringing, and the similar childhood educations.

In a way - I prefer the politically incorrect - because it is more honest. What we say is not the same as what we do. And it is easier to combat prejudice if someone reveals it, then if they don't for fear of being slapped upside the head. Not to mention the fact that it helps to understand where that person is coming from, why they feel that way, and to know that is just a smidgen of who they are, it does not define them. Art is one way of understanding how people feel about things. If we only focus on the parts that offend us, we never can understand why the person created the art - we miss out. My brother appears to want to remove it or condemn the offending object - almost as if - that object did not exist - then neither would the things he associates with it. A sort of censorship if you will, which is ironic, because he is an artist and has fought censorship his whole life. I may be wrong about that, I am, I admit, at times as guilty if not more so of making assumptions regarding him. The assumptions are what stands in our way of understanding each other. They always do. And I admit, I have at times, in this very journal, deleted or thrown out an offending object because I did not wish to look on it. I wonder sometimes if that is a human response.

In case you think I'm being hypocritical here and perhaps I am, I admit, I have been guilty of blasting things from a political or sociological perspective. Every time I do it I come across as self-righteous and am embarrassed and hate myself a bit for it afterwards. It is not a trait I find attractive in myself and as a result, intolerable at times in others. And I fear I may be coming across that way now. That's the problem with sociological and political analysis - it tends to be emotionally charged.

Without further ado, here is the meme, assuming you've made it this far, aren't incredibly put off or just plain bored

*Come up with five, if you can, politically incorrect favorite characters or tv shows that have fandoms. They can be an episode, a character or an entire series. Each must be politically or sociologically incorrect - by that I mean, that someone in the fandom, usually more than one person, has criticized the character or show or episode - stating that it is offensive to minorities, women, etc. That it is misogynistic. Or it is anti-gay. Or racist. And implying, whether intentionally or not, usually not, that you, or anyone for that matter, by loving this thing are by association perpetuating that offense.

[ETA: To clarify - you can choose any five media centric things - such as entertainers, comedians, tv shows, films, books, comics, etc, more if you can think of them, or less if you can't that you love and have been perceived as "politically incorrect or offensive" by someone else. ]

Here's the Five I came up with off the top of my head, not as easy as it looks, I sort of drew a blank. This is the reason I don't do memes. I more often draw a blank. Therefore am changing the rules. Just list as many as you can come up with.:

( Five characters, episodes or tv shows with a fandom that have gotten blasted for political and or sociological incorrectness, which you enjoy and/or love. )

Angel Season 6: After the Fall Review

A couple of posts ago, my friend MASQ, asked us if she should read or would like Angel After the Fall. I responded, ask me after this arc is over. Partly because my friend is a huge Connor fan and I wasn't entirely sure what the writer was doing with the character.

Now that the arc is almost over, with one more issue to go, I'd say, sure read them but keep in mind that this is a graphic novel and while it is plotted by one of the original creators of the series, it is written by an outsider - who is a huge fan of the series but may not view it the same way you did.

Brian Lynch is an interesting writer - but limited. He's not into the layered moralistic and philosophical themes that Whedon and Minear were. And he gets a bit lost when he has one too many characters to juggle. Also comics by the very nature - aren't that detailed. We don't have a bunch of actors, we have one artist. And if you don't like the artist or find the art vague, too abstract, or disorienting, you won't be able to read the comic. I loved the art, but that does not mean you will. Frank Urru doesn't draw so much as paint his comics. His style is almost impressionistic. It's not as lined and detailed as the artists on the Buffy comics. And there's a lot going on - sometimes too much to be able to tell what it is.

Also, I do not envy Brian Lynch's task nor his soon to be successor Kelly Armstrong. Sure it sounds like a great gig, but the fandom is a diverse and vocal bunch, with polarizing views on how the characters should evolve and proceed. When you write these stories, you tread a delicate line - sure you will piss people off - that's inevitable. The trick is not to piss the majority off. Scott Allie on the Buffy comics appears to be doing that all by himself.
Luckily no one seems to pay the "editor" of the work much attention.

Speaking for myself, I've found the Angel comics an interesting and enjoyable read. Often more enjoyable than the Buffy comics. For a lot of reasons, not the least of which being the small fact that I'm still somewhat fascinated by the character of Spike. We all have characters that grab us, some more than others and some longer than others. Spike was mine. The other reasons I enjoyed it - is that it moved quickly, the dialogue was snarky and tongue-in-cheek - often making fun of itself, and Lynch delivered on emotional moments and brought back characters I liked and was interested in seeing again. I also enjoyed his take on the character of Spike - while not perfect, was satisfying enough to keep me entertained.
As for Angel - the title character - Lynch tread a delicate line - having finished all 16 issues, I do not believe that Lynch or Whedon meant us to see Angel as a straight up-hero, so much as a tragic anti-hero who desperately wants to be a hero, the chosen one, who is still after all this time - striving for approval and some eternal award. some redeemption or sign of redeemption - except when he gets it, whether it be a shanshue or adorations, he is miserable and upset about it.

Angel - the character - from my perspective is a metaphor for the human condition. We are selfish beings, ruthless survivors, but at the same time, beautiful souls who want to do good and obtain respect and approval. As well as leave our mark on society. Yet, are not quite sure we deserve any of the accolades or approval we achieve. Is there a higher being? Is there any meaning to this world? Does it matter? And if it does, if that is so, am I good? Am I forgiven? Can I be redeemed?? And what is my role or place in it?

The story is told in Angel's pov, and Angel sees the world after the fall of LA as being his fault.

( Cut for major plot spoilers - Angel After the Fall 1-16 and Spike After the Fall. )