Boards
what is wrong with the world when it froths at the gums for slumdog millionaire...but sunshine creeps relatively low on its radar
sunshine....up there with danny boyles best, no doubt......
what a film it is. really fantastic.
sunshine....up there with danny boyles best, no doubt......
what a film it is. really fantastic.
I've never seen Sunshine
but Slumdog Millionaire is pretty ace.
lies...all lies...
slumdog is pure guff
slumdog is pure guff??
I'm hard pressed to think of a more affecting representation of the contradictions of capitalism.
i'm hardpressed to think of a more cloying, saccharine
routine, toy town representation of a culture
i really don't think it was that brutal...it was all surface violence that didn't really go very deep so wasn't very affecting
people just like to whine about its brutality and ephasise and exaggerate these aspects so they feel like they get more of a pay off with the ending.
You're completely wrong.
As Vikram says, the last act of Sunshine totally ruins what could have been an amazingly thoughtful film.
i thought mark strong's scabby captain
was a perfectly fine character....especially the visual style that follows him...the constant blur that emphasises how he is not of this world anymore...how his obsession with the sun has obfuscated any of his rational thought processes and so all surrounding him gets englufed in an other worldly haze.......it got a teeny bit slashy..maybe....but it still came up smelling of roses...
what culture's that, then?
you go into detail about
'the contradictions of capitalism' whislt making a valid, lucid point and i'll delve into mine
I don't know about detailed or lucid
since it's been a while and I never sat down to formalise my thoughts, but what struck me most about the film was its depiction of the perversity, if not the depravity, of the different economic systems which define the narrative's events.
Obviously, there's the illustrations of the extreme poverty and appalling living conditions in the Juhu slums which stand in stark contrast not just with the wealth of the gameshow host (and a few other affluent figures that appear in the narrative) but also the relatively secure and comfortable working conditions of the call centre workers (how often would it occur to someone to think of a person working in a call centre as well off?).
But it's probably the way that this contrast is shown alongside the perverse and exploitative nature of a series of "alternative" economies that makes it most interesting and effective to my mind. E.g. the organised begging racket, which sees a thug rounding up street kids in order to train them in the art of begging and purposefully maiming them in order to increase their income potential; and the gangster economy of drugs, prostitution, violence and assassination. When the two brothers extract themselves from Maman's racket, they eke out a living through a series of scams and hustles, and the only paths to anything more than bare subsistence are sexual bondage to and willing complicity with gangsters or fairytale success in the perverse economy of a gameshow.
In many ways, what's interesting is that in the film there's no depiction of what we usually think of as "normal" economic activity, which is as much as to imply that these perverse, exploitative economies are hardly aberrations but merely the most obvious instances of systemic corruption. In this respect, it's interesting to note that the one "legitimate" capitalist (the gameshow host/producer) has no qualms about trying to cheat his trader and to scam and short-change his customers by fixing the show.
So, there's a bit of detail, I guess, though not yet very well organised...
Well...
Where I think you're wrong, is that in the end, the 'fairytale' succes of the gameshow turns out to be his destiny. That implies, that the exploitation and suffering of the rest of the slumdwellers are is also destiny, and therefore not in any way our fault.
I still like the movie, as I thought that destiny-thing was a part of the genre (bollywood escapism, which I've always thought mainly functions as hope for the poor), but I think a lot of people have read it wrong. I've even heard someone say, that it's a description of the great love you only find among poor, unmaterialistic people, which is just condescending.
I apologise for my poor writing abilities, english is not my first language.
SPOILERWARNING btw...
Anyways, I don't understand how people can thing of the movie as 'realism'. In the end it proclaims that the whole story was meant to be, that's not very realistic...
see I don't read the "It was written" as equivalent to destiny
at least, not in the sense of the will of God or some other unshakeable law. In fact, I read the "It was written" as a critique of the film's own romantic ending: i.e. Jamal wins because that's what it says in the script; because the rules of the genre demand it (but also because the "promise" that it offers is needed in order to win acceptance of the exploitative conditions that necessitate the fantasy).
To me, the film is far more interesting (and effective) precisely *because* of the "fairytale" ending, by virtue of the fact that (1) it functions as a condemnation of the circumstances that precede that ending (i.e the exploitation is so deplorable that the *only* thing that could possibly requite it is this utter fantasy); and (2) because in doing so it effectively sacrifices its own "integrity" (as it were) in order to expose to widespread critique both the generic imperative for a fantastic outcome and the fantastical nature of the "promise" that outcome purports to represent. Crucially, the device (i.e. the "happy ending") which would seem to negate the critical impetus of the film (i.e. its representation of the perversities of capitalism) is also the device that gains the film a massive audience, which is in turn the means by which both the device and the horrors of economic subjugation are exposed to *popular* critique.
In other words, while undoubtedly there are some who would watch the film and arrive at the condescending interpretation that "it's a description of the great love you only find among poor, unmaterialistic people", there are many others (as this thread attests) who find in it an occasion to criticise the "happy ending" device, which arguably curtails the film's critical force. A great many more people, I would argue, simply watch the film, thoroughly enjoy it, and take away with them the memory BOTH of Jamal's triumph AND of the scenes of destitution and exploitation, and find absolutely NO reason to reconcile the two into some overarching interpretation that sees the latter justified by the former (or by "destiny", or whatever). The images of exploitation, etc., live on in public consciousness, notwithstanding the "happy ending" that is supposed (on certain understandings of how narrative works) to negate and justify them. And for evidence of that claim we need only look at the many news stories about the treatment of the child actors from the film that have followed in the film's wake. Incidents that would otherwise have been accepted as mundane and would not have been noticed by the western media and media audiences are now being reported (e.g. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/15/2571033.htm?section=world ).
Whether anything much changes on account of those reports is another story, but if that can be raised as an objection to the film, we really need to reflect on what exactly we can realistically expect films to accomplish.
Yes
I thought so as well after I'd seen the movie, but unfortunately I have met too many people, who actually sees the ending as some sort of justification, sees it as proof that no matter the circumstances, for good people there is always a way out.
What do you mean lies??
sushine introduced me to the awesomeness of prof brian cox
(not the actor)
the man rocks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)
Slumdog Millionaire is just about as good as Sunshine,
but I did find it funny when media sources were reporting a surge in interest in Danny Boyle (y'know, after getting the Oscar and all), despite the fact that this was the guy who'd made Shallow Grave, Trainspotting, 28 days later, etc...
hmm... Sunshine looks pretty enough on a big screen,
but there's nothing to it, and you soon realise that (like Event Horizon), it's essentially cobbled together from the bits of half a dozen vastly superior films.
(except for when it steals from the Core. That's a terrible film).
''hmm... it looks pretty enough on a big screen,
but there's nothing to it, and you soon realise that, it's essentially cobbled together from the bits of half a dozen vastly superior films.''
sorry, you were talking about slumdog weren't you?
Apples and pears really
but I much, much prefer Sunshine to Slumdog. Amidnall the Sunshine ending-bashing, people seem to have forgotten that Slumdog, although also a very good film, has an absolutely shit endingig too.
Like most Boyle films actually...
Uh, I suck at typing
Also, has DiS had a design change again or is my computer just not loading the page properly?
I've not seen Slumdog but my experience of other Boyle films would bear out your bad ending idea.
The thing is, Sunshine's ending feels like it came from another film altogether. It's got the atmosphere of Solaris and 2001 but it seems to feel it has to do something else. A real shame.
They filmed two endings for Sunshine
and Boyle caved and put the lesser ending in the released version.
Personally, I think Slumdog is the better film.
Really?
Is it on the DVD? I didn't see that.
Still I really mean the entire last act, when the filming suddenly becomes stupidly stylised and we get essentially a 2nd rate slasher flick. Or is that what you mean?
I haven't seen it
but in the alternate ending, I think Mark Strong and Cillian Murphy sit down and have a conversation, rather than try and kill each other.
I haven't seen it
but in the alternate ending, I think Mark Strong and Cillian Murphy sit down and have a conversation, rather than try and kill each other.
Oh right. Sounds interesting.
On the subject of alt endings you don't see, I have that cheesy time travel flick 'Frequency' at home. In the commentary the writer says how the ending is more illogical than it really should be and he wrote a better one but test audiences loved the original so much they left it in.
BUT HE NEVER EXPLAINS HIS BETTER ONE AND IT'S NOT ON THE DVD. Grrr. I hate that sort of thing.
Oh well.
I really don't understand this Slumdog love
It was pretty good and effective and all of that, but I wouldn't watch it again.
Because while both are brilliant, both are brilliant for different reasons.
Sunshine examines our own inconsequentiality (I don't think this is a word) in the Great Scheme of things, and faces up to it with honesty and intelligence.
Slumdog takes a similar theme but celebrates our ability to make the best of a bad situation.
Thems my ideas, anyway.
i just don't GET this praise for slumdog
it was completely atrocious. it was incoherent, it was unrealistic, when it used 'realism' it was the most ridiculously emotive kind. i'm seriously worried when people can describe a film featuring a boy getting deliberately blinded as a 'feelgood' film
saying that, the times showed the film to indian children living in slums and they thought it was good fun and not unrealistic (apart from the fact that children are very rarely recruited into gangs, which is actually what the film hinges on)
it's usually organised by the family of the child
or runaway children organise themselves, according to what i read anyway in the times
i just thought the writing, the dialogue, the pacing, the acting by the two main leads was really quite bad and i'm not sure how boyle has got away with it.
Boyle didn't want it described as a 'feelgood' film, apparently
that was just the marketing department.
Personally, I didn't think it was atrocious, and I have absolutely no problem with the writing, the dialogue, the pacing or the acting by the two leads. I can't see how it was 'really quite bad'. Patel and Pinto were perfectly fine but were upstaged by the younger actors.
realism is the last refuge
of an unimaginative dullard.
Re. the fact that children are very rarely recruited into gangs: if it's the case that, of the thousands of kids who live in utter destitution, only *some* of them get gang-pressed into indentured begging and have their eyes burnt out, well that's all peaches and icecream then, innit?
i would have preferred the film was wholly unrealistic rather than
using torture just to manipulate the audience's emotions
'realism is the last refuge of an unimaginative dullard'
'pomposity is the first refuge of the deeply self-righteous'
I'll take the pomposity charge
but I'm not wearing the self-righteous rap.
While we're at it, I might as well up my original complaint: "manipulate the audience's emotions"? Can you get any more banal a form of criticism? I s'pose, at least, you didn't accuse it of being "so formulaic"...
actually, scratch that
michael_w reclaims the crown: "cotton wool for the masses" -- never has anyone uttered such a profound thought with such inventive wit.
mine was glib and obviously facetious
like most of my comments in this thread
i think you were really going for something with the blather about capitalism though......
(its like.....strong...strong message...because.......we see the poor....yeah?....it's all poor right?....and shit?...like..all rubbish....but we don't see the good yeah?.....so like....that means everything is shit yeah?)
...but alas you made a bare film seem even more souless by shooting for the analytial stars but getting stuck on a rusty television ariel.
i'm not pretending to be a critic
i don't really understand why you're wasting your time on DiS with your amazing criticism - why don't you go and write a feature for Sight & Sound? I'm just saying that the film is utter shite and manipulative - not a critical opinion, just a personal one.
I can't argue with you there
my criticism is pretty amazing.
i think you should actually WATCH the film rather than extrapolating from a synopsis
when i went to india i met a autorikshaw driver who had had their hand burnt so his fingers were stumps
so he could get more money begging, as it was he chose to drive an autorickshaw his maiming made his job harder and he was angry.
He also pointed out to me a couple of other people who were begging who had had their begging ability enhanced by maiming, its not nice and it is a practice that i am sure that india wants to try to stop, putting it in this film was not done badly i thought, i saw this film with my son and i think it let him see how some people in deprived areas, actually have the ability to compete on equal terms taken away from them physically....still, in this era.
the fact that just a few might have this happen to them is terrible enough, and since it is something that happens to a few i see no problem with depicting it, its a horrendous thing as is untouchability, im so glad that there is a woman from this 'caste' is prospectively going to do well in the indian election.
I thought the depiction of the slum seemed to be sort of right, i remember being in 'old delhi' and feeling guilty that i gingerly picked my steps through a slum i had wondered into, to me it was like hell, but the people weren't hostile or nasty or anything, there were lots of kids playing n stuff. (the film managed to convey well the close proximity you have with excrement in slummy places, I thought that whole scene with the loo and the celebrity was brilliant)
i think Slumdog is a bit more accessible in a way.
and more of a family film.
i loved Sunshine, thought it was brilliant and don't get why people slate it.
i liked Slumdog, thought it was ok, and don't get why people idolise it. (as such)
a feelgood film about human emotion and experience
being more popular than a hard sci-fi film and a spaceship flying to the sun?
SHOCKING!
But not as popular as a dark action film about a man in a glorified gimp suit and another man in heavy makeup.
that's what i'm saying....slumdog is cotton wool for the masses
and what a pity
yeah...i only like low-budget art house stuff that has a two week run at the renoir
decades old pop-cultural icons?
Maybe I have to see Sunshine properly
ie, not an internet stream.
But it didnt strike me as anything special really. It was good, but not amazing.
Whats the world coming to when people are debating Danny Boyles worth as a director full stop
He basically just makes feature length music videos.
He's like the english Baz Luhrman.
except that he doesn't
he's just very good at incorporating music into his films.
I meant more that they are a soulless facade - all sheen with no real depth.
though I agree you cant really criticise his ability to cut images to music well.
i like Baz Luhrman
me too
Thats nice
Slumdog is an incredibly shallow film
but its alright. Sunshine is a lot better. The bit at the end where he jumps out the hatch thingy is great cinema.
Look slumdog millionaire is not just meant to be a realistic film
it also makes nods to some indigenous indian movies. When travelling on busses I watched a few where some kid was kidnapped by gangs and forced to beg, and in the end by some implausible means they are either reunited with a rich middle class relative or something, schmaltzy yes. Slumdog is surely a fusion of western big budget/realism with dannys speed nods to his other films (theres running at the beginning, like in trainspotting) (theres a running burning man like in 28 days) meeting indian feelgood.
It is obvious watching the film that it is also a film thats tilting its hat to other films and genres as well as being itself, by means of its fusion.
I liked it lots.
slumdog is definitely overrated.
the cinematography and score are good, and i can see why it was popular for the feel-good factor. But for a film that was supposed to be giving a realistic portayal of life in the slums, it was also asking for some pretty big suspensions in disbelief in terms of the plot. I just found it overly contrived and cliched for my tastes. Like, the bit where
she's gonna tell us any minute
the suspense is killing me