Two days after the fact, in the comedown after six months of relentless Oscar hype, and the beautiful, surreal nature of what happened on Sunday is starting to sink in. Sure, “Slumdog Millionaire” was the red-hot favorite. Sure, it had won everything else going and had been ingeniously campaigned by one of the savviest studios in the business.
But viewed out of context, is it not kind of incredible that an independent foreign production, from an iconoclastic director with no Oscar history, with not a single Western star (or a single white actor, for that matter) and a significant portion of Hindi dialogue, just scooped 8 awards from Hollywood’s most venerable institution?
The further back I step from the events, the more I wonder whether I dreamed it all up. What does it mean? Is this a significant bellwether of the growing globalization of the industry, or is it a freak anomaly that happened because a lot of people simply connected with one movie this year, and not much else? David Carr, who is left similarly dazzled and dazed by the film’s astonishing coup, seems to think it’s a bit of both:
American film is one of the last remaining exports, a kind of bejeweled software that the rest of the world clearly loves … But global imperatives go both ways. When a film with a British director, Indian actors and French co-financing goes home with eight Oscars, it’s hard not to see a message.
“I think it demonstrates that a good story well told, whether it is about someone in Mumbai, China or around the corner, will find an audience,” said Nancy Utley, chief operating officer at Fox Searchlight, the division of 20th Century Fox that found Oscar (and box office) gold after picking up “Slumdog Millionaire.” She added that the studio specialty division knew it had a winner on its hands when it screen-tested the film in Orange County, Calif. — sort of a ground zero of a conventional American audience — without any marketing or explanation, and the room loved it.
Utley has a point, I think – a great narrative hook will always prove a greater audience drawcard than the starriest cast or the most shimmering production values. I’m still not sure if “Slumdog’s” story bears the closest scrutiny, but the premise is immediate and irresistible, which is something that can’t be said for the more oblique or prosaic narratives of the competition.
I’d hesitate to say this means anything other than that the Academy’s tastes are, well, transient – last year’s disquieting, mood-driven Best Picture winner couldn’t have differed more from “Slumdog” as a feat of storytelling. However much we try to pin down that an “Academy movie” is, they keep finding new and surprising ways to expand that definition.
Comments
10 responses to “‘Slumdog’: what just happened?”
” What does it mean? Is this a significant bellwether of the growing globalization of the industry…”
Absolutely. But didn’t we know that the globalization of Oscar recognition has been a growing trend — lest we forget that in two years, seven of the 8 acting awards have gone to non-American actors. That’s a startling fact, but a good one. I don’t think we’re far from seeing more globalization in the Best Picture category, either.
All season long I have had a very hard time finding a reasonable explanation to why this has happened. Slumdog Millionaire is a fine and likeable film but the fact that it has now won as many Oscars a Gone with the Wind and On the Waterfront and more than Schindlers List, Lawrence of Arabia, All About Eve and just one less than The Godfather and Godfather part II combined(!) is a gigantic cosmic joke.
It’s not so much the fact that it won best picture that’s bothering me – it’s the number of Oscars that is simply overkill. 4 or 5 would have been ok. I don’t agree with it but that would not be different than many other years.
What has happened this season really isn’t nothing but an anormality and I don’t think that time will be good to it. Sure it will always be a likeable film but 50 years from now I have a suspicion that people will look at it and say: 8 Oscars! Are you kidding me!?
But hey, that’s just one mans opinion. It’s a slumdogs world. We just live in it! ;-)
Why do people always say, “Well, I don’t think such and such movie will be seen so great 10 years down.” Why does it matter? Some movies can span decades with their stories, while others are perfect for a certain moment in history. One kind isn’t better than the other.
Selina, I agree. What’s unfortunate, though, is when great movies are made that don’t work in this particular moment, and are re-discovered down the road. This is certainly what I hope happens to “Revolutionary Road,” and I’m glad to hear IC’s John Foote thinks it will.
What I don’t understand, Michael, is comparing the awards total of films from different years. Isn’t the number of awards a film receives a testament to its competition as much as a testament to the film itself? Slumdog is good enough, I think, to have won Best Picture in a stronger year. But some of the technical categories it won probably would not have held up with stronger competition.
No one is saying that Slumdog Millionaire is a better movie than either of the first two Godfather movies. No one.
It could be true that Slumdog Millionaire won’t be looked on as well as it is admired and loved now BUT if you look at Oscar history, the most hated, criticized or laughable Best Picture winners usually triumphed over landmarks/classics like Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Network, Apocalypse Now among others.
When you look at this year’s nominees, i highly doubt Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, or The Reader will be remembered as landmarks in film history. Slumdog was the best of the group.
orange county, CA is not exactly what I’d refer to as a “conventional American” town
I live in OC, CA. I wonder what part of OC they screened it on. They probably screened it in one of the “well-off” areas. Save for a few cities, OC is predominantly a “red” county.
McGuff@ “What I don’t understand, Michael, is comparing the awards total of films from different years. Isn’t the number of awards a film receives a testament to its competition as much as a testament to the film itself? Slumdog is good enough, I think, to have won Best Picture in a stronger year. But some of the technical categories it won probably would not have held up with stronger competition.”
You’re right that we should also look at the competition. But if we do that, there’s no way Slumdog should win 8 Oscars.
In my mind a screenplay is more than a story. It’s also dialogue and does anybody really feel that’s strong in Slumdog? The dialogue in Simon Beaufoys own Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day-script was better than in Slumdog.
There’s also no way that Slumdog deserved to win the sound-mixing Oscar before films like Wall-E and The Dark Knight. And don’t even get me started on the best “score” win…
Oscars for Slumdog for Picture, director, cinematography, editing and maybe one more and I wouldn’t bitch and moan ;-) But now it’s one of the biggest Oscar winners in history and that makes NO sense at all. The qualities it has as a film can’t live up to that. In my opinion.
But I guees I’m just too big an Oscar nutcase ;-) I tend to look at the history of the Oscars and I find it pathetic that Slumdog is in the same league as Gone with the Wind and On the Waterfront Oscar wise. And as I said, I like the film and wouldn’t have such a big problem if it had won best picture with just 4 or 5 Oscars in total. I would disagree, but that happens a lot.
But the love for it blinded it’s supporters to vote for it in categories that it didn’t deserve. And I find that hard to accept. I think it’s a problem when you vote for your favorite film of the year in all the categoires it’s nominated in. It makes no sense and it’s a slap in the face to all the people who have worked hard on all the other films released that year.
I think that United 93 was (by far) the best film of 2006 but I wouldn’t vote for it in many other categories than picture and director.
Oh and by the way I totally agree that Revolutionary Road is among the best of the year ;-)
Globalization? This was a Western film in every way, including their construction of an imaginary India. This is a film that caters to what white people like to think the world is, and that is why it was so successful.
The academy is still a long way away from embracing an actual global film.