The 81st Annual Academy Awards

I am happy to report that I did not end up watching the Oscars show alone. I started out with about five other people watching it with me, though by the end there was just one other person who had lasted the > 3 hour ceremony.

The relevant results:
Slumdog Millionaire was the big winner of the night, taking home eight statues from its ten nominations, for best picture, director Danny Boyle, adapted screenplay, cinematography, editing, music, song, and sound (mixing). The only two nominations it lost were sound editing to The Dark Knight and best song to itself (it had two noms in the category). Benjamin Button, which had received the most nominations, was left to pick up Slumdog's scraps, in best art direction, makeup, and visual effects. Milk enjoyed two big wins for best actor Sean Penn and for original screenplay. Dark Knight, which had received eight nominations, won two for sound editing and best supporting actor; Heath Ledger's parents and sister accepted the award on behalf of his daughter Matilda. Wall-E, which had received 6 nominations, won only for best animated feature film. Kate Winslet won her first Oscar (it was her sixth nomination) for best actress in The Reader; Penelope Cruz won her first Oscar for best supporting actress in Vicky Cristina Barcelona. The Dutchess won for costumes. Doubt and Frost/Nixon both left empty-handed. Overall, the results lived up to the awards predictions. The only surprise of the night was the Best Foreign Language Film award, which went to Japan's Okuribito, not to either of the more recognized front-runners, Israel's Waltz with Bashir and France's The Class.

The production of the Oscar show:
The Academy Awards show itself was structured to tell the story of the process of making a movie. This was fine, though there were some categories--animated feature and short, feature and short documentaries, and foreign film--that didn't fit in with the story, and the supporting acting categories were sprinkled around as well, breaking with the overall structure. Plus, the best director award had to come near the end, which in the structure of the story seemed a bit contrived. The acting category presentations were very long. For each acting award, five previous winners would stand in a semi-circle on stage and make a little tribute speech for each of the five nominees, then welcome the winner as a new member of their fraternity/sorority. I suppose if you were one of the nominees it might have been sweet to have Sophia Loren flatter you or Alan Arkin mess up your name, but it took too long and was kind of boring. Luckily, the other categories were done fairly efficiently, particularly since several were grouped together with the same presenters.

The show had a bunch of montages, but I wasn't particularly interested by most of them. Romances from the past year's movies? Lame. I wonder if they managed to attract more young viewers by parading Robert Pattinson, Zac Efron, and Vanessa Hudgens across the stage. I also have to complain about the use of the random blue-tinted clips on a five-second loop that they used to fill in the gaps of the screen whenever it cut to show shrunken shots of nominees/presenters (they're hard to describe, but if you watched the show, you saw it many times). For the most part, I was not aware of the clips, which I think was the point (they shouldn't distract me from the presenter or nominee). But my friend and I both found the Kung Fu Panda clip very distracting. If I see Po catching that thing in his mouth one more time... Yeah, we were pretty sick of seeing that every five seconds throughout the show.

Hugh Jackman didn't have that much to do (I guess less host filler helps move the show along), though he did do two song and dance numbers. I really liked the opening medley about selected nominated movies--Anne Hathaway as Nixon in a Frost/Nixon romance was great, and the bit about The Reader ("I haven't seen The Reader") was hilarious. But I do tend to like musicals, so I'm not sure what other people's reactions will be. Presenter Ben Stiller took an easy jab at Joaquin Phoenix, gum and all. Freida Pinto had a really nice blue dress. Dev Patel is adorable, and he looked so excited and elated each time Slumdog won an award. And the little children got up on the stage at the end when it won Best Picture! So cute!

I thought it was a good show overall. Could have been better, and shorter, of course. And over the credits at the end, they showed some preview clips from upcoming 2009 films. Let the new Oscar race begin!


some of my frock; take what you're given

Slumdog Millionaire

Well I finally saw one of this year's Oscar contenders. I was one of the many people who flocked to the theater to see Slumdog Millionaire as it expanded its release this past weekend.

I can see why people love the movie so much. It is beautiful, funny, suspenseful, romantic, sad, touching, and has an endearing character that the audience can easily root for. Also, it is probably the only nominee this year that ends with a big dance number. And what leaves you feeling better than a joyous group dance number? I mean, even the little children dance! Too cute!

Slumdog Millionaire tells the story of Jamal, an orphan from the slums of Mumbai who winds up one question away from winning the jackpot 20 million rupees on India's version of the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Convinced that Jamal is cheating, an interrogator forces Jamal to explain how a "slumdog" could know each answer, and the movie cuts back and forth from the game show questions to the scenes from Jamal's past where he learned the answers. In these flashbacks, we see his tragic childhood, how he and his older brother Salim struggled to make it with no one to look after them, how he befriended fellow orphan Latika, and how every time he and Latika are torn apart, he devotes himself to finding her again.

No, the movie's not perfect. First I'd like to air this minor grievance of mine. The start of the movie poses a multiple choice question, where, as on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, the four choices appear one by one. These were my thoughts as they appeared:

Jamal Malik is one question away from winning 20 million rupees. How did he do it?
A. He cheated
No way, I'm sure he didn't.
B. He's lucky
Probably, very.
C. He's a genius
Maybe.
D. It is written
Like, in a book or adapted screenplay? Of course. Way to break the fourth wall. Oh, you mean like destiny or something. Okay, that's probably it, then.

When it is said that something "is written", figuratively speaking it implies something like "it is written in the stars," which essentially means "it is fate." But you have to be careful using the phrase in something that is literally written. In the context of a movie or book, saying something "is written" just sounds obvious. Okay, sorry, just had to get that off my chest. Moving on...

The use of game show questions to prompt the flashback sequences that tell the story is a nice device, but it is not original. Similar premises have probably been used a number of times before, but I remember reading one particular book in middle school that used this sort of device, a Newbery Medal winner called The View from Saturday by E.L. Konigsburg. It was about a team of friends competing in an academic bowl, and with each question they answered, it would cut to the point that they learned the answer. Now, like most books that I read more than half a lifetime ago, I hardly remember this book (though it may be interesting to note the few details I do remember: A weird boy on the school bus who wears shorts on the first day of school invites some friends to a tea party with references from Alice in Wonderland, and tip and posh are acronyms), but I do remember that general premise. Still Slumdog Millionaire makes good use of the device, and it is the poignant story told through the flashbacks that makes the movie great.

Some of the story was a little predictable, like what the last question would be, and the fact that Jamal would be phoning a friend and Latika would be the one answering the phone. But it is written, right? If fate is writing the story, it might as well work out just as it seems like it should. And there was much to the story that I did not find predictable or unoriginal. The children were adorable--I particularly enjoyed seeing the various ways that Jamal and his brother made a living growing up (remind me to bring an extra pair of shoes if I ever visit the Taj Mahal). And while it may seem like the same old rags to riches fantasy we've seen countless times before, it's not so simple. At the beginning of the movie, when Jamal looks totally dazed on the game show and doesn't seem happy whenever he gets an answer right, I was kind of mumbling to myself, "Just snap out of it, kid, and smile or something." I didn't understand why he didn't seem excited that he was winning. But eventually I realized that he didn't care about the money. I'm sure that the money he wins helps buy him a life that he never could have dreamed of (the movie naturally ends before we see how he spends all the money), but he wasn't on the show to get rich. It's a rags to riches story where the riches aren't the point.

There is considerable controversy surrounding the film. Some people think that it paints India in a bad light. Sure, it shows tough living conditions in Mumbai's slums, but it's a story about a kid from the slums. And every country has its poor parts; it is clear in the movie that the whole country is not like the slums where Jamal grew up. Another controversy is over the use of the word "slumdog" in the title of the movie. As one social activist protester reportedly put it, "Referring to people living in slums as dogs is a violation of human rights" (IMDb). Setting aside the fact that using a word is not a violation of human rights so much as preventing someone from using the word is (well, at least it's a violation of rights in some places), I think these protesters are missing the point. First of all, they may not realize how much we like dogs. Another compound word that uses "dog" is "underdog", which happens to describe Jamal as well. And, as it turns out, people like to root for the underdog. When the Giants face off against the Patriots and are called the underdogs*, they don't claim that their rights have been violated. They probably welcome the designation. Calling the movie "Slumdog Millionaire" is not calling people who live in slums animals. Besides, the whole movie is dedicated to making the audience feel for Jamal, to sympathize with him and root for him. Whatever the title, if anything the audience leaves with a higher opinion of people who live in slums than when they entered. So even if the word is perceived by some as derogatory, one could argue that the use of the word is ironic: here is a character that some people might look down on and call a slumdog, but he is a good, deserving person who wins big on a game show. Nowhere in there is Danny Boyle calling the real people who live in slums anything less than human. Stop burning him in effigy.

Well, I absolutely loved the movie. I didn't enjoy it as much as Dark Knight, but that's personal taste. And I sure didn't leave Dark Knight dancing. Hopefully I'll get to see other Oscar contenders before the big night, but if not, at least I've seen the front-runner underdog Slumdog Millionaire.


*I hope you appreciate the fact that coming up with a sports team reference is a frightening and torturous process for me.