Films

Rain (AM and PM) 3° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Slumdog makes it to top dog

By Guy Adams in Los Angeles

British director Danny Boyle kisses best director Oscar at 81st Academy Awards in Hollywood

Reuters

British director Danny Boyle kisses best director Oscar at 81st Academy Awards in Hollywood

Finally, Slumdog Millionaire got its fairytale ending. The rags-to-riches love story, about an orphan from the slums of Mumbai who hits the big-time on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? completed a remarkable journey to global acclaim when it spearheaded a triumphant British invasion of last night's Academy Awards in Los Angeles.

The low-budget epic, which was thrust from obscurity to complete an extraordinary clean sweep of the film industry's award season, won eight of the ten prizes it was nominated for at Sunday's 81st Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director for its creator, Danny Boyle.

It marked a fitting tribute to the infectiously-vibrant film, which mixes its feel-good storyline with a powerful social message that has captured the spirit of the age across several continents, making international stars of several members of its previously unknown cast.

Slumdog's victory was applauded from the streets of Mumbai to the Hollywood hills, but nowhere was the wave of goodwill more keenly felt than in the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles, where Boyle bounded to the stage before jumping up and down excitedly on the spot.

"My kids are too old to remember this now, but when they were much younger, I swore to them that if this miracle ever happened that I would receive it in the spirit of Tigger from Winnie-the-Pooh." He explained. "So that's what I'm going to do. I don't know what this all looks like on television, everybody, but here in the room, where I'm standing, it feels bloody wonderful."

The success felt like a family affair. Boyle turned up at the event with several of the young stars from the film, who had been flown over from Mumbai for the occasion. The youngsters were a huge hit with both the enormous crowds and the hundreds of stars of stage and screen who were in the audience.

"We were so worried about bringing them over," said Simon Beaufoy, who won the Oscar for Best Screenwriter. "It seemed incredibly inappropriate to bring them from where they lived to this lavish ceremony. But actually, they're not thinking about it. We're all worried but they're running around having a laugh."

Later, Boyle joked that he was glad he didn't have to put the chaotic menagerie of children to bed: while he was discussing the victory at a backstage press conference, they had apparently adjourned en masse to the Governor's Ball.

The story of Slumdog Mililonaire, which was made on a budget of just £7 million, but has now generated almost $100m at the US box office alone, is all the more remarkable since just six months ago it looked destined to miss out on a cinema release.

Its distributor, Warner, decided to shut down its independent film arm, seemingly condemning the film, made in 2006, to a straight-to-DVD release. However the film was eventually picked up by Fox Searchlight, and quickly became the subject of heated buzz on the film festival circuit.

"When we started out, we had no stars, we had no power or muscle, we didn't have enough money really to do what we wanted to do," said producer Christian Colson, accepting the Best Picture Award. "But what we had was a script that inspired mad love in everyone who read it. ... Most of all, we had passion and we had belief and our film shows that if you have those two things, truly anything is possible."

It was also a triumph for India, whose A. R. Rahman won two Oscars, for Best Original Song and Best Original Score. In the slums of Mumbai, where much of Slunmdog was set, its victory was watched by jubliant crowds clustered around TV sets in scenes reminiscent of the film's colourful ending.

Elsewhere at the event, which began in the early hours of this morning, London time, Kate Winslet justified strong favouritism when she was named Best Actress for her role as the Nazi war criminal Hannah Schmitz in the Holocaust drama The Reader.

"I'd be lying if I said I haven't made a version of this speech before, when I was eight years old and staring into bathroom mirror," joked Winslet, who had previously been unsuccessfully nominated for five Oscars.

"This [pointing to her microphone] would have been a shampoo bottle. Well, it's not shampoo bottle now! I feel very fortunate to have made it all way there to here."

The speech was touchingly well constructed compared to Winslet's tearful previous appearances on the winner's podium this awards season. Clutching her trophy, the 33-year-old actress was asked backstage what she thought of homegrown criticism of her previous performances.

"I really don't care, quite honestly, and I just feel sad if it's the case my own country can't feel joyful for the successes of their own kind," she replied. "I just seems sad to me."

The night's other big winner was Milk, the story of Harvey Milk, America's first openly gay elected politician. It won best screenplay for Lance Dustin Black, and Best Actor for Sean Penn, who delivered a tub-thumping speech in which he joyfully described the Academy as "commie, homo-loving sons of guns" before criticising California's ban on gay marriage.

Noting that an anti-gay demonstration had been orgainsed by religious protesters outside the Kodak Theatre before the event, Penn dedicated his award to: "those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight".

"It's a good time for those who voted for the ban on gay marriage to look into their minds and anticipate their great shame in eyes of their grandchildren. We've got to have equal rights for everyone."

Heath Ledger, who died over a year ago, justified heavy odds-on favouritism to win the prize for Best Supporting Actor with The Dark Knight. In an emotional scene, his mother, father and sister appeared onstage to accept the award on behalf of his daughter, Matilda.

"This award tonight would have humbly validated Heath's quiet determination to be accepted by you all here, his peers, within an industry he loved," said his father, Kim.

The documentary makers James Marsh and Simon Chinn completed a dream night for Britain, when they won Best Documentary Feature award for Man on a Wire, the story of Philippe Petit, a tightrope walker who illegally crossed between the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York in 1974.

The victory meant that the UK won ten of the 24 awards handed out. In one of the "moments" of the evening, Petit performed a magic trick on the winner's podium, making a coin disappear before balancing Marsh and Chinn's trophy on his forehead.

It was a typically lively highlight to a vibrant and seemingly successful ceremony that had been given a dramatic facelift in a bid to reverse years of declining audiences.

The re-vamped occasion saw host Hugh Jackman perform a series of song-and-dance routines. He repeatedly made light of some of the criticisms of the event, which once again overlooked major studio films in favour of smaller independent titles. Pictures like Batman and Benjamin Button were restricted to victory in the technical categories.

Awards were presented by teams of previous winners, and (although several major stars pulled out) appeared to excite the audience. In a bid to capture TV viewers early on, one of the major gongs, Best Supporting Actress – won by Penelope Cruz for Vicki Christina Barcelona – was handed out at the start of the evening.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

The Oscars view from San Francisco
[info]lieberman12 wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 03:56 am (UTC)
Frankly, I think the Oscars were utterly supperb. The show moved along very well with terrific pacing, great production numbers from Hugh Jackman and Beyonce, (Bravo!) sure, no Jack Nicholson, and an absense of big stars, but loved the performances and great production.

Rich Lieberman in San Francisco
http://www.sfgate.com/matierandross
Re: The Oscars view from San Francisco
[info]famulla wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 08:58 am (UTC)
Honest. The Oscars are face these days. How many Indian got moony that would be in line with the American counterparts?
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla

Re: The Oscars view from San Francisco
[info]johnp56 wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 12:39 pm (UTC)
Swededawg: The Dark Knight didn't make money? Ben Button didn't make money? Slumdog didn't make money? No talent? The one complaint you CAN'T make about the presentation. It was a talent showcase
Re: The Oscars view from San Francisco
[info]famulla wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 05:21 pm (UTC)
The producers of the film always make the money as the films go on the theatre the public pays for these and the DVD etc. Compare this with the paltry sum that was accorded to the children of India. To them admitted it was bonus point but that us the test by the clever producers and directors. Is this not?
Firozali A. Mulla
OSCARS
[info]swededawg wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 04:52 am (UTC)
I have no idea who the winners are and the movies that they were in involved in. None of them made money and the actors are who? How low have the OSCARS have fallen. No wonder nobody watches them. No talent, no values and no grace.
Oscars
[info]vexious wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 05:00 am (UTC)
Celebrity worship is as outdated as it is pathetic
Oscars Flop
[info]biffula wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 05:04 am (UTC)
Couple the star backout with the poor directing and you have a disastrous awards. I have never seen such poor directing. I got tired of watching people scramble to their seats after commercial breaks and having to squint to try and read what the audience could see, but we tv viewers couldnt because the cameras were panned back too far. sheesh.
best actor
[info]agxxx0077 wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 05:05 am (UTC)
MR got ripped off because of political correctness....that's why nobody cares to watch these idiots...these were gimme awards for the most part
Strange article
[info]biffula wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 05:06 am (UTC)
but the oscars were piss poor. Directing was terrible. Couldnt read the screens the audience could see because camera was panned too far out and I got tired of watching people scramble for their seats after commercial breaks.
[info]agxxx0077 wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 05:07 am (UTC)
Mickey R. got ripped off...s.Penn...really, he sucks
danny boyle
[info]annagennari wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 08:33 am (UTC)
I am really happy Danny won 0scars. His film is wonderful, the soundtrack is very peutiful and the direction direction is excellent.
I interviewd him last november at the Bfritish Festival in London (where Slumdog Millionaire was presented to the pubblic) for my magazine Grazia Italy and he is not only a great director but a sincere and very nice person.

anna
ANOTHER HOLLYWEIRD FLOP
[info]joev11 wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 10:44 am (UTC)
LOL, will these fools EVER get over themselves? Can they not see the only people who give a damn about what they say or do are the poor saps who are so lost they must live their pathetic lives these Hollyweird "stuck on themselves" empties.

As for talent? SOMEONE please TELL ME WHERE I CAN GET A JOB THAT ALLOWS ME TO PRACTICE AT IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN BEFORE IT COUNTS? THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE MOVIE "STARS" DO, YOU KNOW.

The only smart people where the ones that never showed up. At least they are aware of how sordid, tacky and void of any relevance Hollyweird and it's infestation of hand wringing, bed wetting liberals has become.
Oscar speeches
[info]mumbai2009 wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 11:20 am (UTC)
I thought the oscars were pretty good although they defininitely reflect the political leanings of the academy voters, just my opinion.
What mystifies me is how the talented individuals, at the very moment when they are supposedly at the height of their craft, give such lousy speeches (not all but most, especially in the big categories). In an effort to be spontaneous or show emotion, it just comes off infantile and narcissistic. Probably the best speeches were from Heath Ledgers family--respectful, humble, thankful, dignified, and emotional without being maudlin.
Pathetic .... NO GRACE.... Just POLITICAL Fools...
[info]harryend wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 11:37 am (UTC)
When Celebrities became BIG MOUTH POLITICIANS attempting to INFUENCE the masses they fell from grace.

Celebrity worship today is only for the pathetic SHEEP who don't have a life.... we have moved beyond the adoration of fools.

No talent, no values and most importantly NO GRACE.....
Oscar ?
[info]hugharenot wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 11:47 am (UTC)
Let's all get together and give ourselves awards. Ridiculously overpaid Hollywood freaks patting each other on the butt.
Yawn...
[info]micro1000 wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 12:24 pm (UTC)


Just not in the mood for all this stuff... Gotta recession to deal wid...

I feel really sorry for all those true slum dwellers in India, etc. Looks like the stars won a kind of lottery by being handpicked from the slums. Apparently they're going to school and might find other opportunities. But for the rest? They've tasted a bit of stardom, perhaps they'll find some inspiration and aspire to greater heights but the reality is hardly any will emancipate themselves.

Haven't seen the film but it might actually have a negative effect where people think the only means of success is by attaining it in immediate terms, a big payout or windfall rather than hard work, etc. It might turn a lot of slum dwellers into gamblers, all desperate to escape the hell-ridden setting their governments have subjected them to.

This bombardment of immediafied wealthy lifestyles, somehow attained from nowhere, sends out a wrong message. Ok, it's supposed to be a 'feel-good' film, but I suggest more stories of education, hard work and journeys through more realistic channels of life are given.
Yawn...
[info]micro1000 wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 12:29 pm (UTC)


Just not in the mood for all this stuff... Gotta recession to deal wid...

I feel sorry for all those true slum dwellers in India, etc. Looks like the stars won a kind of lottery by being handpicked from the slums. Apparently they're going to school and might find other opportunities. But for the rest? They've tasted a bit of stardom, perhaps they'll find some inspiration and aspire to greater heights but the reality is hardly any will ever emancipate themselves.

Haven't seen the film but it might have a negative effect where people think the only means of success is by attaining it in immediate terms, a big payout or windfall rather than hard work, etc. It might turn a lot of slum dwellers into gamblers, all desperate to escape the hell-ridden setting their governments have subjected them to.

This bombardment of immediafied wealthy lifestyles, somehow attained from nowhere, sends out a wrong message. Ok, it's supposed to be a 'feel-good' film, but I suggest more stories of education, hard work and journeys through more realistic channels of life are given.

Seems like the director tried to address a sad phenomenon by going down a kind of 'pop route', as so to secure a return... All seems a bit exploitative to me.
Oscars
[info]jodann123 wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 12:30 pm (UTC)
Oh! Were the Oscars on last night?
wow look so many cynical posters
[info]allforcalisto wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 12:31 pm (UTC)
Brits won big at the oscars and all you do is complain. Can't you just be happy for the winners?

being a brit filmmaker to me this is pretty encouraging. I think oscars often tend to go the same types of movies time and time again, and i was glad of this result.

i can't help but be cynical looking at posters here and some on imdb.
Its actually amusing seeing some people calling this result "political correctness"
can't you people see how profoundly arrogant and self-indulgent you're being.



"Political correctness" get lost, if slumdog or MILK were yet ANOTHER costume drama about a dead white queen they wouldn't face this embarrassing scrutiny.




Re: wow look so many cynical posters
[info]micro1000 wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 01:59 pm (UTC)

'I think oscars often tend to go the same types of movies time and time again...'

That's probably why we're so cynical, perhaps even a bit of predictability has crept into these events. Are you happy just coz he's British, or do you think the film was truly worthy of its praise? Brit or American doesn't really matter, it's about talent, substance and a feeling that a film is really genuine in its message. Ken Loach, now there's a Brit film maker if you want one...

I prefer Cannes with European realistic (also low budget) films that tackle and analyse human nature in its deepest and maddest forms. No gloss, just how life is.

My impression is that American films were much better about a couple of decades ago, driven by political movements and climates. Although there have been a few films addressing the Iraq war I think, which are meant to be alright.

Re: wow look so many cynical posters
[info]allforcalisto wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 02:39 pm (UTC)
@micro

Re-read my post
My point was about just being glad for the winners. I wrote in the way i did because i'm assuming most of the people posting here are British. Yes i am happy danny's british, but Richard Curtis is also british and i absolutely loathe the man. My point i should have clearly articulate is that whenever people think of british films they think of mike leigh movies, and richard curtis movies. Their type of movies have become rather bothersome brands. I don't dislike mike leigh btw.

Danny boyle's has his own diverse range of movies under his belt; from zombies, to druggies, to slum dog.
We need more voices like his.

I'm very happy for dev patel, a relative unknown amongst these other heavy weight actors, whose become the most recognized face from a show he was hardly used in(Skins).
And i'm happy for Danny Boyle because i'm a huge fan of his work.
I'm also glad that it wasn't wasted on yet another bloody costume drama, a biopic on some overrated icon. It was out of curious Benjamin and slumdog for me, i love david fincher and the talent in Benjamin's cast is remarkable.


the cynicism i specifically pointed out wasn't about film aesthetic (tbh i think I agree with you to an extent. But come on this is the OSCARS for god sakes) It was actually about all these idiots saying "Political correctness"
Sean Penn is a terrific actor
Rourke is a terrific actor
one of the them won just leave it at that and have some class.

Re: wow look so many cynical posters
[info]micro1000 wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 03:51 pm (UTC)
People are saying PC, which would also suggest that Danny Boyle has sold out. Compared to his other films, which put him into the limelight, more cutting edge, winning the Oscars could be all downhill now for DB. Just hope he's not dazzled too much and loses his originality, diversity and integrity like many artists/musicians/directors do when they make it. It's a valid point.

I haven't seen Slum dog Millionare but from what I can gather a PC hollering suggests DB's doing just that... pandering to the predictable and losing it... that's why people get angry when people say PC, feel-good, etc. It's a hard truth to accept, to be associated with a downward spiral into mediocrity. Let's see what DB puts out next...

But I haven't seen SDMill, and probably won't...
to swede dawg
[info]johnp56 wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 12:40 pm (UTC)
The Dark Knight didn't make money? Ben Button didn't make money? Slumdog didn't make money. Get real. No talent? That's the one complaint you can't make. It was a talent showcase.
Re: to swede dawg
[info]famulla wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 05:19 pm (UTC)
The producers of the film always make the money as the films go on the theatre the public pays for these and the DVD etc. Compare this with the paltry sum that was accorded to the children of India. To them admitted it was bonus point but that us the test by the clever producers and directors. Is this not? Did you see the demostration in the India showed by BBC?
Firozali A. Mulla
Slums Forever and Ever
[info]lilrichardjohn wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 01:38 pm (UTC)
Again the answer to poverty and misery is a fairy waving a magic wand and a heaped TBSP of LUURVE.
The idea that politics wielded by people can change anything is dealt another kick in the pants, as is the notion of political progress.
This is the C21st, the rags to riches copout was a cliche at the start of the 20th. We are actually going backwards by celebrating this dreary bit of exploitation - both artisitically and politically.
One of the best cerimonies .
[info]nunov103 wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 02:27 pm (UTC)
I think that this was probably one of the best Oscar cerimonies ever , simple and straight to the point , but with some very glamorous moments along the way . I really liked the fact that this time they decided not to show clips from the films featuring all the nominated actors , inviting previous winners to hand the awards instead. Hugh Jackman was a perfect host and I had the impression that they were all having fun , and that in the end , they were not competing , but celebrating .
Man on Wire
[info]aaplinc wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 05:51 pm (UTC)
The title of the best documentary winner is Man on Wire, not Man on a Wire. We were fortunate to see this film in pre-release in February 2008 at the True/False Film Festival, the very best and now internationally reknowned Documentary Film Festival, held annually in Columbia MO (USA). the 2009 Festival commences this Thursday. Go to truefalse.org to read all about it and the films being shown this year.
RE: OSCARS GIVEN TO SLUMDOG MILLONIARE
[info]avinashbhargava wrote:
Tuesday, 24 February 2009 at 09:45 am (UTC)
" THIS IS FOR SURE , IF SUPPOSE THIS FILIM 'SLUMDOG MILL..RE' WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY ANY

INDIAN , THEN THERE WAS HOPE AGAINST HOPE , THIS FILM WOULD HAVE EVEN NOMINATED FOR OSCARS.

AVINASH BHARGAVA
MUMBAI
Slumdog - well done.
[info]artsit_e wrote:
Tuesday, 24 February 2009 at 08:22 pm (UTC)
I saw Slumdog at a film festival ages ago before the hype and it was simply brilliant.
Aside from it's stunning performances and cinematography, it's completley NOT what you think it is.
It does not in any way glamourize the slums
It does not show India in a bad light - or it does inasmuch as any film can show a place its set in in a bad light. But in any case does not show anything that news reports, docs, National Geographic has already said
It showcases the stunning talent of its Indian cast and crew. [ Anil Kapoor in particular, how great was he!?]
It's gonna put both Kapoor and Loveeen Tandar (co-director) on the international movie map
After reading Michael Glenny's McMafia, its portrayal of the criminal gang seems tome to be pretty much accurate.
It's humane and life affirming without losing sight of the savagery and injustice of life
Without giving it away, the ending makes it clear that the film-makers are sharply aware of the fissure between fantasy and reality.

Well done, Boyle, Tandar, Dod Mantle, and all the rest of you.


Hi,
[info]romyhh wrote:
Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 11:18 pm (UTC)
I have a nice question I want the mail of Ashutosh Lobo Gajiwala I love how he act in the movie Slumdog Millionaire =) If you have it plis mail me my mail is romiiee@hotmail.com
That you soo much
Goodbye
xoxo

romyyh(:

Most popular

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date