[svat]

As someone wrote:[1]

> Let’s say I made a movie about the US where an African-American boy born in the hood, has his mother sell him to a pedophile pop icon, after which he gets molested by a priest from his church, following which he gets tied up to the back of a truck and dragged on the road by KKK clansmen. Then he is arrested and sodomized by a policeman with a rod, after which he is attacked by a gang of illegal immigrants, and then uses these life experiences to win “Beauty and The Geek”.

> Even though each of these incidents have actually happened in the United States of America, I would be accused of spinning a fantastic yarn that has no grounding in reality, that has no connection to the “American experience” and my motivations would be questioned, no matter how cinematically spectacular I made my movie.

[1]: https://greatbong.net/2008/12/29/slumdog-millionaire-the-rev...

[BeetleB]

If it's entertaining, I'd watch that movie. It'll be a lot better than most Hollywood movies, and frankly, most Hollywood movies are pretty far off from reality (almost every movie involving the police or detectives is crazy unrealistic).

I'm not a fan of Slumdog Millionaire, but that's mostly because it's a poor story, and one that could have been a great one. Arguing it's portrayal deviates like crazy from reality is, well, like most other Hollywood movies.

(Yes, yes I know it's not a Hollywood movie).

[UIUC_06]

+1 on the Hollywood trashing.

Whether something is a "good story" is hard to be objective about. It depends heavily on whether the actors sell it or not. Why do you say Slumdog is a poor story?

"Poor boy makes good" is the plot of a zillion movies and books. The audience knows going in that he's going to get rich and/or get the girl. It's how that either works or doesn't.

[BeetleB]

They story had many interesting arcs that could have been richer, but halfway through it was clear there wasn't any interest in developing them, and that it was just about finding/connecting with the girl. Also, the fact that the trivia questions always seemed to align with his accidental experiences was just not that interesting.

A story about a poor boy making it big by things other than "always being lucky" would have been better.

[gamblor956]

We must have watched a very different movie...

He wasn't lucky. In fact the point of the movie was that the totality of his crappy life experiences before the trivia game ultimately led to him making it big. Essentially, it was a metaphor for karma.

(Spoiler: he almost died several times, his mom and brother died, his friend was sexually abused and he only narrowly escaped similar fates by running away, and he was working as an entry level food cart guy at the present day of the movie. He was beaten by the cops after his initial success at the show. What part of this do you consider lucky? )

[BeetleB]

> What part of this do you consider lucky?

The part where the questions just happened to align with his misfortunes. And not even in a meaningful way.

This definitely isn't a movie about someone who made it big by struggling hard. He struggled for sure, but the fortune came not as a byproduct of his efforts, but by being lucky. I mean sure, luck is a factor in everyone's success. In his case, it wasn't merely a factor. It was almost all luck.

[gamblor956]

The questions align chronologically with his misfortunes, essentially providing a roadmap of the major events that determined the course of his life.

Yes, they're lucky. It's a game show. A large part of trivia game shows is a matter of luck with respect to the questions asked.

But the point of the movie was that his luck on the game show was good karma for the decisions he made at the major points of his life. (Contrast with his brother.)

[UIUC_06]

OK. I've forgotten most of it, except for the, umm, "memorable" scenes.

[UIUC_06]

It would probably be a flop in India, but I'm not the best person to judge that.

I think depictions of the US in overseas movies are pretty much as silly as that, though. Everything takes place in very rich or very poor parts of NYC or LA.

As for "I would probably be accused" -- maybe in India. In the US it wouldn't even rate a review.