Just to throw in another historical comparison with a popular hit ...

Brecht's Threepenny Opera was received by the majority of the huge
audience it received as a jolly musical but if you look at the content
there is a horrifying contrast between the jollity and energy of the
music and the subject matter.

Helen 

-----Original Message-----
From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Julius Bonapart
Sent: 25 January 2009 23:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Slumdog Millionaire

When discussing the film's topic one must take into account the fact
that it's based off a book - whatever flaws or virtues the ending has is
linked to the book's ending, it's not like Boyle wrote the story off
which he based the screenplay. (I don't think he ever does either, but
who does nowadays?) Having seen a little bit more of Bollywood myself, I
find it ironic that the problems with the movie are exactly the things
present in Bollywood all the time - implausible ending, lovers "meant to
be" together, screaming and dancing, etc. Bollywood in itself is
escapist cinema at its purest, formula movies that get cranked out every
week so people are crammed up in the cinema not getting involved in
politics or anything dangerous to the status quo.
I think if this movie hadn't had the kind of release it's had, and
didn't have the director it has, it may have been received as a serious
satire of Bollywood and Hollywood's childish escapism in general and
Hollywoods weird fetish for picking and choosing indian stereotypes that
they exploit ad neauseum (all "Guru" movies come to
mind) in particular. I think what makes or breaks this movie is the
taglines, the hype, how it's marketed. If I introduced an audience to
this movie as a brutal satire, they might just go for it, and the movie
itself would be all the better for it. But when you take it, as was said
before "the feel good movie of the year", it's just plain offensive. The
sad thing is that such a hyperbole of a satire is taken at face value
(perhaps it was meant to be taken at face value but the other reading
makes it so much more digestable) and is well received.
It's like if I make a movie about how great AIDS is and people come out
thinking AIDS is actually great, not getting the acid sarcasm behind it.

The offence you can take from the movie comes from the angle from which
you see it. And since I am of the opinion that once a work of art is
created (although that title for this picture is debatable), it belongs
to the viewer and not the creator, I'd rather think it's just one big
joke where everyone who knows the joke is laughing at those who don't
but laugh anyway. Whether that was the original intention or not doesn't
change a thing for me.

Ha-ha.

Now let's get on to making fun of Leibnitz.

*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
[log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**

*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**