Slumdog Millionaire - March 31, 2009

[horizonline]

Originally Posted by lolwut

Sorry I meant the Limited Edition. But it's got the same ugly rating/banner on the bottom. It doesn't look removable.

I do not like the limited edition cover. What is the difference between the two editions? I do not see slipcovers on these anymore at the stores.

[lolwut]

Originally Posted by horizonline

I do not like the limited edition cover. What is the difference between the two editions? I do not see slipcovers on these anymore at the stores.

I don't know the difference. I was just looking at the different versions and the limited edition had a slipcover.

[horizonline]

Originally Posted by lolwut

I don't know the difference. I was just looking at the different versions and the limited edition had a slipcover.

For awhile I thought they were going to release a new edition with some better special features, or even just a better commentary. I guess they never got around to it.

[lolwut]

Does the Fox Pathe Europa disc from France have the same PQ/AQ as the US?

[traths]

I can't believe this movie came out almost 10 years ago already.

[Monterey Jack]

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/d...on-1236436644/

[HipsterTrash]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/d...on-1236436644/

I actually kind of agree with him. I'm not against people who aren't the subjects telling those stories. But some feel like they do need a specific person for what's on screen.

[MifuneFan]

I don't really agree with his take. I think any filmmaker should be free to make films about other countries and cultures, as long as they're respecting said cultures and countries. I never thought of Slumdog Millionaire as cultural appropriation, and I've never really seen any discussions about it being that either (not saying they don't exist). If a young Indian director made it, as Boyle would want today, it just would be a completely different film than what we have now. Not necessarily worse, just not a Boyle film.

This kind of thinking is a slippery slope to me too. Where should the line be drawn? Should Indian filmmakers only make Indian films? Like would that be cultural appropriation if someone from Mumbai wanted to make an Italian mafia film set in Boston? Should such a film only be relegated to a white person? An Italian person?

[HipsterTrash]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I don't really agree with his take. I think any filmmaker should be free to make films about other countries and cultures, as long as they're respecting said cultures and countries. I never thought of Slumdog Millionaire as cultural appropriation, and I've never really seen any discussions about it being that either (not saying they don't exist). If a young Indian director made it, as Boyle would want today, it just would be a completely different film than what we have now. Not necessarily worse, just not a Boyle film.

This kind of thinking is a slippery slope to me too. Where should the line be drawn? Should Indian filmmakers only make Indian films? Like would that be cultural appropriation if someone from Mumbai wanted to make an Italian mafia film set in Boston? Should such a film only be relegated to a white person? An Italian person?

I can respect people that have different opinion son the matter. It's great that people can like films for reasons that they see merit in.
Slumdog Millionaire is a splendid film. But as time as gone on and I've grown and learnt a thing or two I personally find it hard to go back to it.

Agree with the slippery slope. If Indian filmmakers are only making Indian films, you're stunting creativity and films that can speak on other things.
But what I see with Slumdog is how it's a British man coming into India with privilege and wealth and leaving with credibility and acclaim as others still there live in poverty and despair. Danny wasn't going to solve the countries issues nor could he. But just knowing something about British colonialism and India, it can't but leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Would it hurt if an Indian filmmaker made the film? It couldn't have hurt it. Boyle has his style and that what he brought. But there's more at hand here and sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture than just pure entertainment and the glamour.

[Monterey Jack]

The most successful Indian filmmaker to break out in the U.S. is M. Night Shyamalan, and yet...aside from his own cameos (and casting his daughter in Trap), how many Indian actors have appeared in them? Should he not be allowed to "appropriate the culture" of white, American audiences?

That's how dumb this is.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I think any filmmaker should be free to make films about other countries and cultures, as long as they're respecting said cultures and countries.

In the real world, it is a bit more complicated than that, of course.

A filmmaker can claim he has been respectful about a country/culture that is not their own, but if the people from that country/culture totally call the director out for it and absolutely tear the movie apart, well, then it's too late, because the movie is already out there.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I don't really agree with his take. I think any filmmaker should be free to make films about other countries and cultures, as long as they're respecting said cultures and countries. I never thought of Slumdog Millionaire as cultural appropriation, and I've never really seen any discussions about it being that either (not saying they don't exist). If a young Indian director made it, as Boyle would want today, it just would be a completely different film than what we have now. Not necessarily worse, just not a Boyle film.

This kind of thinking is a slippery slope to me too. Where should the line be drawn? Should Indian filmmakers only make Indian films? Like would that be cultural appropriation if someone from Mumbai wanted to make an Italian mafia film set in Boston? Should such a film only be relegated to a white person? An Italian person?

In a perfect world, and in a vacuum I completely agree. But - in my personal opinion - there is a long history behind who got to tell all the stories that demands - I think - some nuance.

For most of the history of film those in the dominant group in a given society have usually been the ones to tell everyone's stories as well as to choose and define what stories even got told.

For example, until very recently the vast majority of films about Black people in America, even those about specifically Black history like slavery or the civil rights movement were made by white, male filmmakers. And very often studios would insist on inserting a white, usually male character to build the story around, to make it 'appealing' to the white audience.

Same with casting, until the last few years - for example - a straight actor could play a gay character, but you'd almost never see an out gay person get a meaty straight role. Or an able bodied person would play as physically challenged character, but rarely would a physically challenged person be hired to play a 'normal' person - a doctor, lawyer, mom, whatever.

So, now, the pendulum has arguably swung a too far the other way - as always happens as rights are fought over and fought for.

Hopefully, before very long we will be in a world where any filmmaker can tell any story, any actor can play any part.

But - at least as I see it - that will only be a good state of affairs if people of and from a given culture or experience get ample chance to tell stories of and about that culture and experience. When that's the norm - and we're slowly getting there - then it really will be a time where, on top of those stories of personal perspective, anyone can tell any story.

OK, I'll get off the soapbox now.

[Monterey Jack]

Anyways, Boyle's dumb statement was enough to get me to sit down and watch this movie for the first time in...fourteen years? Fifteen? It's still one of the last Best Picture winners that's a true crowd-pleaser, and it's a shame it'll never get the 4K polish it deserves thanks to Disney.

And Freida...

[Rayjg]

Similar to the statement Spielberg made a few years back that Spike Lee should’ve directed The Color Purple. Did Lee even have any interest in doing that?

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/d...on-1236436644/

This mentality is one of many things that is poisoning Hollywood. Would it have been bad if an Indian guy had directed Slumdog? Of course not. But it doesn't mean it would have been a better film if an Indian had directed it either.

[BluBonnet]

In any movie that necessarily involves cultural understanding, yes, it should be very important that it be made by someone who thoroughly understands the culture, imho.

You wouldn’t trust someone pretending to be an expert at things they know little or nothing about, right?

[nicwood]

Originally Posted by sidetracked1

Hopefully, before very long we will be in a world where any filmmaker can tell any story, any actor can play any part.

I really hope that all of this applies to you as well and you’ll get the chance to make more films. It’s been way too long and while the industry is incredibly tough, challenging and competitive, I’m rooting for you that the stars align and you’re able to get something you’re passionate about off the ground.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by nicwood

I really hope that all of this applies to you as well and you’ll get the chance to make more films. It’s been way too long and while the industry is incredibly tough, challenging and competitive, I’m rooting for you that the stars align and you’re able to get something you’re passionate about off the ground.

Thank you, my friend. That's really kind and appreciated.

One of the (few!) advantages of being older, and having had the incredible privilege to direct 5 films I really wanted to make - with only modest interference - is I no longer feel making another is my only path to being happy.

I love teaching and mentoring, I enjoy producing and trying to help others get their visions to come alive. I've had the very good fortune to direct on a lot of great TV shows - which paid the bills nicely while still being artistically stimulating. And yes I'm still chasing my passion projects (one now in it's 24th year of trying!! ), but with a LOT more zen about 'the biz' then I had years ago.

But truly, thank you for the support - not to mention all your insight and helpful opinions about films on discs. I was a film-lover WAY before I was a film-maker, and there's still little in life I enjoy more than settling in to watch great stories unfold on a screen.

[James Luckard]

One thing that's been lost in the conversation about Boyle's quote is that he actually did have an Indian co-director, who's fully credited in the actual film.

She started off as the casting director, and was gradually brought on board with more and more roles, until she became the co-director. Boyle was vocal at the time about the fact that she directed the children, wrote the Hindi dialogue, and had a great deal of input into how the film was made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loveleen_Tandan

She won a few of the awards at the time with him, she probably should have been nominated and won alongside him for all of them, in retrospect.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

In any movie that necessarily involves cultural understanding, yes, it should be very important that it be made by someone who thoroughly understands the culture, imho.

You wouldn’t trust someone pretending to be an expert at things they know little or nothing about, right?

It's a film and not a documentary.