OT: Movie you MUST see: Slumdog Millionaire

[Petr Dvorak]

Beautiful pictures are made of the following:

A good eye for:

1.) Emotion
2.) Composition
3.) Color and Light

Those are the tools I like depend on.

Beautifull films are made by geniuses. Thats all.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Also add a hard workers.

 

[Albert Armes]

Trailer looks nice. Great looking digitally shot movies are great for all.

 

[jpp]

i think this is a very sad attitude to have. you absolutely could create a masterpiece with an hv20 and a few thousand dollars.

Then where are those masterpieces, since there must be hundreds of thousands of HDV cameras out there, and countless DV cameras before that, and Hi8 before that, and large numbers with access to 16mm before that, and who knows how many, since the indie boom began in the late 80s, with the highest aspirations and access to some camera or other?

If you're seeking nothing but photographed performances, and the scope of the thing doesn't demand production value ("slacker films" suited this method for a few years, just as the mumblecore stuff is trying to do it today), or you take the approach of something like "Primer", which works largely in the brain, you may be able to make a decent , admirable or interesting film for a few thousand dollars.

But this kind of successful no-budget oddity is not sustainable as either art house cinema or popular entertainment. The only people it really interests (when it succeeds in attracting some notice), are other would-be filmmakers, because they're also looking for the secret. And as much as one can admire what was done with "Primer" for so little money, what he did is not a basis for movie-making and has little to do with cinema (capital "C"), understood as a full expressive medium.

you'd just have to have a story that doesn't require a lot physical resources and an enthusiastic cast and crew that doesn't require a lot of money.

"Just"? This is probably the most elusive formula of all of time in the arts. Millions aspire to it, and who succeeds? Kevin Smith, Ed Burns, or Robert Rodriguez? Are these great filmmakers? I think I could help you out here by citing some far better no-budget filmmakers and films, but the truth is, they weren't great successes, it didn't work out well.

But by all means, keep trying. It's always possible. I think reality and past experience argue against it, but who knows.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Then where are those masterpieces, since there must be hundreds of thousands of HDV cameras out there, and countless DV cameras before that, and Hi8 before that, and large numbers with access to 16mm before that, and who knows how many, since the indie boom began in the late 80s, with the highest aspirations and access to some camera or other?

'Festen' by Thomas Vinterberg is an excellent example. If you haven't seen it you should.

 

[jpp]

'Festen' by Thomas Vinterberg is an excellent example. If you haven't seen it you should.

Don't share your admiration for "Festen", but the budget for that film was over $1.5 million, and it employed the best actors and crew in Denmark. Not exactly a no-budget film, despite the use of a 1-chip DV camcorder and no lights.

I don't know the budget for Slumdog, and haven't seen it, but the fact that you can shoot a relatively expensive and successful movie with a cheap camera doesn't mean that all one needs is a cheap camera to shoot a successful movie.....

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Not exactly a no-budget film, despite the use of a 1-chip DV camera and no lights.

That's true but the question is then what you mean when you say that no low budget films has made it?

I thought that Pi by Darren Aronofsky was brilliant and it was by my knowledge a success for what it was? That was a low budget film.

So was The Brick and I think they made it well (yes it was on film and was 500K, but still).

So of course you can make films with no means that will appeal to a greater audience.

The problem is that they generally fail because they can't get the time to make them great, actors are all inexperienced and that generally leads to bad acting capabilities and so on. But it doesn't mean that you can make it. I think the problem is that when it's made with such little money people tend to concentrate in making them look as great as possible instead of concentrating on the content. This is of course understandable since they're making it so they can get funding for their next project and want to show that they can make high quality with very little means.

Content is always the mayor key in story telling everything else is secondary. Still important, but IMHO secondary.

So if you concentrate in trying to say something with your film then your on the right track.

 

[jpp]

I thought that Pi by Darren Aronofsky was brilliant and it was by my knowledge a success for what it was? That was a low budget film.

So was The Brick and I think they made it well (yes it was on film and was 500K, but still).

So of course you can make films with no means that will appeal to a greater audience.

Pi struck this viewer as greatly overrated, and (arguably) he lifted it from a far better but obscure Argentine film called "Moebius", along with other pilfering from world cinema (Welles' "The Trial" is the other obvious source).

But, good or bad, one thing is for certain: neither Pi nor Brick drew much of an audience, by commercial standards. Aronofsky certainly got a career out of it, which is great for him. But we were talking about masterpieces, not careers.

The problem is that they generally fail because they can't get the time to make them great, actors are all inexperienced and that generally leads to bad acting capabilities and so on.

In other words, films fail because they don't have money or aren't any good. I can agree with that much.:biggrin:

edit: for imdb hounds, note correction to "Moebius" spelling above.

 

[guy fancher]

But, good or bad, one thing is for certain: neither Pi nor Brick drew much of an audience, by commercial standards. Aronofsky certainly got a career out of it, which is great for him. But we were talking about masterpieces, not careers.

you're wrong. pi drew a very large audience by commercial standards. it made back 60 times its budget in the theaters and has been wildly successful on dvd. it is by definition a commercial success. i know many people who consider it one of their favorite films. Its commonly referred to as a masterpiece of low-budget filmmaking, science-fiction, and cinema in general.

i'm sorry you thought it was overrated but you are simply wrong about it not "drawing an audience" by commercial standards. it is a film that was made for $64,000 and could be considered a success on almost every level.

 

[jpp]

Reliable figures for DVD sales are hard to come by, but Pi had a theatrical gross of about $3,000,000, which is very good for an American independent film, but hardly counts as a commercial success, given the cost of distributing and marketing a film.

So while Pi earned a high multiple of its production costs (I don't, however, know where you get the 60x figure), its actual profitability is nowhere near that amount in the theatrical realm, after acquisition, distribution and marketing costs are subtracted.

The idea here isn't to quibble or argue over figures, but just to point out that even a relatively successful film like Pi doesn't present theatrical distributors with a sustainable business model. Besides, that was ten years ago and theatrical distribution costs are much higher now.

 

[guy fancher]

Pi was made for $64,000.
Its print and advertising budget was $300,000.
It made $3,221,152 domestically and $1,457,361 internationally.
THAT IS A COMMERCIAL SUCCESS.

(http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1998/0PI.php)

Besides most money for films of this nature is made on dvd sales anyways.

Pi has sold very well on dvd. I know this because i know many people who own it. People who aren't even film buffs. I know a girl who owns like 4 movies, 3 of which are romantic comedies and then Pi. Urban Outfitters was selling Pi for awhile. It has become a part of popular culture.
I don't have the exact dvd sales but here's something i found after a quick search on the internet~

http://www.dvdjournal.com/previousnews/1999/news199902.html
Reel.com have announced their top-ten-selling DVDs from last week:
1. Gone with the Wind
2. The Blues Brothers
3. The Devil's Advocate
4. Face/Off
5. Altered States
6. Armageddon
7. Primary Colors
8. Out of Sight
9. Pi
10. Kiss The Girls

Pi won the Sundance film festival.

Pi launched the career of Daren Aronofsky.

Pi is a success. It is an arguable masterpiece of a movie that was made on a micro-budget. It made a very good profit. Pi is a success.

Pi proves that it is possible to make a movie on a micro-budget and to make it well. In the case of Pi, the low-budget rough edges can actually enhance the atmosphere of the movie. It doesn't happen often but it can be done.

i don't know what more you could possibly want?

..now if you're only criteria for a successful film is something that grosses 100million dollars at the box office?.. there's always Blair Witch Project :sarcasm:

 

[jpp]

Pi proves that it is possible to make a movie on a micro-budget and to make it well. In the case of Pi, the low-budget rough edges can actually enhance the atmosphere of the movie. It doesn't happen often but it can be done.

As already noted, distribution costs are far higher today than they were 10 years ago, which is the main reason most art-house distributors have since gone out of business, and the studios have shut down their art-house divisions. For the record, Pi also cost more than $64K before it was in distributable form -- probably closer to $200K-$300K. But for the sake of the argument, let's accept your production and distribution figures.

Nobody ever said this kind of success is impossible, or that careers can't be established through low-budget filmmaking. The question is, is no- and low-budget indie film a sustainable and realistic filmmaking model today, and has it promoted high quality in the past? Judging from the results of the last 20 years and the virtual collapse of the American indie distribution market, and comparing films and directors which emerge from American indie cinema to world art-house cinema, I for one would say no.

But, I'll concede your point: 10 years ago Darren Aronofsky took a chance, or his parents took a chance (social class is not irrelevant here), and had a great success, compared to other American independent films. What that means for the present, or American art-house cinema, is harder to say.

 

[Julio Quintana]

I think jpp is technically correct, but the reason is directly related to talent. There are very few brilliant writers in the world. Incredible cinematographers are rare. As are great actors, editors, music composers, and sound designers. Because of their rarity, all of the masters in each of these disciplines cost money. Usually a lot of money.
So in indie filmmaking, you get the guy who is writer/director/cinematographer/editor/composer/sound designer, and it's very unlikely that he is a master at all these disciplines, and weakness in any of these areas can destroy a good film. But if he is that one-in-a-million, then there's no reason why he can't make a masterpiece with the digital technologies available today.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Just saw it last night. Great movie.
Danny Boyle rocks.

From Trainspotting (his first movie I saw), through "The Beach", "28 Days Later" & "Sunshine", I love the way he feels the story and the rhythm, how it's edited, even the music choices in his movies are great.

I'm totally getting this one. A+

 

[Tom Lowe]

I saw Slumdog and liked it. But once you figure out the formula in the opening minutes, much of the rest of the picture is quite predictable.

 

[Seung Han]

his first movie is shallow grave. it launched Ewan McGregor's career. its a wicked small film. I highly recommend it.

 

[Kevin Wild]

I saw Slumdog and liked it. But once you figure out the formula in the opening minutes, much of the rest of the picture is quite predictable.

Not every movie has to have some big "M. Night" twist at the end. This is probably an entire discussion and topic, but I sometimes think the art of storytelling has been hurt by "the big twist ending." Watch "The Straight Story." It's brilliant from David Lynch and to me, was his thumbing his nose at the 90's, 2000's big twist movies.

So...I don't agree. I also really wonder if you knew whether or not the answer written on the bathroom mirror by the host was correct or not. Seriously? You knew 100%? I didn't.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I saw Slumdog and liked it. But once you figure out the formula in the opening minutes, much of the rest of the picture is quite predictable.

I think that the predictability is what Boyle used here intentionally as a building block.
How his storytelling filled the blanks is what made this movie great, IMO.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

I personally really didn't like this movie. I thought the screenplay was pedestrian, the whole concept removes any suspense, and the ending was unfullfilling (which is apparently not a word, but i digress). What was the deal with his brother's sacrifice? Completely unnecessary, and a tub full of cash? ...what?

Anyway, I understand that I'm the only person in the world that didn't like it. I wish "Synecdoche, New York" received half the acclaim of this film, oh well...

 

[Joyfool]

I think that the predictability is what Boyle used here intentionally as a building block.
How his storytelling filled the blanks is what made this movie great, IMO.

Although the episodic nature of the story renders it predictable (at times) it enhanced the commentary on the social mores of the story's pov. I thought it to be brilliant. Truly the only flaw I saw in the pic was the development of the love story from the girl's pov. I just didn't feel her invested...it was one of those "i have enough love for the both of us" kind of scenarios which I find weak in general.

Still give it A+ tho.

Tell you what...this pic raises SI2K prestige...that's good for RED as well (rising tide lifts all boats)