And the Winner Is...

By the time I’ve finished posting this, “Slumdog Millionaire” will more than likely have been named Best Picture at the 2009 Oscars. It’s easy to see why the film has been given such accolades thus far. It possesses a tight, well-structured screenplay and is masterfully directed by Danny Boyle. “Slumdog” is paced well, keeps the audience involved with the three main characters and provides an emotional, if slightly predictable climax. I guess you’ve noticed my words aren’t drooling with admiration. I loved “Slumdog” but I have a tough time placing it above films such as “WALL-E” and “Gran Torino” as the best picture of the year. The fact that the latter two films were not even nominated for the category calls into question the politics of the academy and award shows in general.

“Slumdog Millionaire” represents the culmination of many themes represented in Danny Boyle’s work, beginning with 1994’s “Shallow Grave” and continued with the cult favorite “Trainspotting”, the apocalyptic horror film “28 Days Later” and 2004’s “Millions”, Boyle’s first foray into more mainstream filmmaking. Many characters in these films live on the edges of society and choose crime as a way of life as their existence has provided no other plausible outlet for success. In “Slumdog” Jamal and his brother Salim spend most of their youth as thieves and con artists, yet we never call into question their motives, as they were penniless orphans with no other logical means of surviving. Boyle covered similar ground in 1996’s “Trainspotting”, his images of welfare-stricken England slightly similar in tone to that of Mumbai. We tend not to criticize the questionable acts of Renton during the movie, as we believe he is doing what he can to make a living, even if it is stealing and selling drugs.

It is understood that the crappiest parts of England are preferable to the slums of Mumbai, India. However, Boyle has progressively been using impoverished archetypes to show how nice, likable people do things they shouldn’t due to destiny or fate. Coincidentally, Boyle uses a clip from “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” in “Millions”, where a young boy finds a sack of money that he believes fell from the sky. “Millions” is lighter in tone than “Slumdog Millionaire” but begins many themes that Boyle perfects in the latter film. In “Slumdog”, the sacrifices endured by several key characters are far greater than those in any of Boyle’s previous works, making their redemption more powerful and fully realized than in any of his other films.

Like Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed” and Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven”, “Slumdog Millionaire” is the ultimate Danny Boyle movie. In addition to the script and themes, Boyle synthesizes his quick-flash action cinematography used in “28 Days Later”, the psychedelic imagery shown in “Trainspotting” and 2000’s “The Beach”. “Slumdog” is a work of a master craftsman at his peak, who may possibly have over two decades of filmmaking left in his tank. Boyle, 53, is far younger than Scorsese and Eastwood when they received this honor. Maybe this is the academy’s method of rectifying previous errors like the snubbing of Scorsese and Eastwood much of their careers. “The Departed” is a great film, but most film buffs prefer “Goodfellas” as the ultimate Scorsese gangster flick. “Unforgiven” may have given Clint his first statue, but “The Outlaw Josey Wales” is in many eyes, a far superior Western. With a lack of new blood in the Hollywood star system, it is possible many voters want to make a new celebrity any which way they can, be they actors or directors. Peter Jackson’s Oscar for 2003’s “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” gave him superstar-director status and the right to pick any project he chooses, no matter how astronomical the budget. It remains to be seen how Boyle will handle his celebrity status if “Slumdog” takes “Best Director” and “Best Picture”. I hope he eventually makes his sequel to “Trainspotting”, which has hinted at from time to time. Who doesn’t want to see how “Spud” and “SickBoy” handle middle-age?

The two films I mentioned as Best Picture snubs, “WALL-E” and “Gran Torino”, may have been passed on for political reasons. “WALL-E”, by far the best reviewed film of 2008, is not only animated, but forgoes the “star-system” of voiceovers (unless you count John Ratzenberger, Kathy Najimy and an almost unrecognizable Sigourney Weaver). “Wall-E” made millions for Disney/Pixar but did not feed the Hollywood system, which loves to pat itself on the back. It’s understood that “Slumdog Millionaire” doesn’t either, but the end goal may be making a star out of the director who may then “feed the system” for the next twenty years or so. It may also be the academy is doing to Pixar what they did to Scorsese, Eastwood and many others: have them wait decades until they get the award as an almost-thank you as opposed to earning it for a truly deserving film.

While “WALL-E” is an almost shoo-in for Best Animated Feature, Clint Eastwood’s “Gran Torino” was snubbed entirely, mostly for political reasons. Seen by many as Eastwood’s return to the “Dirty Harry” mentality, “Torino” epitomizes the type of film many of the Hollywood elite do not want to reward. The Film Comment review of “Gran Torino” trashed the acting of the young, mostly Hmong performers in the film. Ironically, no such criticism was leveled at any of the cast of “Slumdog” as they were mostly film veterans while Eastwood chose to use mostly amateurs. However, the performances of the characters in “Slumdog” could be seen as almost too polished whereas the inexperience of the young actors in “Torino” emphasizes the shyness of outsiders trying to fit in. If “Slumdog Millionaire” is Oscar’s darling, “Gran Torino” is surely its pariah. It is a pity the academy chose not to recognize Eastwood, whose film is a culmination of many of his themes regarding justice, pain and redemption. These same themes, interestingly, are dealt with by Danny Boyle in “Slumdog Millionaire” but in a much more politically correct fashion. Hey, who said Hollywood wasn’t hypocritical?

When the Oscars are finished, it will not really matter which 2008 films win or lose, but which ones will go on to engrain themselves into the public movie consciousness. I watched a goodly chunk of TCM’s “31 Days of Oscar” and am always surprised at how few films I recognize. An award does not always guarantee immortality or a wide audience, just a line in a history book. Sometimes the sentimentality of the present overwhelms the concept of posterity for the future. If we look at the nominees from 25 years ago, only “The Big Chill” stands out as a film still watched by contemporary audiences. Conversely, the two best-known films from 1983, “Return of the Jedi” and “National Lampoon’s Vacation” are aired regularly and are part of the average movie-lover’s collection. Time is the ultimate judge of a film’s durability and influence, not the political motivations of an elite few. If we use this standard, the 2009 award for “Film Most Likely to be Remembered” is: “WALL-E” with “The Dark Knight” in second place. Time as always, will determine the films remembered, the ones forgotten and the ones doomed to air at 2AM on bad TV stations (thank you, Razzies!).

Grappling With Reality in "The Wrestler"

I once used pro-wrestling to break up a relationship. Although I cared for her deeply, I felt it was the right thing to do if I wanted her to be happy. I was a nervous wreck, afraid of the future and the prospect of “growing up.” She didn’t deserve to be sucked into my problems and I was too chicken to tell her. That’s a cop-out answer, of course, but sometimes life is filled with cop-outs.

Many years ago, pro-wrestling was at its peak, attracting over fifteen million viewers per week. As a long time fan, I could describe in detail the intricate dance performed by the most talented of performers. However, wrestling has the stereotype of being followed by mostly beer-guzzling morons who believe every second is real. For one night, I chose to become one of those guys. I pounded down cans of smelly beer (probably Grain Belt) and rooted enthusiastically for the Undertaker. One of my least favorite performers, the Undertaker epitomizes much of what pro-wrestling is ridiculed for: a possibly undead dude with too much goth make-up that rises like a zombie when he’s out for the count as if he has unnatural super-powers. More beers and fake appreciation followed. I soon achieved my goal, even though it was a bittersweet achievement. I guess it wasn’t that hard to pretend to be in a state of retarded adolescence, which probably says more about me than I’d really like to admit.

Similarly, Randy “The Ram” Robinson, the wrestler in Darren Aronofsky’s heartbreaking film “The Wrestler”, longs to go back to the world of the 1980’s where good guys (Americans) fought bad guys (Iranians) and the party never ends. Randy “The Ram”, played to perfection by Oscar nominee Mickey Rourke, was a head-liner 25 years ago but lost all his earnings through mismanagement and partying. Aronofsky only implies this but any research into the history of pro-wrestling reveals Randy’s situation to be the norm and not the exception. Any skeptics are encouraged to look up the rise and fall of Jake “The Snake” Roberts for further validation. “The Wrestler” begins with a small house show at a school gym where Randy “The Ram” is the headliner to entertain a crowd of hundreds, far removed from the big arenas of his prime. Aronofsky shows the backstage comradery before the performance, which is similar to prepping for a play or dance. The performers discuss the choreography, shake hands and wish each other well. After the event, we see Randy hunched over in a corner, alone and in pain, collecting his thoughts in an elementary school classroom.

Occasionally, we are taken into the remnants of Randy’s “80’s” world as he plays with local children in the trailer park where he lives. He wrestles with them and invites a boy to play an old 8-bit Nintendo-esque game where Randy himself is one of the fighters. He chooses to play himself, in a sad juxtaposition of what his life has become. In my review of “Revolutionary Road”, I described the Wheelers as people who are unwilling to accept a potential mundane existence. Conversely, Randy “The Ram” was a star and chooses to hold on to that fading reality even if that means having nothing else in his life at all.

Randy’s life, like the Wheelers’, takes an unexpected turn and he his forced to confront a reality different from the one he has been living most of his life. We root for him as he befriends and woos a local stripper (Oscar-nominee Marisa Tomei). Their most affecting scene occurs when the two are having drinks, longing for the glory days of 80’s party music before “that Cobain guy” ruined everything. This could be taken as a throwaway line but I know way too many people who believe this with the fervor of Southern Baptists on a Sunday. Aronsofsky inserts several classic “hair-band” songs into the film, most of which by bands who have coincidentally squandered their fame and fortune, winding up performing in places similar to Randy. A few years ago, I noticed a sign advertising the band Warrant, headlining a bar in a strip mall. I did not make that up (how could I). A mediocre strip mall in Columbia Heights, Minnesota once witnessed the decades-old glory of the mighty Warrant.

Randy also attempts to get a “real” job, working at a deli counter. His bleached blond tresses scrunched beneath a hairnet, he looks ordinary. Several close-ups of Rourke during this scene show how battered he his; a minimum wage, almost-homeless 50 year old just trying to make a living. Randy makes the most of his situation and becomes “The Ram”, gracefully gliding behind the counter, flipping containers in the air and entertaining customers with his decades-hewn charm. Aronofsky gets us rooting for him in a way directly similar to Sylvester Stallone’s “Rocky”. A good guy with a few bad breaks, how can you not cheer for the underdog, hoping he wins the love of a girl and gets one more shot at the big time?

Yet, Randy “The Ram” is not Rocky Balboa. Although Rocky had several family issues throughout the six “Rocky” films, there was never any doubt of the love he had for them (even old, drunk Uncle Paulie). Randy Robinson, the man, has a daughter, Stephanie, he has barely talked to and has consistently disappointed for possibly twenty years. Randy attempts to reconcile with her, although she is reluctant to accept his affection. She is obviously bitter, but her love (and desire to be loved) by her father overcomes her skepticism along with Randy’s trademark good-guy charm. Everyone wants the friendship, company and laughter of someone they lost. Even if it’s just for a second, it’s nice to know they care. Stephanie is no exception as she accepts her father’s presents like a child who never had one perfect Christmas.

Just as we are thinking our wrestling “Rocky” has won the day and will continue his triumphant return to the big time, he fails in a way that makes us question his integrity and our perception of him. Aronofsky pulls our veil off, making us wonder who exactly we went on this journey with and make us question our sympathy for Randy “The Ram” Robinson. Now that we’ve followed him back into the ring, do we really want him to win? As he “high-fives” his adoring fans, do we extend ours or leave the arena in disappointment? Aronofsky masterfully gives the audience both options, depending on the level of empathy.

Maybe sometimes we aren’t meant to know the future, only glimpses and snap-shots in dreamscape seconds. We see what we want to see and leave the rest up to gut instinct. A victory can be a defeat, or vice versa, depending on your point of view. Randy “The Ram’s” life is filled with both anomalies. Unlike pro-wrestling, his fate is not determined by bookers in the backstage but in our guts. Our experiences in life change us, shape our thoughts, beliefs and sympathies as we grow. How we’ve lived our life and the people whose lives we’ve affected or been affected by guides our interpretation of Randy’s fate. Is there a hero, a loser, a rock star, a clerk, a dancer, a stripper, a child, a parent in all of us? How do we assemble the puzzle? Do we leave anything out? Should we remember the good times or the bad? Is there solace in the future or fear of the past? As we leap off the top rope with Randy, we may not know if we succeed or fail, only that we did the best we could, fate be damned.