Five reasons why Slumdog Millionaire shouldn’t get a Best Picture Oscar

As of 20 February 2009, Danny Boyle’s tale of a slumdog is enjoying a 94% certified freshness on Rotten Tomatoes and has created a lot of speculation on its biggest critical win as the Best Picture at the 81st Academy Awards to be held on 22 February 2009. But the question is: Does it really deserve the Best Picture title? What are the characteristics of the Best Picture according to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences?

Well, as it appears, there are no set standards for determining the best. As a rule, AMPAS’s active members from each of the branches cast their votes to determine the nominees in their respective categories, but the Best Picture nominees are selected by all voting members. After selecting the nominees, the entire active membership selects Oscar winners in all categories. Thus, while Best Actor, Best Cinematographer, etc. Oscar winners are selected in part by practising actors and cinematographers, the Best Picture Oscar depends wholly on general consensus of the AMPAS members. This is really revealing because it sheds some light on a certain quality of the Best Picture: it appeals to all viewers. In this regard, it’s interesting to note that so far only eight foreign language films have been nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.

For one, the winner of a Best Picture Oscar is flawless in all respects. The characters and events it depicts may be stuff of a fairytale but its human value should be unmistakable. Incidentally, Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was the first fantasy film to win the Best Picture Oscar. In other words, the Best Picture has a universal appeal and doesn’t raise eyebrows.

Slumdog Millionaire has wowed critics and audiences alike around the world as a moving portrayal of human fortitude. Its dear, dirty depiction of human suffering and the triumph of love has received rave reviews from all corners. Indeed, Slumdog Millionaire is one of the smartest movies made recently in India. But, frankly speaking, it shouldn’t get the Best Picture honour. Here are the reasons why Slumdog Millionaire doesn’t qualify for the highest award in modern cinema:

1. Like all good movies, Slumdog Millionaire also moves its viewers, but it does so through a series of apparently contrived situations. The characters look like puppets in the hands of the director who engineers the happy ending. It’s important to note that Danny Boyle makes Jamal answer most of the questions through a series of chance happenings.

2. For millions of western viewers, the imposing structure of the Taj Mahal stands for India. So, Danny Boyle also exploits this stereotype and sends his central characters to Agra, so that his target audience gets a flavour of real India. In fact, the movie abounds in innumerable clichés and stereotypes about India set against the kindness of the western world (“a bit of real India” vis-à-vis “a bit of the real America”).

3. The viewer doesn’t understand why the game show host Prem (Anil Kapoor) makes fun of Jamal by calling him a chai-wala (tea bearer) and illiterate over and over again. This is really unacceptable in an otherwise realistic movie. For sure, by making Prem humiliate the protagonist, the director wants to foreground the helplessness of his slumdog hero.

4. True that Dev Patel does an excellent job. But in some scenes, he is too deadpan to add authenticity to the character he portrays.

5. Lastly but most importantly, millions of Indian viewers had a revolting response to the movie. To many of these viewers, Slumdog Millionaire is a reminder of all the jokes about India that one gets to hear in a Russell Peters show.