Hell, yeah! The Best Picture is awarded to the movie that has mastered all of the individual elements of film-making — musical score, direction, casting, script, acting and more — making them work together to produce a real piece of motion picture art. What film better encapsulates the idea of a job well done than Slumdog Millionaire? Not only did Danny Boyle pull off a great movie, he pulled it off in India — which, in case you haven’t managed to visit, is a logistical nightmare for non-natives. Every challenge of movie-making is magnified in this nation’s set of idiosyncratic regulations, but Boyle managed to use these difficulties to bring India’s unique culture to life. The film’s editing technique has been criticized, but it is the editing, as well as the breathtaking cinematography, that allow Slumdog’s heart-rending story to shine. Even in subject matter, Slumdog seems like an unlikely — but all the more deserving — Oscar pick. Its optimism stands in contrast to the cynicism of the other films in the running. It’s been a while since a feel-good movie took the Oscar home. Plus, Slumdog’s victory would be a Cinderella story squared; not only is it about an unlikely hero, it’s also the little engine that could in this Oscar race. The sleeper hit/pet-project that leapt ahead of the pack, Slumdog’s budget ranks well below its competitors. By choosing Slumdog, the Academy would encourage not only great filmmaking, it would also inspire directors to do more with less and turn small budgets into grand masterpieces. Final Answer? Slumdog Millionaire. —Monisha Chakravarthy
Not a chance Slumdog Millionaire is a fabulous film. It functions as prescient socioeconomic commentary, its actors offer earnest performances and director Danny Boyle proves his genius extends to British spheres of influence beyond Scotland. That being said, it does not deserve Best Picture. Its first major issue is the plot. I realize the film’s appeal is supposed to lie within its constraints; the answer to each question on the game show corresponds neatly to an event in the protagonist’s life. But sewing up the loose ends so perfectly detracts from the moral vacuity the film tries to depict. The onscreen dilemmas, which include caste struggles and the transition to modernity, necessitate a less-than-ideal conclusion. Anything else serves to infantilize the audience. Perhaps the greatest grievance I have with Slumdog is that it’s simply not Gran Torino. Comparing Slumdog to Gran Torino highlights the former’s shortcomings, as Eastwood’s technique is far more subtle than Boyle’s. Eastwood examines thorny issues quietly, allowing viewers to synthesize their own judgments. Watching Slumdog, you’re forced to root for the underdog, and the Bollywood ending, while delightful, is appropriate in its garishness. Consider also the character development (or lack thereof). Walt Kowalski’s on-screen anagnorisis in Gran Torino shifts the entire tone of the film; Slumdog lacks a similar moment of recognition, instead imbuing its protagonist with unfailing goodness. Ultimately, Slumdog fails to live up to the hype. A great film, yes, but definitely not my final answer. —Julie Steinberg
