All too predictable? Slumdog Millionaire sweeps the Oscars
Monday February 23. We should be rejoicing. A film made on a shoestring, set in the slums of a third world country, tough, intense, redemptive, funny, partly in Hindi, rejected by the studio that financed it, starring complete unknowns, has taken home Oscars for eight of its ten nominations, including best picture, best director, best cinematographer and best adapted screenplay, writes Christopher Goodwin in Los Angeles.
It's brilliant. And it was fabulous to see so many of those involved in Slumdog Millionaire, including the kids flown over from Mumbai for the night, up on stage celebrating. We should all be thankful to the much-maligned Academy. If the Oscars are about anything, they're about that kind of transforming moment.
So why do so many people in Hollywood feel so downbeat about it all? Why did they bemoan the lack of surprise and excitement? The problem, of course, is that we've become so jaded, so fatigued by the endless train of award events that have already recognised Slumdog, and by the bloggers and prognosticators who have taken all the suspense out of the Oscars.
So, as the big night approached, and Slumdog seemed a shoo-in, everyone began to be more concerned about how Hugh Jackman would perform as Oscar host, whether the show would come in under three hours and what the TV ratings would be. Who gives a damn? Jackman sang well enough. He did an amusing opening number. He was more upbeat than the comedian presenters of recent years have been, but that's all froth. And even at three hours, the show was still too long. It always is.
But while it was certainly not a surprise, there was tremendous sentimental value in seeing Heath Ledger's father, mother and sister accepting the best supporting actor award on his behalf for playing the Joker in Dark Knight, just over a year after the young actor had died of a drug overdose. And much intrigue about who his Oscar actually belongs to. His daughter, most Academy insiders believe. So should his family be able to take it back to Australia, as they say they intend to?
And there was real surprise, right at the beginning and near the end of the night. In the first award of the evening, Penelope Cruz took the best supporting actress Oscar for her role in Vicky Cristina Barcelona in a wide open race. Any one of the other four nominees - Marisa Tomei for The Wrestler, Amy Adams and Viola Davis and Taraji P Benson for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - could have taken it.
Bookending the evening was the other big surprise, the best actor Oscar to Sean Penn for his performance in Milk. Well, perhaps not entirely a surprise. It had always been a two-horse race, between Penn and Bafta winner Mickey Rourke.
And, while Rourke was certainly the sentimental favourite and everyone in the Hollywood audience and at home was on tenterhooks at the thrilling prospect of the whacked-out Rourke profanely thanking Loki, his recently deceased pet Chihuahua, in front of an audience of more than a billion, who would begrudge Sean Penn his win? He was brilliant in Milk.
His speech didn't disappoint, either, kicking off by humourously applauding the Academy: "You commie, homo-loving sons of guns," said Penn as he got on stage. But he then went on to deliver the night's obligatory big political message, in support of gay marriage.
"For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, I think it's a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect on their great shame and their shame in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that support," said Penn. "We've got to have equal rights for everyone." What would Oscar night be without a liberal actor using his win to promote a liberal cause?
Even Kate Winslet, who surprised no-one by taking the best actress Oscar for The Reader, managed to engender a bit of controversy, attacking the British press for sneering at her teary acceptance speeches. "I don't care," she said backstage, dressed in Yves Saint Laurent. "I think it's sad that my country can't be pleased by the success of one of their own, like America has." You tell 'em, Kate.
LAST UPDATED 7:27 AM, FEBRUARY 23, 2009
Oscars 2009: all the winners
In pictures: the 2009 Oscars
People: Slumdog Millionaire's Anil Kapoor bids for TV stardom
People: Stephen Daldry leads defence of The Reader
What they are saying about Kate Winslet
ADVERTISEMENT












Comments
Hide comments
Oh yeah what a great night for "slumdog" or should i say for the makers of the movie. Make a movie on a shoestring pay the main actors next to nothing, make a fortune then send them back to the slums. Great business model. It was a forgone conclusion that it would win so many awards, just pick the movie with the most liberal theme add some cutie kids and bingo you win. Damn awful movie.
Posted by Gary O'Brien at 10:55am on February 23, 2009
Hugh Jackman was fantastic, the best moment of the night was his opening number. It was all downhill from there. The awards to the 'nuts and bolts' should be done off stage. People are interested in actor/actress/movie/director/music.... Queen Latifa's song and the tribute to those deceased during the year was the only other useful moment. Why can't they show clips of the nominated films as they used to? Or the performances of the actors/actresses nominated? Leave out the so-called 'comedic' moments which were obnoxious. I felt sorry for Jennifer Anniston to have to stand in front of her ex husband and Angelina Jolie, esp. looking at that nasty sneer on Jolie's face. I prayed those two wouldn't win anything. Sophia Loren was the only touch of real Hollywood Glamour. Watching Jerry Lewis was more than painful. I adored the cast of Slumdog, they were really happy and excited to be in Hollywood. The movie deserved to win. It was so much better than the others. I am a bit sorry Winslet won over Streep, however it was acceptable.
Posted by suzann Dodd at 6:08pm on February 23, 2009
Add comment
You must be signed into your user account to add a comment.