In addition to winning Best Picture (and seven other awards) at the Oscars last week, Slumdog Millionaire passed a major box office benchmark. It has now grossed more than $100 million in the U.S., which is pretty astonishing for a film with one-third of its dialogue in a foreign language. But is Slumdog’s popularity a one-shot in terms of its audience’s interest in India, or are moviegoers actually now more curious about the nation and its own films?

Some websites are simplifying the question of whether or not Slumdog will be a gateway film with polls asking if American moviegoers will now “go Bollywood” (40% of Cinematical readers flat out answered, “no.”), which is rather silly since Danny Boyle’s movie bears no resemblance to the majority of Bollywood pictures. In fact, Americans have in the past received far greater entry points into Indian cinema by way of films involving Anglo or NRI (non-resident Indian) protagonists directed by culturally bridging filmmakers (such as NRI helmers Deepa Mehta, Mira Nair and Gurinder Chadha), than the more-touristy type of filmmaking represented with Slumdog.

If someone truly wants to become familiar with Bollywood, he or she should probably just jump right in and then patiently get used to the style, which can be quite difficult for Westerners to immediately grasp. The extremely interested might benefit from reading the section on popular Indian cinema in Dimitris Eleftheriotis and Gary Needham’s Asian Cinemas: A Reader & Guide, a book that does a really great job acquainting the Western spectator with Eastern film form. Or, the more casually curious cinephile could simply follow our guide to accessible Indian (or India-based) films for the Slumdog lover to watch next:
…Read more

Who knew that the 1985 board game adaptation Clue had so many fans? These people certainly weren’t around 24 years ago when the movie opened 6th at the box office, behind even the terrible Santa Claus: The Movie in its third week (I’ll admit, though, Santa Claus is one of my dear guilty pleasures). But suddenly, via the internet, loyalists are everywhere, up in arms over news that a new Clue adaptation is moving forward as if the original were as popular a film as the 1985 box office champ Back to the Future (which grossed as much as 14 times more than Clue).

Well, I am with the devoted to an extent. I have loved Clue since seeing it in the theater, and am embarrassed to admit it was probably the film that introduced me to the comic talents of Tim Curry, Madeline Kahn and Michael McKean (what can I say except that I was 8 and hadn’t yet seen Rocky Horror, Blazing Saddles or Spinal Tap?). But I’m not joining the protest, because I know we’ll always have the original movie. Plus, I recognize that it was anything but an original idea (never mind that it was based on a board game; hasn’t anyone see Murder By Death?). And besides, the new version, to be directed by Pirates of the Caribbean’s Gore Verbinski, hardly sounds anything like either the game or the first film. “Global thriller and transmedia event”? I don’t know what that is, but it isn’t the Clue I played.

After the jump, the internerds weigh in on their love for Clue or (gasp!) their excitement for Verbinski’s effort:

…Read more

Is romance dead? David Carr seems to think so, at least in American cinema (both Hollywood and “Indiewood,” as he inclusively clarifies). While celebrating the subway station meet-cute from the beginning of Milk, a scene he claims to be of an increasingly rare sort, Carr states that American filmmakers “can do romantic pathology and entropy, but the kind of love for the ages, a big-movie kind of love? Not so much.”

If you agree with him, blame the back-to-back Best Picture winners Titanic and Shakespeare in Love for feeding us the kind of romance that’s so cheesy it clogs our arteries and gives us a coronary. Left with a burst heart and a lack of quality Nora Ephron movies, most of us have been cynics when it comes to love stories these past ten years. Yet cynics can still be swept off their feet, and American filmmakers have adequately supplied them with new kinds of love for the ages.

Just take a look at these ten films from the past decade. They may be full of cynicism, but they’re also filled with big-movie love, in their own way. If you can’t see the romance, then the problem is with you, not the movies.

…Read more

One of the many fads for cinephilic YouTubers, perhaps next in popularity after mashups and sweded remakes, is the condensed movie. Actually, thanks to a recent Empire contest, the art of sweding and the art of fitting features into a 60-second time frame is now also a mashed-up fad (though I guess sweding has always involved shortened versions). But while in this day and age any fanboy can do a shortened remake of his or her favorite movie or an abridged recut that breaks a film down to its bare essentials (i.e. its use of the f-word), condensing a film is not necessarily a low art.

Just look at the 76-minute video Academy by R. Luke DuBois, a conceptual artist who works with both audio and visual mediums. A couple of years ago, using a time-lapse process, DuBois crafted this compilation of sped-up versions of Best Picture Oscar winners, which he says “allows us to explore the temporal, formal, and aesthetic progression of the first seventy-five years of the Academy awards by taking each film and compressing, sound and picture, into a single minute.”

…Read more

Karina Longworth is contributing posts from Tribecca in New York (check them out–we’re so excited to have her here on SpoutBlog). I’m here in the cornfield-embedded college town of Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. Sigh.

But I was feeling compelled this morning, nonetheless, to write a post about the ability, even in a small Midwestern town, to see great movies on a big screen. Besides the fact that we have a much-loved art film theater and all kinds of mini film festivals through the University of Illinois, we have our own annual festival, taking place this week–the 9th annual Roger Ebert’s Overlooked Film Festival. Ebert grew up here, going to movies (including Gone with the Wind) at the 86-year-old Virginia Theatre, where the festival is held.

Much is often overlooked where I live–the Midewest in general, this town, Ebert’s festival. But the most important things being overlooked (by all kinds of people everywhere) are great films. This is what Ebert is hoping to change through his festival. The first year I went, in April of 2002, I was skeptical. I thought the films would be good in a slightly-left-of-mainstream way. But I was genuinely impressed by what I saw and the way Ebert talked about each of them, before the movie started, and after it ended, often in conversation with the director or other guest. He is really passionate about these overlooked films. He’s far more complex than a black or white, thumbs-up or -down man. (That first year I heard the Alloy Orchestra accompany the silent classic Metropolis, and I saw David Gordon Greene’s George Washington, followed by a conversation between Ebert and Greene. I still carry those and other Overlooked Film Festival movie experiences with me.)

At this year’s festival, for the first time, Ebert won’t be talking before and after the films. Last year he underwent significant jaw surgery in his battle with cancer, and he isn’t able to talk. (See this piece by him and this CNN story about him.) But he is here, with his wife Chaz and other friends as his voice, which is pretty darn impressive. And even though there’s not much in the movie realm that could seem more mainstream than Roger Ebert, I’m glad that he’s doing so much to promote great films that a somewhat mainstream audience might not otherwise see–especially in a small town like this.