How to write Slumdog Millionaire

hr_slumdog_millionaire_3.jpg

Simon Beaufoy is the writer of Slumdog Millionaire, The Full Monty and The Darkest Light, which he co-directed and I loved, although I think I’m the only person who did. He’s one of our most passionate and committed writers, and has a rare ability to tell highly political stories without sacrificing character and story to polemic. From a terrific recent interview, here are five points that particularly stand out:

  1. I always think [The Full Monty] is only as funny as it is because it’s as sad as it is. And I think you need both poles to be working really well, to make that switch between funny and serious work. You need to kind of extend yourself at both ends.
  2. I always start from character, partly because of my documentary roots. It’s the people that interest me first, then the place, then the story. And they obviously all intertwine, but the place is key to everything I do really.
  3. An old documentary question that I was taught which has been the most helpful thing I’ve ever learnt was to ask people: If you had a camera what would you make a film about? And you get very interesting answers back. Jamal’s backstory [in Slumdog] isn’t from the novel but from stories that people told me in the slums.
  4. The crazier your idea the lower the budget. It’s really, really simple. When we first budgeted Slumdog Millionaire – which is with hindsight not a crazy idea, but at the time everyone thought was an absolutely crazy idea – we had subtitles, it was set in a weird place, it had torture scenes in followed by dance scenes… It seemed like a very unlikely scenario. We originally budgeted it at about twenty million dollars, and no one would touch it. It was a crazy idea that was too expensive. You cut five million dollars off that and suddenly people were going all right, it’s a crazy idea but it’s not so expensive, so it’s within our parameters of possibility here.
  5. I’ve done a few book adaptations, and what I tell the author every time is that I will change everything but the soul of it. And if I keep the soul of it the same then I feel I’ve done a faithful adaptation of their book. If you do a literal adaptation of a book I think you’re destined to fail. If you do a faithful sort of transliteration from book to screen, they’re nearly always a disaster. You have to take what the book’s really about, throw the rest away and rebuild it into something else.

Advertisements

No Bounty for Gold Men

02oscar

The fabled “Oscar bounce” — the traditional box office boom for the season’s most nominated films — has barely materialised this year, according to The Big Picture, which offers an interesting analysis of the possible reasons why. It’s partly the economic climate: tough times make grim viewing hard to sell. It’s partly the current Hollywood distribution pattern, which loads all the big fun exploding stuff into the summer, and all the pompous arty stuff into the nomination-friendly winter months.

And maybe too it’s partly that the two have become so separate. There are, broadly speaking, three kinds of movies. There are movies that people enjoy: the traditional Hollywood fare of thrillers, comedies, action movies etc. There are movies that people admire: the traditional Oscar fare of historical dramas, literary adaptations and plays wrenched from Broadway to the screen. And then there are the movies that people love: Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, The Shawshank Redemption. Some of these win awards, but many never trouble a jury until the bandwagon has passed. You can’t set out to make these popular classics — some had the most tortuous production histories in Hollywood — but you can see what they have in common: a relentless narrative drive; a blend of the comic and dramatic; a cheerful embrace of sentiment, if not outright sentimentality; and boldly-drawn characters at a moment of crisis. These films are about people with everything at stake. 

At best these things are as true of the Oscar movies as they are of the summer movies. Frost/Nixon, on film even more than on stage, dramatises just how much is at stake for both its lead characters: it’s a far more gripping thriller than the thudding, interminable nihilism of last year’s box office champion, The Dark Knight. But too often it feels as though popular acclaim and critical acclaim have become separate entities, and separate creative ambitions. As a result our summer films have no taste, and our winter films too much. You watch a film like The Reader longing for a spot of vulgarity: something to puncture the stifling politeness of the thing. Like so many literary adaptations, it feels less like a movie than a waiting room, a place for slightly embarrassed people to flick through magazines while trying to avoid eye contact. Even its much-debated eroticism seems like porn for people who hate sex. 

All of which is why, if I were voting, I’d want Slumdog Millionaire — the one movie that certainly has had its commercial Oscar bounce — to win tonight. It has all the qualities of a great popular classic; it has become the embodiment of its own underdog spirit; and it points the way to the future of movies, and the reuniting of the heart and head.

History and the Oscars

When I wrote last week about whether films as a whole were getting better, my one regret was the comparative lack of contemporary drama. Well, now the Oscar nominations are through. And the nominations for Best Picture are …

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, The Reader, Frost/Nixon

Which means that, of all the films produced this year, just one set in the present makes the grade. Is this normal? Let’s look at last year:

No Country for Old Men, Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, There Will Be Blood

That’s two out of five. Has this always been the case? Let’s look at ten years ago, and the 70th Academy Awards:

Titanic, As Good as it Gets, The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting, LA Confidential

Again, two out of five. Here are the Best Picture winners for the past 25 years:

No Country for Old Men, The Departed, Crash, Million Dollar Baby, The Return of the King, Chicago, A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, American Beauty, Shakespeare in Love, Titanic, The English Patient, Braveheart, Forrest Gump, Schindler’s List, Unforgiven, The Silence of the Lambs, Dances with Wolves, Driving Miss Daisy, Rain Man, The Last Emperor, Platoon, Out of Africa, Amadeus, Terms of Endearment.

True to form, it’s dominated by period films: fewer than a third are set in the present. So what’s going on? Are period movies simply better than contemporary ones? Do they appeal more to the relatively older Academy members? Best Picture winners are certainly more likely to arrive with existing prestige, having been adapted from novels or plays: 12 of the 25. And they’re more likely to be based on real people or events: 14, if you include Forrest Gump. In fact, of the past 25 years of Best Picture winners, how many are original screenplays?

Crash, Gladiator, American Beauty, Shakespeare in Love, Titanic, Rain Man, Platoon 

And of those how many are contemporary dramas or comedies?

Crash, American Beauty, Rain Man.

Three out of 25. But if you look at the list of movies that get made, only a small proportion of them are historical. For one thing, they’re expensive. For another, they can be a tough sell at the multiplex: they smack of worthiness, of history, of school. David Mamet wrote once that “Nothing with a quill pen in it ever made a nickel,” which may not be entirely true — look at Shakespeare in Love — but isn’t far off the mark. Looking at last year’s US box office rankings, only five of the top fifty could be counted as period films, and only one made the Best Picture list:

#3. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #7. Prince Caspian, #22. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, #28. 10,000 Years B.C. , #38 Valkyrie.

It’s also worth noting that despite the perception that popular taste is dominated by sequels, franchises and adaptations, 23 of the top 50 at the box office are original contemporary stories: far higher than the comparative list of “awards movies”. So does this mean that the Academy is getting it wrong? Not necessarily. Of the list I’d personally vote for Slumdog Millionaire, but I also loved Frost/Nixon. But I think my original question still stands: where in the nominations, other than Slumdog, are the exciting, original, contemporary movies that talk about today’s concerns, and can help us navigate the years ahead?