Recently the film’s British director Danny Boyle, serving as jury president of the 12th Shanghai Film Festival, confided during a panel discussion that on “Slumdog” he had shed the patronizing, “imperialist” mentality, relying heavily on a local Indian crew. Boyle also observed that while it was “regrettable” that Beijing imposed censorship restrictions on its filmmakers, he’d nonetheless love to work in China, as it would be a “challenge learning Mandarin.” Boyle neglected to mention that on “Slumdog” he’d skipped the challenge of learning Hindi, necessitating an Indian co-director, and also skipped the patronizing practice of paying Western wages, and the low pay for local child actors would fuel most of the subsequent controversies.

After its national US release in January 2009, “Slumdog” received a positive critical reception in the West, with a 94% rating by Rotten Tomatoes, though some critics raised what would become ongoing issues, with “The Guardian’s” Peter Bradshaw regarding it as “an outsider’s view” and “a product placement” for the very quiz show owned by Celador, the film’s producer. But on its release in India, including in a dubbed Hindi version of this mostly (2/3) English language film, “Slumdog” did only moderate box office, especially the English version, which one trade analyst found “not ideally suited for Indian sentiment.” Indian critics mostly bought the film’s energetic ride, while others puzzled over the mix of languages and the key issue of authenticity, questioning whether the film was “a white man’s imagined India,” a superficial “poverty porn.” Even novelist Salman Rushdie was unhappy, objecting to the film’s slick yet improbable pop version of “magical realism.”

Then the issue of pay for the child actors began to make news, with the Times of India claiming Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, who played Salim as a child, was paid £700 and Rubina Ali, who played Latika, £500, with both still living in makeshift shacks in the slums of Bandra, a suburb of Mumbai. Distributor Fox Searchlight replied that for their month of work the kids were paid three times the average annual adult Bandran salary. Boyle and producer Christian Colson added that they had “paid painstaking and considered attention to how Azhar and Rubina’s involvement in the film could be of lasting benefit to them over and above the payment they received for their work.” This attention included trust funds to cover education, transportation, and expenses for the next eight years. Boyle declined to reveal the amounts of these trust funds, as this could make them “vulnerable and a target,” but according to the India Times Azhar got £17,500 in trust until age 18. His father, Mohammed Ismail, responded, “My son has taken on the world and won. I am so proud of him, but I want more money now.” Both Azhar and Rubina attended the Oscar ceremony in February, Azhar accompanied by his mother and Latika by her uncle, and soon after the Maharashtra Housing Authority announced that both kids would be given “free houses.”

In April the filmmakers responded to further charges of exploitation by donating $747,500 to a charity for the welfare of Mumbai street children, a modest amount for a film brandishing the moral authority of these destitute kids, made for only $15 million while grossing $350 million.

In May Azhar was awakened by unannounced bulldozers demolishing his Mumbai slum home as part of a drive against illegal shanties, and the next week Rubina’s shanty home was razed to make way for an overpass. Rubina and her father were briefly hospitalized, and “Slumdog” director Boyle and producer Colson then announced that in addition to the education trust and grant to charity, they were raising the amount, revealed to have been $30,000, now to $50,000, for Azhar and Rubin to purchase new apartments, as well as giving each family a lump sum of $3,000 and $130 a month stipend.

Then in June it was announced Azhar finally got his new house, a tiny 250 square foot apartment, all that $50,000 would buy in Mumbai’s hot real estate market, casting a new light on the “post-imperialist” filmmakers’ claim of munificent reward according to local standards. Crystallizing the paternalism of this whole sideshow, the ownership of the home is to be transferred from a trust to Azhar when he turns 18, provided he completes school. As if to promise the sideshow would continue, it was announced that Rubina has signed on with Random House to publish her life story, Slumgirl Dreaming: My Journey to the Stars. Boyle is reportedly reassembling his “Slumdog” team for a future project, adapting Maximun City: Bombay Lost and Found.

Back of all this noisy fallout, it’s still the film “Slumdog” Millionaire and the novel from which it is adapted, Q & A by Vikas Swarup, that raise the deeper issues. Like director Boyle wooing the Chinese, both film and novel adopt fundamentally anti-Western postures. The book’s hero, Ram Mohammad Thomas, suffers much at the hands of Catholic priests (some gay), malevolent Australian diplomats, English-speaking tourists, and Westernized figures like gangsters and movie stars (some also gay). In the film most of hero Jamal’s antagonists – police, beggar-chiefs, gangsters, the TV host (none gay), are visual figures out of Western media, a motif wickedly established when the child Jamal dunks in outhouse sewage for a photo autograph by a helicopter-borne Bollywood star Amitabh Bachchan. For novelist Swarup, a diplomat from a line of distinguished Indian lawyers, there is some irony here, as he is beneficiary of the two great Britannic legacies, the English language in which he writes and which most of the film speaks and the common law.

Moreover, the very narrative hook of the novel, the improbable quiz show leading to the fulfillment of dreams of wealth and love, constructs a state of mind: what you know that is most important is simply the inscription of the injustices you have suffered. It is the epistemology of victimhood, the right answers magically accessible to the wretched, or so “it is written.”

At the heart of any current look at India is the key issue of economic development, and both the film and book display related views. Globalization in India, while bringing slick modern media and flashy urban nightlife, is viewed as little different from the old imperialism, with slums and beggars replaced by ugly concrete construction and chai wallahs in phone call centers, an extremely discontented, leftist view of globalization as simply a worldwide extension of the old exploitative gangster/hooker relationships of capitalism, enforced by oppressive police. Such is “Slumdog’s” facile, distorted view of modern India.

This year 700 million Indians voted in month-long elections that returned the secular Congress party to power, an endorsement of religious toleration in a complex land with a Hindu majority plus a minority of the world’s second largest Muslim population. Since moving away from Soviet-style socialism and protectionism, India has been growing almost as fast as China, and now contains a middle class of about 200 million people. To suggest that this enduringly secular, agonizingly multicultural, authentically democratic, free market miracle is little more than a corrupted media show is delusional. As if to repudiate the film’s facile view, the entire subsequent saga of Azhar and Rubina’s pay and housing can stand as a case study of the vulnerability of those at the bottom in the third world, not without luck but without legally recorded and capitalized property as described by economist Hernando de Soto.

Regarding the film as an “outsider’s view” of India, the filmmakers have trumpeted their veneration of Bollywood films, especially the masala genre, and “Slumdog” is full of many of its elements and conventions, notably veteran actors, the score, and the final musical production number, as a kind of assertion of authenticity. This hardly proves a “post-imperialist” mindset. Hollywood films have been voracious appropriators of international trends, notably any avant-garde style, especially since WWII, when their audience increasingly became a youth audience and their business increasingly the sale of figures and tales of rebellion, like the “New Wave” Bonnie and Clyde, to the young. Director Boyle is an accomplished contemporary film stylist, comfortable with post-modern irony and pastiche, as in his successful “Trainspotting,” a breathless pixilation of charming young lowlife junkies.

Adaptation of a novel to film is usually a process of reduction and activation, and screenwriter Simon Beaufoy did a skillful job on “Slumdog,” eliminating characters, simplifying events, constructing the romance, and setting a ticking clock for the last act. There is, however, one change that involves more than streamlining. The novel’s protagonist is named Ram Mohammad Thomas because he is an orphan raised by a Catholic priest named Thomas in a religiously mixed community of Hindus (Ram) and Muslims (Mohammad), a personification of religious toleration appropriate to anyone with hope for India. The film changes this, with Ram, now Jamal, and his friend Salim now brothers in parallel lives, a trope of Indian gangster films, but both Muslim victims of Hindu mob violence, no less than the murder of their mother. As Jamal captains the triumphant main plot of the quiz show and romance, Salim works the parallel gangster/success subplot until its end in renunciation, when aspiring gangster Salim explodes against his false compatriots. Reminiscent of the classic film gangster’s moment of tragic recognition, the martyred Salim, now bathed in cash (millions?), goes out declaring “God is great.”

In Boyle’s flashy, fragmented, rhythmic style this renders an aspect of the film’s resolution a jihadi music video. Why would these “post-imperialist” Western filmmakers give this film such an Islamist twist? Perhaps it is just the same savvy recognition of their young audience that leads A-list Hollywood types to wear keffiyeh scarves as markers of hip transgressive style.

Perhaps it’s akin to what Michael J. Totten has called the “Orientalism of fools,” maybe even an expression of a suicidal self-loathing, an endgame for Western radicalism, which has been an attitude of the leftist cultural elite for some time.

Only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees has inspired any real passion from the broad public. The almost-certain Best Picture winner is Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight), and its devotees, including critics and members of the Academy (not to mention yours truly), have made it a word-of-mouth smash hit. The Danny Boyle-directed feel-good Bollywood fusion movie made for a meager $14M added another $2.05M or so on Friday and is charting a 3-day course for about $7.4M. That will give the Slumdog a $77.4M take, and it could reach $90M-$95M before it’s through in American theatres.

David Fincher's The Curious Case of Benjamin is the only 2009 Best Picture nominee to top $100M

The other four Best Picture noms are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount), Milk (Focus), The Reader (Weinstein) and Frost/Nixon (Universal). I approached  Benjamin Button as a little kid might approach broccoli. (You’re not allowed to leave the table until you eat it, and it’s supposed to be good for you.) It’s very long, a bit pretentious, and not nearly as good as other David Fincher-directed films like Se7en and Zodiac. After opening strong, the movie is now fading despite 13 Oscar nominations, selling about $640,000 in tickets Friday for a likely $2.24M 3-day. The cume will be a respectable $120M by Monday, but how many people have you actually heard saying, “I love Benjamin Button!”

The Reader, Milk and Frost/Nixon are now on as many screens as they will ever be, and they are certainly not setting the world on fire. Here’s how the five movies nominated for Hollywood’s biggest prize are performing this weekend.

BOX OFFICE PERFORMANCE OF BEST PICTURE NOMINEES FEBRUARY 6-8
Slumdog Millionaire – $2.05M Friday – $7.4M 3-day – $77.4M cume
Benjamin Button – $640K Friday – $2.4M 3-day – $120M cume
The Reader – $605K Friday – $2.3M 3-day – $16M cume
Milk – $285K Friday – $1.1M 3-day – $25.2M cume
Frost/Nixon – $189K Friday – $753K 3-day – $15.6M cume

Aside from Slumdog Millionaire, there’s not much box office upside here. Ben Button is unlikely to reach $130M, while Milk will probably fall short of $30M. The Reader could add a possible $8M before its done, and Frost/Nixon won’t even get to $20M domestic.

Frank Langella and Michael Sheen in Frost/Nixon, unlikely to top $20M domestic

PROJECTED CUMES OF 2009 BEST PICTURE NOMINEES
Benjamin Button – $127M cume (projected)
Slumdog Millionaire – $95M cume (projected)
Milk – $29M cume (projected)
The Reader – $23M cume (projected)
Frost/Nixon – $19M cume (projected)
Combined projected cume: $293M

If those numbers hold, the 2009 awards season will have given us three of the six weakest performing Best Picture nominees of the last decade.

TOP 10 LOWEST GROSSING BEST PICTURE NOMINEES OF THE LAST DECADE
1. 2006 – Letters From Iwo Jima – $13.75M cume
2. 2009 – Frost/Nixon – $20M cume (projected)
3. 2009 – The Reader – $25M cume (projected)
4. 2005 – Capote – $28.75M
5. 1999 – The Insider – $29M
6. 2009 – Milk – $30M cume (projected)
7. 2005 – Good Night & Good Luck – $31.5M cume
8. 2002 – The Pianist – $32.5M cume
9. 2006 – Babel – $34.3M cume
10. 2008 – There Will Be Blood – $40.2M cume

Now just two weeks away, the 2009 Oscar ceremony could be a Waterloo of sorts for the Motion Picture Academy. First-time Oscar producers Bill Condon and Lawrence Mark have promised something daring. A re-imagining of the Academy Awards telecast, coming off last year’s all-time lowest ratings.

Hugh Jackman, the talented Australian actor, will serve as host. He previously won an Emmy for his hosting of the Tony Awards a few years back (Here’s his opening musical number from the broadcast.) Yes he can sing and dance, but can he overcome the lack of appeal of the movies that the Academy has chosen to honor?

As a hardcore movie fan, I will be watching, but the average American doesn’t care about enough of these movies to draw a substantial audience. This group of Best Picture nominees seems destined to be the second-least popular group of nominees in the past fifteen years with an ultimate combined cume of just $293M.

Thandie Newton and Matt Dillon in Best Picture winner Crash, which grossed $54.5M domestic

WEAKEST TOTAL GROSS FOR BEST PICTURE NOMINEES
- last 15 years -
1. 2005 – $245M
Crash, Brokeback, Capote, Good Night & Good Luck, Munich
2. 2009 – $293M (projected)
Slumdog, Ben Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader
3. 2006 – $296M
Departed, Babel, Letters from Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen
4. 1996 – $306M
English Patient, Fargo, Jerry Maguire, Secrets & Lies, Shine
5. 2007 – $357M
No Country, Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, There Will Be Blood
6. 1993 – $368M
Schindler’s List, Fugitive, Name of the Father, The Piano, Remains of the Day
7. 1995 – $378M
Braveheart, Apollo 13, Babe, Il Postino, Sense & Sensibility
8. 2004 – $401M
Million Dollar Baby, Aviator, Finding Neverland, Ray, Sideways
9. 1998 – $440M
Shakespeare in Love, Saving Private Ryan, Life is Beautiful, Elizabeth, Thin Red Line
10. 1994 – $543M
Forrest Gump, Four Weddings & a Funeral, Pulp Fiction, Quiz Show, Shawshanke Redemption

I would love to be wrong. I’d love to believe that keeping the identities of presenters a secret, and a song-and-dance man from Down Under, and the sight of Brad and Angelina on the red carpet, and a gutsy, little independent movie from Mumbai, and a guarantee from producers that the show won’t exceed three hours, and the dramatic posthumous recognition for Heath Ledger – that it will all work to draw a huge television audience. But I am feeling more certain that ABC’s Oscars telecast this year may go down as the lowest rated ever.

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter.

Investor Warren Buffet coined the phrase “skin in the game” to describe a situation where executives use their own money to buy shares in their company. The so-called Oracle of Omaha likes companies where insiders have their own money invested because they work harder, care more and generally are more emotionally invested.

The problem with the Oscars is that voters are nominating films that relatively few people have seen. The five movies nominated for Best Picture this week – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, The Reader and Frost/Nixon – have combined to gross just $186.7M. The Dark Knight passed that box office total early in its fifth day of release.

TO-DATE BOX OFFICE FOR 2009 BEST PICTURE NOMINEES
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – $104.3M
Slumdog Millionaire – $44.7M
Milk – $20.6M
Frost/Nixon – $8.9M
The Reader – $8M

How many average moviegoers and potential Oscar viewers have “skin in the game?” Based on the current average US ticket price ($7.15), only about 26 million Americans have seen Hollywood’s big five so far.

Yes, I think The Dark Knight should be a Best Picture nominee. It is absolutely one of my five favorite movies of 2008, and I believe it to be a masterpiece. Artistic excellence and blockbuster status are not mutually exclusive. I believe that one of the reasons Christopher Nolan’s comic book sequel soared past $500M US is that it struck a very real cultural chord with audiences.

There was talk that this comic book adaptation was too dark, but it is actually a relentlessly optimistic movie. What Heath Ledger’s Joker character demonstrates is that, even when the world is in shambles and people are faced with impossibly difficult choices, they do the right thing. The message of TDK is that regular people, at their core, are good. We need more movies like that right now.

I also believe that Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino, although not a perfect movie, should not have been snubbed entirely. No Best Actor for Eastwood’s turn as the irascible Walt Kowalski, and not even a Best Original Song nomination for co-writing the heartfelt theme song with his son Kyle and jazz vocalist Jamie Cullum. Gran Torino, by the way, with a to-date cume of $79.8M, has grossed more than all of the Best Picture nominees except Benjamin Button.

Other snubs that will depress the viewing audience include Best Original Song contenders, Bruce Springsteen (The Wrestler), Miley Cyrus (Bolt), Beyonce (Cadillac Records) and Alicia Keyes (Quantum of Solace). I have yet to get a good answer about why the Academy narrowed the category to just three nominees. If Bruce Springsteen is big enough for the halftime show at Super Bowl 43, he must be big enough for Hollywood’s biggest night, and if there were the usual five nominations here, Springsteen would have certainly been among them.

A disastrously low 31.76M viewers watched last year’s Oscar show for an all-time worst 18.6 Nielsen rating. Last year’s Best Picture nominees combined to gross $357.9M. This year, the five nominees will be lucky to combine for more than $300M domestic. How much lower can the TV ratings get?

There is a growing divide between what Academy voters view as film excellence and what audiences actually want to see. That’s not to say that all Best Picture nominees should be blockbusters, but they should include some true, crowd-pleasing hits. If you look at this list, it’s pretty clear where the Oscars came off the rails.

1993
Best Picture – Schindler’s List – $96M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $368.4M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 46.2M

1994
Best Picture – Forrest Gump – $329.7M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $543.5M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 46.26M

1995
Best Picture – Braveheart – $75.6M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $378.1M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 44.5M

1996
Best Picture – The English Patient – $78.6M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $306.5M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 40.8M

1997
Best Picture – Titanic – $600.8M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $998.2M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 57.2M

1998
Best Picture – Shakespeare in Love - $100.3M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $440.9M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 45.6M

1999
Best Picture – American Beauty – $130M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $647M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 46.5M

2000
Best Picture – Gladiator – $187.7M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $637M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 42.9M

2001
Best Picture – A Beautiful Mind – $170.7M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $620.1M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 40.5M

2002
Best Picture – Chicago – $170.6M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $664.5M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 33M

2003
Best Picture – Lord of the Rings: Return of the King – $377M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $725.9M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 43.5M

2004
Best Picture – Million Dollar Baby – $100.5M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $401.6M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 42.1M

2005
Best Picture – Crash – $54.5M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $245.3M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 38.9M

2006
Best Picture – The Departed – $132.3M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $296.7M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 39.9M

2007
Best Picture – No Country For Old Men – $74.2M cume
Combined domestic box office of the 5 Best Picture nominees – $357.9M
Total Oscar telecast viewers – 31.7M

In 1997, there were three $100M grossing movies including Titanic ($600.7M cume). Over the next seven awards cycles, there were at least two $100M grossers in each Best Picture field, and in 2000 there were four hits of that magnitude.

Then came 2005, when the five Best Picture nominees combined to gross just $245M.

BOX OFFICE FOR 2005 BEST PICTURE NOMINEES
Crash – $54.5M
Brokeback Mountain – $83M
Capote – $28.75M
Good Night and Good Luck – $31.5M
Munich – $47.4M

The disconnect between the Oscars and rank-and-file movie fans started in 2005. This is where the Academy Awards “came off the rails.” Only 38.9M viewers watched that telecast, and the Academy has continued marching to the beat of that noncommercial drummer ever since. In the final analysis, 17 of the last 20 Best Picture nominees (including the just announced group) have failed to break the $100M threshold. Unless the Academy figures out a way to give more rank-and-file moviegoers “skin in the game,” the ratings slide will continue. My hunch is that the 2009 Oscar telecast will be the lowest rated in history.

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter.