[Slumdog Millionaire 2 Full Movie In Hindi Mp4
Laurice Whack
For instance, the long-standing conflict between Muslims and Hindus in India has a devastating effect on the main character, Jamal. In one particularly jarring scene, Jamal, who is Muslim, watches his mother die at the hand of a Hindu mob. Tensions between these two groups have affected the country for decades, and international awareness of this conflict is important.
In the film, an orphaned Jamal and his brother are picked up by a man who runs an operation that turns homeless, parentless children into beggars. The man later pours hot liquid into the eyes of another orphan, blinding him before sending him out as a beggar.
The awards and recognition for Slumdog Millionaire are well deserved, and Boyle and the cast should be congratulated for not only creating a spectacular film, but promoting international awareness of places like India, where real slumdogs rarely get a chance at a million dollars.
My question might be somewhat naive considering every camera is different but, could the "look" of Slumdog Millionaire be achieved on Blackmagic cinema cameras?
How much of the "look" of Slumdog Millionaire was created in the grade and could this look be replicated with the BMCC?
Silicon Imaging cameras just seem to have a nicer filmic quality to a lot of other digital cameras, in particular a very pleasing highlight roll off. Can the silicon imaging look be replicated on BM cameras?
Actually slumdog was mostly shot on film. There are many digital shots but most of them are hand-held running stuff when they're children and of course the night stuff. So that's why the film looks great! It's film! :)
Something I do find curious: the triangular bokeh indicates that the second shot was taken with either S16 Super Speeds or early, Mk 1 Super Speeds or "B-Speeds". This is what the IMDB technical data indicate:
Ok thanks guys!
I read that about 80% of the film was shot digitally and that's why its credited as the first digitally shot film to win best cinematography at the oscars so I assumed these shots were from the SI2k cameras.
In all honesty I really do think cameras do have a "look". If this was not so everyone would be using 5D's for their feature films claiming that all they need is "lighting and art direction" (I'm not trying to be offensive to your comment I'm just trying to highlight a point). Obviously lighting and art direction are central to a particular "look" of a film but different cameras do carry different "looks" and i think the Si2k is a good example of that.
Does everyone else seriously think these shots were done on 35mm film?
I personally like how the camera's look. I'm absolutely not in love, nor would I consider them a replacement for film in any way shape or form. Personally, having shot and worked with MANY of the D cinema camera's, the Alexa is the only one which has fooled me. Every camera has it's issues, just like every film stock can usually be pointed out. So in the past where the stock and lenses generated the look, today the camera head's do which means people need to shoot with many different camera's to get different looks, if they want that.
I have been a long advocate of the image quality and look that the si2k delivers. Built in texture that no other camera has. I own 2 Bmpcc and a bmcc also. I have shot side by side comparisons of the same scene and setting.
In slumdog, it's pretty easy to pick out the shots done on the 5d dslrs, they have a very plasticy feel, and they also did some longer exposure techniques to create a certain different feeling such as flashbacks.
The si2k also has some interesting high speed options. I helped them develop new frame rates for the sidvr 3.0 recording software. Instead of locking you in at 720p 85fps or 2k 30fps, we built in between frame resolution /rates.
Because the height of the image actually dictates the speed the sensor can record at, we added at 60fps 1440p and 48fps 1660p. Which is plenty for some of the cinema and broadcast work I've been using it for.
Danny Boyle's "Slumdog Millionaire" hits the ground running. This is a breathless, exciting story, heartbreaking and exhilarating at the same time, about a Mumbai orphan who rises from rags to riches on the strength of his lively intelligence. The film's universal appeal will present the real India to millions of moviegoers for the first time.
The real India, supercharged with a plot as reliable and eternal as the hills. The film's surface is so dazzling that you hardly realize how traditional it is underneath. But it's the buried structure that pulls us through the story like a big engine on a short train.
By the real India, I don't mean an unblinking documentary like Louis Malle's "Calcutta" or the recent "Born Into Brothels." I mean the real India of social levels that seem to be separated by centuries. What do people think of when they think of India? On the one hand, Mother Teresa, "Salaam Bombay!" and the wretched of the earth. On the other, the "Masterpiece Theater"-style images of "A Passage to India," "Gandhi" and "The Jewel in the Crown."
The India of Mother Teresa still exists. Because it is side-by-side with the new India, it is easily seen. People living in the streets. A woman crawling from a cardboard box. Men bathing at a fire hydrant. Men relieving themselves by the roadside. You stand on one side of the Hooghly River, a branch of the Ganges that runs through Kolkuta, and your friend tells you, "On the other bank millions of people live without a single sewer line."
On the other hand, the world's largest middle class, mostly lower-middle, but all the more admirable. The India of "Monsoon Wedding." Millionaires. Mercedes-Benzes and Audis. Traffic like Demo Derby. Luxury condos. Exploding education. A booming computer segment. A fountain of medical professionals. Some of the most exciting modern English literature. A Bollywood to rival Hollywood.
"Slumdog Millionaire" bridges these two Indias by cutting between a world of poverty and the Indian version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." It tells the story of an orphan from the slums of Mumbai who is born into a brutal existence. A petty thief, impostor and survivor, mired in dire poverty, he improvises his way up through the world and remembers everything he has learned.
His name is Jamel (played as a teenager by Dev Patel). He is Oliver Twist. High-spirited and defiant in the worst of times, he survives. He scrapes out a living at the Taj Mahal, which he did not know about but discovers by being thrown off a train. He pretends to be a guide, invents "facts" out of thin air, advises tourists to remove their shoes and then steals them. He finds a bit part in the Mumbai underworld, and even falls in idealized romantic love, that most elusive of conditions for a slumdog.
His life until he's 20 is told in flashbacks intercut with his appearance as a quiz show contestant. Pitched as a slumdog, he supplies the correct answer to question after question and becomes a national hero. The flashbacks show why he knows the answers. He doesn't volunteer this information. It is beaten out of him by the show's security staff. They are sure he must be cheating.
The film uses dazzling cinematography, breathless editing, driving music and headlong momentum to explode with narrative force, stirring in a romance at the same time. For Danny Boyle, it is a personal triumph. He combines the suspense of a game show with the vision and energy of "City of God" and never stops sprinting.
When I saw "Slumdog Millionaire" at Toronto, I was witnessing a phenomenon: dramatic proof that a movie is about how it tells itself. I walked out of the theater and flatly predicted it would win the Audience Award. Seven days later, it did. And that it could land a best picture Oscar nomination. We will see. It is one of those miraculous entertainments that achieves its immediate goals and keeps climbing toward a higher summit.
On the way to see "Slumdog Millionaire" in Kolkata, I had my cabdriver pass through the slum district of Tangra. I lived there more than 35 years ago, when I was in my late teens, but the place has barely changed. The cab threaded a maze of narrow lanes between shacks built from black plastic and corrugated metal. Scrawny men sat outside, chewing tobacco and spitting into the dirt. Naked children defecated in the open, and women lined up at the public taps to fetch water in battered plastic jerry cans. Everything smelled of garbage and human waste. I noticed only one difference from the 1960s: a few huts had color TVs.
I still ask myself how I finally broke out. Jamal, the slumdog in Danny Boyle's award-winning movie, did it the traditional cinematic way, via true love, guts and good luck. People keep praising the film's "realistic" depiction of slum life in India. But it's no such thing. Slum life is a cage. It robs you of confidence in the face of the rich and the advantaged. It steals your pride, deadens your ambition, limits your imagination and psychologically cripples you whenever you step outside the comfort zone of your own neighborhood. Most people in the slums never achieve a fairy-tale ending.
I was luckier than Jamal in this way: I was no orphan. My parents came from relatively prosperous families in East Bengal (now Bangladesh), but the newlywed couple lost practically everything in the sectarian riots that led up to India's independence. They fled to Patna, the capital of northeastern India's Bihar state, where I was born a few years later. The first of my five sisters was born there in a rat-infested hut one rainy night when I was 3. My father was out of town, working as a construction laborer 100 miles away. My mother sent me with my 6-year-old brother to fetch the midwife, an opium-smoking illiterate. The baby was born before we got back, so the midwife just cut the umbilical cord with a razor blade and left. My mother spent the rest of the night trying to find a spot where the roof wouldn't leak on the newborn.
795a8134c1