How can C4 show slumdog millionaire so soon?

I loved the screen writing for the film, it was beautifully paced and also the camera work at times was superb especially the scenes in the slums!

Great film, deserved all the plaudits!
 
I watched it for the first time and thoroughly enjoyed it, I'd love to visit India and this didn't put me off at all. The only thing I didn't like was the occasional 'stuttering' scene (looks like slo-mo but isn't), it might be arty but it's annoying as hell.
 
The kiRAB at the beginning were good little actors - especially the boys - but missed most of the accompanying subtiltles (and therefore the dialogue) as they were so tiny.

Didn't think the adults were all that, tbh.
 
I think C4 is showing a lot of Indian movies this week as part of its Indian Winter season. I think there's a programme on today about the slums of India and a couple of movies over the next few days after 10:00pm.

Although I do agree that Slumdog Millionaire wasnt exactly a feel good movie. Some of the scenes were quite disturbing!:eek:
 
I had exactly the same thoughts as you - all through the year we've seen it promoted as "feel good film of the year", especially where I live because Danny Boyle's hardly ever been off the north west TV and radio.

So when I saw it was being shown on TV, I thought I'd have a relaxing evening watching it; I love light-hearted feel-good films. I'm glad I had a peep at this page before I made that mistake! I can't believe that at no point during its year of incessant hype that no one actually bothered to mention that it had such things in it. Normally, I'd not be shocked to read that something had scenes like that in - it's just the way this particular film has been promoted that made it a bit of a shock. All the media coverage, along with its bizarre 15 rating, made it sound like something you might take the family to see.

I'm like you, I don't like dark or violent films one bit - that IMDb parents' guide is a great resource to see what you're letting yourself in for before you watch. It can be a bit over-zealous sometimes ("several people are seen drinking beer") but you take what you want from it.
 
It was advertised as "The Feel-Good Film of the Decade", actually, thanks to a bonkers review from the News of the World's Robbie Collin. You can't blame Danny Boyle for that, although the distributors should have known better. The whole "feel-good film" nonsense was frequently and strongly criticised by Mayo and Kermode on Five Live, and has become synonymous on that show with any film that's depressing or uncomfortable viewing.

The BBFC classification of 15 is explained thus:

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is a drama about a young street lad who wins the Mumbai version of 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire'. It has been classified '15' for strong language and violence.

The film is in a mixture of English, and subtitled Hindi. Together with several uses of strong language in English, there are also a number of untranslated uses of strong Hindi terms - all of which were considered acceptable under the BBFC Guidelines at '15', which permit 'frequent use of strong language (eg 'f**k').
Strong violence is seen in a scene where a group of Muslims are attacked and killed in the street - together with general chaos and beatings, there are some stronger and more explicit moments, such as the deliberate setting of a man on fire, that go beyond the BBFC Guidelines at '12A', which direct 'Violence must not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood'. We also later see strong violence that includes a knife held to a woman's throat as she's forcibly snatched off the street, an impressionistic blinding of a young beggar boy, and torture by electricity in a police station.

So in their view 15 is appropriate for the content. Don't forget that 15 doesn't mean that it's a film aimed at 15 year-olRAB, but that it's considered unsuitable (and forbidden) for under-15s to watch. There are plenty of PG and 12A films that aren't intended for 12 year-olRAB, but they don't contain any content that's unacceptable in that classification so that's the category into which they fall.
 
Not true.
In the 20th Century maybe but not now.

Although daytime showings of films on BBC and ITV are sometimes edited for language allowed even in PG but not on kiRAB tv , evening movies are rarely edited for content.

ITV seem to still like to slice and dice occasionally to fit into a certain slot but the most the BBC will do is edit an 8pm screening of an Indiana Jones movie.
Post 10pm editing is no longer a standard.
And C4 have never edited films. They leave 4 letter worRAB in films sometimes on weekday afternoons during term time but as long as a film has an 18 cert C4 will not edit it and they certainly wont be editing a film they co-financed.



I would imagine the entire Indian season is an oRABhoot of the Slumdog screening so was created with that in mind.
It gives the film an even bigger profile.

As for showing it early.
The old 10 year then 5 year then 3 year rule for films died out long ago.

ITV paid a premium to air one or two Bond films a year after release in order to keep Sky out.

C4 could have sold Slumdog to Sky but I guess they hope to recoup extra advertsing revenue by showing the film before most people have seen it.

Its almost certain that the timespan for being able to show it so soon after its release was part of the deal for them co-financing it.

But its not that early because its a year since it appeared on video in the UK and I got the US Bluray a couple of months before the UK release so all thats happened is that C4 have shown it when Sky would normally.

Film Four is not a premium channel so no reason to air it there first although its likely to appear quite often starting very soon
 
Just watched it, what a horrible film, so glad i didn't believe the Hype and pay to see it, the young boy in the Latrine was disgusting. And everybody knows that Millionaire is not shown live, as a "Friend" could simply sit in front of a computer to get the answer.
And how exactly does a poor young boy "Get" a gun from?
 
I'm so glad some others share my view.
At first I thought I must be out on my own finding it shocking and upsetting. I thought people must think I was a wimp.
However I prefer to think that I haven't allowed myself to become de-sensitized to cruelty and violence.

The torture scenes were bad enough, but the scene of the man being set alight and running round burning to death will be stuck in my mind forever - as will the horrific scene of little boys having their eyes put out so they could become blind beggars.

Yes I KNOW it wasn't real - I know they were only acting - but it was horrific just the same and I'm SO glad I didn't believe the "feelgood family movie" hype and watch it with with children around - even older children.

I can't believe that their haven't been more warnings about this film.
 
If you read the reviews at the time many of them made it clear that the film was about Jamal's struggle against evil and deprivation and the "feel-good factor" referred to his triumph over adversity. The imdb web site and BBFC classification also have clear and explicit descriptions of the kinRAB of violence and language used in the film. Maybe too many people believed the over-the-top claim made by the News of the World reviewer but there were plenty of other more measured reviews around at the time.
 
I'm like you - I don't want to sit and watch soporific shite like Dancing on Ice, nor do I want to watch torture and death writ large on the screen. I like a good tale but I don't want to be overwhelmed with violence. There isn't much of a middle ground on TV so I'm increasingly turning to the web where I can watch and read what I want, when I want.

Of course, as soon as you mention that you're not keen on a film like this, out come the patronising arses to tell us that we're not bright enough to watch it because it's "gritty" and "realistic" and "highlighting real issues" and so on. I don't get that argument - I wouldn't want to watch two hours of live broadcasting from Port-au-Prince today either and I've been avoiding watching too much TV news, but it doesn't mean I don't care.

Inkblot: the promoters of the film splashed the NOTW quote across posters and newspaper adverts in type as large as the film title itself. (http://goo.gl/zMRs) Meanwhile, descriptions of the film's actual content are hidden away behind several links in obscure corners of the BBFC and IMDb websites. It's disingenuous to pin that to one tabloid hack; it's obviously the impression the makers wanted people to have of this film or they'd not have put the quote there.

If I came across a film like Cormac McCarthy's The Road or Saw 8 or however many they're up to now, I'd not be particularly shocked if I went to see it and it was horrific because the promotion makes the content pretty clear. That hasn't been the case with the primary colours and smiling faces of the marketing of Slumdog Millionaire.
 
I agree that it was inappropriate to use the NOTW quote in the way they did. The point I was trying to make was that it was no reflection on the actual quality of Danny Boyle's (and Loveleen Tandan's) film. It's a case where the film was hyped but it actually merited the hype - just not the hype it got. It's a good film, well-written and beautifully photographed and edited, and the acting's not bad either.It just isn't the Feel-Good Film of the Decade.

By the way, Film Four is screening Danny Boyle's previous films at the moment, with Trainspotting being shown tonight. Last night's film was Shallow Grave. I can't believe anyone who'd seen or heard of Shallow Grave or Trainspotting, or even The Beach or 28 Days Later, would have expected Slumdog to be a feelgood family film.
 
I saw it at the cinema and found the flashback scenes overlong. I couldnt wait to get back to the present day bits. I recorded it on wednesday and watched my own edited version fast forwarding to the present day bits only. Lasted about an hour! Much more entertaining!
 
Back
Top