Slumdog Millionaire - a straw poll
Paul Bird
TV some weeks ago. We got five minutes in to where some poor sod is
hanging from the rafters by his hands tied together about to be
electrocuted. I looked at her, I protested, she agreed, I stopped it
and deleted it and we agreed never to watch it.
Now is it just us? Is torture a necessary and desirable part of what
makes a successful modern movie?
We have both watched in recent weeks Kevin McCloud's two films about
Dharavi and Slumdog children the other depressing film about the lives
of poor children in Dharavi but neither came close to this gratuitous
and exploitative first five minutes.
So I just want to know, is it just us? Or are other people here
repulsed by this gratuitous violence? After all from the publicity
you'd think it is a wonderful film and I guess we'll never know, and you
what, so long as it looks like that, I really don't care.
PB
Tim Ward
Which I read on holiday, and then watched the film on the plane on the way
home.
As is not unusual, the book is rather better.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Brian Morrison
Paul Bird <pa...@NOSPAMcamtutor.co.uk> wrote:
> We got five minutes in to where some poor sod is
> hanging from the rafters by his hands tied together about to be
> electrocuted. I looked at her, I protested, she agreed, I stopped it
> and deleted it and we agreed never to watch it.
So you didn't get to the bit where some orphan has his eyeballs whipped
out with a spoon so he makes a better beggar?
--
Brian Morrison
Paul Bird
I suppose there was always a danger that my post would just trigger a
string of events from the film that I didn't (so far) know about, so
know you can add the word exploitative my list of adjectives. A lot of
cruel and horrible things are happening 24 hours a day around the world
but I don't think it's necessary to include them in a mainstream movie
to tell a story, there was time when they were simply hinted at as with
David Lean and HItchcock who both mananged to convey suffering without
special effects.
alt.binary.torture is that way for the pain sluts
===================>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PB
Guy Snape
No, it's not just you. We turned it off at around the same point. We
both feel we get enough misery from listening to the news; when we want
to watch a film of an evening we generally prefer something a bit more
cheerful. I can't understand what would make anyone want to watch the
Saw films, etc. I don't have a blanket objection to all violence or
scary bits - I liked Cloverfield, and Sector 9 is well worth watching -
but Slumdog (at least, what we saw of it) was just objectionable.
- guy
>
> PB
Mike Lewis
"Paul Bird" <pa...@NOSPAMcamtutor.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7t0j44...@mid.individual.net...
> We sat down this afternoon to watch the subject line movie
<snip>
I've never seen it, or read the book, or seen the opera(?).
Roland Perry
19:28:59 on Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Guy Snape
<g...@snapefamily.theobvious.org.uk> remarked:
>We both feel we get enough misery from listening to the news; when we
>want to watch a film of an evening we generally prefer something a bit
>more cheerful.
There are plenty of mainstream cops and robbers films with people
getting their heads blown off which I find much more gratuitously
violent than Slumdog. Maybe having seen Indian slums at first hand (the
week after the Mumbai bombings, too) gives me a different perspective,
but I found it to skilfully captured the mood, and was well worth the
time spent watching it.
--
Roland Perry
Lotty Gladstone
> So I just want to know, is it just us? Or are other people here
> repulsed by this gratuitous violence?
Nope - not just you. I foolishly went to see it at a packed cinema. I
spent the first part staring at the floor with my fingers in my ears,
waiting for my other half to nudge me to tell me it was safe for me to
look up again. Wasn't expecting the afore-mentioned eyeballs so felt
sick all over again about half way through. While I remember that what
came in between was good, my lasting memories are of course of the
torture scenes.
The only reason I could see for putting these scenes in was for Boyle
et al to escape without the movie being labelled a pile of saccharin.
But I had nightmares for several nights (and I'm about to hit 40!).
One irritating thing is that I know that my stomach churns with movie
violence so I usually read reviews so I can steer clear of them. But
the reviews for Slumdog barely mentioned the torture.
Lotty.
Tim Ward
news:kqr5j3Ou...@perry.co.uk...
>
> I found it to skilfully captured the mood
Hmm. I haven't visited any bits of India quite like that, and haven't yet
asked any of my Indian acquaintances how realistic it is.
Paul Bird
Well that's what caught us out, shots of red carpet in Hollywood, dear
little children being paraded in front of cameras, big billboards, this
great move. Then I find out too late its well... I'm sorry you had to
go through what you did.
BTW I didn't go into this with my eyes closed (I wish I had), because in
the early 1980s I worked with Indian men on ships and they told me that
beggars would mutilate their children, but in order to retain ones
sanity one puts these things to the back of ones mind while accepting
the truth of it. Having watched the excellent and heart wrenching films
I mentioned before about the same slum it has come as a shock to see
(even five minutes), this thrown at us. It's worse than that really, I
said to my other half during the face slapping at the start "if this
gets any worse I'm leaving the room", then of course it did. We
abandoned it.
PB
M.A.
No, it's not just you. My husband feels exactly the same about such
films.
I did watch the whole thing because I wanted to see what all the fuss
what about.
There are some beautiful images and captivating music but it's not
exactly "The feelgood film of the year" as
stated on the DV,D.
Mary Ann
Alan
> Read the book.
>
> Which I read on holiday, and then watched the film on the plane on
> the way home.
>
> As is not unusual, the book is rather better.
I haven't read the book, but did hear the Radio 4 serialisation of it,
which was way better (and quite different in emphasis) than the film.
I don't remember the electrocution torture from the Radio, but do
remember the mutilation of the beggar, it seemed horrific, but it
didn't seem sensationalist.
I must read the book to see how close the film was one day.
--
Brian Morrison
"Alan" <a...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> I must read the book to see how close the film was one day.
Expressed in milli-Catch22s perhaps?
--
Brian Morrison
William Jackson
"Paul Bird" <pa...@NOSPAMcamtutor.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7t0j44...@mid.individual.net...
Tim Ward
news:64Wan.22231$xg1....@newsfe28.ams2...
>
> I must read the book to see how close the film was one day.
Not very. In effect it's "based on" rather than "the film of the book".
Steven Kitson
>> Yes thats it, put your head in the sand and pretend it doesnt go on....
>
>watching it for entertainment.
Now, we'd be in a bad way if artists had no higher goals than to
entertain.
'Slumdog Millionaire' is a greater work, and its fundamentally
optimistic message more powerful, for the contrasts it contains within
it. None of the violence is 'gratuitous' for 'gratuitous' means that it
was there for no reason, but not to have delved into the depths would
have produced something possibly more entertaining, certainly more
palatable, but ultimately less powerful, less moving and, indeed, less
hopeful -- for the tripumph of hope would be diminished if the darkness
that it had to face was lessened.
And I would far rather have a powerful, moving and hopeful film than an
entertaining and palatable one.
Paul Bird
<snip>
>> Yes thats it, put your head in the sand and pretend it doesnt go on....
>
> watching it for entertainment.
Quite. I don't see Amnesty International making two hour movies of
their intense and horrific case material for public consumption in
cinemas or to be put forward for the Oscars, and certainly not to be
shown as entertainment. The thing that got us, and I still can't quite
come to terms with is that in all the incidental news coverage and film
reviews we never picked up that it was a film containing graphic scenes
of torture. Has society now been desensitised to the point that this is
ok? I could go and buy Hostel II or Saw if I wanted to at least I'd
know what I was about to watch but Slumdog Millionaire wasn't portrayed
like that, was it?
PB
Paul Bird
> Yes thats it, put your head in the sand and pretend it doesnt go on....
I'm not pretending anything, I'm objecting to being presented with
scenes of torture in a film that purports to be about children in slums.
Go back and read my other posts especially the one where I said "in
the early 1980s I worked with Indian men on ships and they told me that
beggars would mutilate their children" or is it that you can only see
the bits that suit your blinkered point of view.
I'll be interested to see your reply to August West by the way who just
to save you the trouble of actually reading it said "There's a very
large gap between pretending it doesn't go on, and watching it for
entertainment."
PB
Steven Kitson
>The entity calling itself Steven Kitson wrote:
>> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes thats it, put your head in the sand and pretend it doesnt go on....
>>>There's a very large gap between pretending it doesn't go on, and
>>>watching it for entertainment.
>>
>> Now, we'd be in a bad way if artists had no higher goals than to
>> entertain.
>
I wouldn't want to take any credit for it; it's hardly an original, or
unobvious, sentiment.
The Natural Philosopher
> watching it for entertainment.
>
Oh, you wanted to be *entertained*?
I suggest Big Brother.
The Natural Philosopher
> William Jackson wrote:
>> Yes thats it, put your head in the sand and pretend it doesnt go on....
>
> I'm not pretending anything, I'm objecting to being presented with
> scenes of torture in a film that purports to be about children in slums.
suppose that its factually more or less accurate.
Its pretending to pretend that you didn't like it on account of it being
about the experience of actual children in actual slums, when you had
rather it was a Hollywood musical, like West Side Story.
> Go back and read my other posts especially the one where I said "in the
> early 1980s I worked with Indian men on ships and they told me that
> beggars would mutilate their children" or is it that you can only see
> the bits that suit your blinkered point of view.
>
> I'll be interested to see your reply to August West by the way who just
> to save you the trouble of actually reading it said "There's a very
> large gap between pretending it doesn't go on, and watching it for
> entertainment."
>
Then don't watch it *for entertainment*.
I suggest you don't watch 'Tsotse' either.
> PB
>
Brian Morrison
Paul Bird <pa...@NOSPAMcamtutor.co.uk> wrote:
> I could go and buy Hostel II or Saw if I wanted to at least I'd
> know what I was about to watch but Slumdog Millionaire wasn't
> portrayed like that, was it?
If I knew what I was going to see every time I watched a film that was
new to me, then I'd never bother watching any new films would I?
While it is everyone's right to decide what they are prepared to watch,
I personally don't get upset with a film because I know it isn't real.
I've seen far worse than Slumdog, Schindler's List being a good
example, but even that didn't stop me watching. Sometimes we need to be
reminded of the horror and made to squirm badly.
I'm not sure if you're really complaining about the content or the lack
of warning. I confess that I didn't notice the rating given to Slumdog,
but I will say that my two early teenagers didn't bat an eyelid at it.
Make of that what you will.
Oh, and I got to watch it because they wanted to watch and after a
while I decided to put my book down and partake of the film. Didn't
like it that much, but I've seen less engaging films.
--
Brian Morrison
Paul Bird
> Paul Bird wrote:
>> William Jackson wrote:
>>> Yes thats it, put your head in the sand and pretend it doesnt go on....
>>
>> I'm not pretending anything, I'm objecting to being presented with
>> scenes of torture in a film that purports to be about children in slums.
>
> suppose that its factually more or less accurate.
If "it's factually more or less accurate" then why despite many hours if
not weeks of filming for Kevin McCloud's series of documentaries about
the subject area, Dharavi, did these facts not emerge? Why then did he
not come across numerous examples of mutilated children? If he did, I
wonder why the editors and producer chose to leave those examples out?
Why when Dispatches went in to cover the same ground in a different
manner did *they* not reveal to us all the mutilated begging children of
Dharavi?
I'm not attempting to suggest it doesn't happen but I am suggesting that
the makers of Slumdog Millionaire disproportionately latched on to this
element of fact for titillation. Torture porn for the mainstream if you
like. Actually I don't like, and that's a decision I'm entitled to make
when sitting down to watch something entertaining for the afternoon.
> Its pretending to pretend that you didn't like it on account of it being
> about the experience of actual children in actual slums, when you had
> rather it was a Hollywood musical, like West Side Story.
I'm not pretending anything, I understand that "beggars would mutilate
their children" without choosing to sit down at home and watch a film
that includes scenes of beggar parents mutilating their children.
In one of David Lean's films, a murder takes place in a kitchen and as
the victim is clubbed to the floor the terrier present runs to the door
and scratches at it trying to get out. This is used as an indication of
the violence going on feet away. It was not considered necessary to
show the actual blood spurting from the victims head as the splinters of
bone from the fractured skull fell to the floor. Graphic enough for you.
The risk is you see, quite apart from my own sensitivity to which I've
admitted, is that if somebody in making a film is repeatedly graphic
about a particular subject it becomes something other, and that other
when unnecessary is pornography of a non-sexual nature.
>> Go back and read my other posts especially the one where I said "in
>> the early 1980s I worked with Indian men on ships and they told me
>> that beggars would mutilate their children" or is it that you can only
>> see the bits that suit your blinkered point of view.
>>
>> I'll be interested to see your reply to August West by the way who
>> just to save you the trouble of actually reading it said "There's a
>> very large gap between pretending it doesn't go on, and watching it
>> for entertainment."
>>
>
> Then don't watch it *for entertainment*.
I didn't watch it for entertainment. I didn't watch it all, I watched
the first five or so minutes, I felt the film had been misrepresented in
the pre-publicity. If I want to see Hostel II I'll go and rent it from
Blockbuster but actually I don't thanks.
> I suggest you don't watch 'Tsotse' either.
I do not seek out violent films, and I don't like coming across by
accident either thanks.
I notice that you've jumping in late to this thread without commenting
on the film in question but just taking issue with my opions. How very
noble of you.
PB
Paul Bird
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:46:08 +0000
> Paul Bird <pa...@NOSPAMcamtutor.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I could go and buy Hostel II or Saw if I wanted to at least I'd
>> know what I was about to watch but Slumdog Millionaire wasn't
>> portrayed like that, was it?
>
> If I knew what I was going to see every time I watched a film that was
> new to me, then I'd never bother watching any new films would I?
Rubbish. When you watch most films you haven't seen you have a good idea
what kind of material they are likely to contain both from the
pre-publicity and
the rating, that's why we have (or used to have) the British Board of
Film Censors
or whatever their modern equivalent is called.
> While it is everyone's right to decide what they are prepared to watch,
> I personally don't get upset with a film because I know it isn't real.
> I've seen far worse than Slumdog, Schindler's List being a good
> example, but even that didn't stop me watching. Sometimes we need to be
> reminded of the horror and made to squirm badly.
I didn't get upset, I asked the other half what she thought and we
stopped watching it.
Being made to squirm badly is useful in a situation where you are in a
position to act directly to assist. For example if while driving on the
M11 you came across an accident and you happened to be the only other
car around (unlikely I know) and saw a scene of carnage but with someone
apparently still breathing then by that scene you feel driven to act
whether with first aid or at least calling for help by mobile phone or
from those roadside help phones.
However when watching a film supposed to have been made for
entertainment you are presented with upsetting scenes that cause a
reaction you are unable to act on then what does that achieve? Does it
make you think "in my next life I'll be a missionary and go to Dharavi
to save the poor children of the slums? Does it make you think "I'll
take a day off work and go and demonstrate outside the Indian Embassy?"
Does it fuck.
No, it's just horrible without the benefit of being about to do anything
about it. Suit yourself, watch away, I disagree with you.
> I'm not sure if you're really complaining about the content or the lack
> of warning.
I can't complain about the content, I never got to see the content I was
put off by the content I did see I'm complaining about the lack of warning.
I confess that I didn't notice the rating given to Slumdog,
> but I will say that my two early teenagers didn't bat an eyelid at it.
> Make of that what you will.
I don't need to make anything of the fact that your teenagers didn't
react. You must have realised as a parent and as a human being (I'm not
a parent, on good days I'm a human being), that there is a sliding scale
of reaction to life where the younger you are (apart from the children
in the film under discussion of course), you are to some extent shielded
from the gruesome realities of life. Have you never watched young
children play, the bloodier the better (in theory of course). Gory
stories, gory jokes, toys for children from Hawkins Bazaar called Blood
and Gore, Slimy this and Revolting that. Some element of that must
remain even with teenages who are also in the process of regarding it as
a "rite of passage" to see what they can stomach visually.
Well I'm not a teenager and I don't have to prove my macho or otherwise
ability to watch gore on screen to anybody, not least the assembled
throng of cam.misc which is why I posted a straw poll and by and large
the responses have been fair.
<snip>
PB
Steven Kitson
>Brian Morrison wrote:
>> If I knew what I was going to see every time I watched a film that was
>> new to me, then I'd never bother watching any new films would I?
>
>Rubbish. When you watch most films you haven't seen you have a good
>idea what kind of material they are likely to contain both from the
>pre-publicity and the rating, that's why we have (or used to have) the
>British Board of Film Censors or whatever their modern equivalent is
>called.
'Slumdog Millionaire' is rated fifteen, and has on the back of the DVD
in big letters 'Strong language and violence'.
Did the continuity announcer on TV really not say 'this film may contain
scenes which are upsetting to some viewers', or something like it? Or
did you fast-forward
through that bit?
>However when watching a film supposed to have been made for
>entertainment
Why on Earth do you think that this film was made 'for entertainment'?
It's a piece of art. Art is made to communicate, to make you feel and
experience intensely, to illuminate the human condition in all its
aspects, nice and nasty.
What made you think the 'entertainment' was the be-all and end-all of
this film?
>No, it's just horrible without the benefit of being about to do anything
>about it. Suit yourself, watch away, I disagree with you.
So why did you feel the need to share oyur disgust with the world?
>> I'm not sure if you're really complaining about the content or the lack
>> of warning.
>I can't complain about the content, I never got to see the content I was
>put off by the content I did see I'm complaining about the lack of warning.
So the announcer didn't warn you? Or might there have been a warning
that you fast-forwared through or ignored?
Paul Bird
<snip>
>> No, it's just horrible without the benefit of being about to do anything
>> about it. Suit yourself, watch away, I disagree with you.
>
> So why did you feel the need to share oyur disgust with the world?
I decided to find out what the regular contributors to cam.misc thought
and I think the replies so far are a fair representation of the points
of view I have grown used to reading over getting on for 10 years of
both reading and contributing to cam.misc which is why I regard it (all
of you) as a fair sounding board and why a straw poll seemed like a good
idea.
I have no regrets, I'm not going to collate the replies into categories
you can do that for yourself.
I snipped the rest of your post because I don't feel you have
contributed anything useful to the discussion that has not already been
raised so far.
PB
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Paul Bird wrote:
>>> William Jackson wrote:
>>>> Yes thats it, put your head in the sand and pretend it doesnt go on....
>>>
>>> I'm not pretending anything, I'm objecting to being presented with
>>> scenes of torture in a film that purports to be about children in slums.
>>
>> suppose that its factually more or less accurate.
>
> If "it's factually more or less accurate" then why despite many hours if
> not weeks of filming for Kevin McCloud's series of documentaries about
> the subject area, Dharavi, did these facts not emerge? Why then did he
> not come across numerous examples of mutilated children? If he did, I
> wonder why the editors and producer chose to leave those examples out?
>
> Why when Dispatches went in to cover the same ground in a different
> manner did *they* not reveal to us all the mutilated begging children of
> Dharavi?
>
Probably because they didn't want to disturb anyone's sensitivities either.
> I'm not attempting to suggest it doesn't happen but I am suggesting that
> the makers of Slumdog Millionaire disproportionately latched on to this
> element of fact for titillation. Torture porn for the mainstream if you
> like. Actually I don't like, and that's a decision I'm entitled to make
> when sitting down to watch something entertaining for the afternoon.
>
In the same way that mainstream news ignores facts and concentrates on
how people react to stuff emotionally?
>
>> Its pretending to pretend that you didn't like it on account of it
>> being about the experience of actual children in actual slums, when
>> you had rather it was a Hollywood musical, like West Side Story.
>
> I'm not pretending anything, I understand that "beggars would mutilate
> their children" without choosing to sit down at home and watch a film
> that includes scenes of beggar parents mutilating their children.
>
> In one of David Lean's films, a murder takes place in a kitchen and as
> the victim is clubbed to the floor the terrier present runs to the door
> and scratches at it trying to get out. This is used as an indication of
> the violence going on feet away. It was not considered necessary to
> show the actual blood spurting from the victims head as the splinters of
> bone from the fractured skull fell to the floor. Graphic enough for you.
>
Maybe the point is that the people who live there are exposed to it.
I dunno. I am no art critic.
> The risk is you see, quite apart from my own sensitivity to which I've
> admitted, is that if somebody in making a film is repeatedly graphic
> about a particular subject it becomes something other, and that other
> when unnecessary is pornography of a non-sexual nature.
>
In which case every single soap opera is porn of a non sexual nature.
The filming of gratuitous stupidity in an effort to convince the stupid,
they are in fact:
(a) Normal
(b) should be proud of their stupidity.
But I digress.
>>> Go back and read my other posts especially the one where I said "in
>>> the early 1980s I worked with Indian men on ships and they told me
>>> that beggars would mutilate their children" or is it that you can
>>> only see the bits that suit your blinkered point of view.
>>>
>>> I'll be interested to see your reply to August West by the way who
>>> just to save you the trouble of actually reading it said "There's a
>>> very large gap between pretending it doesn't go on, and watching it
>>> for entertainment."
>>>
>>
>> Then don't watch it *for entertainment*.
>
> I didn't watch it for entertainment. I didn't watch it all, I watched
> the first five or so minutes, I felt the film had been misrepresented in
> the pre-publicity. If I want to see Hostel II I'll go and rent it from
> Blockbuster but actually I don't thanks.
>
>> I suggest you don't watch 'Tsotse' either.
>
> I do not seek out violent films, and I don't like coming across by
> accident either thanks.
Its less the violence, than the actual mindset that finds it normal and
everyday, that is depicted there.
>
> I notice that you've jumping in late to this thread without commenting
> on the film in question but just taking issue with my opions. How very
> noble of you.
>
There you go again. My issue isn't with the film. It's with your
opinions. You want them reinforced. I challenge them.
I lived through Mary bloody Whitehouse.
And I never bothered to see Oh! Calcutta either. By all accounts a
tedious little play.
Or a Clockwork Orange.
Or the Sound of Music for that matter.
If you dont like it, make it a personal opinion., and shut up.
Persoaly I would ban most of commercial TV on the grounds that it
reinforces public moronicity and self destructive behavoiur as the
implicit norm..
At least with Doctor Who, there was little chance you would believe it
depicted Real Life...
> PB
The Natural Philosopher
No, its supposed to be made to make money.
Entertainment is only one thing people spend money on.
> No, it's just horrible without the benefit of being about to do anything
> about it.
C'est la Vie!
Fevric J. Glandules
> Is it just me or is Steven making random statements that have
> absolutely no connection to any comments he's given?
I don't know if it's *just* you but Steven has made what *I* consider
to be valid and well-presented points connected to the subject and
discussion.
Maybe that's just me.
Duncan Wood
I'm just confused as to why anybody was expecting anything else from a
film called Slumdog Millionaire directed by Danny Boyle.
--
Duncan Wood
Paul Bird
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:51:58 +0000
> Paul Bird <pa...@NOSPAMcamtutor.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> If I knew what I was going to see every time I watched a film that was
>>> new to me, then I'd never bother watching any new films would I?
>> Rubbish. When you watch most films you haven't seen you have a good idea
>> what kind of material they are likely to contain both from the
>> pre-publicity and
>> the rating, that's why we have (or used to have) the British Board of
>> Film Censors
>> or whatever their modern equivalent is called.
>
> of the rating unless I am deciding whether I can take my children to
> see a given film at the cinema, and as for content then I might have a
> vague idea but probably not a detailed one.
Fine, I'm not disappointed. Actually I'm quite please with the wide,
varied and I think ultimately balanced views of people who have
responded so I regard the exercise as a success. I shan't be repeating
it in a hurry, that was a one off because it was unexpected that's all.
I do look at the ratings if I'm paying money to go and see a film at the
cinema (rarely) because it gives an indication of whether I'm going to
end up surrounded by screaming kids on their mobiles or whether there's
a chance of actually watching it in peace, also whether or not it's
likely to be of interest obviously.
Anyway from my POV this exercise has reached its natural conclusion so I
won't be pursuing any further.
PB
Paul Bird
<snip>
Thank you for an entirely rational and interesting response. I'm
leaving the subject here, I'm happy with the result of the exercise.
PB
Steven Kitson
>William makes a comment about pretending that the torture that is
>represented doesn't actually go on.
>
>August then makes the point that knowing it (the torture) goes on is
>not the same as wanting to watch said torture for entertainment.
>
>Steven then rants about how moving the film is, which doesn't in any
>sense respond to August's comments.
The response was to point out that August's comment about
'entertainment' was irrelevant to discussion of the film, because the
film isn't for 'entertainment' -- at least, not only for
'entertainment'.
>To my mind, this does not answer August's observation that there is a
>large gap between knowing that it goes on and watching it ('it' being
>the torture) for entertainment.
It answers August's observation by pointing out that his observation is
irrelevant.
Fevric J. Glandules
<snip>
> Hence, while Steven may be making what you consider valid points about
> this film, my point about his comments having no connection with what
> August said still stands.
Sorry, my brain exploded about fifty lines ago.
Paul Oldham
> There are some beautiful images and captivating music but it's not
> exactly "The feelgood film of the year" as stated on the DV,D.
I believe that was on the posters too and it's been the cause of some
discussion by Mayo and Kermode on Five Live since. I thought it was a
superb movie. Yes, it's nasty, but then so's life for the poor in India.
It reminds me of "Saving Private Ryan". The first part of that I found
*extremely* hard work the first time I watched it, but just like "Saving
Private Ryan" the violence is necessary to the plot.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"A verbal contract is as binding as the tape it's recorded on"
Paul Bird
> The entity calling itself Steven Kitson wrote:
>> Cherry Chapstick <az...@invalid.really.really> wrote:
>>
>>> To my mind, this does not answer August's observation that there is a
>>> large gap between knowing that it goes on and watching it ('it' being
>>> the torture) for entertainment.
>> It answers August's observation by pointing out that his observation is
>> irrelevant.
>
> "There's a very large difference between pretending something doesn't
> exist and not wishing to see it portrayed graphically in the medium of
> moving pictures." Do you see any relevance now?
Well said, I thought that the first time you said it as well. Thank you.
PB
Paul Bird
> M.A. wrote:
>
>> There are some beautiful images and captivating music but it's not
>> exactly "The feelgood film of the year" as stated on the DV,D.
>
> I believe that was on the posters too and it's been the cause of some
> discussion by Mayo and Kermode on Five Live since. I thought it was a
> superb movie. Yes, it's nasty, but then so's life for the poor in India.
>
> It reminds me of "Saving Private Ryan". The first part of that I found
> *extremely* hard work the first time I watched it, but just like "Saving
> Private Ryan" the violence is necessary to the plot.
I can't see the comparison. I have seen Saving Private Ryan (all the
way through), and yes the first half hour is bloody, and horrible and
hard to watch, as it should be because people are killing each other,
and not just dying but getting severely injured and living as well.
However it's very different from Slumdog Millionaire in my view because
it depicts a scene from our own European history, in which any one of us
had we been born a generation or two earlier might have been obliged to
take part by conscription. In other words one has to accept that a) it
happened, and in circumstances not far removed from that depicted and b)
that we are watching what may very well have been part of our own
experience, but for the Grace of God... and c) that it was not and never
intended to be a fictional feel good movie, it was a very real depiction
of war with all its horrors.
Now the only comparison I can make with Slumdog Millionaire is that by
the same logic one might have been born as a child in a Bombay slum
instead of Cambridge or whereever you are posting from, but to me it
doesn't follow that one would inevitably have been mutilated or tortured
in a police station, or any other of the horrors that are (allegedly)
depicted in the film. You might argue that some people came off the
Omaha beach unscathed and lived to tell the tale and indeed they did,
but that's not the point either, it's about the motivation behind the
making of the film, and the extent to which it is necessary to depict
the unpleasant aspects.
To me Saving Private Ryan is a fictional story based on events that
happened and depicted very close to the reality of veterans who were
there, but does not seek to exploit that simply for titilation. Yes it
was made for commercial gain and I suppose for "entertainment" in a very
broad sense but certainly not in a feelgood sense and I don't think
there was ever any doubt about what one was about to see.
IMHO Slumdog Millionaire is the very opposite of that, I think the
director has taken the most unpleasant parts of Indian society, and
married them with events known to have happened in Indian Police
Stations, tacked them onto a Western feelgood programme and sliced them
together to make a film purely for commercial gain, in a most unpleasant
manner.
What remains with me after all this is the truth of what Kevin McCloud
and (separately) Dispatches reported on from Dharavi and what they
filmed there, none of it was pleasant, some of it was hopeful, mostly it
was depressing and it certainly doesn't reflect India in a good light to
me, but at no point did I ever think the producers were doing anything
other than showing it as it is.
Tim Ward
>
> IMHO Slumdog Millionaire is the very opposite of that, I think the
> director has taken the most unpleasant parts of Indian society, and
> married them with events known to have happened in Indian Police Stations,
> tacked them onto a Western feelgood programme and sliced them together to
> make a film purely for commercial gain, in a most unpleasant manner.
Did you prefer Salaam Bombay then?
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Paul Bird
> "Paul Bird" <pa...@NOSPAMcamtutor.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7t7k30...@mid.individual.net...
>> IMHO Slumdog Millionaire is the very opposite of that, I think the
>> director has taken the most unpleasant parts of Indian society, and
>> married them with events known to have happened in Indian Police Stations,
>> tacked them onto a Western feelgood programme and sliced them together to
>> make a film purely for commercial gain, in a most unpleasant manner.
>
> Did you prefer Salaam Bombay then?
>
been reading as many reviews as I can find of Slumdog Millionaire and
one of them mentioned Salaam Bombay but not I haven't seen it although
it was mentioned as a better bet, I can't remember the exact wording
now. When I've watched it I'll report back.
PB
Paul Bird
> "Paul Bird" <pa...@NOSPAMcamtutor.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7t7k30...@mid.individual.net...
>> IMHO Slumdog Millionaire is the very opposite of that, I think the
>> director has taken the most unpleasant parts of Indian society, and
>> married them with events known to have happened in Indian Police Stations,
>> tacked them onto a Western feelgood programme and sliced them together to
>> make a film purely for commercial gain, in a most unpleasant manner.
>
> Did you prefer Salaam Bombay then?
>
Well at least it was made in India by Indians. That gives it a head
start in my book straight away.
PB
Tim Ward
>
> Thanks for bringing that up, as a result of all this (discussion), I've
> been reading as many reviews as I can find of Slumdog Millionaire and one
> of them mentioned Salaam Bombay
Only one?? - I'd have thought it was the obvious comparison.
Paul Bird
> "Paul Bird" <pa...@NOSPAMcamtutor.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7t7klu...@mid.individual.net...
>> Thanks for bringing that up, as a result of all this (discussion), I've
>> been reading as many reviews as I can find of Slumdog Millionaire and one
>> of them mentioned Salaam Bombay
>
> Only one?? - I'd have thought it was the obvious comparison.
>
that I noted the name of the alternate film mentioned, no doubt others
did too, having seen it mentioned once I ceased noticing if it was
mentioned in other reveiws, anyway I'll get hold of a copy and watch it,
the Wikipedia (spit) review makes it sound more grounded than SM which
is a good thing.
Pb
Steven Kitson
>> irrelevant.
>
>"There's a very large difference between pretending something doesn't
>exist and not wishing to see it portrayed graphically in the medium of
>moving pictures." Do you see any relevance now?
That's not a rephrased point, it's a totally different point.
Now it's relevant, but it's also wrong: do you really think that motion
pictures shouldn't ever graphically show any unpleasant aspects of the
world?
Fevric J. Glandules
> So clearly Fevric is misunderstanding something.
Certainly. And not just your next comment:
> I think he misses his mistress.
Steven Kitson
>The entity calling itself Steven Kitson wrote:
How many times is that funny? How many times have you used it?
>For the avidance of doubt, I am not, and was not, saying that it should
>not be portayed; my original point was countering the (specious)
>assertion that not wishing to see something graphically portrayed is the
>same as pretending that it doesn't exist. Whether that portrayal is
>entertainment, or art makes no odds to that original point.
>
Ah, so it was nothing to do with the actual film that was the original
topic. My fault, I thought you were still addressing the point.
Paul Bird
He is.
It is your wilful disregard of or inability to comprehend the statement
given that would appear to be standing in the way of your reaching an
accommodation with his point of view.
PB
Jon Green
> Paul Oldham wrote:
>>
>> It reminds me of "Saving Private Ryan".
Or, indeed Shaving Ryan's Privates, the porn documentary (I kid you
not)! Sorry, couldn't resist...
> I can't see the comparison. I have seen Saving Private Ryan (all the way
> through), and yes the first half hour is bloody, and horrible and hard
> to watch, as it should be because people are killing each other, and not
> just dying but getting severely injured and living as well.
First time I saw that was in a listening room at Linn Products, on an
insanely expensive home cinema system. I swear I felt the bullets
parting my hair! The sound engineering alone on that film was
Oscar-worthy. A truly immersive experience. I agree that it's gruesome
in (many) places, but it was the first war film I've ever seen that felt
true to history and reality. It started a whole new genre of reality
war films -- long overdue -- that spawned films such as Black Hawk Down
and the like.
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
Paul
Yes, you see that's why I admire it as a film / documentary and cannot
feel the same way about a film I have not seen and don't intend to which
is in my view so badly made that it has the ability to put off a
potential viewer so quickly. It was so obvious from that bare concrete
room that nothing good was going to happen to Jamal and for what? At
least SPR had at heart a justification for showing so close to reality
what the awfulness of war is like.
PB
Chris Lamb
> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>>The entity calling itself Steven Kitson wrote:
>
> How many times is that funny? How many times have you used it?
It's a setting in the newsreader - it does that for all replies August
makes. He doesn't have to type that every time. In fact, I presume he's
completely forgotten having set that up since orginally in Ecce/Emacs.
To take it against him is, well, not relevant.
FWIW, my side in the argument is I loved Slumdog, it's one of the few films
I've been to see where the *entire* audience stayed in their seats until
the last credit rolled - long after Jai Ho finished playing. Visually
stunning, and I thought every scene was justified as part of the storyline
and artisitically. I saw it twice again after (on the small screen) and
each viewing affirms my perspective that it's a modern screen classic
independent of the book.
C
Steven Kitson
>On 07 Feb 2010 13:46:33 +0000 (GMT), Steven Kitson wrote:
>> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>>>The entity calling itself Steven Kitson wrote:
>>
>> How many times is that funny? How many times have you used it?
>
>It's a setting in the newsreader - it does that for all replies August
>makes. He doesn't have to type that every time.
I'm aware of that. I just wonder why anyone would set up, as an
automatic bit of included text, a joke that is funny maybe the first --
I don't know -- ten times anyone reads it, to be generous?
Surely they know that it'll be included far more times than it is
actually funny.
Steven Kitson
>Steven Kitson wrote:
>> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>> Ah, so it was nothing to do with the actual film that was the original
>> topic. My fault, I thought you were still addressing the point.
>
>He is.
Then I still don't understand. He's objecting to the film, because he
doesn't want to watch the umpleasant bits for entertainment?
What does what he wants to watch for entertainment have to do with
whether the film should not have included the torture and
mutilation scenes?
Steven Kitson
>On 07 Feb 2010 13:03:19 +0000 (GMT), Steven Kitson
><ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>It's very relevant. Perhaps it would help you if it was rephrased?
>>>"There's a very large difference between pretending something doesn't
>>>exist and not wishing to see it portrayed graphically in the medium of
>>>moving pictures." Do you see any relevance now?
>>
>>That's not a rephrased point, it's a totally different point.
>
It is: the first point was about entertainment, the second about moving
pictures. Totally different.
Paul
Your confusing his comment with my original post objecting to the film,
by which I stand. Perhaps you should have addressed your comments to
me. I agree with the point that August West made on both occasions
because yes I do think there is a large gap between pretending something
doesn't happen (which I'm not) and watching it for entertainment.
I sat down to watch a film for entertainment and it wasn't obvious
beforehand that this was far from what was on offer. Indeed if you look
back through the resulting posts in this thread you will find there are
a wide range of views and experiences exhibited.
PB
Fevric J. Glandules
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:16:32 +0000 (UTC), "Fevric J. Glandules"
> <f...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Certainly. And not just your next comment:
>>
>>> I think he misses his mistress.
>
> How could you forget Mary Pegg so completely?
I did get there in the end, about four hours later.
Steven Kitson
>>>Steven Kitson wrote:
>>>> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>>>> Ah, so it was nothing to do with the actual film that was the original
>>>> topic. My fault, I thought you were still addressing the point.
>>>He is.
>> Then I still don't understand. He's objecting to the film, because he
>> doesn't want to watch the umpleasant bits for entertainment?
>
>that not wanting to watch sowmtjing in film was was equivalent to
>pretending that it did not exist.
Ah, I'm sorry, I responded to Paul Bird as if he was speaking for you.
So your (August West) point was nothing to do with the film he (Paul
Bird) was originally posting about. I'm sorry, I assumed you were still
addressing the point of the discussion. You weren't, you were picking up
on one minor side-point.
It's one of the problems caused by usenet-style quoting encouraging
relying to individual points instead of writing properly-constructed and
considered replies.
I apologise.
Steven Kitson
>On 07 Feb 2010 17:40:26 +0000 (GMT), Steven Kitson
><ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>t is: the first point was about entertainment, the second about moving
>>pictures. Totally different.
>
Actually, I do appreciate film as a medium for art very much.
Paul Bird
> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>> The entity calling itself Steven Kitson wrote:
>>> Paul Bird <pa...@NOSPAMcamtutor.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Steven Kitson wrote:
>>>>> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ah, so it was nothing to do with the actual film that was the original
>>>>> topic. My fault, I thought you were still addressing the point.
>>>> He is.
>>> Then I still don't understand. He's objecting to the film, because he
>>> doesn't want to watch the umpleasant bits for entertainment?
>> I wasn't objecting to anything; I was simply taking issue with the claim
>> that not wanting to watch sowmtjing in film was was equivalent to
>> pretending that it did not exist.
>
> Ah, I'm sorry, I responded to Paul Bird as if he was speaking for you.
>
> So your (August West) point was nothing to do with the film he (Paul
> Bird) was originally posting about. I'm sorry, I assumed you were still
> addressing the point of the discussion. You weren't, you were picking up
> on one minor side-point.
>
> It's one of the problems caused by usenet-style quoting encouraging
> relying to individual points instead of writing properly-constructed and
> considered replies.
>
> I apologise.
What a bizarre conclusion. Although AW was commenting in general it was
surely prompted by discussion of the film in question, how you can come
to the conclusion that the AW was "nothing to do with the film" is
beyond me.
PB