Exclusive: Danny Boyle Responds to ‘Slumdog’s’ “R” Rating
October 24, 2008
Earlier this week it came out that the much buzzed-about (and rather tame) Slumdog Millionaire had received an R-rating from the MPAA, and, well, some folks felt that was just more than unfair. (Read Eric D. Snider’s fabulous rant on the subject over here.) Well, Cinematical just got off the phone with Slumdog director Danny Boyle, and during our all-too-brief conversation (I could seriously spend all day chatting up that brilliant man), we asked him how he felt about the rating and whether or not he expected it. Here’s what he’d to say:
Danny Boyle: No, actually, I was very disappointed. What happens is when you make a film, you sign a contract with the studio or whoever is financing it and there are several stipulations — care about it has to be under two hours or what have you — and one of the things that’s in there’s that it has to be a certain certificate (aka rating). And we all concurred that it would be a PG-13 or less. And so I shot the film very deliberately to achieve that certificate, and I’m very disappointed because there’s very little actual violence in the film at all. But the response was that the journey of the film was too intense — and then you think, but that’s the job! What’s wrong with somebody wanting to watch an intense journey? But yeah, I was very disappointed.
Cinematical: Did you try to fight it at any point?
Fan Rant: An R Rating for ‘Slumdog Millionaire’?! Give Me a Break!
October 23, 2008
I thought it wasn’t possible to view the Motion Picture Association of America’s ratings board with more disgust and contempt than I already did, but they’ve managed to surprise me. Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle’s joyful, enriching drama about a poor young man going all the way on India’s Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, has been slapped with an R rating for “some violence, disturbing images and language.”
Speaking of language, the MPAA is full of s***. Massive, meaty piles of s***. Slumdog Millionaire (to be released Nov. 12) has a couple of F-bombs (just like most PG-13 films), some moderate other profanity, a couple of intense moments, and some non-graphic violence. In fact, as Slashfilm’s Peter Sciretta (citing Alex Billington) has pointed out, there are many instances in the film where Boyle has obviously cut away to avoid showing anything too strong. Clearly he’d a PG-13 rating in mind, and as someone who watches a few hundred new movies every year, let me tell you: This is a PG-13 motion picture. Its content is right in line with the vast majority of PG-13 movies.
Yet for some reason, the MPAA has given it an R. Let me steal a bit from Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers: Really?! Really, MPAA? You think the pencil-impaling, face-melting antics of The Dark Knight fall within the bounds of PG-13 acceptability, but a few gunshots and tense situations put Slumdog Millionaire over the line into R territory? Really? And the decapitations and mass slaughters of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian — a film aimed directly at kids — only gets a PG (a PG!!) while Slumdog Millionaire gets an R? Really?! MPAA, if you were a judge, you’d be letting rapists go free while sentencing jaywalkers to the electric chair. I’ve seen more sober reasoning and sound judgment at a frat party. Michael Vick had more common sense than you.
Judge Rules ‘We Are Marshall’ Not a Ripoff, at Least Not Legally Talking
October 22, 2008
You might have thought that We Are Marshall seemed a lot like every other Inspiring Sports Drama you’d ever seen, but a pair of producers recently sought to prove in a court of law that it resembled a specific film — one they’d made six years earlier.
That film, Ashes to Glory: The Tragedy and Triumph of Marshall Football (which IMDB has never heard of), was a documentary about the real-life events depicted in We Are Marshall. The doc’s producers, Deborah Novak and John Witek, sued Warner Bros. for copyright infringement, fraud, and breach of contract, but a U.S. district court judge has ruled against them.
“Though the two works tell the story of the Nov. 14, 1970, airplane crash, that event, and the events that preceded and followed, are all matters of public record which cannot be copyrighted,” the judge wrote in his decision, as reported by Variety.
Judge Rules ‘We Are Marshall’ Not a Ripoff, at Least Not Legally Talking
October 21, 2008
Filed under: Drama, Sports, Warner Brothers, Celebrities and Controversy, Family Films
You might have thought that We Are Marshall seemed a lot like every other Inspiring Sports Drama you’d ever seen, but a pair of producers recently sought to prove in a court of law that it resembled a specific film — one they’d made six years earlier.
That film, Ashes to Glory: The Tragedy and Triumph of Marshall Football (which IMDB has never heard of), was a documentary about the real-life events depicted in We Are Marshall. The doc’s producers, Deborah Novak and John Witek, sued Warner Bros. for copyright infringement, fraud, and breach of contract, but a U.S. district court judge has ruled against them.
Terrence Howard Doesn’t Know Why Iron Man Dumped Him
October 21, 2008
If there was one story last week that prompted geekdom to wail aloud and gnash their teeth, it was the news that Terrence Howard wouldn’t be returning as Rhodes in Iron Man 2. The role (and future War Machine suit) will go to Don Cheadle. It isn’t that Cheadle won’t do a fine job, but Howard was the perfect Rhodey. And that great tiny “Next time!” scene? It loses a bit of fun when a different person pops up next time.
We all blamed Howard for the split, particularly because the trades implied he wanted too much money to return. But we’re in for another round of “Who do you believe?” because Howard told NPR that he knows nothing about any contract negotiations. In fact, he learned the hideous truth of his departure at the same time and place as the rest of us — the trades. “It was the surprise of a lifetime. There was no explanation. [The contract] just … up and vanished. I read something in the trades implicating that it was about money or something, but apparently the contracts that we write and sign aren’t worth the paper that they’re printed on, sometimes. Promises aren’t kept, and good faith negotiations aren’t always held up.”
Filed under: Action, Casting, RumorMonger, Celebrities and Controversy, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels
F. Gary Gray is the Newest ‘Law Abiding Citizen’
October 20, 2008
Last week, the upcoming thriller Law Abiding Citizen was embroiled in a bit of drama when its director, Frank Darabont, unexpectedly dropped out seemingly just after it had managed to cast Jamie Foxx. Rumors still abound that the split wasn’t a friendly one — and given that there’s been a storyline switch-a-roo, we’re not even sure what we’ll see onscreen.
Well, happily for Citizen, they landed themselves a new director. Variety reports that F. Gary Gray has signed for the enviable job of directing Foxx and Gerard Butler (who is also producing). And while the story still focuses on a vigilante hounding a city and its assistant D.A., the roles have now switched. Foxx is now playing the assistant D.A., and Butler the vigilante, with the film set to shoot in December.
And for a motion picture about a vigilante, it’s leaving an appropriate amount of bodies in its wake. Thanks to the shift in directors, now Eric Bana has been left job less. Gray was all set to direct Armored, the heist thriller that had chased Bana around Star Trek before finally landing him. Oddly, Armored doesn’t even get the luxury of a replacement director — Millennium Films is reporting that Gray’s departure has left it dead in the water, a mere week after it had appeared in the trades.
Review: W.
October 19, 2008
After seeing Oliver Stone’s W., I found myself wishing I had a tiny more time to think it over before writing a review; then again, I’m sure there are some involved with the film who found themselves wishing they’d a little more time to think over the Bush administration before making it. Distance allows perspective, or so we’re told; what could a film about the life and presidency of George W. Bush released while he’s still in office really have to state about his life and times? If distance allows perspective, though, you could also argue that proximity grants immediacy, and argue that Stone’s W. is not meant as a somber, serious look back but rather a cautious, nervy attempt to peer into the recent past, a film with, in the words another Presidential candidate recently borrowed, “the fierce urgency of now.”
But W. has plenty of urgency; you could argue that what it lacks is a point of view, or rather a point of view other than Freudian family psychodrama, with George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) fighting for the presidency and fighting in Iraq as a way to earn the respect and love of his distant, driven dad George H. W. Bush (James Cromwell). But to many, analyzing the inner life of George W. Bush is like asking yourself about the source of the lumber when you’re being hit in the head with a baseball bat. We get a lot of dialogue in W. about the difference between the external and the internal, between ideology and identity; Laura Bush (Elizabeth Banks) offers that “I don’t think politics should define a human being …” while George H.W. notes that “I’ve always believed in leaving personal feelings out of politics.” But in W., it feels like Stone doesn’t even want to let politics define politics, and leaving the politics out of the personal feelings he’s exploring.
Filed under: Drama, Lionsgate Films, Theatrical Reviews, Celebrities and Controversy, Politics
Forget Showing It — Now You Can’t Even State the Word ‘Porno’
October 18, 2008
Filed under: New Releases, Celebrities and Controversy, The Weinstein Co., Movie Marketing
First Kevin Smith couldn’t get the rating he wanted for Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Then the poster got rejected. And now the latest: Numerous advertising outlets are refusing to promote the film at all on the grounds that its very title is unsuitable for mass audiences.
According to the Associated Press, about 15 newspapers and several TV and cable channels have rejected the ads because the word “porno” is objectionable. The city of Philadelphia won’t put the posters on its bus shelters, and the Los Angeles Dodgers asked Fox Sports to halt running the commercials during their games after several viewer complaints — never mind that up until last year, Viagra was an official sponsor of Major League Baseball, and if more than “several” complaints about that were received, they fell on deaf ears for half a decade.
Forget Showing It — Now You Can’t Even State the Word ‘Porno’
October 17, 2008
Filed under: New Releases, Celebrities and Controversy, The Weinstein Co., Movie Marketing
First Kevin Smith couldn’t get the rating he wanted for Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Then the poster got rejected. And now the latest: Numerous advertising outlets are refusing to promote the film at all on the grounds that its very title is unsuitable for mass audiences.
According to the Associated Press, about 15 newspapers and several TV and cable channels have rejected the ads because the word “porno” is objectionable. The city of Philadelphia won’t put the posters on its bus shelters, and the Los Angeles Dodgers asked Fox Sports to halt running the commercials during their games after several viewer complaints — never mind that up until last year, Viagra was an official sponsor of Major League Baseball, and if more than “several” complaints about that were received, they fell on deaf ears for half a decade.
Stars in Rewind: Max Payne Takes on Dwayne Wayne
October 15, 2008
The alliteration and the memory was just too much to pass up this week!
Friday will bring the release of Max Payne, starring none other than Mark Wahlberg (with a tiny help from Mila Kunis, Beau Bridges, Ludacris…). Now it would be easy and sort of obvious to just revel in some “Good Vibrations” or Wahlberg’s tight-whitey clad arse, both of which were extremely prevalent at the begin of Marky Mark’s career. Instead, here’s his first film role from 1994 — Wahlberg playing Pvt. Tommy Lee Haywood in Renaissance Man.
