Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

Titanic argument about Slumdog Millionnaire

87 replies

Quattrocento · 07/06/2009 10:12

About once a month or so, I dragoon the family into watching a family DVD. Yesterday the DVD of choice (mine and DDs) happened to be Slumdog Millionnaire.

The film is 15-rated. The DCs are 9&11. I must say at the outset that I had not realised the film was a 15-rating. I thought it was suitable for children because a friend had taken her DCs to the cinema to see it (15, and 13x2).

Be that as it may, we were all safely esconced in the living room, with DSIL&Co when the opening scene, which contains some violence, appeared. For those who haven't seen the film, he was in police custody having electric shocks administered.

DH ERUPTED, and started shouting immoderately that this was totally unsuitable for children and after 5 minutes of shouting switched over to Robin Hood. Where several people were shot and one person was stabbed. I pointed this out and DH stormed out of the room.

I just wanted to fast-forward through the violent bits of SM. I wanted the DCs to watch it just to get some appreciation of what life is like for some children.

Obviously I was being unreasonable not to have checked the film classification but why couldn't we just watch the thing once it was here? And scoot through the violent bits?

OP posts:

macdoodle · 07/06/2009 10:16

Hmm difficult but a 15 is quite a high rating and am thinking it must be for a reason (not having seen the movie myself) - I wouldnt let a 9 or 11 yr old watch one, maybe a mature 13 yr old?
But having just seen Drag me to Hell which is a 15, know way should anyone under 15 watch that!

FigmentOfYourImagination · 07/06/2009 10:19

There is a big difference in emotional maturity between a 9 & 11yo to a 13 & 15yo though. I would not assume that a film was suitable for my considerably younger children just because a mate had taken her older kids to see it and they'd been ok.

yama · 07/06/2009 10:20

I'm going to watch this film tonight.

I can see what you were trying to do but wouldn't you have to watch the film first to know where to fast-forward?

cocolepew · 07/06/2009 10:20

I think it depends on your children. DD is 11 yo but she couldn't watch any violence that seems 'real' as she is a very anxious and emotional child. Something like Robin Hood (which she doesn't watch) is more 'make believe' IYSWIM. Even watching something that obviously can't happen, ie something in Dr Who, she'll say "that won't happen to me will it?"

Whereas her friend can watch anything and it doesn't fizz him.

MrsMattie · 07/06/2009 10:22

I think 11 and 9 is way too young to watch that film, sorry. One you realised that, your DH was absolutely right to switch it off.

Totally unsuitable for children.

In your defence, I think the way it was marketed as a 'feelgood family film' was also totally misleading.

SarahL2 · 07/06/2009 10:27

I would say 9 and 11 is far to young to watch a 15 rated film - espcially as you had said that you wanted them to watch it so the children could see what life is really like for some children which makes the violence even more upsetting IMO so YABU.

roneef · 07/06/2009 10:30

I have seen this film.

It left me very upset. To see such deprivation, especially considering how comfortably we live. I am an adult though.

I totally get your point about dc seeing how life is for others.

It does depend on the maturity of the particular though. An anxious child would freak out a bit imho.

Longtalljosie · 07/06/2009 10:32

I'm not sure it was ever marketed as a family film, was it? A feelgood film, sure, but that's not the same thing...

I saw it for the first time last night. The electric shocks were bad, but there was a worse bit ahead, which would have been why it was given a 15. Unlike a 12A, which is an advisory rating, a 15 is more set in stone.

I would advise (as Mark Kermode frequently does) the parents BBFC website, which explains what you can expect... although it concentrates on Us, PGs and 12As - again because it expects people watching 15s to be 15...

dietstartstomorrow · 07/06/2009 10:32

YABU

Its rated 15 for a reason

Rent Hotel for Dogs instead!

mrsjammi · 07/06/2009 10:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

mrsjammi · 07/06/2009 10:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Overmydeadbody · 07/06/2009 10:36

YABU

A 9 yr od is too young to see a 15 film, even if you know thirteen yr olds who have watched it.

Overmydeadbody · 07/06/2009 10:37

kind of hard to "scoot through the violent bits" if you haven't seen the film before and don't know when they're coming up.

retiredgoth2 · 07/06/2009 10:39

....I think Slumdog is distinctly unsuitable for children of 9 and 11, marvelous though it is. Scooting through the violence would leave a very short film, and would render much of the remaining storyline incomprehensible.

Robin Hood's violence is distinctly cartoonish by comparison.

....could I suggest another Danny Boyle film, Millions, in it's stead. Many of the same themes are present, but it is a 12 certificate.

Goblinchild · 07/06/2009 10:44

If you're going to show a film to children which is a 12+ you should watch it first so you know what's involved, can explain what they're seeing and ff bits before they see what's going on.. Simple common sense really.
My boy is 14 but aspie, so his emotional maturity is about 2/3 his chronological age. Some things he can handle, some things he can't, so I watch DVDs before he does if they are 15s. So he can handle fantasy violence because he understands that it's not real now, Schindler's list because he's studying the Holocaust and understood the context. Other 15s he's not ready to cope with.
And attempting to put Robin Hood on the same footing? [hmmm]
Why not just admit it was an error in judgement and apologise to your family?

bigstripeytiger · 07/06/2009 10:48

YABU.

That film is completely unsuitable for a 9 and 11 year old, and your DH was in the right to stop it.

Noonki · 07/06/2009 10:51

it's very differnt to see 'cartoon' style violence of say robin hood. (even though not a cartoon) as the dcs view it as pretend.

My DSS has watched lots of films at his mums from a young age and has a high tolerance of violence (buffy aged 5, he now watches heroes and he is 12) but he fell to bits watching the Boy in the Striped pyjamas because of the (somewhat dubious) reality of the film content.

Nancy66 · 07/06/2009 10:52

I would say it is suitable for that age group.

CherryChoc · 07/06/2009 10:57

For future reference, IMDB has a parents' guide to all films so that you can assess the content first. I use it regularly for myself as I'm a wuss when it comes to scenes of torture etc. It's just below the cast list on the main film page

Here's the parental guide for Slumdog Millionaire

bigstripeytiger · 07/06/2009 10:58

Your link is wrong.

CherryChoc · 07/06/2009 11:02

oops sorry, my keyboard is a bit the worse for wear at the moment

www.imdb.com/title/tt1010048/parentalguide

Goblinchild · 07/06/2009 11:12

Nancy66, would you care to elaborate on your reasons for thinking SDM is suitable for primary aged children?

bigstripeytiger · 07/06/2009 11:12

That works

ilove · 07/06/2009 11:13

It isn't suitable in any way for a 9 and 11 year old

mayorquimby · 07/06/2009 11:25

yabu your dh was completely in the right

Flip

1 2 3 4