|  IP: Logged

In 1992 there was a massively publicised trail of two 11 year-olds, who were eventually convicted of murdering a baby. It was alleged that they had seen a video of 'Child's Play 2', and that this was what inspired them to carry out the murder.

As a result of this, one member of parliament proposed that all 15 and 18-rated titles should be totally banned from rental or retail video, i.e. they could only be shown in cinemas. He actually got quite a lot of support, until someone pointed out that (i) this would involve banning highly-regarded films like'Schindler's List', and that (ii) a lot of other people also saw 'Child's Play 3' without then going out and murdering a baby.

If violating rating rules is criminalized, then I am going to become a criminal. Every now and then I feel it is correct for a young person to see an R rated film if it has relevance in their lives. Also I have been reading murder mysteries since I was a lad of 8 or 9 years old. (OK I was a late bloomer.) I see very little difference between film and literature.

 |  IP: Logged

Ian:

There is a huge difference between a French unrated movie and a dirty filty XXX porn movie. Would you allow your children of 8 or 10 years old to watch a XXX rated movie with a bunch of perverts in a theater on Sleeze Row ? Of course not.

We must, as an industry, regulate ourselves, or the government will do it for us. It is that simple. In order to keep a right, you have to protect it. Nothing is free.

I say it ONCE MORE: Let's protect out movie rating system by enforcing it - ourselves. We don't need the government to take away what was our responsibility in the first place.

 |  IP: Logged

We also showed Requiem for a Dream which was released un-rated to avoid an NC-17 rating. We were advised to not let anyone in under the age of 17. So we didn't let anyone in under the age of 17. When teenagers would come to the box and ask for that film, we asked for ID and sent them away if they’d didn't have any, or were under age. I did have a judge call up and ask if he could bring his drug prevention class to see the film and I heartily agreed. He had seen the film and felt it would have relevance in their lives.

Then we have Best In Show. It was rated PG-13. It has some crude humor, gay themes and dogs engaged in sexual simulation with a human leg. But it is rated PG-13. We had several parents come out and complain that this film wasn't appropriate for their children. One lady said, "this film is totally unsuitable for my 9 year old." I told her that was what PG-13 meant, that some material was unsuitable for pre-teenagers. She left in a snit.

So I am not impressed with the rating system. But I am not inviting the government in to control it either. It is up to parents to decide what is and what isn't appropriate for their children. And as for the children who see whatever they want, well, I believe in the resilience of human nature and that healthy children will shake off whatever they see on the screen. After all, it's only the movies.

I am with you 100% when you said, "It is up to the parents to decide what is and what isn't appropiate for their children." And when that lady left in a snit when you tried to explain what PG-13 meant, it makes you wonder what kind of parents they are, doesn't it? I also agree with you 100% when you indicated "....healthy children will shake off whatever they see on the screen, After all, it's only a movie."

Unfortunately, there are tons of unhealthy children out there. I just read an article last week that cited 10% of our children have a mental illness of some sort and are in need of desperate help. Only a small fraction of those are getting help. Those people, young and old alike, might not be able to shake off what they see on the big screen. That's why I wish Hollywood would tone it down a notch or two. I think it would help a little.

As Manuel said, "Censorship and ratings will help a little but it doesn't stop the wrong people from seeing the movies."

Unfortunately, nothing will stop the wrong people from seeing the movies.

The rating system leaves much to be desired, but what we have is better than nothing. Some parents are responsible enough to use it as a guide, and that is what the rating system was intended to be.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

The hypocricy we've witnessed in recent months is quite amazing. Last summer there were people who were outraged that something like Scary Movie was playing at neighborhood movie theatres. But nobody seemed to bat an eye when the same movie with added, outrageous scenes became available on DVD and VHS at "all-American, family" stores like Wal-Mart. Where was the outrage for that? Well, by then the election was over, I guess.

I recently read a quote where Keanu Reeves was upset about his upcoming movie's sex scene being edited down to a PG-13 rating. He said, "It's OK if you just see our heads above the water. But the breasts that we suckle as infants are R-rated, and showing a nice intimacy between two people is R-rated."

Give me a break, "dude!" You can't convince me that the scene was about celebrating motherhood and the breasts infants suckle. It was about sexual intimacy among adults and YES, it's appropriate to restrict who's going to watch that in a movie theatre!

The source of the quote was http://mrshowbiz.go.com/news/Todays_Stories/11501/keanucharlize011501.html