[shrrshrr]

So, I watched Caligula last night, having watched it 20 years ago, almost to the day. I remembered a great deal about the film, including the smarmy theme music, but I was surprised by how unmoved I was when I was absolutely horrified and appalled by it when I was younger.

Which leads me to the question/debate - should younger viewers be allowed to watch graphic films?

My friend let her 16 year old son see Grosse Point Blank while she watched Chasing Amy in a nearby theater. I was shocked that she considered gratuitous, over-the-top violence a better subject for him than a fairly accurate story about the trials of romance in today's society.

She felt the honest discussion of sexual acts was too much (frankly, I thought they were fairly tame and rather funny), but it was okay for him to see people shot through with bullets over and over and over and over and over (you get the idea) again.

I'm not okay with this - I have issues with youngsters watching any gratuitous sex and violence because I strongly believe that our society is way over exposed to it right now (pun intended). I'm not puritanical, but I think there's a difference between the way Europeans portray the female body and the length to which sexuality enters their culture. They're two different issues, and it would be better if we in the US were able to see that.

When I was a kid the whole town would turn out for G-rated films. That was perfectly acceptable, and well established in the community. When was the last time you saw a G-rated film that wasn't put out by Disney and geared towards children?

So...what are your thoughts on the topic? I'll post more later...

[LilMouse]

Are there even movies that are rated G nowadays? I can't remember the last time I saw a G rated movie. Maybe the last time I saw a G rated film was seven years old or younger.
I don't think that little kids should see movies with a lot of violence or graphic sex. IMO it would be too traumatizing.
My dad always complains that my uncle let his son see Pet Cemetary when he was under 10. I never saw the movie so I don't know if it's very violent, but my dad doesn't like how my cousin saw this movie. I remember when I was four and my older cousins were watching Freddy movies I would be terrified and have to leave the room.
I think when kids are young they shouldn't be exposed to violent films. It's impossible to avoid when they're older, but as kids they shouldn't have to witness violence. They should see movies like Mickey Mouse's Sing Along. I use to love watching those movies.

[Headhunter]

Violence taking precedence over sexuality in the order of socially acceptable content is rediculous, but now a deeply entrenched belief in North American society.

The only real solution with any resonance/credibility is to raise children to deal with violence, sexuality, and any other "controversial" issues in a manner which allows them to keep it in context. Avoiding exposure to one thing or another exclusively as the method to prevent negative growth is not a real solution...

[UnsilentMajorty]

It depends on a lot of factors, but mainly, is the child ready for the violence and/or sex and will they understand it in terms of the context of both the story AND that it's not real -- in all aspects since it is a film?

My parents let me watch extremely violent movies like "Forte Apache, The Brox" when I was growing up as well as Disney classics like "Bambi" and whatnot.

However, if it was an adult (R) rated film, they always saw it with me AND we would discuss what we had just seen in terms of any questions I might have (remember, I'm talking being about six, seven years old so I had no idea what sex was or what it really meant to kill someone) and my parents did their best to explain things in realistic terms that didn't sugar coat things BUT that also emphasized the difference between fantasy and reality... Which I think was the deciding factor on why they trusted me to see adult films when I got slightly older and they weren't around (like when I would get home from school and watch movies on HBO and things).

So, basically, in my own personal experience it was the fact that my parents were INVOLVED in helping distinguish between fantasy and reality, as well as discussing the things we would watch together which built up trust in me (and vice versa) that I could watch anything I wanted, and if I had any questions we could talk about it together to undo any confusion I might have.

The other side to the equation is that I, as an individual, even at six or seven, was READY to see some of the things I saw in adult movies with the understanding that none of it was real which also played a big factor in my parents trusting me to watch whatever I wanted because they knew I wasn't going to go out and imitate the things I saw (violence OR sex as I became a teenager).

I think this individual aspect is another major factor that parents need to decide for themselves because as much as everyone hates to jump onto the "movies and video games make kids more violent" argument... The fact is it CAN make some younger kids violent if that is all they are exposed to -- Or rather, allowed to be exposed to UNSUPERVISED which agian, I think is the key.

As for the debate of why it is "okay" in our culture to let younger viewers see (fictionalized) acts of brutality, yet our culture comes all unglued whenever a frank or realistic discussion or portraly of sex or sexuality comes up?

As Shrrshrr said, it IS because of the puritanical roots this country has that our forefathers brought over here when they founded America, right or wrong.

Also, the rating system we have for music, movies and video games is a joke and often just their as "lip service" to appease those who say that we aren't doing enough -- as parents and a society -- To help curb violence and raise our children "right" -- Whatever that means...

For instance, a movie can be completely R-Rated because it has two F-Words and ONLY because of that. The same is true for a PG-13 movie, only it can have just one F-Word.

So, for example, you could make a movie that has tons and tons of bloody killings, and only one F-word... And it'll still be a PG-13 which is what movie studios want so they can get not just the older teens (over 18) who would go see this violent movie, but the YOUNGER teens as well.

And guess what? Most parent's DON'T care in that as long as it ISN'T an R-Rated movie -- for whatever reason -- They'll just let their younger kids go and assume it is "safe" because it isn't an R. It's ridiculous...

And it really shows that a lot of parents AREN'T that involved in what their kids are watching or playing (video games) whether people want to admit it or not.

Anyway, there's my take on the whole issue.

There are a lot of issues that factor into it... But the most important, I think, is the involvement of parents to actually *gasp* raise their kids (in discussing things their kids see in films and helping distinguish between fantasy and reality) because all the other issues of whether or not should a child see an R-rated or graphically violent or sexy film stems from this very thing and it just isn't happening these days with both mom and dad both working to make ends meet. It's a sad, sad situation.

[The Daywalker]

We live in a lost society.

[ROCKSTAR]

NC-17 and Unrated movies are a gift. There's nothing I love more than watching a good NC-17 film (I can't wait to catch "The Dreamers"), but it has to be one so good that earns its be NC-17.

But I agree that parents should play a role in discussing and explaining certain things to their youngsters.

My personal experience was different and not because my parents didn't want or didn't care to explain to me certain things, it was because I liked to find out for myself. I've always been mature and old fashioned so I could watch whatever and it didn't have *ANY* side effects because I knew it was fantasy and because I knew it was art.

I've always had a tv (with cable, HBO, Showtime, etc) and a VCR/DVD in my room and my mom and my dad trusted me because they know me so well. But that was me.

I would *never* want kids watching films like "Wide Sargasso Sea" (an adaptation of a book by the same name) or "Interview with the Vampire". "Wide Sargasso Sea" is a beautifu, painful movie but the sex scenes are porn.

But I don't trust most kids with sex/violence, 'unrated' movies anymore than I trust them to take out the garbage without being told. I agree with everyone here that parents should know what their kids are watching and they should discuss and talk to them immediately. These are dangerous times. Hehe.

What I'm saying is that although maturity and age don't have to be linked, they usually are. Films that are not rated PG or lower carry themes you need to understand to appreciate.

[ScorpioGrl]

honestly i watched R rated films when i was 10..i dunno if that is too young.but i don't think kids should watch R,NC-17,or unrated films that involve graphic sex scenes,rape,violence,nudity,and alot of graphic language.

[Jess519]

I do think whether or not kids should watch movies with violence and/or sex depends in some part on the individual parent/kid/family involved.

To a certain extent, I guess I think it's never okay for really young children to be watching graphic violence or sex, if only because they are to young to understand what they're seeing, and it could warp some of their cognitive understanding to be overexposed to stuff like that.

But it does depend on the kid. Everyone matures diffently and has different cognitive development. Some kids may be able to watch violence at a younger age (say 7 or 8) and have the logic/thought process to understand that it is not real. They can deal with seeing it. Other kids are not read at that age. (And frankly, some adults aren't mature enough to watch graphic violence or sex).

So I guess I don't know what I think. I do know that I watched some R rated movies with my parents when I was younger and I was not adversely affected by it. To be honest, I don't even remember much about them, which shows how little they left an impression on me. But my parents were always pretty open about stuff like that.

And I do think the ratings system in the US is a joke. You can get away with an awful lot of violence in a PG-13 movie but very little sex. It's a warped standard that just reinforces puritanical ideas about sex being bad or dirty or something we need to cover our eyes from. But it's okay to see someone get shot.

Gah, I'm rambling. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[UnsilentMajorty]

Originally posted by Jess519: Gah, I'm rambling. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Add me to that list because I think this is an excellent discussion and one that I think NEEDS to be had on FF and the Movie Board every single year because FF's primary users ARE teens as well as those slightly older and younger.

I'm about to get up on my personal soapbox for a moment and preach/rant, so at least you're all being warned if you care to read on [img]smilies/lol.gif[/img]

But seriously...

1) I do think parent's AREN'T as involved with their kids and what they're doing (not just what they're watching, playing or listening too) these days, no matter what anybody says.

It's sad, but it's true.

And I'm not soley pinning this on the parents because I know how hard it is to have to have two incomes to barely survive (month to month) the way this economy and the world we live in has gotten.

However, even with all those hardships, parent's have got to take the time, that is MAKE THE TIME, to get involved in what their kids are into at the moment... And if their kids aren't willing to include them, well, use THEIR RIGHT AS A PARENT to find out by any means possible.

This might surprise many of you that I would condone such methods considering my parents gave me carte blanche privacy when I was growing up... BUT, again, that is because they TRUSTED me and knew I wasn't planning to go on a shooting ramapage at my high school or something.

The times we live in and the access to just... Well, EVERYTHING (mail order weapons; how to make home made boms off the internet; etc.)... HAS changed from when I and others my age were growing up... And we're talking only 30 years ago, folks. I'm not in my 60s if you're wondering (I'm also not a parent, but I feel very strongly about what's going on).

Therefore, I strongly believe that as a parent, you have the right to "snoop" or "spy" on your kids and do whatever you have to do make sure they are safe from what's going on out there... Or more importantly, from themselves.

I think what really cemeted my own personal view on this was the Collumbine High School massacre. I am astounded that to this day Eric Harris and Dynal Kleebold's parents didn't know thet were building bombs and stockpiling weapons IN ERICS HOUSE for Pete's sake. In the family garage if all reports are accurate.

To me, that is just pure negligance and I do wish the parents of the boys -- as nasty as this sounds -- Were charged with manslaughter and or gross negligence for NOT knowing that their kids were arming themselves and planning something of that magnitude IN the family garage of all places. That is just a clear sign, in my book, that parent's just aren't that involved and what bothers me MORE than just that aspect alone is...

Do parents even CARE to be involved?

I ask this because, while unpleasant to think about, I think all of us have known parents of friends, or might even have (had) parents who just did NOT care about the lives of their children... Which is just sad and is only compounded by what I said about them being forced to concentrate on putting food on the table with the bad economy.

2) There IS evidence that young kids (6,7, pre-teen) who are continually exposed to violence (real or fictional), or violent images (video games or movies) DO develop more violent tendancies than other children who aren't.

Everyone hates to admit that the studies that DO show a correlation between violence and the media and violence in (young) children actually ARE proving what they set out to do... Because, obstebsibly, what this is saying (or putting the onus of responsiblity on) are those who not only produce the entertainment, but moreso, the PARENTS of the children who apparently aren't doing their job and are instead letting TV, movies, music and video games "raise" their kids instead of them.

As a perfect example of this -- Which I've used countless times in similar discussions we've had on this board in fact -- I had a friend of mine who had a 10 year old son whom she allowed to watch extremely violent movies when she was not home.

Well, every week she'd get a call from the principal's office complaining that her son had either gotten into a fight, assaulted another child or was just disruptive in a violent manner to other kids on the playground. Gees. I wonder why, huh?

And while you can argue maybe it was just this kids disposition to be negative and not behave... The fact is you DON"T just let a 10 year old watch films like "Rambo" and movies with Steven Segal in them because that is ALL those kinds of films are about: Violence. Ergo, her son was "tought" that violence was an acceptable solution to his problems or an acceptable way to deal with things that were bothering him -- Basically, what someone said above about it warping a child's cognitive reasoning abilities.

Consequently, he eventually outgrew the phase...

BUT, my own mother even warned his mother that what she was doing -- Basically, letting the TV and VCR be his after-school supervision -- Wasn't "cutting it" as they say and his behavior was a direct result of that... Which I firmly believe because as I stated earlier, I too was allowed to watch whatever I wanted after school before my parents got home which included violent movies and cartoons... Yet I was an "A" student and NEVER got into a single fight in my entire grammar or high school career. Maybe I'm the rare execption, but that's evidence enough for me from my own perspective to lend credence to these studies that DO prove a link between violent shows/movies and violent behavior in younger kids... Regardless if they are considered "politically correct" or not.

3) The ratings system (for movies, video games and even music) just doesn't do what it tries to set out to do because ironically, is to geared toward the PARENTS to let THEM know what the game/movie/lyrics contains... Yet WHO actually buys and plays/watches/listens to these things: Yup, you guessed it. The KIDS do (and they don't even heed the warnings; In fact, the more bad stuff a rating has in it the MORE the kids want it; it's human nature).

Talk about closing the barn door after the horses have fled the barn.

In addition, the very rating systems themselves jsut aren't very well structured (as we discussed with movies above) and often times, the big producers of these things (games, music, movies) can find "loopholes" to get around them -- Like our PG-13 discussion.

*sigh*

Anyway...

Like I said, I'm not a parent, and I know there ARE good kids out there... But I really feel that this country is in trouble because a vast majority of kids DO have a warped sense of values when asked about certain issues.

For instance, my father is a teacher at a predominately "inner city" (aka poor and Black) school and he observes his students behaviors and attitudes everyday in like they truly believe that they have the right to kill someone just because they "dis" (disrespect) them in front of their friend -- Something that usually would just cause most kids to not associate with those whom offended them. Not these days. And this goes for students of ALL races by the way. That's what he finds disturbing most of all.

Another example is that some students feel cheating is perfectly acceptable as long as you don't get caught.

Hello?

Silly me, but I thought cheating -- even just the intent to cheat -- Was considered bad? Well, it was when I was growing up... But I guess not now.

This is the reality of the world we are living in and with what's going on with the President's behavior (or lackthereof depending on your POV), Enron, Martha Stewart, etc, these images/icons/examples only re-inforce it in these kids minds that they can do whatever they want as long as it benefits THEM and as long as none THEY know gets hurt (it doesn't matter if they rob a bank, just as long as THEIR fellow bank robbers don't get hurt; it doesn't matter how many innocent people are killed).

It is truly a scary world out there and to bring this back to our original discussion... Movies and other entertainment DO have a responsilbity to their primary audience(s) -- the coveted teen demographic -- As well as the parents of those teens, and in fact, most important of all ARE the parents and how they fit into all of this.

[mukooh]

nc-17....unrated films...um.....i've seen a couple of films that i remember as being rated nc-17...the first was 'ultimo tango a parigi' (last tango in paris)...which featured sex and butter.....and by the same director, 30 years later, 'the dreamers'...featuring among other things incest, full frontal male and female nudity, the loss of virginity along with the blood and the other fluids associated with that act.......


unrated films....'romance x' featuring penetration, erections, fellatio and scenes of childbirth......(what made this film kind of interesting was that i saw it in a "mainstream" theater in a mall on a sunday afternoon)....'a ma soeur' (fat girl)...full frontal female nudity....graphic murder, urination and rape....by the way both of these films were directed the same woman....'dans ma peau' (in my skin)....a film about self-mutalation and self-cannabilism...written and directed by a woman.....'irréversible'...a film told in reverse (ala 'memento' but not quite as effective) featuring a long and drawn out murder of a man as he has his face beaten in by a fire extinquisher..the film also features the brutal, graphic and very violent rape of the lead actress in this film (monica bellucci)....all of these unrated films are from france...

and to name one more...from israel....'hatuna meuheret' (late marriage) featuring the most graphic simulated sex (including body fluids) that i've ever seen on a screen...

notice anything in common?...none of these films were made in the united states....(although another film...'orgazmo' which was rated nc-17 was made here)....are foreign film makers more willing to explore topics that wouldn't or couldn't be explored in films that are made in the united states? i don't really know, but it kind of seems that way....after watching all of the above films i can safely state that the unrated films are probably the most perverse and violent when compared to an nc-17 film....

would i allow one of my nieces, nephews or any other child that i know to see one of these films in a theater with me or in my home on a dvd...absolutely not......i'm in agreement with roger ebert when he suggests that there should be a whole new film rating system...where films like the ones mentioned above are rated "a" for adult....which means no children, even if accompanied by an adult, are welcome or allowed into a theater showing such films...as to what children watch in their homes, that responsibily lies with the parent(s).....


with all that being said...i think that anyone, female or male, over the age of 18 should be allowed to watch whatever film that they want, read any book that they want, listen to any music that they want....and in this day and age marry anyone they want, whatever sex that other person happens to be.....

*edited to expand my thoughts on the last paragraph*

[ScorpioGrl]

i'm 17 i hardly watch NC-17 films but i usually watch R,PG13, or PG AND even G...

[Jess519]

Originally posted by mukooh: <STRONG>i'm in agreement with roger ebert when he suggests that there should be a whole new film rating system...where films like the ones mentioned above are rated "a" for adult....which means no children, even if accompanied by an adult, are welcome or allowed into a theater showing such films...as to what children watch in their homes, that responsibily lies with the parent(s).....</STRONG>

I've never heard this idea before. I think it's a good one.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being a little more vigilant about what kids watch in the theater. At home, of course, it's not really any of society/government's business what parents let their kids watch (within reason of course). But I've never quite understood the current system with the "R". Why is it not okay for someone under 17 to see the movie by themselves, but it's perfectly okay for them to see it sitting next to an adult. In many cases, there's not much of a difference between those two scenarios.

Of course, things are already more vigilant than when I was a kid (at least in some places). When I was in high school, it was the easiest thing in the world to get into R rated movies. Most theatres around me didn't check ID, so as long as you didn't look 10, they'd let you into the movie. But then during the year I was 16, they started cracking down on it and checking all IDs. I couldn't get in anymore. So it's not impossible to crack down on that stuff.

Gah, rambling again. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[UnsilentMajorty]

Just want to say how impressed I am with everyone's responses and how... to be honest... Surprised I am that a lot of us share the same values in that we DO think there should be limits as to what kids (young kids) should be able to watch.

I don't want to speak for Shrrshrr, but I personally thought we'd get a lot of "Just let kids watch what they want because they'll eventually see it anyway," or "you can't shield kids from what's happening in the real world, so why try" arguments when she started this thread.

I think it's interesting that of those of us who are NOT parents, we still share the same views of those who are and who do have younger members of their family (kids, nieces, nephews, etc.).

In addition, like I said, I do think there is a "moral crisis" going on in this country with (not all) a significant portion of the youth of America -- But not in the same, Conservative, George-Bush-I-Want-to-Get-Re-elected-so-I'll-Jump-On-The-Family-Values-Bandwagon kind of way.

The moral crisis I am referring to is basically a lack of values -- Parental Guidance -- like I touched on above about my father observing the (what is generally considered) disturbing behavior and attitudes expressed by his students.

This is very relevant to this whole discussion regarding the arts because again, as unpopular as it is to say, if you just let kids watch whatever they want, they're going to choose the "bad" stuff 99.9% of the time due to peer pressure, curiosity, etc... And if they DON'T have anyone, I.E. Parents or responsible adults, to help them understand what they're watching (or playing or listening to) as well as the context of those images, lyrics, etc. being in fact entertainment, then this leads us to the warped sense of values that stem from this like kids believing it's okay to cheat just as long as you don't get caught, or wanting to imitate the "gangsta" lifestyle because rappers glorify drugs, money, women and power in their songs.

Also, I to agree that there should be limits about how much the government -- if at all -- Should be involved in helping determine what is "appropriate", or not for people to watch/listen/play (adult persons that is)... And once again, I feel the primary party whom should be responsible for what young people consume are PARENTS, or other prominent adult figures in a young persons life and leave it at that.

[ScorpioGrl]

Did anybody see "In The Cut"? the unrated version with meg ryan and mark ruffalo...

[Jess519]

Originally posted by RoswellCutie86: <STRONG>Did anybody see "In The Cut"? the unrated version with meg ryan and mark ruffalo...</STRONG>

Nope, I haven't seen it. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Unsilent Majority: I definitely agree with you about the lack of parental guidance being an issue. However, I'm not sure that it's necessary for parents to really be there all the time and/or monitor what their children watch. The problem is more that parents need to teach their kids right from wrong, teach them judgement and understanding and all that. Then even when the parents aren't there they can trust the children to make appropriate choices, or at the very least to understand their choices and the consequences.

Too many parents don't do either - they don't ever watch their kids or spend time with them and they don't ever teach them any values.