I almost did it..... (1 Viewer)

[Dennis Castro]

....and part of me wishes that I did. While sitting in the theater waiting for Monster to start I noticed a mother with three children. One that could not have been more than 5 or 6, another that had to be about 8 or 9 maybe 10, and another that was probably around 12ish.

I had the strongest urge to go over and tap the mother on the shoulder and ask her what she could possibly be thinking bringing her children to a film like this. I wanted to ask if she even realized what this film was about.

I have seen this before other times and it frustrates me to no end. I don't understand the reasoning behind it. I just can't understand what posses these parents to expose their children to this type of material.

I was deeply disturbed by this and it took me out of the film a couple of times. There were a couple of scenes were I cringed a bit because I knew that there were small children watching this.

 

[Patrick McCart]

There are idiot parents out there.

I used to work at a theater and I'd see kids at R movies all the time. Once, when we were showing Scary Movie, a father stormed into the main hall demanding to see the manager. He complained about such vile content... The manager kindly points to the poster on the wall, telling him that it's clearly marked rated R.

 

[Vickie_M]

Those poor kids. I still have a horrific guilt complex from taking my 7-year old to see Alien in the theater!


I think I might have said something. I said something to parents who were bringing their young kids to Bad Santa but in a light-hearted "you DO know this film has the f-word in every sentence and a running joke about anal sex, right?" way. (Ok, that doesn't sound very light-hearted, but I had a quizzical smile on my face while I said it). I think I would have said "You DO know this movie has a violent rape and several cold-blooded murders in it, right??" WITHOUT any smile whatsoever. (I might add "You know, Peter Pan is a wonderful movie you and your kids might enjoy!")

Yeah, it may be none of my business, if it takes a village, I don't mind being the village busybody at time. If she didn't care, as least I tried.

 

[ZacharyTait]

Yes there are idiot parents out there, but you have to consider a different side of this. The economic side. Parents may look at it as saving money because all they have to do is pay for the tickets and hope the kids shut up for 2 hours. They don't have to pay a sitter $5-$10 an hour to watch their kids and eat their food. What they may not realize is that by taking their kids to these kinds of movies, the psychology therapist bills in the future just went way up.

 

[Darren Crouse]

A good thing here in Canada, which should also be applied in the U.S.A, is that rated R films mean NO one under 18 is allowed, with or without parents. So I've never seen that problem here. I've always enjoyed going to R rated films because there were no children or teenagers(under 18). Of course, when I was 17, that was a real pisser.

Take Care,
Darren.

 

[Mike_Stuewe]

Well thats all great in Canada.

But if you have a 16 year old intelligent child that can handle seeing an R rated movie, then it should be up to the parents to determine if it is ok, not the Canadian rating system.

 

[Phil Florian]

That is why they have DVD! Reminds me of my troubles getting into the ORIGINAL run of "Alien" oh so many years ago...

I agree, though, while a simple ban on anyone under 18 may be going too far, a bit more common sense would be appreciated here in the states. I have seen the same thing, in particular a heartbreaking scene with a father forcing his 5 year old son to watch "The Hulk." While not the most violent movie, it had some disturbing images and the boy kept pleading to go home. My wife complained to a manager and the father and child were asked to leave. Lesson: if enough people stand up and make it known, it will get fixed. This was one person, too. If 10 people or 50 people complained after the show because of the 5 year old and asked for money back, it would get noticed. I think theaters just go the path of least resistance. A parent might complain that they can't get in with their kid so they let them in. If no on challenges that, the theater wins. All about the $$$. If it hits them in the pocket book that a bunch of people ask for money back, habits may change.

I think this would be worthy of the level of enthusiasm of the folks on here who demand OAR on DVD, moreso because it really does go to the welfare of the kids in the end. Anyone else ever make a complaint to management about the viewing habits of poor parents and their helpless kids?


Phil

 

[SteveGon]

If you can't afford a babysitter, that's still no excuse for taking your children to movies with inappropriate content. What you do is you just don't go. Sorry.

And while I doubt that kids would actually suffer long-term psychological damage, they more than likely would be bored and consequently noisy. I've seen this many times.

 

[John Doran]

sure. and everyone should know better than to bring their 5-year-olds to a movie like monster....

the law represents a simple compromise: eliminate the restriction, and you have mature 16-year-olds attending the movie, but you also have 5-year-olds seeing the same show; put the restriction in place, and mature 16-year-olds are forbidden from seeing the movie, but then so are 5-year-olds.

it's the result of a basic legal utilitarian calculus: more harm is done by allowing 5-year-olds to see movies like monster than by forbidding mature 16-year olds from seeing them.

this isn't to say that the canadan law is "right", or that it couldn't be better - only that it is more than capable of being given a reasonable defense.

 

[Phil Florian]

I agree. I think it is sad that there are people out there that can't find a friend or family member to watch a child for free. If that is the case, do like my wife and I have to do when my mom or our usual free sitter is unavailable...go see the movie separately with different buds. Or, save up and pony up the bucks. I have noted this before, but live theatre companies worth at times offer discounts to parents who have sitters. I don't know the mechanism they use to determine that you do indeed have a child with a sitter, but it was nice to reduce the cost of the ticket (granted, you have more room to work with $25-55 theatre tickets than the cheap $7.75 movie ticket).

I think some common sense and creativity and a bit less laziness is in order.


Phil

 

[ThomasC]

How about changing it so that children 12 and under can't go into R-rated films no matter what, and teens under 17 can go in but have to have a parent or guardian?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

They'd just need to create another rating called "R-13" - no kids under 13 admitted. I read an article recently that either proposed that or indicated the MPAA had it under consideration - can't recall which. There IS a backlash against many "hard" "PG-13" flicks that are just shy of "R" ratings...

And BTW, the ratings system has nothing to do with the "law". It's a voluntary system used by the movie industry that they adopted to AVOID government entanglement...

 

[John Doran]

fair enough. then substitue the word "law" and "legal" where it appears in my post, with "regulation" and "regulatory".

 

[John Doran]

well, i did some checking on this, and, at least in the province of Ontario in Canada, movie-ratings are a legal matter, in that the Ontario Film Review Board is a statutorily enacted and empowered administrative body - The Theatres Act is the governing legislation - whose ratings have the force of law to the extent that violations of the age restrictions imposed by the Board are subject to prosecution under sections 19 and 58 of the Act....

does it work much differently in the US? it would strike me as a bit odd not to give movie ratings even a derivative force law...

 

[MartinTeller]

Did you know that if you don't let your children see bad things, they will never ever have bad thoughts??? TRUE FACT!

When I have kids, I'm not going to shelter them. Monster is a true story. Why hide the truth from your kids? What's the worst that's going to happen? They'll have nightmares for a little while? The world is a nightmarish place. The sooner they learn that, the better prepared they'll be to deal with it.

 

[ThomasC]

Yes, but how often are NC-17 movies released? There are very few out there because they all want to tone it down to R so they can get more box office take.

 

[Ricardo C]

I agree, Martin! At last someone with common sense. Say, why don't we have a play date for our kids? I'll bring "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" and "Ken Park", and you can bring "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "American Psycho". How about it?

Seriously now...

No one is arguing in favor of sheltering children, but they ARE arguing in favor of more sensitive parenting, which the parents in the anecdotes related here, did not show at all. Plopping a five-year-old down to watch "Monster" doesn't strike me as a good form of "preparing them for a nightmarish world". But that's just me. Maybe next time I babysit my cousin's kids I should take them to see it and tell them we're "building character".

 

[ThomasC]

5-year-olds should be having fun, not seeing a movie about a serial killer. There's still plenty of time for that.

 

[Dennis Castro]

In general I agree with his statement when the children are in there teens. At that age I think that most children can start being exposed to the "Real world" but it still must be done with common sense and some descretion. These children however where under the age of 10, maybe one of them were 12.

 

[Patrick McCart]

It's not a matter of sheltering. If I were a parent, I wouldn't bring my children to a movie unless I felt that they were mature enough to take it. For example, I wouldn't take a 5 year old to see Schindler's List unless I felt that they could take it (or if they wanted to see it).

Monster seems to be a great movie and it's based on fact, but it's not right to take younger children. The 12 year old may have been mature enough, but I highly doubt the 5 year old was.