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

[Robert Anthony]

" It should be, but so many parents fail miserably at many "parenting" tasks, including monitoring their child's entertainment choices, that it can become a burden on the rest of society (through violence, crime, delinquency, etc.) which then has to take action through regulation."

Malcolm and John:

Okay, I kind of get what you're saying here, but I just don't buy it in this instance. Let's keep in mind we're talking about someone taking their family to "Monster" we're not talking about leaving a loaded gun in a dresser, or using a lamp cord to whip the shit out of the kids. And there's really nothing to say that the parent who brought their kids to the movie DIDN'T know what it was about, and we don't know ANYTHING about that family. We know that one person thought it was odd, and then immediately thought the parent was irresponsible and by letting them watch this movie, possibly leading them down the road of deliquency and later, criminal action. That's all we've got to go on, really. I have yet to see an example that goes from "My mom took me to see Scanners and from there I grew up to blow shit up real good." and THAT kind of example MIGHT lend weight to the argument that the government needs to step in, but as of yet, no such thing has come out.

I just don't see how movie ratings are going to do anything about this. I don't seethe benefit in having the government stepping in and ordering parents that they can't take their kids to see this movie or this movie because the government, regardless of your history, your parenting skills and your intentions with the screening, believes you're doing the wrong thing.

That makes no sense to me. And I have yet to hear a really good reason for it. There are PLENTY of other things that maybe you could apply that argument to, and it'd fit--but movies just don't rate that level of importance as to necessitate that kind of government interference. Unless of course you actually buy into the idea that movies themselves really are warping our fragile little minds. In which case that's a schism I've never been able to successfully close the gap on via internet argument

Plus, I see a lot of people not really giving kids enough credit. I know some have said we give kids TOO much credit, but I honestly don't buy that. I think that IF we are to believe we have dumber, more criminally prone children (and I don't necessarily believe that, either) then it comes from people, not just parents, but teachers and other adults, constantly treating children at a sub-retard level when dealing with them.

The "art of parenting" being lost I think is just kind of shortsighted--history has turned out it's fair share of fuckups long before R rated movies hit the scene. And it's roughly the same number, at least in america. to draw the line from "Mom takes 8 year old to Freddy vs Jason" to "society is in the crapper" is just a little too much, and it puts entirely too much weight on Movies and nowhere near enough weight on the education of the child. And then basically saying "The government needs to babysit" is the lazy band-aid slapped over the whole thing.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Because for every intelligent liberal parent with sensible 16 year old kids is an army of semi-coherent slobs whose immature kids will take home the wrong message from violent movies. And saying 'but they'll see them anyway' is not an excuse. Because murders take place doesn't mean that saying 'murder is wrong' is illogical, does it?

I've got to say that the US movie restrictions are bizarre to Brits. I think you're right to have fewer cuts for violence, but wrong not to put more age restrictions in place.

The Brit system in brief:

18 = you must be over 18 to see it. Includes most violent movies and anything with explicit sex (non consensual sex, even if otherwise 'mild' in terms of nudity, etc, is likely to get an 18 certificate)

15 = you must be over 15 to see it. Includes relatively mild sex scenes, and fairly violent movies.

12 = must be over 12 to see it. Some violence, swearing, v. brief sex scenes

12A = must be over 12 to see it by yourself or if under 12 you must be with an adult.

U = can be seen by anyone

There's also a couple of special categories, but I can't recall their codes. One is a U certificate that indicates that it is especially suitable for very young children (a sweet idea, and I know when our kids were under five, it was useful). The other is an 18 certificate that indicates it can only be bought from a sex shop or specialist retailer. Contrary to popular belief, we repressed Brits can buy hard core porn, but it isn't on open display if you go into a typical high street store.

Sorry, guys, but I think this whole system in principle is much more sensible . I'm not advocating heavy censorship, just sayng that age limits should be imposed.

 

[John Doran]

again, we're coming from opposite ends of the field on this: it's got nothing to do with treating kids as smart of stupid - it has everything to do with treating tham as kids; kids are not small adults who just haven't read enough yet to hold a conversation about, say, freedom of choice in the philosophy of liberal democracies - they're kids, and simply lack the intellectual and emotional resources to think about certain things in the right way and integrate them into their understanding of themsleves and the world in the appropriate manner. simply to assume that a child understands statements like "it's not real" in the same way as an adult with decades of socialization under his belt, linguistic, political, philosophical, moral and otherwise, is (in my view) massively to misunderstand children.

 

[Robert Anthony]

Okay, and I get you there, but it's this sentence:

" i believe exposing children to certain kinds of films is wrong, whether or not it ever turns them into sociopaths."

the solution to which then ends up "The government should take care of it"

that I think is what's rubbing me wrong. It's slippery slope, to me. Because if you give a government the freedom to interfere over something THAT trivial (and I do think movies, in the overall outlook, are trivial) then it starts to get bad.

Governmental over-regulation just rubs me wrong. as does the inherent snobbery in instantly assuming the majority of people out there are mindless, semi-coherent slobs. That's just elitist garbage. Yes, we all get annoyed by stupid shit, right? But if someone who's never seen me before catches me in public on the wrong day, in line at a supermarket, for example, he's going to assume I'm a total moron and I shouldn't be responsible for taking care of a child--based on an isolated incident completely taken out of context?

Because that's essentially the stance being taken in here. Granted, you might not agree with that aspect of it, but it seems this is the aspect grabbing a lot of people, and the argument boils down to this:

the majority of people are stupid, and they can't be trusted to make the right decision, so our Government should step in and parent FOR them in this case, otherwise they'll grow up and detract from society.

That's just too much, really. It's glass house type stuff.

and this:

" they're kids, they're kids and simply lack the intellectual and emotional resources to think about certain things in the right way and integrate them into their understanding of themsleves and the world in the appropriate way."

I don't know about either. WHat is "The right way" that you're talking about there? What age are you talking about?

I just happen to think MOST children actually have more capacity to do those things than most people ever really consider--and people's refusal to consider those things might really be what's leading to this percieved stunting of intellectual growth in today's children.

Not that today's children really ARE all that much different from yesterday's children, or the day before's children thats' another perception that I think, on one level, betrays an implied sense of superiority. "TODAY'S children" as opposed to US, when we were kids.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Robert, I don't think anyone here was talking about government regulation. It's like you're arguing with nothing. They're just criticising the parenting decision to take a little kid to see Monster.

And I agree with them.

The whole "and therefore the government should stop it" is something you added in and then argued against, which shows a bit of your own pre-judgements.

Not every criticism of private action is a call for strict government regulations or enforcement.

 

[Robert Anthony]

"The whole "and therefore the government should stop it" is something you added in"

No, it's NOT something I added in, man. I didn't just dream it up out of thin air. Someone compared our ratings system, to a different ratings system, one that is government mandated and states what movies kids can and can't see, parental guidance or not. people then said that sort of system should be implemented here. People then agreed with it.

"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."

" 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."

" 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..."

" I've got to say that the US movie restrictions are bizarre to Brits. I think you're right to have fewer cuts for violence, but wrong not to put more age restrictions in place."

" It should be, but so many parents fail miserably at many "parenting" tasks, including monitoring their child's entertainment choices, that it can become a burden on the rest of society (through violence, crime, delinquency, etc.) which then has to take action through regulation."

Seriously, man, I didn't just cough it up out of nothing. Hell, I didn't even get INVOLVED until I saw statements to that effect get brought up a couple times. If it had just been "Man--I dunno about bringing an 8 year old to Monster" then that would have been it for me, because I don't know about that, either. But then again, I don't know the parents or the family.

A poster earlier did say "if it takes a village, I don't mind being the village busybody" and that's cool--I like the idea of personal responsibility behind that. If someone thinks it's THAT wrong, that they took the time to approach the situation themselves would probably be more effective than not saying a word and telling people who weren't even there that "There oughtta be a law"

I know that's not what Dennis was saying when he started the thread, but that's what it looked like it was starting to turn into, so I weighed in with my own 8 cents.

Which brings us to here.

 

[Mike Broadman]

But our ratings systems is not government mandated, it is industry-imposed. Likewise, I think the point of the posters who illustrated foreign ratings systems (please correct me if I'm wrong, folks) is to show us the difference of what the ratings were and what they meant, ie, NC-17 vs R, etc, not to suggest it should be government imposed.

 

[John Doran]

i don't think the problem is just with a child's intellectual growth, but rather with their development as complete, well-adjusted members of society, you know? there's a lot of criminals and detractors-from-the-common-good out there who are really, really smart. when raising a child you have to do your best to see to the flourishing of their intellectual life AND their emotional, moral, spiritual, and social lives.

but be that as it may, i think we probably differ about this subject where the rubber hits the road: you deplore government intervention, while i am a welfare-state liberal who believes that it's one of the state's jobs to make men good.

 

[Dennis Castro]

That was not my stance or intention when I started this thread. Besides what I have witnessed in the theaters, I have had jobs dealing with the public and have witnessed time and time again, parents that just do not take or seem to exercise any responsibility or common sense with their children. They seem to want to blame everyone and everything else for what is wrong with their children.

Having said that, there are good parents out there who do the right things. What I'm afraid of is that the more and more people want blame and not take responsibility, the closer we get to losing our freedoms and the government stepping in and taking the responsibility upon themselves.

 

[Dana Fillhart]

Well, I have four letters to say to this...

IBTL!

(Ok, childish joke, I know. Guess that means I'm not mature enough to go see Monster? )

 

[Nathan V]

Just thought I'd pop in and state the obvious- that the MPAA has some of the worst rating criteria ever. XXX and The Ring deemed more appropriate for our children than Lost in Translation and Almost Famous?! Get out of here. My problem is that the MPAA notes only the visuals onscreen, not the themes of the movie. (Let's ignore that 'mature themes' crap they spout on 1/100th of the movies that should have that designation). It seems that the board thinks kids should see glorification-of-violence extravaganzas (Tomb Raider, Bond) rather than serious films with a purpose that comment on important issues (Almost Famous, Thirteen, etc). The concept of rating movies is bizarre to begin with; a board of people assuming a basic parenting function for the whole country?! Absurd!
Bravo to Roger Ebert, who bitches about this dilemma at every opportunity.

 

[KerryK]

When I went to see the General's Daughter in Toronto (at the sorely missed Uptown), there was a couple there with their daughter who was probably around three (I am not good at estimating kids ages). She had TOYS. If you bring toys to a movie containing a violent rape and murder, you are too young to be there.

After the movie, some people complained and basically we were told they couldn't do anything because she was with her parents.

 

[Christ Reynolds]

way to be a mature adult there, martin. in fact, i think that the one typing is actually one of martin's little children. kinda difficult to tell who is who when there is little maturity in a post like that.

CJ

 

[Mark Zimmer]

While showing porn to kids under 10 may or may not be illegal, I can guarantee you that if you're divorced it's sufficient to lose you custody of the kids (I don't have kids myself; I've seen numerous cases in divorce where things like this go on).