Does it bother you when you see 3-5 year old children in 'R' movies? (1 Viewer)

[SteveA]

I will never forget going to see Braveheart in the theater back in the summer of 1995. A family with two small boys (about ages 6 and 9) sat down in front of me. Well, about 45 minutes into the film there was a little nudity and the family made a hasty exit from the theater. The father loudly exclaimed, "This is filth!" as he left.

I can't imagine taking children to an 'R' rated movie and not expecting there to be some age-inappropriate material. Then again, it's possible that the father himself was offended by the bare breasts and he wasn't concerned about his kids at all!

 

[Ike]

Yes, it bothers me. As much as I dislike the BBFC in the UK, I wish the US had a legally enforced rating system where 18 meant 18 & over only, 15 meant 15 & over only. 18 rated films are still widely shown - there is no 'ghetto-ization' of the certification like NC17 over here.

Legally enforced ratings are censorship-you are telling parents that they aren't allowed to raise their own kids. I don't care what Britan does, in the US, we've got a very important document: the first admendment.

What do you mean by "ghetto-ization"? I don't quite catch what you mean?

 

[Patrick Sun]

He means NC-17 movies are rarely shown by movie theater chains because of the stigma attached to them (mainly of being almost pornagraphic in nature - that's the presumption when a film gets a NC-17 rating, because we in the US get all the violence we can handle in R-rated movies).

 

[Paul Richardson]

Obviously, anybody who is disruptive in a movie is a pain, but when you take a 3-5 year old to a movie like Black Hawk Down you're just asking for trouble. Maybe they'll be tramuatized, but more likely than not they'll just be bored...and when a little kid gets bored they start running around screeching. Of course the parents don't do anything, because the kind of parent that takes their toddler to a graphic war movie is generally the same kind who doesn't discipline their kid.
If you want to see a movie with your child or you can't find a sitter, that's fine...but why not see a movie that's intended more for their age range? A three year old isn't going to get anything out of Black Hawk Down.

 

[Todd Hochard]

I agree with FrankW.

I would assume the parents know their children better than I do, and know if they can handle it.

You give too many parents far too much credit.

Ratings as censorship? Please.

Todd

 

[DanaA]

It annoys the heck out of me. Lots of the time, the parents are too lazy to just get a baby sitter. Even when I went to see Shindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, there were 3-4 year olds.

 

[BrianB]

What do you mean by "ghetto-ization"? I don't quite catch what you mean?

The NC17 certificate is worthless - mainstream movies cannot use that perfectly valid certificate because the majority of cinema chains won't show any films with that rating due to its early connections to porn films.

 

[Ike]

The NC17 certificate is worthless - mainstream movies cannot use that perfectly valid certificate because the majority of cinema chains won't show any films with that rating due to its early connections to porn films.

Round about, sure. But plenty of films are released unrated or even a handful NC-17's. I don't disagree here-I'm all for a workable adult rating that denotes everything above R that's not porn. I just don't agree with how you wish to see this enforced.

 

[Don Black]

Censorship? Eh? Are age restrictions on alcohol or driving 'censorship'?

Namely, yes. They are commmunity set and enforced guidelines. This is why you can get a license at 14 in some states. Europe has no such restrictions on alcohol and so it's not really an issue there.

It's worth noting that the MPAA's rating system is a voluntary one and not one set by the government ... yet. Certainly, the conservative zealots in Congress are salivating at the chance to regulate Hollywood.

Their rants are fueled by kids immitating stupid things seen in movies that their parents have failed to educate them properly about (like kids never tried to copy birds before TV). Yes, the blame does lie mostly with the parents.

 

[MickeS]

in the US, we've got a very important document: the first admendment

What does that have to do with age restrictions?
As for the question in the thread title, yes it bothers me. Some woman came in about halfway through "Blach Hawk Down" (I assume she snuck in after another viewing, as some other people came in at the same time), with her son, who was around 4. So for about an hour, this little kid sat there watching people get slaughtered, hearing people yell "motherfucker" and "fuck" repeatedly, and all without any explanation or background. No wonder the kid wouldn't sit still, he kept turning around, crawling under the seat, and generally seemed to just want to get out of there. But no, the mom decided that they should stay. It made me pretty upset, but from the lack of respect for the rest of the audience, and from the lack of respect for her son. There was no way that he could comprehend what was going on.
/Mike

 

[Ike]

What does that have to do with age restrictions?

You don't think that legally making it where 17 olds can watch Requiem For a Dream goes against the first admendment?
And beyond that, my main concern was that a parent would not be allowed to make the decisions for their own children. I think I made it quite clear, but whatever.

 

[Patrick Sun]

A lot of times, parents bring their young kids to R-rated movies because the parents simply want to see the movie, but can't or won't pay for or obtain a babysitter for their kids. Sometimes, it's just simple selfishness.

 

[MickeS]

As far as I know, a 17 year old isnot of legal age, thus doesn't have the rights and responsibilities of an adult. The first amendment only applies to adults, I think. But I haven't studied this very much, maybe I'm wrong.

And OF COURSE a parent shouldn't be allowed to make all decisions for their children. That would be a total disaster, since a lot of parents don't have a clue wtf they're doing, and base their decision on what is easiest for them, not what's best for the child. Just because they are parents doesn't mean they know anything about raising children. It seems to me like the strategy employed by most parents is "wish me luck". Can you tell me that a mother bringing her 4-year old son into "Black Hawk Down" halfway into the movie is an action she took with the best interests of her child in mind? Or that she even gave a flying f**k about him at that point?

/Mike

 

[Ike]

And OF COURSE a parent shouldn't be allowed to make all decisions for their children.

So, the government should do it for them?

 

[Paul Richardson]

First off, I should say that I am against government enforcement of our rating system. The MPAA ratings are not designed as a substitute for parenting, but merely as a guide to help parents decide what it entertainment is best for their children.

However, it is not a violation of the first amendment to bar a child from an NC-17 rated film (nor is keeping them out of sex shops and strip clubs). "Freedom of speech" is not the same thing as "Freedom to Watch Whatever Entertainment I Want Regardless of my Age." Plus, it's not as if the child is banned for life from the material...they just can't see in the theater. The parent could always rent it for them on DVD, or the kid can just wait until he's of age to see the movie.

 

[MickeS]

So, the government should do it for them?

No "the government" shouldn't make all decisions. There should however be laws in place to proctect children from their parents intentional or unintentional neglect, abuse or simple selfishness. I think most people agree about that.

I really don't think that age restrictions for movies should be regulated by law (there are far more important things to regulate), but I do think that the NC-17 voluntary restriction should be used more often.

The only reason I brought up laws and government was that I really can not see how age restrictions for people not yet of legal age have anything to do with the first amendment.

/mike

 

[Ike]

The only reason I brought up laws and government was that I really can not see how age restrictions for people not yet of legal age have anything to do with the first amendment.

Because, you are acting against a minor, but you are barring an adult. It's their decision, thus it violates the first admendment. Quite simple.

 

[Paul Richardson]

Because, you are acting against a minor, but you are barring an adult.

No, an adult isn't barred from an NC-17 movie. They just have to leave their kid outside.

 

[Ike]

You are then making it where they cannot decide for themselves what they want to show their children. That, in my opionon, is not legal, shouldn't be, and goes against the spirit of free speech and thought.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Strictly speaking, going to movies isn't really free speech because you have to pay for the ticket to attend them.

There are adult venues that do not cater to children, and would be appropriate for them to turn away children, even with their parents' permission, like porno theaters, S&M clubs, etc.

Are we getting to that slippery slope where we think anything a parent does with their child is acceptable behavior all because to do otherwise would be an affont to free speech? Speech is rarely free.

It seems some parents definitely try to find that line where parenting ends and child abuse begins. Where does that line get drawn? For many, it's drawn at the NC-17 rating for the film, for some, it drawn at attendance of live sex shows? There has to be come form of community standards to compel parents to behave accordingly when exposing their young children to the seedier elements of the human condition.

If the MPAA ratings don't do it for you, something more "mandatory" will in the future. It's inevitable due to the curious, but puritanical nature of Americans' aversion to movie scene shown to their children that show depictions of sexual coitus between 2 or more individuals versus the depictions of vicious violence humans inflict on one another.