Discuss Film Classifications

Former_MSE_Wendy

The Dark Knight may be a fab film but would you take a nine year old?

If you’re taking a child to a film, check out its detailed classification at BBFC classifications and discuss what you think of any film classifications below.

Related Deals Note: Days Out 2for1s

[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

lm07

this was also discussed on the jeremy vine show today on BBC radio2 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/vine/ or http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00ctmxk
there were quite mixed opinions on this.
i did notice there wasn't a lot of 'blood' used but there was alot of implied violence and lots of the psychological fear used. i personally would have thought a higher rate would have been more appropriate but it's down to the adult to decide.

ka7e

My sons are 19 and 23 and they were very surprised the film didn't get a higher rating. It was particularly the nature of the violence - often sudden and shocking - that they found unsuitable for some of the youngsters that got into the cinema.

They overheard a father complaining to the cinema staff that he wouldn't have brought his son (probably 9-11 years old) to see it if he had been aware how violent it was. He hadn't appreciated how different this film was to the original Batman films.

Frenchie0403

I agree with ka7e. I took my 15yo Daughter yesterday and she came away very disturbed by the pyschological menace in the film. It should, in my opinion, be a minimum of 15.

dmg24

I have experience of the BBFC at the other end of the scale (18 and R18). It seems that they have much more clear cut criteria when rating this type of film (the criteria is much more black and white), but the lower ratings are much more subjective (depending on the opinion of the classifier).

Edinburghlass_2

lm07 wrote: »

this was also discussed on the jeremy vine show today on BBC radio2 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/vine/ or http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00ctmxk
there were quite mixed opinions on this.
i did notice there wasn't a lot of 'blood' used but there was alot of implied violence and lots of the psychological fear used. i personally would have thought a higher rate would have been more appropriate but it's down to the adult to decide.

I heard part of JV today and while I didn't know what film they were talking about I certainly didn't like listening to the clip they played.

roxy7699

There are certain parts of the film that I think could even disturb adults, its a loud jumpy shocker, and very good too!!
However I would not take a nine year old I even saw a toddler in there when I went and was almost compelled to say something to them.

Xenos

I would not take a 9 year-old, but I have NO sympathy for any parent that does. It's rated 12. That means no child under 12, unless you are absolutely sure your child will be ok with it. And to make that decision you have to have visited the BBFC website or read/listened to one of the many reviews available. If you haven't, and you take your 9 year-old to see the Dark Knight, then in my opinion you are an irresponsible parent.

If I had my way I would get rid of all film classifications but U (suitable for all) and 18 (contains explicit sex and/or graphic violence). Everything else would be PD - parental descretion. Cinema is not compulsory. There's no excuse for finding out about the content of films before you take your children to see them, the information is very widely available. Make parents take responsibility rather than letting them over-rely on someone else's recommendation and then whinge when they don't agree with it.

Oh and that father who took his 9 year-old and complained? I wonder what would have happend had the cinema staff said 'look, this really isn't suitable for a 9 year-old, you shouldn't take her in'?

I think I can predict it. He would have a) kicked up a fuss about a disappointed child and/or b) ignored them and taken her anyway. The fault lies entirely with him. He should have found out about the film before the cinema was even suggested, and put his foot down and said 'no' if his daughter pestered him about it.

Kazzajr

My 5 year old asked to see this as he loves the Batman cartoons and has seen the trailers for the film. I looked into it and realised that it was not suitable for him.

Any films which are not rated U I automatically check to see what it contains to make it unsuitable and use this plus reviews (without spoilers) to check if I want to take my son to see the film.

I wonder if there should be a ban on trailers for certain classification of films before the watershed, as ones shown before this time could be misleading for some parents?

Marigold123

Absolutely! It's up to the individual parent to find out about the film beforehand and to make their own judgement about what their own child can deal with, then, (YES!) stick to it, whether the child nags them or not. I wouldn't give in to a child who begged to be allowed alcohol or cigarettes, and I wouldn't allow them to see a movie I had deemed unsuitable either.

Actually, I did take my nine year-old daughter (nearly 10) to see Dark Knight, which obviously some people are going to disapprove of, and though she did hide her eyes during some of the scarier parts - mainly when we had to look at Two-face, I didn't regret taking her with me and my 16 year-old son. She enjoyed the family outing and the movie as a whole, and I didn't feel it was inappropriate to have taken her.

I didn't think the physical violence was much worse than a lot of stuff you see on TV, even before the watershed, and as for the psychological violence, well, I've found that the majority of that seems to go over the heads of children that age, if it isn't dealing with something they have direct experience of. This was actually borne out by her reaction to our enthusiastic discussion of Heath Ledger's performance after the movie. She said she thought the Joker was 'a bit boring'.

This is certainly darker than the other Batman movies, (and very much the better movie for it, in my opinion), but there are also some great points about self-control and responsibility, when a character who seems all good abandons his principles under pressure, and another steps back from the brink to take back control of his aggression. There is also plenty about courage and self sacrifice, and what makes a true hero. Excellent lessons at any age, if people want to discuss that with their kids.

Well, that's my opinion. I expect I'll get shot down in flames, but hey, that's what we're here for, the discussion!

Marigold

The_Old_Bag

I have just got back from seeing Dark Knight,
Excellent film, but very dark and very violent.
I too have heard some debate re the classification, and there seemed to be some issue with "not concentrating on the violence" etc which it is why it was only a 12A
While it is true I think, that there wasn't long periods spent with the camera focused up close on blood and gore, it really is a very dark and violent film. I would suggest about 85% of the film is about violence and death with everything from knives, guns, explosions, fires, people being thrown through windows, out of buildings etc.Also, the special effects make it all the more realistic and thus scary - even when it is the Batman himself who is diving off buildings ie not one I would recommend anyone to take a young child to see.
Having said that, I could imagine children 12 and older still being upset/disturbed, and presumably some younger ones might be 'entertained'. Only the parents can decide, and the classification is surely just a guide.
Years ago I remember deciding NOT to take my son to see Jurassic Park when it first came out (showing my age now) but when he did see it on video, he thought the scene where the man was eaten by the dinosaur whilst hiding in the toilet was hilarious !!
So much for me being worried about it giving him nightmares !!