Discuss Film Classifications

chivas

I went to see the film last week - and although I thought it was great - I was shocked by the levels of violence/ psy horror that were in it for a 12 rating.

My partner was checking it out to see whether it would be suitable for his 9 year old (who has watched many other 12 rated films) and we realised in the first few minutes that was a resounding NO!

Many 12 films are suitable for mature younger children - Batman most definitely was not. I have watched 18 certified films with less psychologically disturbing matter. It should at the very least be a 15.

If something is certified as a 12a I believe we should be able to have some trust in that. I don't think many 12 year olds would be mature enough not to be disturbed by this - never mind any younger children.

Are parents supposed to pay money to take their 10/11/12/13/14 year old to see the film - just to walk out after 10 minutes when they realise how utterly unsuited to children it is?! Or how about a young 12 year old who goes to the cinema for the first time with his/her friends and is exposed to this level of horror?

I'm all for being able to make our own choices, but certification is supposed to enable us do do so - not to mislead us to enhance sales.

weblabrador

The dark Knight is disturbing because you don't see much of the violence, it is implied, rather than explicit... this unfortunately makes it much more disturbing... the bbfc parents website explains the 12a rating 'However, the BBFC considers the content of '12A' rated films to be suitable for children aged 12 and over, and we would not recommend taking very young children to see them. Parents or guardians must decide whether the film is suitable for their child or children.' To me this means i go and see the film first before deciding, i have no idea how anyone can decide if a film is suitable when they haven't seen it... any complaints from parents, to me, mean they're not responsible guardians, that's all...

DibDob_3

I was at the cinema last week on Orange Wednesday and was shocked to see a man who was old enough to know better, sitting with a 4 year old boy (possibly his grandson). It was a 19:00 showing and the boy fell asleep by the start of the film but the mand poked and shook him to wake up.
I thought that the content of the film was only suitable for a teenager and above and the only solace was that the young boy was asleep for the "disappearing pencil" scene.
Why don't the cinemas or certification authority do something to stop this ? Clearly parents and guardians are lacking in sense!

BettiePage

MSE_Wendy wrote: »

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]

How is this a shop but don't drop? This should be in the discussion area or the arms. Mods should know better.


However, having seen the film, I was surprised by the rating it was given. Damn good film though.

JayD

I was very surprised by the amount of violence in this film and very surprised by its 12A rating. It is a long film that is packed with both physical and psychological violence and would be extremely disturbing to most adults, let alone children. I thoroughly enjoyed the first Batman film and frequently go to films of this genre. The action and aggression are normally at a level that I can easily cope with. But this film was gruelling from start to finish and for me, it greatly detracted from the fabulous action sequences and effects. Such a pity that an otherwise excellent film was spoiled by those violent excesses.

JayD

weblabrador wrote: »

The dark Knight is disturbing because you don't see much of the violence, it is implied, rather than explicit... this unfortunately makes it much more disturbing... the bbfc parents website explains the 12a rating 'However, the BBFC considers the content of '12A' rated films to be suitable for children aged 12 and over, and we would not recommend taking very young children to see them. Parents or guardians must decide whether the film is suitable for their child or children.' To me this means i go and see the film first before deciding, i have no idea how anyone can decide if a film is suitable when they haven't seen it... any complaints from parents, to me, mean they're not responsible guardians, that's all...

First, although there was a great deal of implied violence I would argue that a great deal of the violence was NOT implied and was extremely explicit - the pencil scene being just one example.

Secondly, of course it is the parents' responsibility to protect their children but film ratings are supposed to offer guidance to help them to make decisions about films and in my experience, giving this film a 12A rating failed to do this.

Rooster_Norwich

I've seen the film.

It's a complete move away from the kiddy like comic book interpretation of the character.

This is much deeper and DARKER. Heath Ledger portrays The Joker brilliantly, but this is definately NOT a film for kids.

BatMan maybe a toy in some shops and a comic hero in others, but this film deals with issues and ideas that wouls scare or at least disturb a younger child, it's not a comic book film!

There's lots of references to knives, slashing, cutting and plenty of mindless violence. It's a film for young adolescents upwards but unless you want sleepless nights or to walk out of the film I would not recommend anyone taking a minor to go see this film.

If you do want to go see it with the kids, go yourself first and then make a judgement. I'd happily go see it again, but be warned it is nearly 2:30hrs long...:eek:

mintymoneysaver

liza111 wrote: »

I worked in a cinema and have to say there is no pleasing the public. When Spiderman came out and it was given a higher rating and the whole world went ballistic. We had angry parents demanding the address for the BBFC, by public demand they made the 12a rating. Now all of a sudden everyone is moaning about their children seeing such a film. Well instead of blaming everyone else look at yourselves and realise it was your fault. Once again public demand got what they wanted and now it's come back and bit you on the bum.
Did Heath Ledger not say how much making this film disturbed him?? Is that not a warning sign to parents??

I was just thinking I am sure it was parental pressure that brought the 12A in in the first place, ( so thanks for reminding me what film it was over)
I think they should still be 12 anyway, regardless of parental views. My feeling is that if someone has generally said this film is probably not suitable for a 12 year old, then I will not take my under 12s. And my 14 year old has never been to see a 15 either, however much she nags!

Easter

My kids (9 girl twins) wanted to go and see Batman because they say they watch the Batman cartoon on children's TV. I had to explain (because I'd already read about the violence) that I wouldn't be taking them. They weren't impressed - and instead went on the website! I obviously stopped this too because I haven't checked this out either. Mind you - I took them to see The Spiderwick Chronicles a while ago - and was horrified at the trailers - there were lots of references to sex and sleeping around in some of them and they really were quite 'adult' trailers. However - I tried to complain and just got sent from pillar to post. The cinema took no responsibility because it's the film people that 'package' the trailers and they make sure it's suitable for the film showing. When I contacted them (v.hard to do) they said they had no responsibility for it either. I ended up giving up because no-one anyone was taking any responsibility for the content of the trailers being shown before a kids film. I am now especially cautious. I don't take my little girls to the cinema to see a kids film only to have them watching trailers about men trying to sleep around!

Mind you - some time back - when kids were a few years younger - we missed out on seeing a kids film because it was full up and the ticket-person tried to sell us a ticket for 'Legally Blonde' instead as this was a 12A and said I could choose to take my kids if I wanted. I didn't thanks!

rulerofuniverse

Firstly, someone implied above that a 12A rating means that if an adult is happy, they can take a child in with them to see a film even if they're younger than 12. My understanding is that a 12A rating is actually higher than just a 12 rating (if that exists). It means that it may be suitable for 12 year olds, but they should have adult supervision/it's the responsible adult's decision as to whether that 12 year old should see it or not.

While we're on this debate though, I really wanted to say that my 15 year old sister (big age gap) went to see Sex & The City at the cinema with her friends. - Film has a 15 rating. Later on, I went to see it myself and was HORRIFIED :eek: at what she had seen. I'd have rated that film an 18, it couldn't have shown anything more really! I was so disgusted and if anyone wants to complain with me or give me the address to write to, I shall. :mad:

When I passed comment about this to a friend, they commented that surely the film name gave a lot away. However, I disagree; I expected sexual references etc., but as it had a 15 rating, believed it would therefore be suitable for 15 years old to watch! My poor sister isn't even legal yet.

Seriously, if you think Batman was bad...!