Discuss Film Classifications

Wasspj

I blogged about this issue today, and my thoughts were basically that the hysteria is a bit overblown. Parents have a responsibility when it comes to deciding whether to let their children go to watch films, and in this case more than any other I can remember there was plenty of information available to help them make the decision.

I don't have any children, and I can't therefore say whether I would have let them go because it is something very specific to individuals. I know I could have handled it, but equally I have friends who even now in their late twenties/early thirties were disturbed by it.

The great strength of the 12A rating is that it does allow for individual differencess. It does however require the parents to live up to their responsibilities.

alocin

First off; The Dark Knight rocked my socks off and I've seen it three times. Can't wait for the DVD.

Secondly, just because a film is rated 12A doesn't make it automatically okay for kids younger than that to see. The advisory bit there gives you a clue! The film people are nice enough to let parents judge for themselves so that more mature 10 & 11 year olds who wouldn't have screaming nightmares have the opportunity to see some darker films.

Just because a film is rated 18, do you automatically think it's okay for you to watch it? There are lots of horror films I would never watch because I know I wouldn't enjoy the jumps/blood & gore. I take the trouble to read summaries and reviews before choosing what to watch.

For those of you who want to "vet" what films your littlies see, try this website: http://www.kids-in-mind.com/. Warning though; reading the boringly accurate descriptions of sex, violence and profanity can really suck all the fun out of a good action/romance film!

disney2007_2

During our trip to the vue cinema today, we watched the previews before the movie started.
I took my 5 year old and 3 year old and the preview they saw was the mummy 3, and the clip was, the horses coming to life with fire and red eyes, and the skeletons coming out of the ground killing people.
Is that suitable for a 5 year old, we had to leave early and we did not even see the end of Kong Fu Panda, as my daughter was so upset from that preview.
Vue cinema York.

muzzarooney

Gives a description of films & their content

http://www.kids-in-mind.com/

Xaero_2

The film was actually filmed as a 15, and they have got rid of the more violent scenes and edited parts to get the 12A classification (for money reasons understandably), using deleted scenes to bulk out bits.

Things edited out are (spoiler warning): The chinese man on the money getting burnt, screaming in pain from various joker scenes (pencil/why so serious/etc), no blood on these sort of scenes either. and bits of 2 faces face and blood left over on the pillow when we first see him. I believe these are going to be included in a 15 version of the DVD.

The film is really borderline for a 12A though, its much worst then most 12As. 2 face appearance is enough to give a minor nightmares, jokers maniac style, the pretty blunt fight scenes, making a pencil disapeer in another guys face, etc.

I personally would rate it 12-15A if there was such a thing (minimum of 12 years, under 15s accompanied by adult).

Saying all that though it is a fantastic film, Ledgers performance was outstanding and believeable, as scary and believeable as hannibal lecter, he really does need an oscar for his performance.

Aquatic_2

lsudaw wrote: »

The film is rated 12A meaning it is not suitable for the under 12s. A is for advisory so i take that to mean that children above that age should be taken if their parents deem the film suitable. Why would anyone take a 5 year old as mentioned in a previous post!

Having said that, I was quite scared myself and was really shocked it wasn't as 15 or maybe even an 18. It is a fabulous film and i am hoping to go see it again at the cinema but isn't for children.

Reading this thread it is apparent that there are 2 understandings of 12A

Mine is that children UNDER the age of 12 can see it if their responsible adult says so. i.e. some under 12's are grown up enough for it so i read it that it is sort of a 12. possibly suitable for under 12s depending on the child
12 rating is that it is NOT suitable for any children under the age of 12
15 is not suitable for under 15s
and 15A is possibly suitable for under 15s

Our local cinema had a notice up saying although it was a 12A they thought it was for ADULT audiences due to its dark and disturbing nature and violence. (or words to that effect). I agree with that statement and was not impressed at my ex who took our 10 year old (without my knowledge!). There was certainly a adult rating in my house when I found out!!!!!
I believe it should have been a 15 but at least a 12 (with my understanding of a 12 being more adult that a 12A)

BTW - werent Pirates of the Carribbean and the Bond films a 12A? Comparing the 3 of them together I cannot understand how they were all rated the same

dbfisokay

I would certainly advise caution with this particular movie. It is not as graphically violent as it first seems (I've seen it twice) however the menaces of violence, anger, insanity, immoraility and reverence for weapons, specifically the knife, are palpable and there is a lingering sense of having seen inside the minds of what are effectively mentally ill characters (Batman included). It's a good movie, but even its use of sound (the buzz that pre-empts the joker) is designed to agitate the psyche so it may leave the sensitive soul disturbed and open to bad dreams. Definitely one to be looked at by the BBFC considering the lesserly violent X-Files received a 15 rating
:eek:

Donegal_Paul

well, it's quite simple, its a 12A so an under 12 can go if accompanied by an adult.

I've been and seen it with the wife while the kids (9 & 11) are in Manchester with their grandparents and i'll be probably taking the kids to see it when they come back.

The problem isnt the classification, its the adult / parent, as is usual in my opinion.
It's my job to make decisions for my kids until they reach the age of maturity, but I do so more with them than for them, if you see the distinction.

I am probably a bit biased as Ive always liked Batman and have seen the change from Burt Wards 60's comic characters, to the 80's Batman with Michael Keaton which was dark for its time (1989) but it went a bit commercial with the sequels.
The latest films are much more realistic and follow the stories (the comics and graphic novels) of the Batman.

I speak as what some would consider a nerd / collector / etc having over 1000 batman comics i used to collect regularly years ago, but not for nearly a decade, but also as a parent.

Its my responsibility to guage if my kids can see it or not, my son (9) has been reading many of my comics and ive made sure that he can ask me about the storylines etc etc so he can understand and i know when there are some storylines where im deliberately careful / wary.

This latest film is effectively a definition of the Batman / Joker relationship, and it is dark, as in the comics, and there's some implied violence, absolutely, and as an adult i know there's a hell of a lot in that film that they could have (as a fan perhaps should have) put in but that would have certainly upped it to a 15.

In a nutshell, good film, parents are responsible for their kids, it's about making an informed choice.

Donegal_Paul

caoimhin wrote: »

How does it compare with Tim Burton's Batman/ Batman Returns? Weren't they both rated 15 with an uproar at the time of release about them being too violent?

It doesnt compare, the latest films are much better and more true to the Batman character etc. Tim Burtons Batman was great though it's 20 years ago nearly now and we have had films like Saw, Jeeper Creepers, etc etc since then and it seems that societies take on acceptable violence etc has changed in this time to a degree.

As for Batman Returns? A poor sequel at best

hypnoguy

just because a child isn't quivering with fear in the corner, does not mean they are not affected or traumatised. Even if a child finds it funny to see graphic scenes and they are mature for their age, they can exhibit behavioural problem eg sleep problems, unexplained nervousness etc also the real shocker is that they can suffer with post traumatic stress disorder PTSD similar to soldiers, only with repetitions of graphic scenes repeating in their heads. SO before you give in to them begging to go and see eg Batman, consider that you could well be inadvertantly traumatising them, it's more common than you think, I should know, I treat it in both adults and kids.
films are rated for a reason, what do you hope to gain from ignoring them?