Discuss Film Classifications

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?

silverchair

Hi

Ive just been to see it today & thought it was a great film.

I would take an average 12 year old to see it. I suppose if the child was young for his/ her age then I wouldnt. A lot of children are older than their age too so it depends on your own child, you as a parent need to make that judgement.

However, I probably wouldnt take a child aged 9 or below!

The_Old_Bag

Must agree with several of you, Heath Ledger for an Oscar.
I think his face/make-up, and that tongue licking, lip-smacking sound will become as well known as Hannibal Lecters sucking "hiss".

Also as someone has already mentioned, there has been enough publicity since Ledgers Death about how 'dark and sinister' the film was, that Ledger had isolated himself, taken drugs and become introverted/depressed. Surely that gave everyone the clue that the film was not going to be in the same vein as the 1960's Adam West camp/comedy.

Re the "2 faced" make-up. To be honest, I thought it so ridiculous it actually relieved the tension somewhat. It was so clearly CGI - just reminded me of scenes from The Mummy.

zenmaster

Marigold123 wrote: »

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.

!!!!!!! That's what the classification is supposed to be for ... to assist the parent to make a judgement!

Marigold123 wrote: »

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'.

I quite agree. I though it was [STRIKE]brilliant[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]pretty damn good[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]bit samey[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]boring[/STRIKE] tedious.

Marigold123 wrote: »

I expect I'll get shot down in flames.

Glad to oblige

Marigold123 wrote: »

but hey, that's what we're here for, the discussion

Indeed. Not picking on you in particular, but thought your post reflected pretty much what I was thinking.

zenmaster

Donegal_Paul wrote: »

... the latest films are much better and more true to the Batman character etc.

I disagree. I read the Batman comics as a kid and I think the original 60's TV series was a better representation than any since - SPLATT!. It's only since comics became "Graphic Novels" (I believe the Dark Knight was amongst the first of these) - THUNKKK! - that anyone cared about Batman's troubled soul - KERPOWW!!!.

Donegal_Paul wrote: »

Tim Burtons Batman was great though it's 20 years ago nearly now

Is it really 20 years?

Donegal_Paul wrote: »

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.

That's an improvement??

Donegal_Paul wrote: »

As for Batman Returns? A poor sequel at best

Sadly, I eagerly wait Batman Ends.

Sherz

I took my 8 & 11 year olds to see it after much pestering from them, and they loved it. The only part that made them (and me) jump was the bit where the body hits the window. I think parents should know their childs tolerance for this type of thing & what scares them, and it's up to them to make the decision. With the levels of horror/violence in todays movies, tv & video games, I think kids become tolerant of it very quickly.

littleemmie

I took my 10 year old brother to see it (big age gap between us) last week and I must admit, I did wonder why he seemed to be almost the only child in the full cinema. I had prepared him for how violent and scary the film was going to be and told him that if it was inappropriate we would leave straight away. The decision to take him however was mine and I was therefore responsible if the film was unsuitable - not the cinema's or the film classification people.

When we got there the only seats left were in the front row, which actually turned out to be great for him because during most of the violent/gun/fighting scenes you couldn't actually see what was going on! I found that most of the violence was implied and you didn't see much. You knew what was about to happen and the aftermath but most of the time you didn't actually it happen (iykwim)!. There were a number of times where I could guess what was coming and then either distract my brother so he didn't see it or take hold of his hand to comfort him if he was scared.

Needless to say, he didn't really understand what was going on half the time and certainly didn't understand the significance of the pencil scene. The best bit of the film for him was the lamborghini which he was non-stop talking about after the film!

Anyway, my main point (from this long essay!!) is that I knew the film was going to be dodgy for him as it was rated 12a. I took him in at my own risk and took full responsibility for his wellbeing during the violence. Maybe if we were sat in a part of the cinema where we could actually see the film I might feel differently.....!

TaBunny

No way is this film suitable for a child, I even baulked having my 15 year old with me, she was very scared of the joker and hated the knife scenes which brought back all the memories of late about Rob Knox and other teen knife deaths, I think the certifiers need their brains tested saying this is suitable for young children and we wonder why society is going to the dogs

TaBunny

oh and I don't think that a parent should go on what they think their childs tolerance level is, no child should have to see a knife placed across someones mouth with the intent implied that the said knife is going to be pushed into that persons face. The only reason they make these films 12a's is to get more bums on seats with their kids to make more money

Unity

TaBunny wrote: »

No way is this film suitable for a child, I even baulked having my 15 year old with me, she was very scared of the joker and hated the knife scenes which brought back all the memories of late about Rob Knox and other teen knife deaths, I think the certifiers need their brains tested saying this is suitable for young children and we wonder why society is going to the dogs

It does make me wonder where the consciences of the BBFC are, with all the recent media coverage of the increase in fatal knife crime - to even contemplate this film going out with a 12A rating. I'd be very ashamed to admit it if I had been part of the team that sanctioned this.