Discuss Film Classifications

Straykitten

Xenos wrote: »

I would not take a 9 year-old...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...

I find your comment interesting and on the whole I totally agree with you that parents need to be more responsible. I too have seen little ones viewing highly inappropriate films at the cinema on many occasions. However your argument for the removal of all ratings flies in the face of your comments regarding irresponsible parenting. If there were no age restrictions what's to stop these parents bringing their kids to even more unsuitable films? Someone has to protect these children from inappropriate viewing especially when their parents won't.

In saying that, the BBFC's rating are ridiculous, not just for The Dark Knight but for many films. We all know The Dark Knight would probably have been given an 18Cert (or, at the very least, a 15cert) 10-15 years ago - do we care less about our children's minds today?! Or are we're just becoming increasingly desensitised.

So many of the films targetted at the big pre-teen market are simply not appropriate for them to watch. It's all about money not morals or ethics, i.e. the lower the age restriction, the bigger the box office returns. Nowadays adult themes and inappropriate content (e.g. prostitution, infidelity, voilence and bad language) are glossed over and given a virtuous veneer.

I think it will become the the way you described, i.e. all PG - sadly it's the way things are going.

Incidentally, when a child's 12, 13 or 14 it's very hard to tell them that they'll have to wait until they're 15 to watch a film the BBFC says they are old enough to watch now. I think the BBFC should be helping parents, not making life more difficult for them.

Straykitten

As for all the people who claim watching voilence doesn't affect your child, take a look at Bandura's famous Bobo doll experiment (link below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment

Plushchris

Having watched the film last weekend I thought it was excellent, Heath Ledger deserves an oscar for playing the Joker perfectly!

Censorship is always a thorny issue, what one 12 year old finds terrifying another would find funny, it really is down to the parents to decide what the kids can and cant watch, with films like this you should know its going to be dark (it is called the dark knight after all)

Personally I think the 12/12a certificate is pointless, you try being a cinema worker and judging kids ages, 15 is hard enough but to guess if a child is over 12? Almost impossible.

Its obvious the film makers wanted to get the biggest audience possible and "edited it down" to a 12 certificate, they shouldnt have bothered and made it a 15 without the cuts, personally I think it would have been a better film without the cuts.

Film certificates in general suck though, they are so inconsistant, how can a film with swearing in it be worse than a film with a pencil being shoved in a guys head?

Moneygonewhere?

I think another reason this film was only a 12A was there was no f-words and other such swearing in it. Still doesn't make it suitable for under 15s.

patchwork_cat

I do agree about the ambiguity of 12A personally I feel that 12A's should be suitable for a mature child at the upper end of primary school eg year 6 with an adult. The problem is as someone pointed out some very innocuous films are 12a and then some aren't. I took my daughter nearly 11 to see Angus,thongs and perfect snogging the other day. Some of the scenes were a bit old, but not disturbingly so!( we would have been embarrased watching them together if she had been 18!) I did feel that it too probably should have been 12 not 12a. Maybe the BBFC needs to look again at their criteria.

Xenos

gailcarty wrote: »

However your argument for the removal of all ratings flies in the face of your comments regarding irresponsible parenting. If there were no age restrictions what's to stop these parents bringing their kids to even more unsuitable films? Someone has to protect these children from inappropriate viewing especially when their parents won't.

But my point is, it should be up to parents. By 'nannying' all we do is make is easier for parents to shirk their responsibilities. It SHOULD be up to them, and only them, as to whether they want to pay to take their children to a film.

There is a lot of difference between children aged 11-18. Some 11 year-olds are very mature, very easy-going, and very able to distinguish between real and fiction. A child like that doesn't need 'protecting' - they could watch The Dark Knight, not be bothered by it and go on to grow up into a perfectly psychologically stable adult . Some 17 year-olds are silly and immature and easily affected by what they see and hear. A teenager like that would probably do better to avoid The Dark Knight, although one might hope that they could actually make that decision for themselves.

The point is that the ONLY people that can make this judgement are the parents/guardians, and possibly the children themselves. I don't think any blanket classifications are useful between 11 and 18; there's just too much variation between children. It's useful to know that a film is U, i.e. contains nothing even remotely offensive, or 18, i.e. contains extreme violence/sexual activity. Anything in between is a grey area.

What makes me cross is not the classification, but the whiney parents. Really, grow up and don't take your child if you're even slightly worried. It's an expensive way to spend two and a half hours anyway. Take them to play in the park or something! I've got no problem with parents who take their child reasonably secure in the knowledge that their child will cope, even if their child is under 12. Just don't complain about it afterwards if it turns out that, actually, it was too dark for them. There's only one person to blame for it: you!

Smiley_Mum

My sons have been pestering me to see this movie continuously since it came out. I've bought them the junior novel to be going on with. I haven't seen the movie but may go to see it on my own when the boys go back to school. My eldest son, 9 soon wants the DVD for his birthday. Will the DVD when it comes out have sections cut or will it be as it is in the cinema? They got posters free in a paper and my youngest son is scared of the joker side of the poster, just have the batman side up on their bedroom wall.

Will_Tingle

TaBunny wrote: »

I think the certifiers need their brains tested saying this is suitable for young children

Just as well that they didn't say any such thing then eh?

They gae it a 12A, see:

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/c_12.php

To find ouyt what that actually means...

"suiltble for youg children" would be a "U"

Will_Tingle

TaBunny wrote: »

The only reason they make these films 12a's is to get more bums on seats with their kids to make more money

"they" do not give any rating to put "bums on seats".

The film makers may aim for a lower raiting in order to get a larger target audience, however the BBFC (who issue the ratings) have no interest weather the film is seen by one person of 8 billion.

astralbee

Interestingly the 12 certificate was introduced for the 1989 Batman movie, which was considered to be very dark for its time. I remember the BBFC describing the film as being "for young adults" and that they felt neither the PG or 15 certificates fit the audience. (by the way - before anyone corrects me that the film is a 15 certificate I should point out that the 12 certificate was not embraced by home video releases until a few years later, so all early 12's were reclassified after their initial cinema run)

But now the 12 certificate has been replaced by the 12A in cinemas and permits adults to take under 12's in. So, like the Parental Guidance (PG) certificate, it is the responsibility of the parents to decide if their kids can deal with it.

There are loads of websites you can use to check the content in more detail. IMDB now has a 'content advisory' section on each film, although it is user maintained and is sometimes missing or less helpful than normal.

A website I use occasionally is plugged in online which has extremely detailed reviews of films, breaking down all its content. They even count the 'F' words! But I should say it is a Christian website, and slightly rabid at times. For example, if someone in the movie kisses their pet dog on the head they will list it under 'sexual content'!

My personal opinion on The Dark Knight is that it should scare your under 12's out of their wits, and if it doesn't then perhaps you are already letting them see too much!

D.