The Ratings Board Has Gone Completely Insane
As anyone knows who's read much of this blog, I don't (as a rule) generally review movies I've seen at the second run discount houses, and that's where I see MOST of my movies. However, after my experience at the Hopkins Theatre yesterday, I felt I had to write this column. I don't consider it to be a review of any of the films discussed; however, in the course of making my points I suppose I'll have to write some comments that make it SOUND LIKE a review. So be it. It all started when I went out to the Hopkins on their "discount Tuesday" ($2.00 all day instead of the usual $2.50) to see three films: "Adventureland", "Duplicity" and "Taken". Yes, I did see THREE films (one at 4:40, one at 7:10 and one at 9:30) and got back home after midnight. I am a sick, sick person.
*********************************************************************************
Many of you (this is based on the quite likely false assumption that there ARE "many" who are reading this blog) may rely on a movie's rating to assess its content and decide whether or not you want to see it, or whether it would be appropriate for your children. You might believe that the ratings board (which consists entirely of parents and is SUPPOSED TO be making its judgments based on what they feel is appropriate or inappropriate for children) is making its decisions based on a clearly defined set of standards. I have often had cause to doubt this in the past, and after my experience at the Hopkins Theatre last night I no longer have any doubt that the ratings board either has no idea what it's doing, or else DOES know what it's doing and doesn't care that it's totally inconsistent and makes absolutely no sense.
I saw three films last night. The first was "Adventureland", which is rated R. It turns out to be a very sweet-natured, likable film about sweet-natured, likable characters. Our "hero", James, who had been expecting a trip to Europe as a graduation present, winds up working a lousy job at the low-rent amusement park Adventureland instead, and goes through a surprisingly uncliched coming-of-age experience there. The film has some sexual content (the co-worker he falls in love with is having an affair with an older married man), but absolutely no nudity, and no actual sex scenes... the affair takes place entirely off screen and is merely referred to). (And I should note that the married man is clearly portrayed as the sleezeball he is, and the girl realizes what she's doing is wrong and breaks it off). And James himself, at 22, is still a virgin in spite of a number of chances to change that status because he will not settle for "just getting it over with" with the wrong person. As far as violence, the closest you get is a friend of James who enjoys surprising people by occasionally punching them unexpectedly. Not exactly blood and guts. And the language isn't any stronger than I've heard in PG-13 movies 15 or more years ago. And this warm, sweet coming-of-age story that could actually be a beneficial film for younger teens to see (with some excellent performances by a fine young cast) is rated R, the same as "Friday The 13th" or "Last House On The Left". Does that make any sense to you? Me, neither. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE...
Following "Adventureland" I saw "Duplicity", a very, very complicated but quite fun and entertaining movie about two con artists (played by Clive Owen and Julia Roberts) who team up to steal the formula for a valuable new product from a big multinational corporation. Their plan is played out over a five-year time span, with a whole lot of twists, turns and surprises. The two characters are clearly having a sexual relationship, but this aspect of the story takes up even less time than the affair in "Adventureland" (blink and you could miss the scenes that refer to it) and similarly, there is no nudity whatsoever and no actual sex on screen. The language is about on the level I would have expected in a straight PG movie 15 or so years ago, and there is absolutely no violence whatsoever (not even on the level of the likes-to-punch-people character from "Adventureland"). This is exactly the kind of movie Alfred Hitchock might have made in his lighter, comedic "It Takes A Thief" mode, and hardly seems like something that would be any problem for younger audiences to any greater extent than that film. And yet, the rating: PG-13.
And lastly, there was "Taken". In this movie, a retired CIA agent played by Liam Neeson goes into action using all his old set of skills when his daughter is kidnapped by a ring of criminals in Europe who specialize in capturing female tourists in order to hook them on drugs and then sell them into prostitution. In the course of this movie, Neeson conducts the kind of torture on the criminals he's pursuing that would make the folks at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib blush... and it's extremely explicit, too (especially the electrodes). He's willing to shed as much blood as necessary, and not just the blood of the guilty, either: at one point he's perfectly willing to kill the wife of an uncooperative French policeman who's standing in his way, right in front of the cop. Mind you, he doesn't... the cop caves in... but the fact remains, he would have had no problem doing that, and he's supposed to be the hero. I think we can all agree that this is violence... and particularly repellant violence... to a FAR greater degree than anything I've described in the other two films and, for that matter, than you've seen in many R rated movies. Plus, the whole story revolves around a father searching for the daughter who's been kidnapped to be sold into prostitution, and we even see the "auction" scene in which she and several others are being sold to the highest bidder. The language is probably PG-13 level, but that's the ONLY thing that is, in a movie that, 15 years ago, would have gotten a well-deserved R. The rating it gets now: PG-13, the same as "Duplicity".
SO... the ratings board would have us believe that as far as appropriateness or inappropriateness for younger audiences, the light-hearted non-violent caper comedy of "Duplicity" and the ugly, brutal violence and exploitative sexual elements of "Taken" (sex can have its place in a film, but this is just sleezy exploitation) are both on the very same level, and that the sweet-natured coming-of-age comedy of "Adventureland" is MORE inappropriate than either of them. Yes, folks, "Adventureland" would be more damaging to young audiences than "Taken". I have long suspected this, and now it has been proven beyond any doubt in my mind: every single member of the ratings board has completely lost their mind.
*********************************************************************************
Many of you (this is based on the quite likely false assumption that there ARE "many" who are reading this blog) may rely on a movie's rating to assess its content and decide whether or not you want to see it, or whether it would be appropriate for your children. You might believe that the ratings board (which consists entirely of parents and is SUPPOSED TO be making its judgments based on what they feel is appropriate or inappropriate for children) is making its decisions based on a clearly defined set of standards. I have often had cause to doubt this in the past, and after my experience at the Hopkins Theatre last night I no longer have any doubt that the ratings board either has no idea what it's doing, or else DOES know what it's doing and doesn't care that it's totally inconsistent and makes absolutely no sense.
I saw three films last night. The first was "Adventureland", which is rated R. It turns out to be a very sweet-natured, likable film about sweet-natured, likable characters. Our "hero", James, who had been expecting a trip to Europe as a graduation present, winds up working a lousy job at the low-rent amusement park Adventureland instead, and goes through a surprisingly uncliched coming-of-age experience there. The film has some sexual content (the co-worker he falls in love with is having an affair with an older married man), but absolutely no nudity, and no actual sex scenes... the affair takes place entirely off screen and is merely referred to). (And I should note that the married man is clearly portrayed as the sleezeball he is, and the girl realizes what she's doing is wrong and breaks it off). And James himself, at 22, is still a virgin in spite of a number of chances to change that status because he will not settle for "just getting it over with" with the wrong person. As far as violence, the closest you get is a friend of James who enjoys surprising people by occasionally punching them unexpectedly. Not exactly blood and guts. And the language isn't any stronger than I've heard in PG-13 movies 15 or more years ago. And this warm, sweet coming-of-age story that could actually be a beneficial film for younger teens to see (with some excellent performances by a fine young cast) is rated R, the same as "Friday The 13th" or "Last House On The Left". Does that make any sense to you? Me, neither. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE...
Following "Adventureland" I saw "Duplicity", a very, very complicated but quite fun and entertaining movie about two con artists (played by Clive Owen and Julia Roberts) who team up to steal the formula for a valuable new product from a big multinational corporation. Their plan is played out over a five-year time span, with a whole lot of twists, turns and surprises. The two characters are clearly having a sexual relationship, but this aspect of the story takes up even less time than the affair in "Adventureland" (blink and you could miss the scenes that refer to it) and similarly, there is no nudity whatsoever and no actual sex on screen. The language is about on the level I would have expected in a straight PG movie 15 or so years ago, and there is absolutely no violence whatsoever (not even on the level of the likes-to-punch-people character from "Adventureland"). This is exactly the kind of movie Alfred Hitchock might have made in his lighter, comedic "It Takes A Thief" mode, and hardly seems like something that would be any problem for younger audiences to any greater extent than that film. And yet, the rating: PG-13.
And lastly, there was "Taken". In this movie, a retired CIA agent played by Liam Neeson goes into action using all his old set of skills when his daughter is kidnapped by a ring of criminals in Europe who specialize in capturing female tourists in order to hook them on drugs and then sell them into prostitution. In the course of this movie, Neeson conducts the kind of torture on the criminals he's pursuing that would make the folks at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib blush... and it's extremely explicit, too (especially the electrodes). He's willing to shed as much blood as necessary, and not just the blood of the guilty, either: at one point he's perfectly willing to kill the wife of an uncooperative French policeman who's standing in his way, right in front of the cop. Mind you, he doesn't... the cop caves in... but the fact remains, he would have had no problem doing that, and he's supposed to be the hero. I think we can all agree that this is violence... and particularly repellant violence... to a FAR greater degree than anything I've described in the other two films and, for that matter, than you've seen in many R rated movies. Plus, the whole story revolves around a father searching for the daughter who's been kidnapped to be sold into prostitution, and we even see the "auction" scene in which she and several others are being sold to the highest bidder. The language is probably PG-13 level, but that's the ONLY thing that is, in a movie that, 15 years ago, would have gotten a well-deserved R. The rating it gets now: PG-13, the same as "Duplicity".
SO... the ratings board would have us believe that as far as appropriateness or inappropriateness for younger audiences, the light-hearted non-violent caper comedy of "Duplicity" and the ugly, brutal violence and exploitative sexual elements of "Taken" (sex can have its place in a film, but this is just sleezy exploitation) are both on the very same level, and that the sweet-natured coming-of-age comedy of "Adventureland" is MORE inappropriate than either of them. Yes, folks, "Adventureland" would be more damaging to young audiences than "Taken". I have long suspected this, and now it has been proven beyond any doubt in my mind: every single member of the ratings board has completely lost their mind.
posted by Joe Bunce at
8:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home