I recently commented on an article on the guardian online concerning the rating of the last in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises.
What had irked so many was the USA censors decision to rate TDKR pg13, a rating we Brits copied but reduced to 12a, which means under-13s (or 12s) can see the film so long as they are accompanied by someone who IS 12 (or 13).
Now I understand the annoyance, it has grieved me for some time that films, especially book adaptations, that are the least bit dark are censored so much so that seven year olds won't be so scared they leave the cinema.
This is wrong, we had a perfectly good 12 rating in this country. Below 12 years old the majority of children do not have the capabilities of coping in a large, dark room with loud noises and scenes of violence. Of course there are some 40 year olds who share this sensibility. However the point is 12 (or 13 even) is a suitable age to limit what a child sees on screen. Of course you get the smart-arses like myself who at 11 insisted they could watch American Beauty without it disturbing them, but that was at home, where my own Father rented the film for me because between American Beauty (rated 18) and a film called Tumbleweeds (rated 12) I wanted the intellectual one.
Truth time, since I saw American Beauty I have not been able to bring myself to watch it again. Now I truly do not believe its because I was too young, I understood that Kevin Spacey was deeply depressed and I found it haunting. A lot of the sex went over my head, but I can remember Spacey obsessing over his daughters friend, the drugs he got from his neighbour, and the ultimate tragedy that occurred because of middle-America's attitude toward homosexuality.
To back up my statement that it was not my age that meant I cannot see it again, when I was 20 I saw City of God and though I loved it I cannot see that film again, I was 19 when I saw Pans Labyrinth and though the little girl still flashes across my memory I cannot watch her die again. This is just my personal quirk.
You may wonder why I have digressed onto a personal memory of being eleven and watching a film rated seven years older than I was, and its simply to say I completely understand when parents argue their kids can cope with films older than their age. It is only that if your children really do understand, then wait for the DVD like my parents would, in a safe environment where if it does in fact get too much there is this wonderful device called a remote control which can pause the action for a few minutes.
I would just like to point out I was alone when I saw American Beauty, no creepy family time viewing I promise.
The 12a rating in this country meant that the recent smash Hunger Games had a LOT of its violence either cut or limited. This I was okay with because the way the film was shot meant your imagination still had work to do, which I'm all for. However for fans of Christopher Nolan's Batman movies the 12a means the increasingly dark franchise may not get to wallow in the depths as long as they would like.
What I would love is for the 12a to be cut all together. When the films are released for purchase the 'a' magically disappears and suddenly the right age group are able to take home the movie. So why does getting bums on seats matter so much that studios are willing for their films to lose credibility by not fulfilling their original purpose - either to scare, incite, bewilder, or amuse?
I guess it all comes down to money. Films are rushed because of budget constraints or time limits. Actors and directors drop out when their needs are not met, either by paper or consideration (am thinking here of Gary Ross dropping out of Catching Fire for creative reasons).
This all makes me very sad. For now I will just have to accept that 12a's are here to stay, and go see films when the lovely boys and girls are in school, and hope that the complaints about films becoming less suitable to their ratings means that 12a's will not be censored too much in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment