Film Classifications - How Restricted is Your Choice?
November 17th 2008 19:03
How often do you replace DVD rentals on the shelf due to their rating? Is it because that rating is too high, or too low? Have you bypassed a film, heedless of all else, because the spine of the cover indicates it contains an explicit scene? What if you picked up a PG rated adaptation of Lady Chatterley’s Lover? Would you put it back, assuming the content had been compromised? Likewise a film that has been re-edited and re-released in order to downgrade from R 18 to the more accessible MA 15 ?
I understand people with young’uns having to be a mite careful about lounge room screenings, but how good a guide are film classifications really? It has long been argued that the violence of action movies is often looked upon more leniently than material of a sexual nature. Does this mean hate rates better than love? If you were watching a film with your child, would you be more uncomfortable watching a couple lying in bed, without any visible nudity, talking, laughing and passionately kissing, or Bruce Willis beating his nemesis to a pulp?
If you would not let your child watch either, then think about this – Patricia Rozema’s period adaptation of the Jane Austen classic Mansfield Park is rated M, the same rating as Richard Donner’s Die Hard-esque film, 16 Blocks. Similar inconsistencies can be found in all film rating bands, as well as those of video games – of which children are the targeted demographic.
But beyond the idea of what is suitable viewing for children, how often do ratings influence the choices we make for ourselves? And how often is the choice made for us? In Australia, we are fairly lucky in that the banning of films is not so widespread – or so personal, at least in recent years – as some other countries. For instance, banned films in Vatican City: The Magdalene Sisters and The Da Vinci Code; in Zimbabwe: The Interpreter; in the US: The Profit (based on the life of Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard); in Malaysia and Iran: The 40 Year Old Virgin, Zoolander and Brokeback Mountain. Reasons for bans in many countries include unflattering depictions of the nation, including fictional anti-heroes portrayed as hailing from said nation, incitement of gay rights, propaganda of superstition in the form of Christianity, communist ideas, sacrilegious content, or personal dictate by the country’s leader.
In Australia, films banned since the 90s have been mostly because of sexual content, though some have had a temporary ban for other reasons – Wolf Creek was banned for several months due to the Bradley John Murdoch trial, and The Frighteners was banned for a time following the Port Arthur Massacre. These two I understand, but how much power should the OFLC have in deciding what is made available to Australians? If they can make it illegal for minors to see a particular film, then isn’t it enough to inform adults and let them make a decision? Until the 1950s, such films as Dracula, King Kong, The Story of the Kelly Gang, and All Quiet on the Western Front had all spent time under ban – judgements were made with the assumption that they were in the best interests of society. In more recent years, the list has included a whole swag of Queer films, and some featuring un-simulated sex scenes, such as Baise-moi.
What do you think of the OFLC rulings? How much do ratings influence what you watch? It seems to me that these restrictions have some real limitations of their own.
Michaelie Clark
If you would not let your child watch either, then think about this – Patricia Rozema’s period adaptation of the Jane Austen classic Mansfield Park is rated M, the same rating as Richard Donner’s Die Hard-esque film, 16 Blocks. Similar inconsistencies can be found in all film rating bands, as well as those of video games – of which children are the targeted demographic.
But beyond the idea of what is suitable viewing for children, how often do ratings influence the choices we make for ourselves? And how often is the choice made for us? In Australia, we are fairly lucky in that the banning of films is not so widespread – or so personal, at least in recent years – as some other countries. For instance, banned films in Vatican City: The Magdalene Sisters and The Da Vinci Code; in Zimbabwe: The Interpreter; in the US: The Profit (based on the life of Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard); in Malaysia and Iran: The 40 Year Old Virgin, Zoolander and Brokeback Mountain. Reasons for bans in many countries include unflattering depictions of the nation, including fictional anti-heroes portrayed as hailing from said nation, incitement of gay rights, propaganda of superstition in the form of Christianity, communist ideas, sacrilegious content, or personal dictate by the country’s leader.
In Australia, films banned since the 90s have been mostly because of sexual content, though some have had a temporary ban for other reasons – Wolf Creek was banned for several months due to the Bradley John Murdoch trial, and The Frighteners was banned for a time following the Port Arthur Massacre. These two I understand, but how much power should the OFLC have in deciding what is made available to Australians? If they can make it illegal for minors to see a particular film, then isn’t it enough to inform adults and let them make a decision? Until the 1950s, such films as Dracula, King Kong, The Story of the Kelly Gang, and All Quiet on the Western Front had all spent time under ban – judgements were made with the assumption that they were in the best interests of society. In more recent years, the list has included a whole swag of Queer films, and some featuring un-simulated sex scenes, such as Baise-moi.
What do you think of the OFLC rulings? How much do ratings influence what you watch? It seems to me that these restrictions have some real limitations of their own.
Michaelie Clark
| 153 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
I've often wondered how the criteria works for ratings. I've seen some movies where main characters are smoking a joint and there's no mention of "drug use" on the DVD cover, yet in another a character is seen snorting coke in the background and the warning "contains drug use" is listed on the DVD cover.
Recently I saw the poster for the new movie Traitor and it mentioned "Contains terrorism themes" .... I guess some people might be offended (?), or perhaps disturbed by having those themes present in a movie.
The violence issue is always a subjective one. You'll get a variety of warnings, breaking the violence down into "styles" ie "Contains war violence", "Contains action violence", "Contains horror violence", "Contains battle violence", "Contains sexual violence" ... It's bloody ridiculous.
When I moved to Australia from NZ ten years ago I was perturbed to discover you couldn't hire an adult movie from the video store. In NZ there is an R18 section (partitioned off) where the hardcore movies are. In Australia the hardcore movies have been cut, but are still R-restricted. To get a hardcore movie you have to go to a sex shop and purchase one ... unless you live in Canberra.
I must admit I gravitate less toward horror movies that are rated M (or below), unless I've been specifically told that it's very good.
Wall-e is the first G-rated movie I've seen in a looooooong time. And curiously one of the best movies I've seen in a looooooong time.
Back to horror, and along with scores of horrorphiles the world over, we've been wanting the American board of censors to come up with a "horror" equivalent of the NC-17, so that movie theatres and distributors don't think it contains "porn" elements and thus don't book the movie. Horror movies have always suffered because they frequently get cut to fit an R rating. Although in this day and age there's the whole DVD "unrated" version. But I wanna have the option of seeing the uncut version on the big screen! There's a version of My Bloody Valentine (1981) that horror fans are dying to see, but Paramount apparently doesn't believe in releasing unrated movies, as they see themselves as a more of a family-orientated company, so the uncut scenes are sitting in a vault somewhere. It was butchered down to an R-rating (back then it would've received an X-rating, which is the kiss of death for a commercial movie).
Well, enough of my ranting and raving ....
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
When I rent movies, I'm more likely to rent ones with adult ratings, as it suggests that the director did not compromise their vision in order to appeal to a broader audience.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Aimzster
Health and Beauty
Reality TV
The Jeepney Stop
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
oh actually theres another scene implying slaves were being routinely raped and tortured in Antigua, shown through Fanny Price flipping through a sketchbook with anguished screams heard through her imagination . . . maybe if they axed that too it could have been G
but it would have been a less powerful film if someone had got their axe out to achieve the rating!
i never watch movies with children so i actually think its appealing if a DVD is labelled as including "adult themes" . . . i am afterall an adult . . . the higher the rating the more challenging it is likely to be for the viewer!
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
I'm giving this post a double R rating. An R&R rating, due to Bryn's comment:
I'm not going to write much. The last thing it needs its an RRRR rating.
Warning. RR. This post contains raving and ranting by Bryn.
Hello Bryn, btw.
Comment by Lara M
Love Speaks
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
Budget Centsability
It seems very inconsistent and as long as there are warnings re graphic content etc it should remain up to the adult what they watch.
Bryn, I'm originally from Canberra and worked in a video store and we did have a back section for the x-rated films. I was surprised when I moved away and found that it wasn't like that everywhere.
I did have an instance where a customer stopped her child (around 12ish) from picking an M-rated film because it had sex and nudity but let him choose an R-rated horror movie. I warned her that it was extreme violence and she said "that's OK as long as there is no sex". I was stunned. Sexuality is bad but a 12 year old watching someone get disemboweled is fine. Go figure.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
does anyone else remember people referring to them as Blue Movies?
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
Comment by Jason King
Sydney Table
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
I would much prefer kids to watch love makng - the tender version - not Maddona pouring hot wax over someone - than watching a Saw film.
I also think the gams out there need to be rated harder -some of them are basically training to kil or steal cars.
Cool post!
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
I love the term Blue Movies ... does anyone know where that term originates from? I remember hearing that it came from back when the adult movies were also referred to as stag films (ie buck's nights), many many decades ago, and men would be smoking cigars in the dark and the smoke would waft up in front of the light being projected from the Super 8mm or 16mm projector and appear blue ...??
When I first started hiring videos in the early 80s there was no restrictions on them. So my mates and I would hire several "adult" movies, films that had R16, R18 and even R20 restrictions when they showed at cinemas. I remember hiring The Deer Hunter (R18), Alien (R16), Dressed to Kill (R18) and Scum (R20). Curiously most of the movies we chose were ones restricted because of violence, not sex.
For the most part I abhore censorship. I can't stand the idea that a small group of people (sometimes just one) make a decision on whether a scene in a movie is considered too offensive or disturbing for the general public and therefore must be cut out. Of course there is stuff that is truly reprehensible, but for the most part that stuff is obvious. If there appears no considered context for the material, if it seems to be gratuitous, designed purely for perverse gratification with no sub-text or even an intelligently subversive purpose then yes it is a problem.
As disgusting, repulsive and vile as a lot of Pasolini's Salo: 120 Days of Sodom is, I still feel it has a place in the anals, er annals of cinema.
As much as Jason loathes Funny Games, I think it is an important and challenging piece of cinema.
Apparently Ken Park is morally-bereft and features teenagers experimenting in dark areas of sexuality. I've not seen it, but I would like to. Along with Salo it's been banned in Australia.
It's the Adam Sandler comedies that truly disturb me and make me wanna throw up. Those are the movies that need to be banned.
... oh, and I Lady David btw
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
To me, the ratings game in the US and, to a lesser degree, in Australia and English Canada, originate from the puritanical views of the original colonists...
...I watched a movie on an English channel in Canada that was rated PG-13 for nudity - on the French channel, it was rated G.
Ah, the common sense and good taste of the French...
Comment by Jason King
Sydney Table
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
I have a copy of Ken Park if you want a loan. It is obtained from Asia but is in great condition - it only has the blurs on bits they don't wish people to view - now there is classification to the extreme! I also have a copy of Salo - mind numbing that film - they had a release at Palace about 10-15yrs ago for a festival and my friend vomited everywhere in the cinema while watching the "eating" scene. He later brought me a copy as a momento.
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
I have children of the G, PG and M ages and in raising them, I have found the ratings very helpful, although not always reliable, there are some M rated films like PS I Love you, Meet the Flockers etc that were more than okay for my 12 year old.
However a couple PGs have been rather out there in the violence department or have too heavy sexual refernces (even like series like two and a half men for example).
However we all watch that and have a laugh occassionally.
I would rather my children watch something a little bit towards the steamy side of romance, than heavy handed on the violent side as this causes stress, nightmares and unsubstantiated fears and phobias when viewed ahead of time.
I am aware though that it is just my personal preference and ultimately, much of the ratings also seem to be that way, although there is a rough adherence to some format visible to the naked intellect?
An interesting post.
Lilla ...
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
To be brutally honest, I don't like the idea that if you were working in classification you'd have pushed to have Funny Games banned, right?
Curiously ... Would you have Salo banned as well? What about Ken Park? Would you edit the twenty-minute gang rape in Spit on Your Grave?
I agree about video games though, because they are interactive. Kids shouldn't be allowed to indulge and wallow in such violence as a form of "pure entertainment" (ie actually participating in the action as a form of pleasure), that's when I think impressionable people become desensitized, when they start to make correlations between feeling good and maiming people.
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
I love your ranting and raving!
Drug references/use - very good point. That one seems particularly inconsistent.
I have noticed in the last couple of years that the classification details are becoming more and more specific. I think Harry Potter has 'dark fantasy themes'? I suppose it's a good thing, if there are particular things you want to steer clear of, though it does sometimes seem a bit silly.
It seems such a waste when scenes are cut, not for any purpose to the movie, but for the dictates of what someone thinks is appropriate for audiences.
I too usually go for movies with a more adult rating, though it depends on what the movie is supposed to be about. As I say, a PG Lady Chatterley would hardly be worth watching, along with most horror films I suppose. Though maybe that could be something... a truly frightening movie that doesn't involve violence, monsters, supernatural beings, etc. Can it be done?
I agree about the Adam Sandler comedies, and I find Ken Park intriguing. That's what a ban will do! I don't know a thing about the story, just that it is a film of everything 'reprehensible' in the lives of a group of teenagers. Curious.
Thanks so much Bryn.
Michaelie
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
Was there a subtle red-neck reference there?
Yes, I think that's the main question we ask when we see a film that has a downgraded rating: how much has been compromised in order to reach the widest demographic, and therefore make more money?
I think you are absolutely right about the French - they have their perspective in order when it comes to this.
Thanks!
Michaelie
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
Do you mean that you wish you had not seen those movies when you were so young? Will you let your child watch them?
The violence/sex thing annoys me. I just don't think they run in parellel like classifications seem to imply.
Thanks Aimz!
Michaelie
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
It's that feeling that the story will lack integrity for the sake of commerciality. That said, there may be movies I have bypassed will low ratings - and I don't mean family/kids movies - that simply tell a G-rated story. But then I think, is that going to be boring? After all, life isn't G-rated.
Thank you for the comment!
Michaelie
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
couple of cases:
When the 1984 came out, starring Richard Burton and John Hurt, it was rated GA in NZ, which means it is general exhibition but recommended for adults, and it contained full frontal female nudity, which of course all us adolescent boys found very entertaining, but I remember thinking it's been given a more lenient rating because of its "literary importance", and had it been any other movie it would have been given an R16 (restricted to those 16 and over).
The recent French version of Lady Chatterley's Lover (just called Lady Chatterley) had a semi-erect male penis in full view in a sexual scene, yet was rated M. Another case of a movie's "literary importance", yet had it been a Hollywood movie or some other flick it would've been slapped with an R.
Go figure.
And while I'm on the case, porn movies are still restricted to X ratings and only sold in sex stores, yet a movie like Shortbus, basically a glorified porn movie masquerading as an arthouse drama gets a full theatrical release and rated R (as did 9 Songs) ... I don't understand the system, because I've seen plenty of porn movies that have a half-decent dramatic storyline, are shot in a "dramatic" fashion, and feature numerous scenes of explicit sexual activity, yet they are relegated to the sex stores and slapped with an X.
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
I actually forgot about the sketchbook scene. In my mind, the themes there are more deserving of the rating than the sex scene. Otherwise, I don't think the M rating for those films, one violent all the way through, and one with a sex scene (brief, no bits really on display) is comparable.
Grease is rated PG and there are many more sexual references in that, so I think you are right, it is probably due to that one scene, which is stark against the rest of the film - though I love the whole thing, and don't think it has been compromised, quite the opposite.
I was looking after some kids not long ago, and we went to the video store. It made me start thinking - how does this affect a kid? I rented 'The Witches' then spent the rest of the night assuring them that witches aren't real - apart from their witch of a babysitter. I loved that movie when I was younger!
Thanks Morgan.
Michaelie
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
I guess it does matter how you market it. But then, the porn gets the X rating, and I would say the bigger profits, and if that's the way they push it...
Interesting about the 'literary importance' thing. I don't think it should make a difference - either way. If full-frontal nudity is going to be rated a certain way, then that's how it should be rated - pretty much always leniently. I just don't think nudity and sex alone is that big a deal. If there are overlying themes, ie of violence, then that's a different matter.
I read somewhere that some movie, some where (sorry, can't remember, but thought it was NZ) was banned but allowed for university study. And I've seen plenty of versions of films from India, Singapore, etc with so many pieces blurred and cut that it seems worse than leaving it whole and unseen... Entirely compromised, though not by the director.
Comment by Jason King
Sydney Table
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
As a person you know my thoughts on Funny Games, lol, but I don't think anything should be banned (snuff, hardcore real rape etc excluded) - each to their own. When I was younger I loved all things death related (I have no idea why) so probably would have loved Funny Games back then - one of my email address' is still patrickbateman@.... If I got a job with classification I would have to follow stringent set down guidelines when viewing, so choice would not be made by me. Would not ban Salo, Funny Games or Spit on Your Garve (don't actually think I have seen that yet) if I had the choice
Laterzzz.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
I think I could handle a RRRR rating, but I take what I get.
Thanks!
Michaelie
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
I think so too. When I was a child, I saw plenty of movies with high ratings. The only ones that truly upset me were the ones that said 'based on a true story'. I'm old enough now to know that doesn't mean much but it scared me at the time, thinking 'this really happened to someone'. It's hard to know these things until they are done.
Thanks for dropping by!
Michaelie
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
It seems that if classifications are inconsistent, they may only be reflecting the behaviour of a large proportion of the general public. Your experience with the mother and child in the video store is just bizarre to me.
Whatever subjectivity there is present in assigning classifications though, there should not be the option to remove something altogether. You're right, adults should be able to decide for themselves.
Thanks!
Michaelie
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
But really, I must agree, and a lot of people know to look beyond the rating, but it still has a very marked impact. It is when I think something has been compromised in order for a film to fit a certain rating that it starts to really bother me.
For instance, Sex and the City (yes, all my 'instances' revolve around Sex and the City) was rumoured to be getting a nip/tuck in order to be more accessible. The more risque sex and swearing was to be cut. Instead they just cut the plot... either way, it doesn't work, it screws the premise that makes it a success.
Thank you for the comment!
Michaelie
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
Well, there's another fine way to see movies and get paid to do it!
Re: games - I don't know much about them, but my brother has one where the sole purpose is to see how many things you can steal, how many people you can kill, and how many girls you can pick up!
Thanks for the comments and the compliment!
Michaelie
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
I'm glad ratings have at least provided a rough guide for you in choosing what your children watch. Yes, there is certainly a structure to how ratings are assigned, but I do think it is flawed, and will probably always be so. It's too subjective to be anything else, but I often see some very obvious inconsistencies that make me wonder what else is influencing them, like what Bryn mentioned, about literary value. And then, each culture has very different ideas too...
As to protecting children by limiting what they see... I saw the very G-rated Disney version of Lady and the Tramp as I child and grew up with a mortal fear of siamese cats...
Michaelie
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
It is surprising the number of Ps that just dont G.
Lilla ...
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit