This question is mainly directed toward Jane since she writes a column on family movie reviews.
In general I tend to not have a problem with violence in cinema. Whether it be the gore of the "Saw"/"Hostel" genre or the stylized action of a "Kill Bill"/"Wanted" genre I'm not one to wag my finger at filmmakers. I'm quite the opposite, I tend to be almost an apologist for such genres, explaining how the violence of hardcore horror films is used to generate a primal, almost animalistic, instinctual reaction in the viewer and the violence of some action films can be interpreted and appreciated as one would consider a dance. (The genre pioneered by John Woo is called "bullet ballet" for a reason.)
Where I see a moral question is rather in the violence in PG-13 films. I remember when I saw the first "Mummy" movie and being somewhat taken aback by the amount of violence and the number of people killed. The thing that bothers me is when we have violence without consequences taken in by children and adolescents. If you're an adult then you have the mental capacity and responsibility to understand what you're seeing. Not so if you're a child.
Now this isn't the filmmaker's responsibility, it's obviously the parent's. And the libertarian in me doesn't want to see any kind of government or authoritarian "solution" to the problem that would end up restricting or chilling filmmakers as artists. And part of me even questions how big of a problem it really is. Anyway... Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
David - It's a challenge, because the ratings vary so widely from film to film. Some PG-13 movies aren't too far from PG, while others edge towards an R.
At the Traverse City Film Festival last week, the organizers planned a kids' movie for 10 a.m. Saturday morning. A lot of parents expected it to BE a kids' movie, since that's what went out in all of the promotional stuff. But the movie, "Terra," was rated PG-13 and included tons of CG-animated violence. There were lots of tiny kids in the audience, like in the 3 to 7 age range, and it was much too violent for them. I think it was just one of those instances where the parents were expecting a more G or PG-rated film and didn't take time to check the rating. The blame in this case fell on both the parent and the festival organizers.
"The Dark Knight" was rated PG-13 and was one of the scarier PG-13 movies I've seen, as was "Disturbia." On the other hand, "The Devil Wears Prada" and "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" were both PG-13, and aside from a few innuendos, relatively ok for kids in the 9 to 12 range.
What gets me is when I see kids in R-rated movies. I'm shocked when parents bring their kids to those movies!
I agree with you in that I don't have a problem with violence in movies, but it's important that parents look to reviews like mine or Common Sense Media and get a sense of what's included in the movie before taking their kids.
I wrote an essay not too long ago noting that we actually need horror movies to give us some sense that horrible things have the capacity to be resolved. In that way, it gives us hope that all of the wars and violence in the world will be resolved at some point. It's the films like "Chaos" that get me - when the horror isn't resolved and people leave the theater full of despair and the futility of life.
Here's that piece if anyone wants to take a look:
http://www.filmgecko.com/horror-films-a-necessary-evil/
j.
Post a Comment