Age Ratings

[skibz]

Do you find that watching a film, with full knowledge of its age rating, can be a different experience from not knowing it?

I should explain...

I'm thinking of say, watching an 18-rated film without knowing it's rated for that age and over. For example, I recently watched the film 'Way of the Gun' without knowing what rating it was, and as a result the level of graphic (almost sadistic in some scenes) violence was genuinely shocking because I really didn't expect it; I was expecting something along the lines of 'Cruel Intentions' to be honest. I know the shock factor is mostly down to the quality of the film, but I still find that the age rating does give me some kind of feeling of what content to expect, and thus the film is never quite as shocking as if I hadn't known.

To try and help this make sense, imagine watching a film you've not seen before or heard anything about (including the rating). If there's a scene in which the main character is being held at gunpoint, and the villain is threatening to kill him/her, it's quite possible that if the film is a PG you practically know they're not going to get shot, and that if they are, it's certainly not going to be done in a visibly shocking way. If you didn't know the age rating, however, you could sit through the entire scene really feeling for the character, because you simply don't know how it could end up - and thus the feeling of connection and involvement in the plot is much more tangible.

I also think the same can happen with TV shows. Watching Brass Eye for the first time (I don't remember which I saw first unfortunately) and expecting a light-hearted TDT-style comedy show, I was as first quite shocked by the nature of it because I didn't know how far the programme was able to go, where its limit was. I can imagine that, if I'd only watched it after buying the DVD (with its big red 18), I would have been expecting this because, well, how many 18-rated comedy series do you really see?

So, before I ramble on too much, what are your thoughts?

[thomasina]

I don't like age ratings, or those pissy guidance things.  I prefer to be surprised or shocked.  

And i think anyone of any age should be allowed to see any film in the cinema, providing a parent is with them.  The sole condition would be that the parent gets done for child abuse if their kid is traumatised by anything they take them to see.

[JJJJH]

I can sort of see your point of view, but I don't think it quite works the way you've worded it, I'm a little bit confused.

anyone of any age should be allowed to see any film in the cinema, providing a parent is with them

So are you saying you'd like it if a parent had to accompany a child no matter what the film or the child's age? Or would the child be allowed to see some films, but ones that are "mature" would require a parent? If so, isn't that the same system America has? (I don't know enough about that, so can't be definitive)

Good post though skibz. I would have to agree with you that a rating can give away the nature of a film. I didn't notice what rating 21 Grams was when I saw it, and still don't. I hadn't seen a trailer for it either, and I have to say that when I sat down and saw it, the film had no limits as far as I was concerned, as you pointed out with your bit about Brass Eye. I had no preconception beforehand of how "adult" this film might be, so had no idea throughout the film how graphic things could become. I like to believe that this made the film's atmosphere  more tense for me, but I can't be certain.

[dan dirty ape]

Those overelaborate guidance phrases, that read like the hastily recited disclaimers at the end of adverts on 'The Simpsons', they're what get me. One of those 'Rugrats'  films was advertised as containing 'scenes of mild peril'.  Who at the BBFC has the job of guaging peril?

[thomasina]

I can sort of see your point of view, but I don't think it quite works the way you've worded it, I'm a little bit confused.

anyone of any age should be allowed to see any film in the cinema, providing a parent is with them

So are you saying you'd like it if a parent had to accompany a child no matter what the film or the child's age? Or would the child be allowed to see some films, but ones that are "mature" would require a parent? If so, isn't that the same system America has? (I don't know enough about that, so can't be definitive)

I think the American system is better than ours, but I meant something slightly different.
Maybe over 14s could have some way for the parent to confirm their approval, rather than the parent being physically there.  Most parents would give people of that age a standard pass to say they could watch anything, but they would still be liable for any consequences.    I just hate parents who whine about 'the meeja' influencing their kids, yet wouldn't be able to name the last 5 films their kid saw.

[Purple Tentacle]

Quite frankly the less children spoiling the cinema when all I want is to watch a film in fucking silence like you're supposed to, the better.


Ditto Johnny Foreigner sitting behind me talking into his mobile phone.

[thomasina]

You think that's bad? Try the guy three rows in front of you at the theatre, waving his bloody cameraphone about to take pictures of what's happening on the stage.

*Obviously, in the cinema thing, behavioural rules apply - if the child is incapable of sitting down and shutting up,  the parent is liable to pay compensation to anyone trying to watch the film.  This should apply even to 'kids' films.  This whole thing is about parental responsibility.*

[skibz]

if the child is incapable of sitting down and shutting up,  the parent is liable to pay compensation to anyone trying to watch the film.

I'm not so sure that this would have the effect of less noise from children in the cinema, to be honest. I mean, what measures can a parent take if their child is noisy in a public place other than saying 'shhhhh' or leaving the building altogether? It could be more beneficial for the Cinema to state, quite clearly before the film starts, that anyone unnecessarily disrupting a film in the cinema would face either a ban for a certain amount of time, or a fine*. I see your point in general thomasina, but I really don't think this would work.

*unless they happen to be a small baby, but small babies shouldnt really be in the cinema anyway.

[thomasina]

[*unless they happen to be a small baby, but small babies shouldnt really be in the cinema anyway.

That's the point.  People who are too young to be in cinemas wouldn't be in them if their parents had to take some responsibility for them.  If they can't sit and watch it, get them the DVD 4 months later.

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

I agree with you. Anyone should be allowed into see any movie. You could have a system where a parent or guardian has to accompany the child if a films certificate is higher than his/her age. It gets to the stage that I'm nearly 18, and it's ridiculous that I can't do certain things even though I'm perfectly capable of doing them (and I do them anyway, 'illegally'). Age limits should be standardised at 17 or something. It would make everything a lot fairer in my opinion.

This PG12 business is bollocks though. It's just a way of opening '12' films to a wider audience. The last dozen 12 rated films I've been to see were spoilt by kids turning the front row into an adventure playground. During Minority Report they got chucked out, but it hasn't happened in any others...

[elderford]

Age restrictions are rights of passage.

Well they were in old money when the certification was AA and X.

[Alberon]

And the age restrictions aren't religiously enforced either. I remember getting into Aliens when I was a year younger than the age rating for it. My own personal opinion is that system we have now is quite good. I'd have optional age ratings up to 12 (as it is now). Drop the 15 down to 14 and have the 18 reduced to 17 (back to the way they were in the days of AA and X if I remember correctly). I'd also strip the level of censorship away to at least the level of freedom America has.

I think we're very slowly getting there. The BBFC has been a lot more relaxed over things in recent years, especially compared to the hysteria around Video Nasties 20 years ago.

[Ambient Sheep]

Drop the 15 down to 14 and have the 18 reduced to 17 (back to the way they were in the days of AA and X if I remember correctly).

AA was indeed 14, but X was always 18.

You're probably thinking of the US, where the age limit *is* 17.

[thomasina]

Drop them all, I say.  14 is just as arbitrary a limit as 15.  And the fact that the age limits are rites of passage makes it more important for people to want to cheat them.  If people want guidance as to whether they or their kids are going to be ok to watch a film, they should do a bit of research first.

[elderford]

yeh, but...

It helps to create a world where everything is one age fits all.

What happens to adult material and themes which aren't suitable for minors?

I believe the first X rated film for which the category was invented was for Midnight Cowboy which dealt with male prostitution, how could this type of thing be dealt with if it was intended for people not old enough to have their own pubic hair?

[Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry]

they got a purpose dude, some things aint meant for kids to see, directors can do more creative shit if they tryin to go for an age bracket

[skibz]

Arguably yes, but we also end up with shite like Terminator 3 being 'aimed for the kids' at a PG-13/12A rating. Terminator isn't for kids, but the producers were obviously aiming for the bigger market.

Consider that pretty much everyone I knew had seen 'Aliens' by age 10, and loved it. Despite its violence and language, at age 10 I was able to distinguish between reality and a 7 foot actor in an alien suit dripping KY jelly. Had Aliens been made 'for kids', it would have been total, total shit. The problem is that every film is different, and has a different point to make (I'm not counting sequels here), and for film-makers to aim for it to be in a particular 'category' (i.e. age group) is essentially limiting the creative process somewhat. Furthermore, age ratings seem to be in place to do little more than pacify Daily Mail readers and to stop kiddies having nightmares. Look at the blurb on the Return Of The King poster - there was a note saying 'contains scene with fantasy spider', at least at my local cinema. What does this do other than leave you watching the film and being less surprised when Frodo gets webbed? The previous films already contained hobbits smoking weed, Golem getting tortured, etc. and yet dumb parents in the cinema were still taking their 5-year-old children to see it and disturbing the rest of the audience assuring them 'it's not real'. OF COURSE IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL, THE POINT IS IT'S THERE TO SHOCK. 'The Lord Of The Rings' is probably one of the most famous literary works ever written, famous for its long, violent, battles and its 'adult' content - any review of the film, or of the book, or a brief LOTR search on Google, or a question to the person selling the tickets, would make this quite clear - and yet we still end up with dickheads complaining to the Daily Mail that it 'wasn't suitable'. What do you mean, it's not suitable? Would you take your kid to a porn theatre and complain 'it's not suitable'? Of course not. All that is needed is a very brief bit of research into what the film is like, so that anyone taking a child along can quite clearly figure out if it's suitable or not. Meanwhile, those people over 18 can have their film experiences detracted from by the prescence of the age rating, and most people under 18 (who would be quite capable of differentiating between reality and fiction) have to wait til it comes out on video or break the law getting into the cinema. The age rating is only present because of fucking lazy parenting, in my opinion.

sorry, I've suddenly got quite passionate about this :)

[thomasina]

yeh, but...

It helps to create a world where everything is one age fits all.

What happens to adult material and themes which aren't suitable for minors?

I believe the first X rated film for which the category was invented was for Midnight Cowboy which dealt with male prostitution, how could this type of thing be dealt with if it was intended for people not old enough to have their own pubic hair?

No, no. no . no!   Film makers would have no responsibility to tailor things to any age group at all.  And they certainly do now.  The responsibility for what anyone watches would be entirely with the viewer or the viewer's parent if the viewer was under 18.  What is or isn't suitable for any particular minor is a judgement that should be made by a parent, not by the people making the film.  

If someone took their 10 year old to see Midnight Cowboy they would be responsible for any effects the film had on the kid - as they should be.  Actually, i must have been about 15 when I saw it and I found it disturbing.  Not so much the prostitution itself, but the whole world of people using each other in one way or another.

[thomasina]

.
Brilliant post

Exactly what i was trying to say.  Age restrictions are for lazy, irresponsible parents.  Consider this too:  I am not allowed to take my 14 year old to see Troy which is clearly a semi-fantastical, costume battle thing.  Yet when she was 5, I could, if i had relied on the age rating, have taken her to see Kindergarten Cop, which features a divorced Mummy and Daddy, where Daddy stalks mummy and kid, tries to snatch kid from nursery and ends up getting shot in the school toilet. (i think).  I should be allowed, no, forced to judge what is suitable for my kid.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I never notice film-ratings any more. I used to be obsessed with them and find the distinctions really interesting, but that all stopped once I turned 18.

What confuses me is how things which were once deemed 18-worthy can be reduced to 15s at a later date. Is this the BBFC admitting that they were wrong, or do they just believe that standards change over time? If the latter, this seems an odd concept to me - because censorship and suitability-for-children are two different things.

Never understood why nudity ups the rating, particularly if it's not in a sex scene. I mean, in what way are scenes of nakedness harmful?

Thought: Is Brass Eye the only TV comedy series to be rated 18?

Those descriptions the BBFC put on the back of DVDs are awful, yes. I rented Reservoir Dogs once, which contained the warning 'VIOLENCE: Bloody, shocking' - some wag, however, had crossed out the comma and added an exclamation mark.

[skibz]

Thought: Is Brass Eye the only TV comedy series to be rated 18?

No. jam is also an 18.

edit: and Paul Kaye's 'Perfect World', if I remember correctly.

[El Unicornio, mang]

The ratings here are odd. Terminator 3 for instance is a 12 in the UK. but here it's an R, which is the equivalent of an 18, basically down to the fact that there's more than one mention of the 'f' word. Also, nudity always ups the rating. You can have as much violence as you want though. Some films are unrated, which generally means they have lots of nudity in them.
It always annoys me that the general public are more offended by swearing and nudity than violence. No wonder our society is so messed up.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Thought: Is Brass Eye the only TV comedy series to be rated 18?

No. jam is also an 18.

That show, Happiness, was 18 too

[Mister Six]

Aren't you thinking of the film of the same name?

[The Boston Crab]

What about Curb Your Enthusiasm? I reckon that's an 18.

Carwash cunt and all that.

[Purple Tentacle]

The Terminator VHS I own is an 18, and yet the DVD is a 15-rating.  In answer to Lalla's question I believe these things get reasssesed when they're released on a new format, and the ratings on previous formats are adjusted accordingly.


Interestingly my copy of Eraserhead is rated 18, despite there being no graphic sex, bad language or violence.... probably simply because you feel like you've been braindamaged after watching it.


I watched it once on C4 about 10 years ago, bought the video and never brought myself to watch it again. And that was when videos cost £17.  Eeeeh, young'uns today etc.

[skibz]

Here's a good 'un:

Die Hard 2 (widescreen): 18
Die Hard 2 (not widescreen): 15

Weird eh?

[Ambient Sheep]

Die Hard 2 (widescreen): 18
Die Hard 2 (not widescreen): 15

Obviously something nasty happens at the edges somewhere... ;-)

More likely the pan-and-scan one's a toned-down cut for the people who don't know enough to buy widescreen, and the latter's the full theatrical version.

The BBFC website might even tell you if you can be arsed to wade through it.

[Purple Tentacle]

Here's a good 'un:
Die Hard 2 (widescreen): 18
Die Hard 2 (not widescreen): 15
Weird eh?

What years are those editions?

Just a stab in the dark, but Widescreen is of course the natural format for films, wheras 4:3 is a reprocessed version of the original film... by which time the rating guidlines had become more liberal.

Of course if the widescreen edition is newer than the other, then I'm talking bollocks.


Maybe any film showing terrorists blowing up a tall skyscraper suddenly became too distressing for anybody under 18?

[skibz]

Maybe it's something to do with terrorists these days attempting to bomb airports, and DH2 being about terrorists taking over an airport?

its almost definitely not this, but it would be amusing :)

edit: Just thought of an interesting difference between US and UK age ratings:

The 'Burbs
UK - PG
US - R

edit: sorry Purple Tentacle, didn't mean to mimic your comment there :)