Have movies been over-sanitised? -- WARNING: linked film contains distressing images!

[WaylanderToo]

An interesting little look at how although films are 'more violent than ever' they are actually way less violent than they used to be.

Any thoughts?

 

[Hex]

(I've edited the thread title to include a warning, because there are some really nasty bits in that video, and we're a family-friendly site!)

Gremlins and Poltergeist weren't rated PG in the UK. I remember sneaking into Gremlins when I was 13 or so and dressing up so that I looked (I thought) like a 15 year old, because it was a 15. It's been re-rated as PG-13 recently.

And in the UK, Poltergeist was rated X (so no one under 18 could see it), and then 15 when that rating became available.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is interesting, because in the UK:

Steven Spielberg’s film was submitted to the BBFC for classification in April 1984. The reports published here detail the concerns Examiners had about a number of moments in the film. The sequence in the ‘Temple of Doom’ of a sacrificial victim having his heart ripped out, plus various attacks upon the lead characters, were violent or horrific enough to exceed the limits of the PG certificate United International Pictures (UIP) wanted. In a letter to UIP (also published here) James Ferman, BBFC Director at the time, described the temple scenes as showing a “very real world of terror, ritual violence, black magic and nightmare imagery”.

UIP worked closely with the BBFC to implement the changes noted in the cuts list to achieve a PG, with James Ferman even travelling to Los Angeles to work with the producers of the film as part of the process. With the amendments made the BBFC classified the film PG in June 1984. This UK theatrical version was classified on video in 1986, again at PG. It remained in that version and at that category until this week, as the uncut Temple of Doom is now classified 12 for a DVD/Blu-ray release this month.

Temple of Doom | British Board of Film Classification

So this video, and the question you raise, is relevant to the US, not the UK where these films were never released in that form for PG audiences (and quite correctly too -- it's amazing that Poltergeist was rated PG -- my kids would have nightmares for weeks if they saw that mirror scene).

 

[Dave]

Sorry, I couldn't watch all of that (he talks too fast and says ratings too many times.) It is a very USA-centric report. However, in the UK, when I was young, we used to have a "14" rating, which did rather the same job as your "PG13" and I'm not sure it should have been done away with. To tell you the truth, I cannot understand how the censors come to decide these ratings at all, or how they decide on the age restrictions. It does seem random at times.

Two points though: 1. Cheap DVDs and illegal online downloading has allowed kids of any age access to restricted movies. Parents rarely know what their children are watching, much less try to moderated it. 2. The US censors are much stricter on sex than violence. Conversely, the UK censors are much stricter on violence than sex.

I've just seen Hex's post above, which details some of what I said much better.

 

[Hex]

Hey, Dave

I know exactly what my kids are watching, and I moderate it carefully. They watch DVDs, mainly. The only time I need to police things is when they want to see YouTube videos, because sometimes the links lead to unexpected clips.

A friend's little girl was watching YouTube clips of ponies (small girl, pony obsession) and ended up seeing a clip of ponies being skinned alive (apparently).

Having said that, my kids are still quite little. When they're a bit older, I expect they'll be harder to keep an eye on.

 

[WaylanderToo]

(I've edited the thread title to include a warning, because there are some really nasty bits in that video, and we're a family-friendly site!)

ooops apologies for that.


I do agree that our ratings are (slightly) different to those in the US but I do feel that the main thrust of the argument still holds true. On-screen character deaths are now, in the main, bloodless affairs and quite frequently the deaths happen just out of shot. Genre franchises like Terminator, Alien/Predator were 18 and now they're 15. I'm not saying that I want nudity everywhere or exploding body parts or blood and gore everywhere but I do want a film that I can enjoy with adult themes and adult appropriate content (to put it another way I can honestly see a point where something like The Raid 3 will be a 15 and then toned down accordingly).

 

[Vladd67]

It seems to be that film companies try hard for a 15 as opposed to an 18 to maximise the potential audience. Plus it seems that sequels drop a rating too, for instance Lethal Weapon was an 18 but the sequels became more jokey and lowered the rating.

 

[Hex]

I haven't watched the whole clip (sorry -- I'm a horror wuss and I didn't like the clips!) but again, Alien versus Predator is a 15 in the UK, not a PG. EDIT -- oops. That's what you said (the film said PG).

re the rest. I can see that people would want adult-content films, although I have to admit the horror aspect doesn't do it for me. Wasn't 50 Shades quite adult? (haven't seen it)

Honestly, the level of violence and death in 15s seems pretty horrific to me. On TV, I thought Game of Thrones was horrible.

You can see why the studios want to maximise their audiences, I suppose. Are there films from other countries that do violence etc better? I seem to remember some Japanese films that had me hiding under the seat.

 

[Dave]

I know exactly what my kids are watching, and I moderate it carefully.

I should have made it clear that I didn't mean all parents, but it is much harder to be a parent today. The only way to see an X rated film when I was young was to go to the cinema and look over 18. Now they are on TV in the evenings after the watershed, but catch-up services and subscription services mean they can be seen at any time. A large majority of parents don't seem to care what their children watch, because they actually buy them adult games and films, but it isn't only that. Kids in the 1950's and 1960's might know where a father had hidden his pile of adult magazines, but DVDs today tend to be on an open shelf in the living room, or else left around the TV after being watched. I don't know of anyone who keeps them in a locked cabinet. When your children start visiting friend's houses and going to sleep-overs are you going to vet what they watch there. That would involve going and watching them yourself first. If you did do this you would be seen as very odd to other parents, not that you might be wrong, just that no one else does that. Are you going to do a search to check that DVDs haven't been accidentally left out around the other parent's house too? Can you be sure that their friend's older sibling isn't going to give them something else in any case? In the same way that there was more responsible drinking when people only drank in public houses, we have lost control of who watches restricted films now that they are more freely available.

 

[Brian G Turner]

It's not so much that modern films are less violent, so much as less gory. I really noticed this in Bale's Dark Knight Returns, in a scene where a policeman was shot and killed, but we saw little of the actual death - as if it had been cut to help keep the rating low.

Even then, in old films, someone would appear to simply fall over when shot - nowadays, we apparently must see blood splatter.

However, when I've gone back to watch some of the older 18 rated films I'm really surprised that such gruesome scenes were allowed. Robocop immediately comes to mind, not least the dissolving body scene.

Ironically, the danger is that violence without gore can make it appear more stylised and cartoon-ish - and therefore less horrifying, when perhaps it should be.

 

[Hex]

You're right

I'm actually a bit nervous about what happens when they get smart phones (because all 12 year olds have smart phones now, apparently -- the pressure started this year, and they're only 8).

I read a horrible article in the Guardian at the weekend about a child (=teenager) playing wargames online with his friends, who was groomed and then murdered by the guy who owned the server, despite his parents' frantic attempts to reason with him/ remove access to the computer/ get the police involved.

I suppose like all these things, you can't change the world, you can only do your best to warn your kids.

So from that perspective, maybe it's not such a bad thing that more films are 15s...

 

[Jo Zebedee]

You're right

I'm actually a bit nervous about what happens when they get smart phones (because all 12 year olds have smart phones now, apparently -- the pressure started this year, and they're only 8).

I read a horrible article in the Guardian at the weekend about a child (=teenager) playing wargames online with his friends, who was groomed and then murdered by the guy who owned the server, despite his parents' frantic attempts to reason with him/ remove access to the computer/ get the police involved.

I suppose like all these things, you can't change the world, you can only do your best to warn your kids.

So from that perspective, maybe it's not such a bad thing that more films are 15s...

I am in that era now with mine. And one child of mine is 5 years older than the other, so that makes it harder. I have no probs with TV and films and use common sense. My youngest has seen things a little too old for her, as a consequence of the age difference, but only when we're there and can answer any questions. They watched Gremlins at about seven... (but I really, really can't see why it has such a high classification, even now.)

Anyhow, my youngest was playing a youtube video on her tablet a few weeks ago, and then I heard some pretty decent cussing in it. Turns out her big sister showed her it cos it was funny, so we've had a frank family discussion about age-appropriateness for younger siblings. But, yeah, they lock themselves in their rooms and are on the tablet, watching youtubers. Which is mostly okay, and we do check in from time to time, but harder to monitor. (However, instill common sense early and it will prevail, I believe.)

What we have totally vetoed is my 10 year old's request for a webcam and a youtube account (although my 15 year old is getting one) and any apps that require the uploading of images. We also had a useful chat around that with her, and it turned into a good chance to talk about Stranger Danger online.

(To placate her, my 10 yr old, who is 11 in a couple of weeks, is being allowed a supervised Facebook account. As with my eldest, until she's 13 I'll be monitoring the friends list and ensuring her settings are private. But they have to learn somewhere...)