header

G Movies

Filed under: Improvisando, Poco a Poco — Jess at 10:25 am on Monday, May 14, 2007

We took the kids to the movies yesterday, which is always fun when we can actually find a G-rated movie worth seeing. This time it was Meet the Robinsons, which was very enjoyable. Definitely not high art, nor anywhere near the fun of The Incredibles (which was rated PG, of course - we the parents saw it in the theatres and made the kids [Nora, really] wait for the DVD that we could watch in the daylight), but a fun afternoon.

Adam West is in everything these days.

But anyway. The previews. Not a single one for a G-rated movie, and one for a PG-13. (Well, I guess you can now count Rattatouille, which has since been rated G, but wasn’t yet rated when they produced the trailers for Meet the Robinsons.) And this is at a movie meant for kids all the way down to toddlers and pre-schoolers. (Yadda yadda yadda with the marketing to parents. Not my point.)

I know there is a lot wrong with the ratings systems in this country, particularly with the way sex is treated as completely taboo unless it’s just the boy getting off (gods forbid that it’s two women or two men), and the way violence gets a pass almost every time (Spider-Man 3 was PG-13? Are you kidding me?!). I’ve seen the pertinent documentary, which was fascinating and aggravating all at the same time.

It’s the violence issue that makes me more cautious about PG movies for my kids. I don’t even like to let them watch things like PowerRangers on TV, which are supposedly geared for 7-year-olds. John had to beg and beg to get me to not complain too much when he let 9-year-old Brandon watch the original Star Wars movie one day when he was home sick without his sister. I know I’m overprotective when it comes to this kind of thing.

And I don’t care. I would rather err on the side of caution than allow the stuff of future nightmares to imprint into my kids’ heads. I know they’ll see all kinds of horrible things on their own and that I can’t put them in a bubble to keep the scary bad away. But I can do a little.

As far as a comprehensive ratings system goes, I’m not advocating censorship. I’m advocating that movies and TV shows (and books, for that matter!) be accurately labeled for what is in them, so that I can make better choices for my kids. For example, there doesn’t seem to be any distinction in ratings for PG movies between what is appropriate subject matter for, say, a 7-year-old versus an 11-year-old, (a big difference, thank you!!). And at a PG-13 movie, you can see a character get pummeled almost to death, but you can’t watch Big Night, a story about two brothers in a restaurant with no sex or violence at all, which was rated R for language. But the ratings board takes the time to count the number of times the word “fuck” is used in a given film, or to determine whether a woman in a sex scene is experiencing too much pleasure for the sake of decency. I would let my 13 year old see Big Night before I would take him to Spider-Man, no contest.

And can I just say that making a PG movie about Nancy Drew, of all characters, is just wrong, wrong, wrong?! Especially when you try to cross her with Legally Blonde. Sheesh. Some literature should just be off limits.

I’ll go back into my curmudgeonly hole now. . .

5 Singers in the Choir »

Comment by Laura

May 14, 2007 @ 12:08 pm

Jess, the boy I babysit, Pete, who is my boss’s son, is 5. He has been watching Star Wars since he was 4, as have all of his friends. They’ll get together for play dates and talk all about Star Wars. But when the friends go home and its time to put Pete to bed, he won’t go to bed without his light saber because he is sacred to death of Darth Vader, and has horrible nightmares that he will come and take away his family. Bedtime is a mess because his parents think it’s okay to let him watch Star Wars when he’s way too young, and if I say no to Star Wars while I’m babysitting, there is a huge fit that follows, and I’m the bad guy because I don’t want Pete to have nightmares or for bedtime to drag on for 3 hours.

Point is, I’m glad you are careful about what Nora and Brandon watch, and I know that are better people for it. Love you all!

Comment by Steve Caldwell

May 14, 2007 @ 2:06 pm

Jess,

MPAA Ratings are a very imperfect tool for evaluating movies. Kubrick’s “2001″ is rated “G” although it’s not a “kid’s movie.”

The documentary “This Film Is Not Yet Rated” shows how same-sex sexuality is rated differently than male-female sexuality. A same-sex lovemaking scene will take a film from PG-13 to R or perhaps from R to NC-17.

This means that a UU congregation or UU organization that adopts the rating system without any critical analysis is also adopting the structural homophobia of the rating system.

Our congregation requires that all screenings of “R” movies for anyone below the age of 17 to have parental permission. But our policy also acknowledges that the rating system is imperfect due to the above-mentioned homophobia in how MPAA ratings are assigned.

Comment by Jess

May 14, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

In honor of Chutney:

But the MPAA has such clearly defined guidelines for how they rate movies! How could they possibly be wrong or biased in any way?!

At the moment there isn’t any other kind of rating system to even start with, so, Steve, are you volunteering to pre-watch movies for me and determine whether they fit into the current politically correct AR/AO model?

Comment by Steve Caldwell

May 14, 2007 @ 5:50 pm

Jess wrote:
-snip-
“At the moment there isn’t any other kind of rating system to even start with, so, Steve, are you volunteering to pre-watch movies for me and determine whether they fit into the current politically correct AR/AO model?”

Jess,

I’ll resist the attempt to reply back in a snarky fashion to your comments.

However, if I were to reply back in such a snarky fashion, I would suggest that pre-screening movies is a parental responsibility and the responsible parent would not depend on others to do the pre-screening for her.

But I’ll resist saying that because I genrally avoid being snarky when online.

Comment by Jess

May 14, 2007 @ 6:07 pm

Ah, but the comment wasn’t really about pre-screening movies, Steve, but about your tendency to swoop in to a blog post and comment authoritatively about how the writer is either contributing to or completely unaware of various forms of oppression, and therefore must be educated about such negligence. (That’s why I didn’t ask you to pre-screen for entertainment value, but for pc-ness, since you have set yourself up as the resident expert. Aren’t I clever?)

Lighten up a little, dear, and we’ll all have a lot more fun. :-)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Make an Entrance

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>