MPs lambast BBFC over Batman

Sensitive kids == poor parenting

If a child of 11 cannot deal with this level of violence, I am left quite concerned that they have been victims of over-protective parents. Sooner or later they are going to have to deal with this especially in this country.

Re: Sensitive kids == poor parenting by Tim

"If a child of 11 cannot deal with this level of violence, I am left quite concerned that they have been victims of over-protective parents."

I am left more than the "quite concerned" that you mention that you consider the film as suitable for 11yr olds, and in fact that they should by the sounds of your tone be watching it to 'ready' themselves for life.... at eleven??

Sweet Jesus I can't actually believe you really meant that, either you are one of the parents I normally just sigh and shake my head at as being clueless, or you haven't yet graced the human race with your progeny and I'm inclined to suggest that you don't.

Parental Guidence

"When I went to see the film, there was a parent bringing a child in who couldn't have been more than 8 years old. Certainly shouldn't have been able to see it, but when are parents going to be made to take some responsibility for their actions?"

I saw this film with my wife & kids, youngest son (9), daughter (13) & son (16) while in Toronto last week.

IMO a lot of the violence such as "the pencil trick" & knife in the mouth was implied without being extremely graphic, with the case of the former the youngest didn't even register what had just happened.

It was obvious what was going to happen to Harvey, but thought his injuries were very OTT in a comic book way & while disturbing it didn't faze the youngest either.

We were asked how old the kids were while paying for the tickets & no comments regarding it's suitablity were raised, keeping in mind that every episode of Stargate SG1\Atlantis\any other TV program gets a warning at the start of the program & prior to the recommencment of the episode after every ad break stating "This program contains adult themes, including mild horror etc. Viewer discretion is advised", I took the rating as given with it's suitability for younger children with parental accompanyment.

In retrospect had I been more aware of some of the content, I'm still unsure if I would have taken the family group in to see this film or not.

Should it have been a 15, yes but only if The Joker had been seen actually slicing the cheeks of his victims or TwoFaces disfigurment had been less clinically clean than it actually was.

Paris because I wouldn't take my kids to see one of her movies.

pester power

of course parents all care about what happens to their kids and will not give in to taking them to get them to shut the fuck up in the 6 weeks of summer holidays.

and its quite right, parents obviously have the best interests of kids at heart as we never see any obese children or youngsters wandering the streets late at night.

Personally I think he's right

I saw the film and I think it should have been a 15 the BBFC's defence has been pretty rubbish.

"Young people who wanted to see the film couldn't have seen the film" - They should base the rating on the content of the film not the audience.

"The Joker was an unbelieveable character" - I disagree, wearing makeup just made him look scarier.

The 12A certificate is stupid, this can allow you to take your 7yo child to the cinema to watch that film, it would be the parents fault. But this is only related to 12A if it was a 15 or 18 film then the parent has no say in the matter.

In a time where knife crime is the number 1 priority for Police should we really show our 12yo children a film the glamourises knives. They do see enough of this in the news and on the internet do they really need to see it in the summers blockbuster movie.

It is the BBFC's job to rate the film, if you start blaming the parents you might as well scrap the rating system all together.

What you "see" and what you THINK you see

"You see someone's legs get broken"

No, actually, you don't. You see the legs of someone hitting the ground, having fallen from a fair height, a height which we have already had established is not going to be fatal.. Legs in trousers, no less.

You don't see bone protruding through flesh. You don't see blood. You don't even see much in the way of any physical deformation that might arise from such a fall.

What you SEE is more than likely someone jumping from a short stool. A very short stool.

And all this happening to a not very nice man that we are not invited to sympathise with one iota.

Compare and contrast with Watership Down - which we happened to watch at the weekend.

In which we see cute fluffy bunnies literally being shaken to pieces and tossed around by an enraged dog. Blood and bodies everywhere.

And this in a PG!!!!!

But it's a cartoon so it doesn't matter. Riiiiight?

Newsflash: The Dark Knight absolutely is NOT a kiddies movie. But in the same way that The Hunt For Red October is not a kiddies movie, NOT in the same way that SAW is.

--

Paris - because the other options are boring or butt ugly. <shrug>

And.........

i wonder what censorship rating the activities of our Government in various foreign parts might turn out to be Mr Vaz , best ask the survivors huh !

Vaz owes me a new beat box anyway , he was on R4 advocating a lofty moral stance on some piece of utter trivia and the slime oozing forth MADE me stab both speakers with a pencil , they MADE me do it , i was FORCED . Batmaaan nananananananana Batman

Aieeeeeee........NURSE!

I'd let my 15yo see it

... In fact, I did. And I'd have taken her myself if she hadn't gone with friends. I made sure she saw Batman Begins so she'd have the proper context. And I'd have had no problem with it at 12, and maybe a little younger. I know she was more than mature enough to handle it. Still, she may be exceptional. Tends to happen to kids with disabled siblings.

The joker was a murderous violent psychopath? No, say it isn't so! Yeah, I grew up with the Adam West / Burt Ward Batman TV show and its cartoon villains. I've seen the Nicholson Joker, I've read the comics. You know what? First time I saw a trailer for the Dark Knight my first reaction was, "Damn, that Joker is SCARY." It was obvious to me immediately. Without watching the movie first. And I'm not the most subtle person in the world. More like, you gotta hit me with a brick.

So how is it these parents are all up in arms? It's called the Dark Knight -- did they take that too literally and not see the metaphor in "dark"? Did they not notice how scary the Joker was in the trailers? Did they not notice how seriously Batman Begins took the story, compared to other attempts? Did any of them read the reviews? Screen the movie before taking Junior?

Apparently not. Some parents are clueless. Sure, take the kids to a movie too violent and then be all up in arms because you didn't do your homework. Blame the movie rating for your laziness and ineptitude.

Black helicopter as a metaphor for, hmmmm, something. I'm sure it'll come to me later.

P.S. I enjoyed the movie, and highly recommend it. It could have been better, but it's worth seeing. But be warned: this Joker is dangerously insane. And believe it or not, there's violence in the movie.

I Agree

Had a convo with a colleague about it at work, who wanted to take his 6 year old son. I said i wouldnt..

It amazes me how they cover up GSW's (which you can see on the news) Yet clearly show the Joker and his amazing disappearing pencil trick (where he smashes it into someones skull, obv killing them).

I also agree with the comments made on knife play, there is too much of that already.

I think it should be a 15, not suprised though as most certificates are too low for films.

Why...

so serious?

I know who to blame

Don't blame the movie studio for making a film with scenes that some people might find unpleasant (but others will find highly enjoyable).

Don't blame the BBFC for giving it a 12A rating (suitable for 12-year-olds and particularly mature others).

Don't blame the local councils for not exercising their powers to re-certify the film as 15 or 18 (or invent a special new 21 certificate, or ban it altogether, or whatever).

Blame the person who is holding a knife to your throat and forcing you to watch the film against your will.

More worryingly...

In a 12A film, there were six separate adverts for alcohol in the trailers when I went to see it. Only two were for beer, the rest were hard spirits, advertised in their usual "omg drink this and u will be kewl" manner.

BBFC ratings

The BBFC have been lowering the ratings threshold for years. More and more child-unfriendly content is being passed for viewing by an ever younger audience. Personally, having taken my 12 year old to see the film I do think it should've been a 15 so for me, so another example of where the BBFC have got it wrong.

In saying that, this is pure opportunism by Keith Vaz and absolutely true-to-form for him. Above all else he chose to concentrate on the knife-related violence element of the film - if knife crime wasn't so hot a topic right now this simply wouldn't have even appeared on the radar.

At least IDS was more rounded in his reasons why he thought it was awarded the wrong rating, although it would've been nice if he'd not bothered left Mr Vaz as the lone, ridiculous voice he is.

no way thats a 12A

I was shocked to find it it was a 12a to be honest. Surely the BBFC are classifying films as advice to parents and a 12A means "probably ok for under 12's" what else do we take it to mean ? Its not about parental control as if you were to go by the BBFCs advice and take your mature 8 year old, they will have learnt that slamming a pencil through someones eyeball is a cool magic trick :( The suggestion that you pre-watch everything or rely on reviews defeats the point of having a classification system in the first place.

So spokeswoman Sue Clark says, "Younger teenagers would not have been able to see it, and they are the very people who are going to love it. We would have ended up with far more complaints from people who wanted to see the film and couldn't."

Is this a good argument ? What about selling alcohol to under 18's? there are lots of complaints from them that they can't get served in pubs, so best just let them in really as they are the people who are going to love it :)

The last Heath Ledger film I went to see years ago was the cheesy teen nonsense of "10 things I hate about you" that was a 12 and not a 12A. Now thats scary.

Ermm

So does this mean the reinstatement of the 9pm watershed, and the news can only be shown after 9pm? When will people just stop being so bloody stupid? I've not even seen the film yet and i'm telling people not to be stupid. If a film like this, which, lets face it, was always destined to be graphically voiolent, is getting people churning, then god know what happens when they watch the news.

Penguin bedcause the world is in violent technicolour, not just black and white

Rating system is flawed

The 12A rating system is flawed and inconsistent. If they continue to use the 12A rating system then they might as well change 15 & 18 to 15A and 18A.

Its the parents decision if their child can watch a 12A film, but the BBFC's decision if someone can watch a 15 or 18 film.

Keith Vaz' thought process...

"Aha! This film has been classified 12A! I can take my 11yo daughter, even though I know it's not suitable for her, expose her to potential trauma and unsuitable material, and then rant about it afterwards! And I'll be on teevee!! And I might get mentioned in the Guardian again! I can be outraged! Hurrah!"

Not that I'm cynical about the man, or anything.....!

Context

At 10 years old, my son and his similarly aged best friend, used to

go to the friends 17 yr old brother's room and watch 18 rated movies.

Us parents didn't know about this until much much later, not because

we didn't care but because the kids took great care that we never

found out. (Kids, eh!?)

My son is now 28 and do you know the film that affected his life the

most?

Jaws.

Yup. So much so that he still has trouble swimming in the sea. Never

mind 'Driller Killer' or 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', a film with a

rubber shark has affected the lives of more children since it was

released in 1975 and shown continually on TV since, than any fantasy

shock/horror movie.

And Keith Vaz is bandwagon-jumping, harrumphing cn^t. (IMHO)

Whose responsibilty?

Firstly I agree with all comments here to varying degrees.

Borderline decision? If the border involved considering the number of extra tickets sold, then I would say it wasn't. I have always been dubious about this so-called 'advisory' '12A' rating, for it has the potential for the admission of kids as young as 8 years old, as the rating allows this. Compared even to the original '12' rating, theatre admissions are sure to be higher. We should anticipate that the '12A' will soon enough render the '15' practically obsolete, as it is likely to become the rating that movie producers will want to avoid, in such a way as the '18' is an undesirable rating to have.

Due to the DECREASE in the age of admission to any '12A' rated feature, the content that should pass for it should in fact be more restricted, however, it is not. In fact, the criteria for a '12A' are much higher than they were for the '12', which now only exists for home video.

I have a number of problems specifically with the '12A': as I first stated, it is designed to increase the potential audience for a film with that rating. Secondly, it is purely 'advisory', supposedly putting the onus on the parent or guardian to decide whether their under 12's should view. Of course, this won't happen, most parents these days couldn't be bothered to make those decisions, rather take it as word that if the '12A' states under 12's as young as 8 can view it, then that's good enough for them. Even if the parent wants to see it first, then decide to bring the kids along another time, that's further movie tickets sold.

It's no secret that the film censors are adapting the ratings system to help fund the ailing cinema business. Changes in the 'PG-13' guidelines in the USA further exascerbate this change in the BBFC. However the ratings system employed by the MPAA is a joke anyway, the only rating that actually restricts by age being 'NC-17', as the 'R' requires an accompanying adult for under 18's, and the 'PG-13' is just advisory. No film maker wants an 'NC-17' and tries hard to avoid it, therefore the MPAA ratings are an unofficial system of knowing what sort of content the film will contain. I have been to America and can vouch that Parents will take their kids to an 'R' rated movie, either out of parental slackness, or simply because they couldn't be bothered getting a babysitter. We don't want that over here.

But it's already getting that way. I have had my movie going expoerience shattered by impatient, fidgety and loud kids who couldn't sit quietly through War of Worlds, Dark Knight, Mission Impossible 3, and Terminator 3 to name a few.

To that point, T3 was a mistake at '12A' Killing off teens, lots of swearing and a scene in which the villain puts her arm through a man and cintinues to drive a car with said eviscerated man on her arm? Not for any kids I know or care about.

Even when the content starts to peek it's head over the top of '12A' and creeps into '15', you'll find that the BBFC just moves the goalposts anyway. This comment is in the decision info for "The Dark Knight":

"In the final analysis, THE DARK KNIGHT is a superhero movie and the violence it contains exists within that context, with both Batman and the Joker apparently indestructible no matter what is thrown at them."

That's bull. I was among many adults still cringing at the Joker/Batman interrogation scene, and at a lot of knife threats too, which the BBFC also covers:

"There are also scenes in which the Joker threatens first a man and then a woman with a knife and whilst these do have a significant degree of menace, without any actual violence shown they were also acceptably placed at ‘12A’"

To cap off (not a moment too soon), I believe that if the BBFC wants to continue the '12A' then the criteria they need to meet should be more stringent. And bring back the '12', for films they can deem as having stronger content but not enough for a '15'. (They have a similar system going on in EIRE, where I went to see "Clerks 2" rated a '16', one above '15A' and one below '18'.)

In summary, I have noticed that the content of most '12A' films have become stronger in the last five years, making them almost indistinguishable from '15'. I believe the BBFC needs to sort itself out and think about it's moral obligation to be responsible for what children view, unstead of putting the onus on the public in order to boost cinema profit.

Hey kids... wanna see a magic trick?

The disappearing pencil trick is enough to have sent this into 15 territory. I've seen recent 18s that were tamer...

...you really do have to ask, did the BBFC clear this as a 12A because they were afraid of getting sued over the commercial damage?

These guys need some legal immunity and some teeth.

Paris, because she's rated for everyone.