The Shame
I am in rather a dilemma.*
I have a shameful secret to confess...
I actually read, and more extraordinarily agreed with, an column by Miranda Devine.
I know, I know... I'm so ashamed. I'm worried that this may be a consequence of 'getting older'. It is an unsettling feeling that perhaps I am slowly morphing into Mary Whitehouse or Gerard Henderson or other fearsome conservative muppet. Could this be why I can't handle Dom Knight's pathetic 'blog posts' anymore? Is it bracket creep? Oh, the angst...
The column decries the slipping of standards in film classifications, allowing 'moderate swearing' and 'implied sexual scenes' in PG and M movies. Although she was hysterical about the blatant pedophilia and homoeroticism apparently depicted in 'The History Boys' recently, this time she was more rational and cited more evidence that indeed, it's not my imagination, they are allowing more previously unacceptable words, scenes, themes etc through the classification process.
I agree with pretty much all of this - since when is 'mild drug use' ever going appropriate in a G rated movie? Although I guess it depends on the 'drug' in question...
However I disagree with this comment:
Firstly: Pah! Supernatural SO does not show that much graphic violence. You saw the werewolf attack. And then you saw a chest cavity that had been shredded. You didn't see the shredding! Geez! Get it right Miranda!
Secondly: I'm not sure that the argument necessarily extends to TV. It is much easier to exercise parental control in regards to the TV - much easier to switch off and switch channels - than it is to up and leave a cinema. Also - I don't allow my children to watch prime-time TV, unless I'm absolutely positive that it'll be OK, and I would NEVER allow them to watch Supernatural, so that is such a pathetic straw man argument, and makes it easier for me to continue my Miranda H8ing**.
I guess my response is that surely it's easier to err on the side of caution in regards to film classification. I don't understand how 'society' could have changed so drastically in the last generation, that these aspects need to be reflected in G and PG movies. It's so hard to exercise the much-vaunted 'parental control' when the goal-posts keep moving! I'm not the type of parent who rants and raves about the rubbish on TV, and the possibility that my children might be exposed to sex and violence at 11pm, as it's my responsibility to ensure that they're not watching TV then... However I'm quite happy to rant if they're exposed to what I consider 'unsuitable' material if it's being broadcast through a medium I would normally considered 'safe' - eg G movies.
I'm lucky though, that I have a relationship with my children in which they are welcome to, and feel comfortable, discussing things they have seen or heard which left them puzzled, intrigued or uncomfortable. And for a parent that's more important than any film classification system.
I have a shameful secret to confess...
I actually read, and more extraordinarily agreed with, an column by Miranda Devine.
I know, I know... I'm so ashamed. I'm worried that this may be a consequence of 'getting older'. It is an unsettling feeling that perhaps I am slowly morphing into Mary Whitehouse or Gerard Henderson or other fearsome conservative muppet. Could this be why I can't handle Dom Knight's pathetic 'blog posts' anymore? Is it bracket creep? Oh, the angst...
The column decries the slipping of standards in film classifications, allowing 'moderate swearing' and 'implied sexual scenes' in PG and M movies. Although she was hysterical about the blatant pedophilia and homoeroticism apparently depicted in 'The History Boys' recently, this time she was more rational and cited more evidence that indeed, it's not my imagination, they are allowing more previously unacceptable words, scenes, themes etc through the classification process.
...We are witnessing the acceleration of "ratings creep", the steady erosion of film classification standards, as more and more adult content seeps down into PG and M ratings, leaving parents powerless and confused about what to allow their children to watch.
Even G ratings are not what they used to be. A 2003 revision of movie classification guidelines allowed drug use and nudity "in context". Mild coarse language has always been allowed, as has "mild and very discreetly implied" sexual activity and drug use......The Sydney film reviewer Kevin Sadlier is one of the few who openly rails against the trend, on radio 2GB. He says he has noticed a "disturbing change" over the past 18 months in the work of the federal Office of Film and Literature Classification, which is responsible for movie ratings.
Movies that once would have been rated M, he says, are being released as PG - Marie Antoinette, with a nude love scene, for example.
The F-word, once restricted to MA movies, is now commonplace in M movies with a note from the censor warning of "moderate language"...
I agree with pretty much all of this - since when is 'mild drug use' ever going appropriate in a G rated movie? Although I guess it depends on the 'drug' in question...
However I disagree with this comment:
Ratings creep also applies to television, where the F-word is so liberally sprinkled through prime time it has lost its ability to shock, which is a pity. A program such as Supernatural shows graphic scenes of werewolves ripping people's hearts out of their chests.
Firstly: Pah! Supernatural SO does not show that much graphic violence. You saw the werewolf attack. And then you saw a chest cavity that had been shredded. You didn't see the shredding! Geez! Get it right Miranda!
Secondly: I'm not sure that the argument necessarily extends to TV. It is much easier to exercise parental control in regards to the TV - much easier to switch off and switch channels - than it is to up and leave a cinema. Also - I don't allow my children to watch prime-time TV, unless I'm absolutely positive that it'll be OK, and I would NEVER allow them to watch Supernatural, so that is such a pathetic straw man argument, and makes it easier for me to continue my Miranda H8ing**.
I guess my response is that surely it's easier to err on the side of caution in regards to film classification. I don't understand how 'society' could have changed so drastically in the last generation, that these aspects need to be reflected in G and PG movies. It's so hard to exercise the much-vaunted 'parental control' when the goal-posts keep moving! I'm not the type of parent who rants and raves about the rubbish on TV, and the possibility that my children might be exposed to sex and violence at 11pm, as it's my responsibility to ensure that they're not watching TV then... However I'm quite happy to rant if they're exposed to what I consider 'unsuitable' material if it's being broadcast through a medium I would normally considered 'safe' - eg G movies.
I'm lucky though, that I have a relationship with my children in which they are welcome to, and feel comfortable, discussing things they have seen or heard which left them puzzled, intrigued or uncomfortable. And for a parent that's more important than any film classification system.
* I would really appreciate discussion on this topic! People don't seem to 'discuss' things anymore - they either leave a comment saying 'yes I agree' or nothing. I would love C&C to be a place where we're happy to exchange ideas, and disagree with each other, yet still bask in the BlogLove!
** Stay tuned for more H8ing in the not-too-distant future!
** Stay tuned for more H8ing in the not-too-distant future!
Labels: Cranky (again), Curly Girls
posted by actonb at 10:55 am
18 Comments:
Hmm - i agree on a few levels. I may or may not have been watching daytime TV instead of writing essays and they are now airing what was previously "late night only" adult ads during the day. Aimed at matchmaking meat markets etc, but still - a great deal of your typical porn star s*x was being ahem..rammed down viewers throats. Quite deplorable. I think it's a scam to switch to Paytv which I will forever fight against - it's just more channels with nothing on.
I think we have become jaded as a society globally and less prone to reacting to shocking scenes because our senses are so dulled we do not recognise shock-worthy events. World news and the scenes aired everyday (not to mention Video Hits) have contributed to this general malaise in our human reactions. "100 people killed in Baghdad today. Again. Oh well etc" Everything is in so much excess we don't compute the horror. "Million" of dollars etc. Has anyone ever seen 1 million of anything? Ever? Probably not.
And what of the radio medium - surely more innocent due to lack of visuals BUT some channels are clearly NOT family friendly.
I agree with the point that certain types of behaviour etc have become "more" acceptable. But I challenge that phrase. It's like "normal". Define "acceptable"/"normal" etc. I would be interested in knowing when was the last time the Office of Film and Literature Classication do any work. EVERY time i go to the movies every preview seems to say "This film is yet to be classified..." What the? Do those guys ever do any work?
There was a massive hoopla recently aimed at SBS who aired "Inspector Rex" in prime time and it the sex and murder scenes were considered very inappropriate for the timeslot etc. I felt sorry for Rex.
I do have a point - and it is thus - that as general society gets more jaded and less reactive to "shock action" the burden and responsbility lies more and more with parents and raising their kids in an appropriate and well bred (and supervised) manner. And this was the case before TV was even invented. I agree Actonb- it's more important than relying on an independent and lazy organisation to do the vetting/parenting for you.
long post - i'm in townsville and utterly wretched. pondering why someone who would pay the exorbitant qantas club fees would thus bother to steal a computer mouse. ridikkerus!
Oh, dear, oh dear. I read that same piece and thought what an old trout she was. If there are no G-rated movies around, isn’t it because a) it is not school holidays or b) because they don’t make money?
I think “society creep” for lack of a name, is inevitable, and it’s very John Howard-esque to think that we can turn back the clock. Kids are growing older faster, if that makes any sense. If you manage to muzzle the films through stronger censorship, that is 90 minutes from a week – what do you do about the bus driver who is swearing, or the role model who is getting out of her limo with no knickers? There are so many other sources of imagery and affront that the moral minority must be having fits. The problem with toughening up the film and censorship people is that you will end up stacking it with prudes and cronies who are so far out of touch it is not funny. I don’t want a 60+ year old man deciding what I can and cannot watch. Or what my kids see, for that matter.
I do worry about this stuff, AB. When I saw some of the stuff in the Harry Potter films (the huge three headed dog?) my first reaction was – no way am I letting my young ones see this. But then Lady M and I have a gulf of difference in this regard. She saw me about to sit and watch Flash Gordon (from 1980) with my 6 year old, and issued a massive veto. Too violent and too graphic. I think that is balls, especially when it is a supervised screening, but then I am a city kid, and maybe I am numbed to that sort of thing?
But I guess I would rather have my kids a bit more “street smart” and world aware form watching a movie, than lull them into a white picket fence sense of false security. But things could be worse. They could be reading Miranda Devine…
See, I get where you're coming from, but there are a couple of things worth considering here.
One would be the definition of 'drug use' in these g-rated movies. What does that mean? Is it like in that Simpsons episode where Homer ate the chilli and went mad? Because that's a drug reference. Most kids won't get it. A lot of adults probably won't either.
It's worth considering whether the change is to the content or the interpretation. Any sort of 'magic potion' type scene in a film could be interpreted as 'drug use' if we're being sensitive and PC, which is what the censors tend to be.
I tend to think the reason Miranda failed to find many g-rated films in the cinemas is because we're so touchy about everything that the g-rated witch and warlock and goblin films I watched as a kid are now rated M because of 'supernatural themes'.
That's all totally ignoring the fact that society moves forward and the standards of acceptability change. Once upon a time you couldn't show a couple in bed without one of them having a foot on the floor etc. etc.
I could go on, and I'm not so much disagreeing with you as I am with her. But thems my quickly-during-work 2 cents. Because you wanted debate.
Thanks guys! woohoo - actual debate! (This is very exciting)
I hope I'm not being a reactionary here - I don't want to exist in a white-picket-fenced utopia. I understand that the world is a Big Bad dangerous place, I just want to be able to protect my kids from certain aspects of it until I reckon they're able to deal with it.
I agree with you CL - the world is becoming more jaded, and Video Hits is particularly unsavoury when you realise your pre-teen daughters are watching it with all the pre-requistie bumping and grinding - and all of it within a PG time slot!
I guess I think there should be a difference between saying 'look, the world's changing, society's changing, slides in 'societal norms' are going to happen' and actually encouraging the changes?
And I don't listen to commercial radio - as far as I'm concerned NONE of it is family-friendly!
We can't change the world we live in, but we can control (or at least attempt to) the way our children interact with it. So Donnie's example of the knickerless celebrity and the potty-mouthed bus driver can be dealt with in a context whereby they are the exception rather than the rule. Yes, the bus driver swears, but the kids recognise that this isn't what normal people do. If they are presented with F* words in every context all day, then no amount of parental chiding is going to make them realiise it's not what's expected of them.
And I'm not sure that Miranda was talking about 'toughening' up the film classifications, just decrying the slackening of them - not the same thing!
Children may seem to be getting older faster - but is this a Good Thing? Do we want our daughters exposed to these 'new' social norms? Is it wrong to want to take a stand? I don't think it's prudishness, it's just concern.
I think that a lot of kids are able to make a distinction between 'fantasy' - be that animation or live-action - and depictions of Real Life. So Chesty's point about drug use and 'supernatural' themes probably is only meaningful to those of the Moral Minority who have concerns that children lack nous.
Children aren't dumb. They just don't have the same abilities to filter information as we do.
I swore in front of your kids once.
I think they liked it.
Also, on a serious note, Devine seems to tie herslef in a not re. slackening versus tightening of ratings.
On the one hand, she's decrying g-rated movies being allowed to have 'adult' content, on the other, she's complaining that there aren't enough G and PG rated movies showing and that some 'kids' titles are rated M.
She can't have it both ways, really.
Or some such.
I haven't noticed any slackening of standards, really.
I remember watching A Night of the Town (1987) (also known as Adventures in Babsitting) ages and ages ago. Probably in the late '80's or early '90's. The kids swore and Elisabeth Shue even said 'fuck' once. (But that wasn't as disturbing as rewatching it now and seeing Vincent d'Onofrio dressed up as Thor.) The film is rated PG in the UK and USA, and M in Australia. It's an adolescent's movie (which is probably why I adore it). Apart from the mild swearing, it's so innocent, really. Except for the mild allusion to a whore, maybe. But really, nothing that would shock any 12 year old.
The Neverending Story (1984) is G in Aust and UK and PG in USA. It's damn scary! Remember Gmork?
But as a kid the scariest thing I ever read was the fairytales of the Brothers Grimm. They could definitely do with some censoring!
LaRue - yes you swore. And they liked discussing the fact that you'd sworn. Which word you used, the context in which you'd used it, the fact that I'd said 'No-one heard that' when in fact they all had. Ad Nauseum. It was almost as exciting as the damn ponies.
Oh Meva! N-E story is fabulous! But not nearly as scary as Labyrinth. Or the Dark Crystal (which was a Xmas prezzie for the Girls this year)... I am surprised at those classifications though. But maybe I'm looking at everything with rose-coloured glasses...
And having said all that, I'm such a hypocrite - I let my girls (8 and almost 10) watch Buffy. And have done so for a number of years. I guess I'm just happy to talk in generalities. And also know that Buffy just ROCKS.
Dude,
Supernatural is soooo scary. I don't know if it's violent or not, I couldn't get past that dripping blood thing.
Plus why is the fact that f--k has lost the power to shock a bad thing? Could be at lot worse, as I judge it.
On the other hand, I won't let Grizzlewick watch 'Finding Nemo' because I'm worried he'll be scared of Nemo's mum being killed, so I'm one of those inconsistent types.
But then, I am the parent of a child who recently asked me:
"Mummy, what's "rooted"?"
So I should probably sloth back to my concave couch from whence I flick half eaten corn chips at his head.
Re N/E story - it was the first film my sister and I saw. She was 6, I was 8. It was a bad idea. That wolf thing gave us nightmares for weeks.
I thought Labyrinth was not so much scary as disturbing - show it to impressionable teenage girls at your own risk, I say*.
On the other hand, I can hardly remember 'Adventures in Babysitting', other than that I loved it at the time.
PS re debate: you can't help it if you're always right. And also, if you want to get your teeth into something controversial, you can go check out/disagree with my views on religion if you feel like it....
* possibly from experience....
I recently hired that Spike Lee movie about teh bank robber with Jodie Foster and Clive Owen in it (I cannot recall the name for teh life of me).
As usual, Spike Lee cracked out the c word (and this time I don't mean commitment).
I was watching with my mother. She stood up, grabbed teh remote, and turned off the tv, telling my brother and I we were banned.
Maybe if more parents did this to their kids, instead of blindly letting them watch whatever the hell they want to on tv, we wouldn't need to argue about ratings. Sure, my brother and I turned the movie back on, but at 25 and 21 that's our choice to make. As kids we wouldn't have dared question mum's authority. Whether it was rated G, PG or M.
Maybe it's the parents who should shoulder some of the responsibility, instead of crying wolf at the ratings like Miranda seems intent to do...
Hee! She banned you! You're so BUSTED OMel!
I found out some interesting things about Miranda when I linked to her Wiki entry. She's a devout Catholic apparently. She also has some inconsistencies in regards to parenting - I wonder if she actually IS a parent? I'm curious...
But absolutely Mel - it boils down to being the parent's responsiblity. I try to exercise that, but need to trust that the PTB are helping me, not confusing the message. Mind you, we have a 'No Movies other than PG or G' rule for when the girls go out with the grandparents. They have previously taken them to M movies, and then whinged about the content... I told them they were idiots (but nicely).
OMel,
I agree. I try to control (where possible) what Grizzlewick watches, especially if I think he will be frightened by it.
And also, for the record, he learned the word "rooted" from Mr Fix, not me. Seriously.
And I don't really flick corn chips at his head. Promise.
I thought that kids didn't see the stuff like drug references. I remember being very shocked years later when I saw Ghost Busters, Breakfast Club, Footloose and the Goonies at the drug references and sex references that I just didn't get at the time.
But not having been a kid for quite a long time my point of reference may be skewed.
KR, I recently rewatched Grease and was appalled at the blatant sex references which are the whole way through it. I was so blind as a kid. One of the lines in the song Greased Lihtning is "You know that I'm not bragging it's a real pussy wagon"!
And here was innocent little me thinking that Rizzo and Kenicki were talking about lollies in the back of his car...
I thought your points were great. I remember when we took my little brother to see Harry Potter, which they'd campaigned and campaigned to bring down to a PG rating. I thought it absolutely should have been M, with the death of a character and a fairly evil scene with Voldemort.
Okay, so I knew it was Ralph Fiennes - but my impresionable little brother had no idea, and it had originally been rated M.
Dodgy stuff.
GW - I may need to watch Labyrinth again. The only thing sticking in my mind is David Bowie's pants. Or is this what you're talking about????
I actually love the term 'rooted'. I used it often when I lived in the UK, as it left polite Southerners a little bewildered.
KR - I'm not even sure what my point is anymore! I guess Footloose and Grease you'd expect those refernces, based on plots. But none of these are G rated are they? I'm so confsued now!!! Grease was PG and Footloose M - I just checked! Loved Footloose!
rosanna - Harry Potter was shit-scary! But then my 9 year old coped with the Dementors better than me!
For what it's worth ... every four years the OFLC do a big community research project about their ratings. They get a random group of joe-publics together for a day, explain the rating system, get them to watch a movie, take notes, rate it, then discuss the 'classifiable elements' as a group. They do this several times, with different demographic groups, different films, in different locations. At the end of each session, they reveal what the OFLC rating was and get feedback. And the outcome in 2005 - almost unanimous consistency between community member ratings and OFLC ratings.
So for me, the question of parents taking responsibility is this - yes, be involved in the media (and games and music) that your kids are exposed to. But also, you are well within your rights to have reasonable expectations of the ratings. If you have an issue with ratings, write to the OFLC and explain how you use the ratings as parents, and how you feel about the current 'callibration' of content within the classifcation bands.
BTW, the classifiers at the OFLC have one of the wrongest jobs on the planet. They spend 80%+ of their time watching porn - and wierd porn at that. This is because so much of it is made (OS) and then sought to be sold in Aust (Canberra, of course), and is at the fringe of what can/can't be classified. Snuff flick, animal flicks, kiddy flicks, ewww etc.
Also, chickenlittle, my understanding is that the reason why trailer are only 'classified for advertising approval' is because the OFLC is only asked to rate the trailer - not the fillum. They rate the fillum separately.
I think the questions about exposure of kids to the big wide world of cussin and bird flippin (x-ray'd or otherwise) is vexed. Me - I was a sheltered puppy (banned from croc dundee at age 14) but then developed a love of all things a-boundary-pushin as a late teenager / early grownup. Lady80, given much more latitutde as a kid, made choices as a kid about what she watches/reads/listens to and is now much more discriminating (in the good way) than me. Take your pick?
And finally, I'm with you Acton, nothing is more creepy in the labyinth than Bowie's bulge. And pity the fool that gets caught off guard by his fan-mullet - that thing could put your eye out.
HA! Banned from Croc Dundee! I guess I shouldn't mention that I was banned from seeing 'Dirty Dancing' at 14 too, because Mum had heard it was 'suggestive'... So I took my 12 year old sister to see 'Fatal Attraction' instead - no-one at mum's work had heard anything about it at that stage.
BIG MISTAKE.
Post a Comment
<< Home