Decius wrote:
] inignoct wrote:
] ] thoughts on this commentary? at what age are you old enough
] ] to handle the subtleties of a violent presentation? should
] ] this have been NC-17? Would that keep kids from seeing it?
] ] *ARE* kids seeing it?
]
] See, this is the thing. I don't really think that this stuff
] effects kids in the way that adults feel that it does. Could
] you explain the scene where the guy is charging people to have
] sex with the coma patients to a child? It would probably make
] you feel uncomfortable wouldn't it? Thats why you would decide
] to prevent the kids from seeing it. So YOU wouldn't feel
] uncomfortable. Could I have watched this movie when I was 12?
] Yes I think so. Would it have turned me into a murderer? No, I
] don't think so. Do I think every 12 year old was just like me?
] No, I don't.
]
] Basically, teach your kids to think critically about things
] rather then attempting to make them live in a world where
] critical thinking isn't required and they are supposed to
] emulate everything that they see. (I think that answer to this
] problem isn't more common because adults usually don't
] understand how to think critically, and therefore they cannot
] teach it.)

hear hear. fundamentally i think most children are a great deal more capable of handling things than parents think, *if* the parents are willing to reinforce a positive analysis of whatever they're seeing or hearing. i wasn't much older than 12 when my dad rented this foreign film that involved a graphic, uh, loss of male genetalia (not for that reason, of course). it was disturbing, and there was a lot of blood, but it didn't really scar me for life. playing devils advocate tho, i will say that that's the only part of the movie i remember, and to the extent that filling your children's head with half remembered images of blood and violence without knowing that the analysis will stay with them may not be so super. fundamentally, though, i think it's every bit as dangerous to shelter too much as too little, and while children shouldn't be forced to grow up fast and miss out on the carefree joy of childhood by being exposed to the dark and painful vagaries of life, if all they see from birth to age 15 is bunny rabbits and lollipops, they're not gonna be too well adjusted. it's a difficult balance to strike, but i feel like many parents choose not to think about it at all, and err on the side of not exposing their children to anything but happy and good thoughts and images. and by trying to get the government and business to help them be lazy also.

] ] The theater's don't really police their
] ] patrons very strictly, or at least, they never did when i
] was
] ] a kid... i once bought a ticket for an R movie at the
] under-14
] ] discount price. I'm not sure it should be up to the
] theaters
] ] to do this at all really.
]
] This is the stuff that really burns me. 16 year olds are
] considered responsible enough to DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE but we're
] still worried that they might see Terminator??! I DID get
] turned away from movie theaters when I was in high school, and
] I thought it was so frustrating and wrong. Can 12 year olds
] think for themselves? It might be a debate. It depends on the
] person. Can 16 year olds? Absolutely. There is obviously some
] immaturity there but that is not the same as saying "this
] person can't comprehend sex/violence and can't think
] objectively about it." I want the State, and the christian
] conservatives, out of my kids head by the time he or she is
] old enough to drive.

i kinda agree with that. the rating schemes are foolish. i'm not really sure there's any federal law involved in them, so i'm not sure how they justify the enforcement of those things, except, i guess, that it's their theater so they can set the use policies as long as they don't infringe on civil liberties. then again, i'm not sure i feel great about kids driving under 18 anyway. that's a much tougher argument to have.

RE: COMMENTARY / Tarantino clears it up -- 'Kill Bill' is great for kids