Last night I went with my 17 year old and his friends to get them tickets to see "Gangster Squad". It's rated "R" and the theater required that they show their IDs to get tickets, so they thought I could get their tickets and go see the movie. I thought it would be easy enough, and that's how it worked when I was their age. I'm the parent afterall, and I can appreciate them making a parent buy the tickets. A couple of them will be 17 in the next 3 months so we weren't talking about a big age difference here and each of us parents has done this during the last 6 months or so, so I wasn't worried that I was on the hook. Imagine my dismay that I couldn't purchase the tickets, as an adult that is obviously one of their parents, unless I was either going into the movie with them or they were all 17. I asked, "do I have to sit with them?" The lady at the counter's comment was that I didn't. I didn't elaborate at that point, but I couldn't help have it run through my mind "what difference does it make if I'm not sitting with them anyway?" Frankly, I was now expecting a hugely gorey movie that I wasn't going to enjoy in spite of some of Hollywood's best talent being in it. And, big bonus, I was going to have to sit in the movie by myself, because four 17 and almost 17 year old boys are not going to want to sit with one of their "mommys".
The movie turned out to be less gorey than most. In fact, it's based on the true story of the cops that brought down the most notorious gangster of the City of Angels. It does have quite a bit of shooting, and a lot of bad guys being killed. There is some amount of collateral damage to bystanders shown in two scenes. All of which seemed far more realistic than those movies that show only the bad guys dying and somehow all the bystanders managing to avoid being shot during a shoot out in the middle of a busy market or street. There wasn't a lot of cursing or foul language--probably since this took place in the 40s and people didn't curse as much then. Still, the greatest part of this story is that 6 men fought off an entire group of gangsters, eliminating most and eventually arresting the gangster, with a loss of only 2. Good triumphs evil in a truly David and Goliath fashion--something that over the years we've just become accustom to accepting isn't the reality we live in. Yet this is based on a true story. Six real Los Angeles cops who were the heroes, an unsung story that would've been completely unknown except in eventual folklore of the city, let alone nationwide or globally. This story gets a rating of "R", and it can't help but make me wonder what we would give Aesop's Fables if we started rating books.
Let's compare a little. Marie Antoinette, a historical movie, that covers the guillotine and of course Marie's tragic end got a PG-13. The Matrix 3 was PG-13 when it came out. I was recently told that they changed it, but I remember the 10 minute soft porn scene between Keanu Reeves and his co-star. A minute would've been a lot as sexually graphic as it was. But after 10 minutes, I was ready to take my just turned teen out of the damn movie. The scene had zero, and I mean zero, nada, zilch, value add to the actual story line of the last Matrix movie. It was soft porn that HBO and Showtime would only show during their after hours programming, and yet the movie still had a PG-13 rating. Star Wars movies have always been PG to PG-13. There's lots of killing, albeit imaginary aliens and spaceships and sometimes some very emotionally adult themes. Dead father who's a criminal who turns out to be alive. An emperor hell bent on the annihilation of all people in opposition to him. A band of misfits including a rogue and a giant ape, a princess, an old wise man...Sounds almost like a fairy tale. But the subject matter is highly thought-provoking if you want to be.
Perhaps that really is the point. I tend, admittedly, to be one who has layers and layers of depth and the actual subject matter is far more important than the shooting scenes or the action. Ironic considering that I love action movies and avoid the rubbish romantic movies almost all the time. But the truth is the action movies have a far more reaching depth than the romantic comedies or some of the historical dramas anymore. The Duchess that starred Keira Knightley received a PG-13 rating with more sexual content and sexually charged issues, but failed miserably at actually covering the depth of the real Duchess of Devonshire and her impact on the British legislation and how her flamboyance and popularity helped shape her country. Instead it focused on her miserable marriage, her husband's affairs, the only affair she was known to have had, and all this impact upon her. The movie failed miserably in giving her any real credit about who she was and her triumphs. Perhaps if they had covered more of her smart conversations that she had with many of the men of the time, prior to the women's right to vote in England, that would've received a rating of R. Afterall, there seems to be a growing movement in this country that would turn back the clock on women's rights and how outrageous and offending a movie would've been that showed a smart sassy woman, so well loved and truly intellectually capable.
Unlike movies about the female historical figures, Lincoln and J.Edgar received rated R ratings. Lincoln has some amount of depictions of the Civil War and the battlefield tragedies. The rated R rating for any of the political rangling would be completely out of place. In fact, in my humble opinion, a movie of such strong historical value and so wonderfully directed and acted should've had no more than a PG-13 rating. Our children can watch more terrifying stuff on the History Channel, the Military Channel and Cartoon Network. J. Edgar likewise was a fantastic accomplishment, and although I'm not a DiCapprio fan, exhibited how much talent he has. The only reason that J. Edgar probably received a R rating was because it touches on the rumors and very real possibility that Hoover was gay. This is seriously the only thing that I could find that really earned it a R rating. Was he gay? Wasn't he? Homosexuality still sends the damn ratings straight to R. Even the funniest comedy that has very little, if any truly sexual content at all, The Birdcage, received a rating of R simply because of the gay issue. Female impersonation is always funny--whether Tony Curtiss in Some Like It Hot, Patrick Swayze and Wesley Snipes in Too Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, or Robin Williams significant other in a movie version of La Cage Aux Follies. But nothing, nothing, will get a rated R version faster. Gay is still a four letter word in this country. Anything that offends the myriad of closed minds always goes to a rating of R.
Frankly, Band of Brothers which was a made for television, cable or not, movie series is far more gorier, graphic, and politically charged than Lincoln, J. Edgar and Gangster Squad combined. And children everywhere could turn that on their television anytime around the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, and Veteran's Day. Let alone the dozens of times in between that the History Channel or their sister channels will play it as filler. Historical value aside, what earns a rated R for most movies seems far too arbitrary. Who in the hell do they have doing the ratings? Supposedly random families like mine. Are they always the same families? Do they have a check sheet or do they just watch it and decide abracadabra R, poof G, fluff PG, oooo offensive R? How is offensive defined?
Do I really care? Not really. If I decide to purchase tickets as a parent for my 16 and 17 year olds, I don't care what you rated it. I'm the parent and I'm making the choice. If I purchased the tickets, then it's not your place. Frankly, not even if I purchased it for 12 year olds would it be your business. Of course, if they were 12, I wouldn't be offended if you only allowed me to purchase them for my kid and not a group that can't all be mine. How do we draw those lines? I don't know. When I was a kid, if a parent bought the tickets, we were golden. If one of our friends was over 17 and bought tickets for the group, no one questioned. Should they have in that case? Is the year going to be that big of a difference? Most 17 year olds are hanging with kids their own age. Is it really that traumatic of a cognitive difference of 6 months at that point? No, I seriously doubt it. I've observed my kids and their friends over the years. Kids tend to surround themselves with other kids capable of the same level of thought overall. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but these guidelines and recommendations are not written for the exceptions but for the average. I'm frankly more offended that I was told I had to go to the movie with them, that as the parent I'm not allowed to purchase tickets for 16 and 17 year olds to go to a movie that is less offensive than what they watch on television or YouTube. Let alone the response that I didn't have to sit with them, because seriously, then what is the point?
The point might be that they don't want them responding incorrectly. Well if they were raised correctly they won't anyway, whether I'm there or not. They're not going to want to be evicted from the movies. Is it because I need to be prepared to discuss the content of the movie with them if needed? How many teenagers do you know that are going to discuss the content of a movie with their parents? Teen years are about defining themselves separately of us. Psychologists tell us over and over that the first 5 years of life are the most formidable for the personality development process. The next five years define our role models--typically sub-conciously, our parents--and the role that the kids perceive that they play in society. After 10 to 12 years old, our children will attempt to define themselves separately from us. This happens until the late teens to early 20s depending on the individual. This pattern is the same for over 90% of the population. So really if a parent is willing to buy the tickets for the kids should the theater question it? Probably not. The movie ratings are guidelines and recommendations, not law. If the kids turn out to be very young compared to the recommendations, who is responsible? The theater, society or the parents? We fail to hold parents responsible anymore, and in that failure, fail to trust the responsibility to them. Technically, I don't have control over their actions whether I'm sitting right next to them, in the same movie, or in a different theater watching a different movie. What I have is that I know the boys and their parents and I know what anyone of us would do if they misbehaved. We would hold them responsible for their actions and behavior, because we've raised them right. We expect them to apply those "right" concepts to their actual public actions and behavior.
The argument might be made that our society is debase enough and we're trying to "control" how much more debase, lessen the "bad" effects, blah, blah, blah. We're trying to "control" each other to our own opinion. It's nauseating. The movie ratings system is a recommendation and the parents should be the ones that decide, not some staffer standing behind the theater ticket counter. It's absurb and insulting. While I love the movies, I don't like someone changing that it's my decision as it was my parents' decision. It's not the theaters, nor the ratings system, and before anyone goes there, we've already decided in the 90s that it is not Congress' decision. Therefore, I'm not offended by being asked if I'm a parent, but I am offended that the theater thinks they should decide based on a recommendation from some arbitrary group of individuals that are unidentified whether the actual parents are capable of making that decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment