I really enjoyed reading your post and agree with you that PG-13-rated horror films do not measure up to those that are R-rated. Call me a "bloodthirsty bastard" as well, because I also feel that the genre must push the envelope in terms of shock value. When I was younger, my friends and I took pleasure in visiting the local movie rental store on Friday nights and renting the most outrageous horror film we could find (based on the box cover art). We would always look for the movies that only had one copy on the shelves; those were usually the most bizarre and gruesome. The horror films were fun to watch, and in no way afterwards were we tempted to go out and commit some kind of heinous act of violence. Most of the time, it is the R-rating and the grisliness that it allows that bring the entertainment to the horror film. Because it cannot deliver the same amusement, the PG-13 rating is a stigma on the genre. An issue that should be examined, though, is that many of what are considered the best horror films of all time were created before the addition of PG-13 to the MPAA movie ratings. The films, Night of the Living Dead, Rosemary's Baby, The Haunting, and Psycho, were all created before an option in-between PG and R. The most famous of these, Psycho (seen on the left), was released without a rating at all. Its remake in 1998 received the R-rating, but is that really a suggestion to what the original film would have been rated? Alfred Hitchcock and Gus Van Sant are two very different auteurs, but I am not quite sure the original film would have received anything more than a PG-13 in today's theaters. Maybe it would not have wanted anything more than that, seeing as how the R-rated remake received terrible reviews. With that said, I must also point out one film that is missing on your list of PG-13 horror film releases: The Sixth Sense. One could argue that placing the film into the genre is questionable, but it is on many lists for "Best Horror Film of All Time.” What sets the film apart from the rest, though, is its Best Picture nomination at the Oscars in 2000. So shouldn’t it be recognized as a rare case of an exceptional PG-13 horror film?
Your post was very exhilarating to read as it truly touched on every aspect that should be considered in the censorship of film. You made an excellent point when referencing the Old Testament, as it would certainly earn the R-rating from the MPAA. I consider myself a religious individual and greatly appreciate the film, The Passion of the Christ (seen on the right). The gruesome scenes of Jesus being beaten are very difficult to watch, but there is purpose to Mel Gibson’s decision of showing these images. As an aspiring filmmaker, I realize the importance of storytelling and agree with you “that violence and sexual content are often necessary to relay the story.” Like with The Passion, removing the scenes of violence would not convey the same story and message that were intended. Also, I admire your idea of abolishing the movie ratings system and simply placing warnings before the films. This would force parents to know what their child would be viewing. Nowadays, it appears parents are exhibiting more leniencies in terms of what their children are being exposed to. Every week I meet with a seven year old student whom I tutor. Recently while he was telling me a story, I was shocked to hear the “f-word” come out of his mouth. Again, he is seven years old. I still have a few years before even thinking about becoming a parent, but I felt that it was important for me to tell him that the word was inappropriate. Film and television have great powers in influencing the audience, and it all falls on the parents to decide what their children do and do not see.
2 comments:
I, too, have long had issues with the stigmas attached to MPAA ratings. This is especially true in the horror genre. If I were given the choice between two horror films, one with a PG-13 and one with an R rating, I have to say that I'd choose the R rated film. It's not that PG-13 rated films are actually worse. To be honest, I'm a big fan of the whole concept of "less is more." After all, what creates more suspense, seeing the knife go forward and hearing the scream, or seeing the knife pierce the flesh? Sure, the latter is more gruesome, and filmmakers like Eli Roth make a living on shock value like that. But, at the end of the day, the ultimate reason I go see a film is for it to pique my imagination. I don't just want to be stimulated in the moment, as is often the case with shock horror and gag based comedies, I want to come away remembering. I want to see watch the door through my shower curtain, and worry that Norman Bates might come crashing through dressed as his mother.
The problem is that nowadays, unless a film has an R rating, it's hard to accept it as an adult aimed film. Films have become so saturated with sex and violence, that the PG-13 realm has become almost too tame. I don't necessarily want to see someone's eyeball get cut out (as in Hostel), but I want to be free to hear realistic dialogue, in all its crassness, and feel actually fear.
Overall, I think your post is good. You take a stance, and stand by it. I was a little jarred by the apparent change of subject between your two comments. They seem to be addressing a different issue almost. But, other than that, good job.
Thank you for your insightful post. I find that your responses to both articles show great investment in the most significant concerns surrounding the existence of film ratings, such as how well they may reflect a film's content, or in what cases film ratings do not matter such as with Mel Gibson's "The Passion." This is not to say that your argument stated that "The Passion"'s R rating exists without significance, but rather, that as the Old Testament may receive an R rating from the MPAA, it will nevertheless continue to be important, and thus told to children. Even children too young to see most R rated movies.
I am very glad you added this as it immediately made me think of the times in which it is necessary to use R rated elements to tell a story in the way it needs to be told. This is reflected in your first comment where you are able to remind us of movies that require blood and adult themed elements to achieve the highest quality -- horror films for example. I am very happy to have read your post because it has led me to consider the importance of R rated material in storytelling, and despite the common distaste I would receive in most "morally guided" circles, I too would call myself a "bloodthirsty bastard." That is, I would proudly call myself a "bloodthirsty bastard" when it becomes necessary to the story itself.
Saying this, I wish your posts were a little longer and presented some more ideas, such as what an R rating means for a movie's business these days (i.e. more difficult to market, often times less successful at the box office), but that may have been overkill. Call me a stickler, but I also wish Blogger had not reformatted your comments to single spacing, which is both hard to read and inconsistent with the top of the post. I also think this would have benefited if each comment was prefaced by the name of the article you were responding to so we may have more of an idea of what you are commenting on. I am pleased to have been able to read and critique your good work. I also recommend a documentary that provides an unauthorized look at the MPAA, "This Film is Not Yet Rated," simply because it thematically alligns to themes of your post.
Post a Comment