|
Post by Ana on Oct 12, 2005 20:20:03 GMT -5
i got this debate idea from this board: keiraforever.proboards20.com/index.cgi?board=debate&action=display&thread=1108249712 and the following is a quote from the debate starter. There are few institutions as foolishly corrupt in my mind as the ratings system, especially when it comes to films. However, it doesn't need to be. When the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) founded their ratings system in the late 60s, it only existed as a guide for parents to judge what their children should see. Over the years, though, it evolved into a means to censor certain products from children. Think about it like this: Requiem for a Dream was labeled "Unrated," a clever euphemism for NC-17, as the rules apply either way. This is funny, because I don't think there is a single film about drug use that teenagers should see, as it's the only one to successfully illustrate just how damaging excessive drug use is. And yet you can't see it unless you're 18? Meanwhile, millions of films crammed with mindless, cartoon-like violence are stamped with PG-13 or R ratings. The R rating is an entirely different thing altogether. Helen Mirren had some interesting things to say about it: The whole R rating depends on a strange sort of fantasy land, where all adults are responsible people, and children only ever go to the cinema with their parents. They don't go with babysitters or older brothers, or with the local drug dealer. It's this lovely sort of apple pie fantasy America, that not only doesn't exist in America, it doesn't exist anywhere. It puts too much belief in the responsibility of adults in one direction - enforcing the R rating - and not enough belief in the responsibility of adults to choose what they want to see in the other direction. It's very strange and contradictory... Even more destructive is the fact that most parents adhere to the ratings system in America like oxygen. I work in a library now, and I'm still shocked that parents will often forbid children from seeing older films that were never rated to begin with -- for that very reason. This is censorship, this is wrong, and must be done away with ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by zobothewitch on Dec 17, 2005 14:05:36 GMT -5
If the parenst say "sorry son you cant see this it wasnt rated" then thats there problem. But lets say it was unrated and ur a parent who allowed your child to go and it turned out to be bad well then once again there problem
|
|
|
Post by Lilly Dragontongue-Skywalker on Dec 23, 2005 13:38:09 GMT -5
I don't think there is a perfect solution to the problem. All children are different. Some can handle watching PG-13 or R rated movies at a younger age. I believe that it is important for parents not to abide by the ratings system at all costs. It is merly a guideline for parents. What parents need to do is not to look at a rating and immediatly permit/ban their child from seeing the movie, but to be more aware. They need to be aware in two ways: of the movie, and of their child. Parents should look in to the different movies out there. They can read the reviews in the paper of online. They should apply what they know about the movie to what they know about their child. Then they should make their decision based on if they think their child can handle the content of the movie. The parents need to take more responsibility, and not let the MPAA do their job for them. One of the features of the rating system, that is often overlooked, is the actual explanations for why the movie is rated the way it is. For example: Let's say there are 2 movies (both rated R) and two parents with teenage childeren.If you look in the section under "Rated R" on movie 1 it might say that it contans strong language. Movie 2 says it contains violence and some nudity. Let's say both parent 1 and 2's children hear people say the F-word everyday at school, so both their parents don't care if they hear it in a movie. But let's say they also don't want their children exposed to nudity and violence. Child 1 asks parent 1 if they can see movies 1 and 2. Parent 1 says no to both, because both movies are rated R. Child 2 asks parent 2 if they can see movies 1 and 2. Parent 2 says they can see movie 1 but not movie 2 based off their content. Which parent was smarter, parent 1 or parent 2? I believe that parent 2 had a better method. It's important not to ban a child from a movie "because it's rated R", but because of what it actually contains. Parents need to be the judge. They simply can not let the MPAA judge for them, because their child is unique. The problem with movie ratings is really that the MPAA cannot decide what each indicidual child should or should not see. As humans, we are all different and have different needs. This is the reason that parents must take responsibilty and decide what THEIR child can and cannot see, instead of sitting back and letting someone who doesn't know their child decide for them.
|
|
|
Post by Ana on Dec 23, 2005 19:06:00 GMT -5
this rating system, as amentioned before, should just act as a guide. jsut because it's r doesn't mean children shouldn't watch it at all. i think, and agree with you, that it depends on the child. however, i think that it's crazy that unrated basically means NC-17, and that movies that actually have a point are rated R for something such as nudity, where you almost don't see anything. i mean, ratings are just crazy. i agree, parents shouldn't judge a movie by its rating, because i know pg-13 movies that should be R, and R movies that should be pg-13. also, my friend has brought to my attention that movies that have the f word 3+ times are rated R, but if they have it 1 or 2 times, itps pg-13. i even know a movie rated pg-13 for language that only has the f word once, i think. now, is this really accomplishing anything?
The parents need to take more responsibility, and not let the MPAA do their job for them
i completely agree with this statement, ldragontongue. i also agree that parents should judge on why the movie's rated R. However, parents should also keep in mind, as i think you stated, that the ratings tend to be completely off. This reminds me of the debate "what is art?" because well, i think we all agree that children shouldn't look at nudity. however if you go to an art museum, nudity in paintings often occurs. however, this picture is art(or "art") so there is no problem looking at it. the same with movies. a movie might have nudity, but really, unless it's a movie such as Troy, where the nudity is ocmpletely unnecessary, i tink it is explainable to children that it's not a bad thing in a movie. i'm not saying, howver, that movies should include nudity, etc.. all the time, but for example, the movie Iris, in which a couple go swimming, actually accomplishes something by showing what they need to show. do you get what i'm saying or am i babbling?
|
|
|
Post by Lilly Dragontongue-Skywalker on Dec 23, 2005 20:52:17 GMT -5
This isn't necessicarly true. They is a method to the MPAA's madness. Like I stated earlier, the MPAA's ratings should be used as guidlines. Parents should take a look at what a movie is rated. Sometimes ratings are, as you mentioned, off though. This isn't that big of a suprise though. A movie where someone says the f-word 3 times, could otherwise be a perfictly sutable movie. But, it would be rated R not PG-13, beacuse it contained the f-word 3 times. Filtering for specific content such as language, nudity, or violence, causes some good movies to be overrated, and some inappropriate movies to be underrated. In any system that filters and catigorizes things by looking for specific "inappropriate materials", is going to have some flaws. However, the reverse side to this argument, is inapporpriate materials are usually caught, and they help to protect children from inappropriate materials. That is why I do not believe that the rating system should be abbolished. I just think that the parents need to wake up and do a little research. It's their responsibilty to make sure their child is not being exposed to inappropriate material. If parents understood that the movie ratings were A. guidlines not rules, and B. guidlines, not stupid things to be ignored, then we wouldn't have this problem. The ratings, like anything else, must be used in the right way, or they will not work at all.
|
|
|
Post by Ana on Dec 28, 2005 23:07:19 GMT -5
very good debate! well, that adresses most of it.
|
|