How should films be rated?
I’m a big movie fan and often go to the cinema. Recently I have seen the film “Watchmen” [my review here] twice: once in London and then again in Prague. As a result of seeing the same work – one with a fair bit of violence – in two jurisdictions where the rating was different, I checked out the rating of the film around the world as advised by the Internet Movie Database. The result was fascinating.
In France, you can see “Watchmen” if you are 12; in the Philippines, you have to be 13; in Italy, 14 is fine; in the Czech Republic, 15 is the rule; Germany sets the level at 16; here, in the UK, it has an 18 certificate; in Singapore, to see the uncut version, you have to be 21. In Ireland, it was originally rated 18 but this was changed to 16 on appeal. In Canada, it is 13+ in Quebec but 18A in Ontario.
All this begs the question of whether an age-related system of rating films makes sense. Maybe, above a certain age, anybody should be allowed to see any movie, but the advertising material should make clear the extent of sex, violence, drug-taking, and obscene language.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I think that 12’s are way too over rated. They should make a rating for 11 years, so that 11 year olds don’t have to wait for a year until they can watch the great blockbusters that everyone is talking about.
May 11th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
An extra complication is that some jurisdictions may require cuts as well so the film with a different age rating may be a different version as well…..
May 14th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Do we as a society believe we need to protect minors. If we do then let’s park that and accept that we need to have an age related rating system / advisory classification of some description albeit not necessarily graduated and explore that later.
However I am mystified about why out of the 4 categories for inclusion within a film rating system drug taking is included.
Is this because drug taking is a criminal offence in this society? If so why not include all criminal acts in the list.
Is it because some drugs are addictive. If so why not include consumption of alcohol and tobacco in the list.
You may argue that these arguments could equally apply to the other three categories of sex, obscene language and violence. However I would suggest that the these three categories are areas where it is generally accepted that many people find these depictions of human behaviour either embarrassing, disturbing or distressing and as such may wish to avoid films that include such content.
All human societies have had a long relationship with drugs and it is interesting why the act of altering ones consciousness is so readily categorised as threatening. So threatening in fact that we need to be forewarned by a rating system.
The inability for many in society to address drugs in any form of rational manner enables fantasists such us Tony Blair to rationalise that a reason to invade Afghanistan was to cut the growth of opium production.