The difficult art of rating "children's movies"



(Credit: Wikipedia.  Accessed June 27, 2024)


In 1978, Britain was blessed with this movie, Watership Down, based on the 1971 novel by Richard Adams.  The British Board of Film Classification saw fit to give it a "U" rating, which stood for the same all-ages rating as the U.S. "G."  This wasn't changed in the slightest until last year, despite many scenes of gory violence and existential terror.

I must admit that I could read the book comfortably enough.  But that was the material reduced to black ink on white paper.  The same scenes and emotions rendered graphically on screen would have hit me a lot harder.  This Board should have paid real attention to what they were watching.

A few bits from the comment thread of the first video link (I'm using symbols in place of the original commenter handles):

👦👦: '“Runs blocked with dead bodies"

don't you just love kids movie quotes 😊'

👦👦👦: 'Yeah Ik so cute and friendly 😊😊😊😊'

👵: 'How is THIS from a "children's movie"?  "But I knew how it was going to go, I knew what they would think -- because **I'm Bruno, and everyone always assumes the worst!**"  This from a character who's lived the last 10 years half-starved in the walls.

 

'No.  Seriously.'


It's perfectly obvious that the art of figuring out what's "appropriate for children" didn't advance as much as we think between 1978 and 2021.  "Granny" went on to describe Encanto as "Watership Down take away the literal bloodshed."  

Certainly, neither of these movies would be comfy viewing for claustrophobes!

Oh, and I forgot to mention Coraline and Paranorman!!


 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more