The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
From time to time there comes a film that shows what a shallow mockery the ratings system has become. Given the recent interest in Darren Aronofsky's "Requiem for a Dream" I thought I would address the issues raised by the rating of this film.
Our story begins at MPAA headquarters in America. Sitting at his nice leather-upholstered desk Bob McCrevice* is shown clips from "Requiem for a Dream" by one of his lackeys. He averts his eyes from the screen and calls for it to be turned off before saying,
"ooh err.. Drugs.. Sex.. no, no, no. We cannot let the general public see this film. NO. No rating for this film."
And so the team behind "Requiem" were forced to make substantial cuts to the film so it could achieve an MPAA rating, which was set at R-18, for the kiddies' sakes you understand.
In the back streets of London, our own BBFC saw this decision and slapped the 18 certificate on the film. This was copied pretty much universally apart from in Mexico, where it got a C, but that's because 50% of the population can't count up to 18.
Now, excuse me a minute, but haven't we lost sight of why we rate movies in the first place? Have the boundaries become so inflexible that a film containing sex and dugs always gets an 18? You see, we rate films because there are certain things we don't want people of certain ages to see. Fair enough, why don't we want them to see these things? Simple, because you don't want children to copy them because they are bad. That is why we give movies a rating.
However, over the course of time this original intention has become a little circumvented. Now if you show a man shooting people with a gun, à la A-team, where people fall to the ground and collapse in a heap that is fine, in fact that is great because there's no blood, which means you can scrape a PG certificate if you're lucky. If you show the real impact of a gun then you will be lucky to get below an 18. Now which of these scenarios is more dangerous?
Scenario A:
A child finds daddy's gun under the bed, he has seen a film where people just fall over when shot. Daddy walks into the room...
Scenario B:
A child finds daddy's gun under the bed, he has seen a film where people spew blood everywhere and die in tremendous pain when shot. Daddy walks into the room...
Now, in my opinion, Child A is far more dangerous because he has not seen the consequences of the action in question. How do we stop a child from copying a bad action, do we turn the bad action into an entirely ficticious "good" action, or do we show the consequences? I would go with consequences every single time.
"Requiem for a Dream" is one of the most viscerally realistic films I have seen. It is a tremendously powerful "essay" on addiction. If I was to rate this I would give it a low certificate, maybe a 12 because it is the only film that shows the consequences of drugs. It is ludicrous that films that revel in drug culture get the same certificate as films that show the real effects of drugs, on the one hand, and addiction in general. "Requiem for a Dream" is not a "family-picnic" film but it is, in my opinion, one of the most powerful ways of showing children the effects of addiction. It showed consequences. To return to my original point, we rate films because we don't want children to see and thus copy actions portrayed in the film. Any child who saw this film would be strongly persuaded not to copy. However, Drugs and sex fall into the "no-no" category. So no matter what you do with them you will always get an 18 certificate. Or in "Requiem for a Dream's" case, no certificate at all.
Someone needs to look at the ratings system so that films like "Requiem for a Dream" can be seen by as many people possible. However, it seems as though, for now, the ratings system will remain the same lumbering dinosaur that always has been.
Our story begins at MPAA headquarters in America. Sitting at his nice leather-upholstered desk Bob McCrevice* is shown clips from "Requiem for a Dream" by one of his lackeys. He averts his eyes from the screen and calls for it to be turned off before saying,
"ooh err.. Drugs.. Sex.. no, no, no. We cannot let the general public see this film. NO. No rating for this film."
And so the team behind "Requiem" were forced to make substantial cuts to the film so it could achieve an MPAA rating, which was set at R-18, for the kiddies' sakes you understand.
In the back streets of London, our own BBFC saw this decision and slapped the 18 certificate on the film. This was copied pretty much universally apart from in Mexico, where it got a C, but that's because 50% of the population can't count up to 18.
Now, excuse me a minute, but haven't we lost sight of why we rate movies in the first place? Have the boundaries become so inflexible that a film containing sex and dugs always gets an 18? You see, we rate films because there are certain things we don't want people of certain ages to see. Fair enough, why don't we want them to see these things? Simple, because you don't want children to copy them because they are bad. That is why we give movies a rating.
However, over the course of time this original intention has become a little circumvented. Now if you show a man shooting people with a gun, à la A-team, where people fall to the ground and collapse in a heap that is fine, in fact that is great because there's no blood, which means you can scrape a PG certificate if you're lucky. If you show the real impact of a gun then you will be lucky to get below an 18. Now which of these scenarios is more dangerous?
Scenario A:
A child finds daddy's gun under the bed, he has seen a film where people just fall over when shot. Daddy walks into the room...
Scenario B:
A child finds daddy's gun under the bed, he has seen a film where people spew blood everywhere and die in tremendous pain when shot. Daddy walks into the room...
Now, in my opinion, Child A is far more dangerous because he has not seen the consequences of the action in question. How do we stop a child from copying a bad action, do we turn the bad action into an entirely ficticious "good" action, or do we show the consequences? I would go with consequences every single time.
"Requiem for a Dream" is one of the most viscerally realistic films I have seen. It is a tremendously powerful "essay" on addiction. If I was to rate this I would give it a low certificate, maybe a 12 because it is the only film that shows the consequences of drugs. It is ludicrous that films that revel in drug culture get the same certificate as films that show the real effects of drugs, on the one hand, and addiction in general. "Requiem for a Dream" is not a "family-picnic" film but it is, in my opinion, one of the most powerful ways of showing children the effects of addiction. It showed consequences. To return to my original point, we rate films because we don't want children to see and thus copy actions portrayed in the film. Any child who saw this film would be strongly persuaded not to copy. However, Drugs and sex fall into the "no-no" category. So no matter what you do with them you will always get an 18 certificate. Or in "Requiem for a Dream's" case, no certificate at all.
Someone needs to look at the ratings system so that films like "Requiem for a Dream" can be seen by as many people possible. However, it seems as though, for now, the ratings system will remain the same lumbering dinosaur that always has been.
Page:
I don't blame the BBFC at all. I think the ratings system they have to work with is far too inflexible to allow them to make the right decision all the time.
I'm aware of the cutting situation. Their policy is only to call for cuts, not demand them. And then cuts are only called for when the scene is bordering on illegal, ie underage nudity. I too get annoyed when people accuse the BBFC of "cutting" Tombraider. The BBFC tell the film producers what certificate rating the film lies in based on an uncut screening. If the producers are unhappy with the rating, ie Tombraider needed to be a 12 instead of a 15 to be more commercially successful, then the BBFC advises on changes that can be made to bring down the certificate to the desired level. And they do a great job. I think the American system does seem flawed, and it is a testament to Artisan, Requiem's distributor that they did not compromise the film by agreeing to cuts in order to get a cinema release. America's MPAA seems very short-sighted refusing the film a certificate, however, as it is far more condusive against drugs than for them, while other films glory in drugs and are allowed to be released. To me that is a highly hypocritical position, especially given the point of the ratings system.
I'm aware of the cutting situation. Their policy is only to call for cuts, not demand them. And then cuts are only called for when the scene is bordering on illegal, ie underage nudity. I too get annoyed when people accuse the BBFC of "cutting" Tombraider. The BBFC tell the film producers what certificate rating the film lies in based on an uncut screening. If the producers are unhappy with the rating, ie Tombraider needed to be a 12 instead of a 15 to be more commercially successful, then the BBFC advises on changes that can be made to bring down the certificate to the desired level. And they do a great job. I think the American system does seem flawed, and it is a testament to Artisan, Requiem's distributor that they did not compromise the film by agreeing to cuts in order to get a cinema release. America's MPAA seems very short-sighted refusing the film a certificate, however, as it is far more condusive against drugs than for them, while other films glory in drugs and are allowed to be released. To me that is a highly hypocritical position, especially given the point of the ratings system.
I loved Requim but I really don't think it should be shown to anyone below 18. The ending 30 mins made me feel sick, I was sittingin the cinema in a cold sweat and actually feeling ill. That's never happened to me before, maybe part of the reason was that it really hit home considering some of my close friends choices or recreational activities.
I think the BBFC do a cracking job and are often unfairly criticised by people who don't quite understand the system. Not making any accusations on what you said, but it annoys me when people say things like "the BBFC cut all the best bits" - the BBFC don't cut a single frame, ever, their attitudes of late have been perfect and allowed a lot more to get released.
I think the BBFC do a cracking job and are often unfairly criticised by people who don't quite understand the system. Not making any accusations on what you said, but it annoys me when people say things like "the BBFC cut all the best bits" - the BBFC don't cut a single frame, ever, their attitudes of late have been perfect and allowed a lot more to get released.
Oh, and if anyone didn't know the plot outline for Batman: Year One... it's set twenty years before the first/Tim's Batman. So he can put other characters in, but he can't kill em.
Didn't realise that. Thought he was actually restarting the series.
Didn't realise that. Thought he was actually restarting the series.
I smiled, no teeth. Does that make me a bad person?
The GingerLord wrote:
> Would anyone like to explain, cos I still haven't
> figured it out!
Try working from the initial premise that anyone making a career out of working in a store is unlikely to be blessed with supreme intelligence.
And I laughed Meka, even if no one else did :-)
> Would anyone like to explain, cos I still haven't
> figured it out!
Try working from the initial premise that anyone making a career out of working in a store is unlikely to be blessed with supreme intelligence.
And I laughed Meka, even if no one else did :-)
The problems with the ratings system is that they are built on a set of rules, and with all rules they are open to interpretation, and therefore sometimes there will be wrong decisions. However, in the majority of cases they do what is required, letting kids see stuff they shouldn't see.
Stupidest thing with ratings: PG's. I was 16, and went to the local video store to get a film, picked up a PG, took it to the counter. Store clerk:
'You can't have that'
Me: 'Why? It's not an 18 is it?'
Store Clerk: 'No. It's a PG, you need a parent.'
Me: 'So what, I can get out a 15, but not a PG?'
Store Clerk: 'Um. Yeah'
Me: 'That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.'
Would anyone like to explain, cos I still haven't figured it out!
Stupidest thing with ratings: PG's. I was 16, and went to the local video store to get a film, picked up a PG, took it to the counter. Store clerk:
'You can't have that'
Me: 'Why? It's not an 18 is it?'
Store Clerk: 'No. It's a PG, you need a parent.'
Me: 'So what, I can get out a 15, but not a PG?'
Store Clerk: 'Um. Yeah'
Me: 'That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.'
Would anyone like to explain, cos I still haven't figured it out!
Sorry, that's a really bad joke.
Doesn't make enough sense in that form. Damn.
Doesn't make enough sense in that form. Damn.
misterhappy wrote:
> Selby himself became a morphine addict after being treated or TB in
> hospital, and was once arrested for possession of heroin. He knows about drugs
> and their effects.
Maybe Aronofsky's own experiences lead to him wanting to make this movie to, after all, he started on pie, and has moved onto the harder stuff like Requiem now... ;-)
> Selby himself became a morphine addict after being treated or TB in
> hospital, and was once arrested for possession of heroin. He knows about drugs
> and their effects.
Maybe Aronofsky's own experiences lead to him wanting to make this movie to, after all, he started on pie, and has moved onto the harder stuff like Requiem now... ;-)
Wow, this thread's hotting up again.. I just thought I would recommend Selby's book to anyone who "liked" the film. I decided that I would read the book after watching Requiem, and knowing that I had to read something for my American Literature module at school. Selby's book is just as compelling as the film, perhaps more so. It's a fine example of the way writing can evoke ideas that are nearly impossible to achieve on celluoid.
It's not an easy book to read, as it's written in a stream-of-consciousness style, moving from one character's thoughts and speech to another's with no speech marks or indications. I'll be honest, if I hadn't seen the film I would have been a bit lost and that makes me regret seeing the film first. You see, in the first pages of the book Selby creates an air of confusion and disjointed communication that it is impossible for Aronofsky to replicate in the film. As the book progresses and you learn more about each character, their respective voices are obvious to you, but at the start confusion reigns. If you want to read the start of the book go to amazon.com and search for requiem for a dream, they let you read the first 10 pages.
Often in the book is hard to distinguish between thoughts, dreams and speech also. To distinguish between what is real and what is being imagined. Again Aronofsky can only touch on this, for instance where Marion imagines stabbing Arnold the shrink's hand. Selby asks you to decide. However, the book does share one key thing with the film: the same compelling nature. I read it in one day, and it's even written in a style that demands you read a lot of it in one sitting, with large slabs of text. Their is no break for speech, few breaks for paragraphs; it is unremitting, unrelenting and utterly compelling. You can feel yourself being sucked into a story and you might not enjoy it but you sure as hell have to read it.
It's not aronofsky's fault that he doesn't follow the book to the letter because he can't do that. He follows it close enough to be original without interfering with Selby's message. To quote the man himself:
“the book is about four individuals who pursued The American Dream, and the results of their pursuit. They did not know the difference between the Vision in their hearts and the illusion of the American Dream.”
Both the film and the book seem even more relevant now. You have probably read/heard/seen that Prince Harry was in trouble for frequent use of cannabis and underage drinking. Frankly I don't care about that. What annoys me is the people who try to sugest that it's not his fault because "his father isn't a good parent", "his mother died", "he's in the public spotlight". One thing that Requiem demonstrates absolutely is that people don't take drugs because of some psychological problem; they take drugs to feel good. Selby himself became a morphine addict after being treated or TB in hospital, and was once arrested for possession of heroin. He knows about drugs and their effects. If Requiem has a "message" about drugs then it is to stop shifting blame for drug use on to other things. Time and time again the book and the film show the characters turning to drugs after a setback. They have dreams, the dreams start to fall apart, they use drugs to make themselves feel happy, their need for drugs makes them do things that make them unhappy, they use drugs to feel happy. It is a downward spiral that leaves all the characters utterly destroyed, but not dead. My English teacher suggested their were strong parallels between Selby's book and "King Lear", with the summer, autumn, winter divisons, and the lack of any catharsis. You may have noticed that spring is entirely absent from the film/book. That is the lack of hope. In Selby's world their is no hope of rebirth or regeneration, instead all the characters are locked into an eternity of suffering.
That is why the film doesn't have a happy ending. The most chilling thing of all is that you almost wish the characters could die. Harry doesn't recover at the end of the film; you can still see him trying to score that illusive "pound of pure", Tyrone is still addicted, Marion is happy that she has her drugs, and Sara, worst of all, is still living in her dream of being on television. All of their dreams will only lead to more self-destruction. Selby himself said:
“The dream I'm referring to in the book, of course, is the great American dream: prosperity, property, prestige, etc. And the fact that it'll kill you dead. Striving for it is a disaster. Attaining it is a killer.”
Requiem for a Dream does exactly what the title suggests; it provides a eulogy to the once great American Dream.
It's not an easy book to read, as it's written in a stream-of-consciousness style, moving from one character's thoughts and speech to another's with no speech marks or indications. I'll be honest, if I hadn't seen the film I would have been a bit lost and that makes me regret seeing the film first. You see, in the first pages of the book Selby creates an air of confusion and disjointed communication that it is impossible for Aronofsky to replicate in the film. As the book progresses and you learn more about each character, their respective voices are obvious to you, but at the start confusion reigns. If you want to read the start of the book go to amazon.com and search for requiem for a dream, they let you read the first 10 pages.
Often in the book is hard to distinguish between thoughts, dreams and speech also. To distinguish between what is real and what is being imagined. Again Aronofsky can only touch on this, for instance where Marion imagines stabbing Arnold the shrink's hand. Selby asks you to decide. However, the book does share one key thing with the film: the same compelling nature. I read it in one day, and it's even written in a style that demands you read a lot of it in one sitting, with large slabs of text. Their is no break for speech, few breaks for paragraphs; it is unremitting, unrelenting and utterly compelling. You can feel yourself being sucked into a story and you might not enjoy it but you sure as hell have to read it.
It's not aronofsky's fault that he doesn't follow the book to the letter because he can't do that. He follows it close enough to be original without interfering with Selby's message. To quote the man himself:
“the book is about four individuals who pursued The American Dream, and the results of their pursuit. They did not know the difference between the Vision in their hearts and the illusion of the American Dream.”
Both the film and the book seem even more relevant now. You have probably read/heard/seen that Prince Harry was in trouble for frequent use of cannabis and underage drinking. Frankly I don't care about that. What annoys me is the people who try to sugest that it's not his fault because "his father isn't a good parent", "his mother died", "he's in the public spotlight". One thing that Requiem demonstrates absolutely is that people don't take drugs because of some psychological problem; they take drugs to feel good. Selby himself became a morphine addict after being treated or TB in hospital, and was once arrested for possession of heroin. He knows about drugs and their effects. If Requiem has a "message" about drugs then it is to stop shifting blame for drug use on to other things. Time and time again the book and the film show the characters turning to drugs after a setback. They have dreams, the dreams start to fall apart, they use drugs to make themselves feel happy, their need for drugs makes them do things that make them unhappy, they use drugs to feel happy. It is a downward spiral that leaves all the characters utterly destroyed, but not dead. My English teacher suggested their were strong parallels between Selby's book and "King Lear", with the summer, autumn, winter divisons, and the lack of any catharsis. You may have noticed that spring is entirely absent from the film/book. That is the lack of hope. In Selby's world their is no hope of rebirth or regeneration, instead all the characters are locked into an eternity of suffering.
That is why the film doesn't have a happy ending. The most chilling thing of all is that you almost wish the characters could die. Harry doesn't recover at the end of the film; you can still see him trying to score that illusive "pound of pure", Tyrone is still addicted, Marion is happy that she has her drugs, and Sara, worst of all, is still living in her dream of being on television. All of their dreams will only lead to more self-destruction. Selby himself said:
“The dream I'm referring to in the book, of course, is the great American dream: prosperity, property, prestige, etc. And the fact that it'll kill you dead. Striving for it is a disaster. Attaining it is a killer.”
Requiem for a Dream does exactly what the title suggests; it provides a eulogy to the once great American Dream.
Goatboy wrote:
> So you watched Requiem huh Meka?
What did you think of it?
I liked it. I can't say that I enjoyed it as such, but it's one of those films that you just have to see to believe.
>I found the first 40 mins slow, agonisingly so.
It did start slowly, but then again I saw this as just setting normality for the characters. This was their ordinary life, and it was their regular days.
As their lives changed, and they got deeper and deeper into their problems the pace of the film picked up.
I thought that the repeated action sequences (such as Sarah taking her pills) were particularly effective.
You got to a stage towards the end, where Marian was getting more and more desperate, Harry's arm was looking really rank, and Sarah was taking more and more 'diet pills' that you just knew that things weren't going to get any better. But it still hits you like a sledgehammer when the film reaches it's conclusion, just how bad it got for them. There is no happy ending, and there shouldn't be, or it just wouldn't work.
It's a great movie.
And Jared Leto. I wrote him off as a pretty boy when he was in My So Called Life (crap US teen TV tripe) and he followed it up with 'Urban Legend' to kind of confirm my thoughts. But since then he's been in some bloody good movies, Requiem, American Psycho, Fight Club.
> So you watched Requiem huh Meka?
What did you think of it?
I liked it. I can't say that I enjoyed it as such, but it's one of those films that you just have to see to believe.
>I found the first 40 mins slow, agonisingly so.
It did start slowly, but then again I saw this as just setting normality for the characters. This was their ordinary life, and it was their regular days.
As their lives changed, and they got deeper and deeper into their problems the pace of the film picked up.
I thought that the repeated action sequences (such as Sarah taking her pills) were particularly effective.
You got to a stage towards the end, where Marian was getting more and more desperate, Harry's arm was looking really rank, and Sarah was taking more and more 'diet pills' that you just knew that things weren't going to get any better. But it still hits you like a sledgehammer when the film reaches it's conclusion, just how bad it got for them. There is no happy ending, and there shouldn't be, or it just wouldn't work.
It's a great movie.
And Jared Leto. I wrote him off as a pretty boy when he was in My So Called Life (crap US teen TV tripe) and he followed it up with 'Urban Legend' to kind of confirm my thoughts. But since then he's been in some bloody good movies, Requiem, American Psycho, Fight Club.
Page: