The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Would just like to say "Fart", because this thread was in danger of being reasonably adult and serious.
Fart.
Fart.
That's already happening. So many movies have been greenlighted that show America "kicking butt".
There's that Gene Hackman one out soon, Mel Gibson in "Once We Were Soldiers" and all manner of others.
As for being a bleak film, you're bang on with Requiem.
It doesn't "end" as such, the characters are still there going through their personal hells when the credits are finished.
The only films that comes close are George Sluizer's original "The Vanishing", Fight Club and Se7en.
But Sluizer remade "The Vanishing" with a nice ending for Hollywood and it negated the entire idea of the movie.
Aronofsky is doing the new Batman movie, but he only agreed if he was allowed 100% control over content and editing, and I'm looking forward to that one.
If you watch Se7en with the commentary on, they were under so much pressure to redo the ending that Pitt etc threatened to walk unless they kept it as written.
I don't know why we are forced to have these nicely wrapped up, happy endings. It treats us like idiots, unable to form opinions of our own.
I'm going to watch "Mulholland Drive" tonight, and being David Lynch,I know only one thing about it:
It will provoke a reaction.
Good or bad, I'll be talking about it afterwards.
Personally speaking, that is why I go to the cinema 95% of the time - to see something that will inspire me to think, challenge how I view the world and maybe open my mind a bit.
I just cannot stomach those blockbusters, I'm not saying they suck, just they offend me beyond belief.
Unless they're done right.
Spiderman looks good, Sam Raimi is doing it and I love Raimi's work. Planet of The Apes worked for me, simply because Burton was involved.
Requiem is one of the most original and stunning movies I've ever seen.
Did I enjoy it? Not one bit. Not on a level of "Excellent, I loved watching that".
I didn't enjoy watching it, because it presented ideas and images that made me recoil.
But I commend it 100% for that.
It's not a feelgood movie, and whilst I say I didn't enjoy watching it, I mean purely in a "What great fun" way like I get from Cannonball Run.
Requiem is one of my top films of...well...ever, but I still need to be in a certain mood before I can watch it.
There's that Gene Hackman one out soon, Mel Gibson in "Once We Were Soldiers" and all manner of others.
As for being a bleak film, you're bang on with Requiem.
It doesn't "end" as such, the characters are still there going through their personal hells when the credits are finished.
The only films that comes close are George Sluizer's original "The Vanishing", Fight Club and Se7en.
But Sluizer remade "The Vanishing" with a nice ending for Hollywood and it negated the entire idea of the movie.
Aronofsky is doing the new Batman movie, but he only agreed if he was allowed 100% control over content and editing, and I'm looking forward to that one.
If you watch Se7en with the commentary on, they were under so much pressure to redo the ending that Pitt etc threatened to walk unless they kept it as written.
I don't know why we are forced to have these nicely wrapped up, happy endings. It treats us like idiots, unable to form opinions of our own.
I'm going to watch "Mulholland Drive" tonight, and being David Lynch,I know only one thing about it:
It will provoke a reaction.
Good or bad, I'll be talking about it afterwards.
Personally speaking, that is why I go to the cinema 95% of the time - to see something that will inspire me to think, challenge how I view the world and maybe open my mind a bit.
I just cannot stomach those blockbusters, I'm not saying they suck, just they offend me beyond belief.
Unless they're done right.
Spiderman looks good, Sam Raimi is doing it and I love Raimi's work. Planet of The Apes worked for me, simply because Burton was involved.
Requiem is one of the most original and stunning movies I've ever seen.
Did I enjoy it? Not one bit. Not on a level of "Excellent, I loved watching that".
I didn't enjoy watching it, because it presented ideas and images that made me recoil.
But I commend it 100% for that.
It's not a feelgood movie, and whilst I say I didn't enjoy watching it, I mean purely in a "What great fun" way like I get from Cannonball Run.
Requiem is one of my top films of...well...ever, but I still need to be in a certain mood before I can watch it.
Misterhappy wrote:
"Our story begins at MPAA headquarters in America. Sitting at his nice leather-upholstered desk Bob McCrevice* "
And the asterix..
*In line with the 1998 Data Protection act this is not Jack Valenti's real name
"Our story begins at MPAA headquarters in America. Sitting at his nice leather-upholstered desk Bob McCrevice* "
And the asterix..
*In line with the 1998 Data Protection act this is not Jack Valenti's real name
I watched it again last night with the commentary on, and at the end Aronofsky was talking about the pressure to have a happy ending. I was thinking about this and I still cannot think of another film that is as desperately bleak at the end. At the moment all films seem to want to achieve a sense of "closure", which, for them, is only attainable with a happy ending. The ending of the film is more akin to the theatre where bleak endings are all the rage. But for some reason as soon as things get transposed on to the silver screen, they are made "nice" and unchallenging for the public. Aronofsky specifically targets the "Brady Bunch Generation" who know that "Magnum P.I. will always win". People have been brought up on this "happy-ending" stuff when in reality the ending is rarely happy.
It's a shame when Tenessee William's pays are corrupted for the big screen, and films like "Heathers" are forced by the studio to have a "nice" ending. But perhaps it shows how little people read at the moment. There is a wealth of literature which end in dischord but people just don't seem to know about them anymore.
In fact it's probably going to get even worse in the post September 11th patriotism. Any film that shows America in a "bad light" will be blackballed by the cinemas. Instead we'll get flooded with this patriotic rubbish whose sole subtext is "God Bless America!".
It's a shame when Tenessee William's pays are corrupted for the big screen, and films like "Heathers" are forced by the studio to have a "nice" ending. But perhaps it shows how little people read at the moment. There is a wealth of literature which end in dischord but people just don't seem to know about them anymore.
In fact it's probably going to get even worse in the post September 11th patriotism. Any film that shows America in a "bad light" will be blackballed by the cinemas. Instead we'll get flooded with this patriotic rubbish whose sole subtext is "God Bless America!".
I absolutely agree.
But unfortunately I don't think a majority of the public is intelligent enough to understand that film.
That's not being snobby, that is a sad acceptance of the level of a lot of people.
When I watched Requiem in the cinema, some people there had no idea what it as about, just "it is a hard movie".
That party scene, two blokes were laughing and made jokes on the way out.
The fact that this movie bombed, yet Tomb Raider cleaned up pretty much tells me all I need to know about cinema going public.
They don't want to be moved/shaken/made to think.
LOTR - "That's the end?"
Crouching Tiger - "He's flying? Rubbish"
Whilst I would love the day when an art movie like Requiem is accepted and talked about on a level worth dealing with, I doubt that's going to happen.
I'll get written off as being snobby or elitist, but there's a part of me that's glad nobody bothers to watch these movies, because when the common mass gets a hold of them, they don't get it.
Just like The Daily Mail screams about Brasseye and Reservoir Dogs etc, it's a kneejerk reaction from people that really, really are better off watching explosions and fist-fights.
As for kids watching it, I think maybe that would be worth investigating, but I think kids have a different value system to adults.
What we think is disturbing may not be to a kid.
I remember Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, that's a cert U, yet the Childcatcher frightened me to death - still does.
If I thought a kid was adult enough to understand the themes being expressed, then I would have no hesistation in letting them watch Requiem.
But I think a lot of people will try to see this movie simply because it's "Intense" and "shocking" and miss the whole points, the subtexts and layers and simply wait for the gross bits.
And like you, the worst part of that movie for me wasn't the nasty bits, it was seeing Marion smiling at the end because she got her fix.
That is horror, that is hard to take.
But unfortunately I don't think a majority of the public is intelligent enough to understand that film.
That's not being snobby, that is a sad acceptance of the level of a lot of people.
When I watched Requiem in the cinema, some people there had no idea what it as about, just "it is a hard movie".
That party scene, two blokes were laughing and made jokes on the way out.
The fact that this movie bombed, yet Tomb Raider cleaned up pretty much tells me all I need to know about cinema going public.
They don't want to be moved/shaken/made to think.
LOTR - "That's the end?"
Crouching Tiger - "He's flying? Rubbish"
Whilst I would love the day when an art movie like Requiem is accepted and talked about on a level worth dealing with, I doubt that's going to happen.
I'll get written off as being snobby or elitist, but there's a part of me that's glad nobody bothers to watch these movies, because when the common mass gets a hold of them, they don't get it.
Just like The Daily Mail screams about Brasseye and Reservoir Dogs etc, it's a kneejerk reaction from people that really, really are better off watching explosions and fist-fights.
As for kids watching it, I think maybe that would be worth investigating, but I think kids have a different value system to adults.
What we think is disturbing may not be to a kid.
I remember Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, that's a cert U, yet the Childcatcher frightened me to death - still does.
If I thought a kid was adult enough to understand the themes being expressed, then I would have no hesistation in letting them watch Requiem.
But I think a lot of people will try to see this movie simply because it's "Intense" and "shocking" and miss the whole points, the subtexts and layers and simply wait for the gross bits.
And like you, the worst part of that movie for me wasn't the nasty bits, it was seeing Marion smiling at the end because she got her fix.
That is horror, that is hard to take.
Maybe a 12 is low and 15 would be more acceptable. I agree that the party scee is extreme but that forms part of the film's overall impact. The fact that a person could go to such drastic lenghts to score a hit. The way the film ends for Jennifer Connoly's character, ie. her smiling clutching either a wad of cash, or rolled up baggie, shows how desperate her addiction is.
I really do think that this film could make major headway in showing young people how dangerous dependance on any substance, or medium, can be. It is certainly an extreme film but sometimes you need a sharp,short jolt to wake people up and the impact of that final scene, where all four stories literally collide is staggering.
I really do think that this film could make major headway in showing young people how dangerous dependance on any substance, or medium, can be. It is certainly an extreme film but sometimes you need a sharp,short jolt to wake people up and the impact of that final scene, where all four stories literally collide is staggering.
The rating Requiem got in the States?
Artisan, the company that distributes and put the money up were ordered by the MPAA to make cuts.
They refused to edit the movie, earning it a "Unrated" in America.
Which causes a lot of problems, as most cinema chains will not stock unrated movies, and Blockbuster will not touch these movies.
So Artisan lost a potentially huge market by refusing to comply with censorship requirements, and I applaud that 100%.
The statement from Artisan was "We believe in Artistic Expression, and we also believe that this movie should not be cut."
However, for the DVD release, Artisan did make one cut to obtain the R rating, and it was a minor snip from the climactic scene with Jennifer Connelly.
The IMDB database for this movie and the rating is incorrect, they should be more up to date that that.
Ah well.
I, myself,wouldn't make it a 12. I agree with the 18 cert.
Not for the content itself, but for the feelings evoked.
Having said that though, I would not let a minor watch most of this movie, especially the party-scene at the end.
I just don't think kids know enough about the subject to be confronted with visuals like that and the emotions you are forced to deal with.
Artisan, the company that distributes and put the money up were ordered by the MPAA to make cuts.
They refused to edit the movie, earning it a "Unrated" in America.
Which causes a lot of problems, as most cinema chains will not stock unrated movies, and Blockbuster will not touch these movies.
So Artisan lost a potentially huge market by refusing to comply with censorship requirements, and I applaud that 100%.
The statement from Artisan was "We believe in Artistic Expression, and we also believe that this movie should not be cut."
However, for the DVD release, Artisan did make one cut to obtain the R rating, and it was a minor snip from the climactic scene with Jennifer Connelly.
The IMDB database for this movie and the rating is incorrect, they should be more up to date that that.
Ah well.
I, myself,wouldn't make it a 12. I agree with the 18 cert.
Not for the content itself, but for the feelings evoked.
Having said that though, I would not let a minor watch most of this movie, especially the party-scene at the end.
I just don't think kids know enough about the subject to be confronted with visuals like that and the emotions you are forced to deal with.
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: