The World Beyond BetterMost > The Culture Tent
Movie News
Front-Ranger:
Thanks, Scott! I am really interested in seeing this now!!
oilgun:
--- Quote from: Front-Ranger on March 27, 2007, 02:25:40 pm ---I picked up a copy of "Ma Vie En Rose" from the library yesterday and I'm looking forward to watching it. Is anyone else familiar with this film?
--- End quote ---
Hi frontranger. You will love Ma vie en rose, it's a wonderful and touching film without being sentimental. For some bizarre reason, the MPAA rated this family film 'R', apparently for brief language (!). Yeah right, we believe that, lol! It's obvious that the MPAA a-holes had problems with the film showing a child not conforming to society's rigid gender roles.
Why is it that every movie seems to be rated R in the states? Why are they not allowing teenagers to see intelligent films. The MPAA 'R' rating seems to be the equivalent of our '14A' here up north.
Front-Ranger:
Thanks for the review, o-g! I will try to figure out when I watch it what set those MPAA ignerant SOBs off. You never know...I read that in "Boys Don't Cry" it almost got an NC-17 rating because Chloe Sevingny was shown enjoying sex too long, and they made them cut the scene shorter! Even tho no skin was shown!
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: oilgun on March 27, 2007, 10:19:13 pm ---Why is it that every movie seems to be rated R in the states? Why are they not allowing teenagers to see intelligent films. The MPAA 'R' rating seems to be the equivalent of our '14A' here up north.
--- End quote ---
Thank you, oilgun! I have sons who are 11 and 12. The 12-year-old's movie comprehension is starting (in some cases) to surpass mine. What do you do with kids who love movies, have nearly adult-level intellects, think penguins are stupid (yes, I know, they're wrong about this, but still) but exhibit all the immature tastes of their developmental level?
What I've done is to decide is that the following are OK: Violence, as long as it isn't really gruesome or gratuitous. Sex, as long as it isn't graphic or full-frontal or obvious (and then I have to make them pay for their viewing by glaring meaningfully at them as they watch it, which they hate so much they're tempted to skip it altogether). Swearing -- fuck, they know I don't give a shit what they see in a movie, as long as I don't have to hear the words coming from their mouths.
So for example, last week I let them watch "The Departed." So far, they don't show any signs of being scarred for life, but it's still early ...
Anyone tempted to call the child-abuse hotline is invited to try to deal with my sons themselves for a week.
moremojo:
--- Quote from: Front-Ranger on March 27, 2007, 11:04:30 pm --- I will try to figure out when I watch it what set those MPAA ignerant SOBs off.
--- End quote ---
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the story revolves around a child's budding conception of identity, not necessarily a sexual identity per se, but certainly gender-related. The community insists on seeing the child's difference in a sexual way (specifically, homosexual way), though the child himself is innocent and largely presexual. It is the sexual component (again, specifically homosexual component) to the theme that makes the film potentially so controversial in the context of American exhibition; anything dealing with children's sexuality is bound to be provocative and controversial in this anxiety-ridden, post-Freudian era.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version