"A Single Man" (beware spoilers)

[louisev]

You're welcome!

Just PM me, and I'll try to find something useful for you.

will do!  And yes, the "Rotterdam" sailed from Rotterdam mostly, and occasionally from Amsterdam or Niew Amsterdam.  But I cant find any passenger manifests for 1914 through 1917.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Rotterdam is a whole different thing. I thought you meant she was lucky to get out of Sweden, which didn't make much sense in the war-context.

Oh, no! I'm sorry if I confused you!

[Front-Ranger]

But don't you agree that there are some differences between a book that you give to your kids, and a movie that they might try to see without you?

For one thing, you already knew what was in Catcher in the Rye before you gave it to your kids. I'm sure most people couldn't say that about this movie. After all, you're a lot more culturally aware, FRiend Lee, than an awful lot of American parents.

All the more reason why it should be rated PG, for Parental Guidance, Jeff. A Single Man should not have an R, for Restricted, rating, because there are many teens (I'm thinking all would be of driving age except for a few in New York or San Francisco, say) who might WANT to see it and SHOULD see it, whether their parents want them to or not. Why? For historical, literary or film scholarship, for example. Also, because they're gay and want to understand what gay life was like in the '60s. Or because they're depressed, or getting over a lost love. Perhaps they admire the work of Christopher Isherwood. There are myriad reasons.

I don't think elementary aged children should see the movie because of the disturbing image of George brandishing a gun when he is contemplating suicide. That's the only reason.

For an interesting, though short, topic on What Movies Would Have Been Better Without the MPAA Board, go here.

[Sason]

Oh, no! I'm sorry if I confused you!

Don't worry. It's all right! 

[Jeff Wrangler]

All the more reason why it should be rated PG, for Parental Guidance, Jeff. A Single Man should not have an R, for Restricted, rating, because there are many teens (I'm thinking all would be of driving age except for a few in New York or San Francisco, say) who might WANT to see it and SHOULD see it, whether their parents want them to or not. Why? For historical, literary or film scholarship, for example. Also, because they're gay and want to understand what gay life was like in the '60s. Or because they're depressed, or getting over a lost love. Perhaps they admire the work of Christopher Isherwood. There are myriad reasons.

I think you're ascribing far too much sophistication to the average under-17 crowd. And I want to emphasize the word average, because I think that's important in this context.

I'm not a parent, and even I know most teenagers are not historians or literary or film scholars, nor do they care about life in the 1960s, gay or otherwise. And as for even having heard of Christopher Isherwood--are you kidding?

The few to whom any of the above qualifications may apply, well, they'll just have to wait a little. The movie will still be available. Or they'll find a way to see it on line, or on DVD when it's available, which it surely will be before very long. They're not going to be harmed by not being able to see it in a theater.

Ratings address the many and the average, not the extraordinary few.

And I've been thinking as I've read the outrage over the rating, there is a flip side to this: Would you have wanted to watch this film with a gaggle of giggling teenagers seated in the row right behind you? I rather suspect not. Perhaps the "R" rating helped to keep out teens who may have seen something about this film on TV and decided to go to it just to gape and giggle at the queer on the screen.

This sort of thing does happen. I had to put up with it many years ago when I saw Making Love in a theater.

I've also been wondering whether anyone knows for fact that the rating was based on the gay theme, or whether someone just jumped to a conclusion? I'm not trying to insult anyone by asking that question: I'm not following news about this film, so I mean the question seriously, and I think it's a legitimate question to ask. We just had a terrible teen double-suicide in the Philadelphia suburbs; maybe that suicide angle had something to do with the rating?

[Front-Ranger]

I think you're ascribing far too much sophistication to the average under-17 crowd. And I want to emphasize the word average, because I think that's important in this context.

I'm not a parent, and even I know most teenagers are not historians or literary or film scholars, nor do they care about life in the 1960s, gay or otherwise. And as for even having heard of Christopher Isherwood--are you kidding?

Well, I am a parent, and I can tell you that the vast majority of teens go to school, which makes them scholars. Both of my children took four years of history and four years of English or literature in high school. It was required. One of my children also studied film history. Both of my children wrote papers about different aspects of the 1960s, to which I contributed resource material. As for gay issues, my daughter founded the Diversity Club at her high school and received an award for it. This club was specifically founded to include her gay friends, and she received a lot of flack from administrators and parents. (All of the teachers and students were very supportive though.) I am saddened that you don't think teenagers have heard of CI, one of the great authors of his time.

Ratings address the many and the average, not the extraordinary few.

Possibly I don't understand the purpose of the MPAA, but my feeling is that the average teenager would benefit from seeing this film, certainly more than wasting his or her time on Garage Band or American Idol.

And I've been thinking as I've read the outrage over the rating, there is a flip side to this: Would you have wanted to watch this film with a gaggle of giggling teenagers seated in the row right behind you? I rather suspect not. Perhaps the "R" rating helped to keep out teens who may have seen something about this film on TV and decided to go to it just to gape and giggle at the queer on the screen.

It is clear from this that you must think teenagers are the scourge of the earth and you must never have been a teenager yourself once!!  Yes, absolutely, I would have been happy to have had a teenager seated beside me, behind me, in front of me, wherever. In fact, sometimes I do see teenagers at some of these kinds of movies. I belong to the Denver Film Society which has a program for young filmmakers. In fact, our own Rebel With a Cause, Phoenix, is a teenager, you might find it enlightening to visit his blog sometime.

We just had a terrible teen double-suicide in the Philadelphia suburbs; maybe that suicide angle had something to do with the rating?

The solution to teen suicide, which is a very big problem is...well, I don't presume to know about the solution, but I do know it's not to prevent teens from seeing movies that address these issues. Even more so with gay teens. The suicide problem is even worse among them. If a gay teen only knew that he is not alone, that others faced this problem, including some of the most talented people of that generation, then maybe we could prevent some needless deaths and suffering. Hopefully you have seen Dead Poets Society, but perhaps you need to review it.

When my daughter started the Diversity Club people tried to tell her that discrimination, hate, bias, and homophobia didn't exist in high schools, among that age bracket. Nothing could be farther from the truth. High school is a jungle. Oh, and they also tried to tell her that there is no such thing as a gay teenager, that sexuality comes later. As we all know, this is poppycock.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Content deleted by poster.

[Front-Ranger]

I grant you that average teenagers these days are pretty bewildering and, yes, I would not like to have a "gaggle of giggling teenagers" in the movie theater (I would go out in the lobby and report them to management). But I wasn't talking about average teenagers or gangs of teens. I was talking about the occasional teenager who would want to see A Single Man. I don't think such a person should be turned away from the theater, which is what would happen with the R rating. Such a person might not be able to see the DVD because his or her parents would disapprove of a gay-themed movie. But they COULD see it in the theater, unless it was RESTRICTED.

I'm sorry I gave the wrong impression with my comment about the Dead Poets Society. Just about everyone I know, young and old, has seen it, so I thought you probably had, too. How do you know it doesn't interest you if you haven't seen it, I wonder?

[oilgun]

I think you're ascribing far too much sophistication to the average under-17 crowd. And I want to emphasize the word average, because I think that's important in this context.

I'm not a parent, and even I know most teenagers are not historians or literary or film scholars, nor do they care about life in the 1960s, gay or otherwise. And as for even having heard of Christopher Isherwood--are you kidding?

The few to whom any of the above qualifications may apply, well, they'll just have to wait a little. The movie will still be available. Or they'll find a way to see it on line, or on DVD when it's available, which it surely will be before very long. They're not going to be harmed by not being able to see it in a theater.

Ratings address the many and the average, not the extraordinary few.

And I've been thinking as I've read the outrage over the rating, there is a flip side to this: Would you have wanted to watch this film with a gaggle of giggling teenagers seated in the row right behind you? I rather suspect not. Perhaps the "R" rating helped to keep out teens who may have seen something about this film on TV and decided to go to it just to gape and giggle at the queer on the screen.

This sort of thing does happen. I had to put up with it many years ago when I saw Making Love in a theater.

I've also been wondering whether anyone knows for fact that the rating was based on the gay theme, or whether someone just jumped to a conclusion? I'm not trying to insult anyone by asking that question: I'm not following news about this film, so I mean the question seriously, and I think it's a legitimate question to ask. We just had a terrible teen double-suicide in the Philadelphia suburbs; maybe that suicide angle had something to do with the rating?

I guess that someone would be me? 

I don't know for a fact that the rating was based on gay themes but I would certainly bet my money on it.  I do know for a fact that the MPAA is biased against gay subject matter when rating movies:

From the wikipedia entry for the doc THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED:

The film discusses disparities the filmmaker sees in ratings and feedback: between Hollywood and independent films, between homosexual and heterosexual sexual situations, between male and female sexual depictions, and between violence and sexual content.
[...],that the board seems to treat homosexual material much more harshly than heterosexual material (this assertion is supported by an MPAA spokesperson’s statement in USA Today that "We don't create standards; we just follow them");

It's a good documentary.  Remember that cute campy teen movie BUT I'M A CHEERLEADER?  Rated R.  In fact they had to cut out a scen to avoid the dreaded NC-17.  That just blows my mind.  Most gay themed films are rated R, even MAKING LOVE, lol!  (I know, not BIG EDEN.)

Anyway, like my ignored post mentioned, if A SINGLE MAN was about a straight George, do you really think the film would be rated R? 

[Ellemeno]

Anyway, like my ignored post mentioned, if A SINGLE MAN was about a straight George, do you really think the film would be rated R? 

I don't know.  I haven't paid a lot of attention to ratings in the past.  You could well be right that as soon as there is a dominant gay character in a movie that that might get the MPAA uptight.  But it's still a very adult-themed movie, even if it would be about a woman and a man.