Our BetterMost Community > Chez Tremblay

Lawsuit over Brokeback Mountain in class

<< < (8/14) > >>

Penthesilea:

--- Quote from: Mikaela on May 14, 2007, 01:13:58 pm ---I'm quoting this as one of a number of posts along the same lines, and musing a bit. Are Scandinavian kids that different from Americans? Are they tougher? I think not. If anything, I think many US kids have seen quite a lot more of graphic violence depicted on screen, for instance, and are far more used to guns around the house in RL, and so in some ways at least have become desensitized to what kids (and parents) over here would probably react quite strongly to. On the other hand, any allusion to or depiction (however relevant to the story) related to nudity or sex, and in particular gay sex, is obviously a huge no-no in the US. But if not for that cultural trait which originates with grown-ups like the grandparents of the alledged traumatized 12-year old, I bet 12-year olds on both sides of the Atlantic could handle the scenes and themes of BBM just fine.

Here, Brokeback had a rating in the cinemas allowing kids down to 11 years old to watch it alone, and down to 7 year-olds could see it if accompagnied by an adult. The rating was explained by the rating board as being due to the violence that the film contains, while the sexuality (as not seen as exploitative or gratuituous) played no part in the rating comments. So I doubt that schools could get in any sort of formal legal trouble for showing the film to 12-year olds, in a group and with a teacher present. At that age the kids have had their first education on sexuality too. Then again, I agree a school might nevertheless be seen as somewhat ill-advised in showing BBM simply because the film IMO requires a more mature mind and more life experience than that of many a 12-year old in order to comprehend the story and characters.

Oh, there are may things over here that annoy the heck out of me, and things of which I'm not very proud. But when it comes to movie ratings and what kind of scenes we deem hurtful to kids and youths I think we're getting it right. BBM had an 11-year age limit for viewing.... while Mel Gibson's latest Mayan graphic violence orgy got our equivalent of a NC-17 rating; you had to be 18 or older to get to watch it in the cinema. I'm still delighted about that.  ;D

--- End quote ---

Aww, Mikaela, so good to read your post. As you probably already know, I couldn't agree more. I read this thread earlier today and my fingertips began to itch to write a reply; but I wanted to wait until I've a bit time to write an halfways eloquent reply. And now I come back (kids in bed  ;D) - and you have already done all the work, so thank you.

For consideration; BBM ratings in different European countries:
Netherlands: 12; Sweden: 7; Spain: 13; Germany: 12; Finland K-11; Iceland: 12 (for the record: there are European countries which had a more restrict rating than these).

I really have a hard time to understand why nudity and sex are such a big deal (as long as there's no violence involved in the sex scenes, that is). I wouldn't have a problem to let my 11 year old see BBM if she wanted, including the sex scenes.


Of course it is downright silly of the teacher to show any R rated movie and Katherine has a great point, too:

--- Quote ---It would make much more sense to find other ways to teach the same lesson. A teacher who used books, non-R-rated movies, or in-class discussions to promote healthy attitudes toward homosexuality might still generate rage among homophobic parents. But then the approach would be defensible, and the homophobia would stand out for the prejudice it is.

--- End quote ---

ednbarby:

--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on May 14, 2007, 02:45:26 pm ---the movie ratings guides have been in place for decades; Bush had nothing to do with them. Gore's wife was the highest "ranking" poliitico to attempt sensorship of lyrics and images in songs/movies; remember?

Once again, anything even slightly conservative wherever it occurs is "Bush's fault". To claim that R rated movies (in particular BBM) would be heralded for classrooms of 12 year olds and the opposition to such (as it being shown as noted HERE on this thread) would NOT be in play had Kerry won the election is such a missunderstanding of the public and parents it boggles my mind.
--- End quote ---

I'm not saying it'd be rated any differently.  I'm just saying that I think we're more uptight about sexual situations in films now than we were during the Clinton era.

Tipper wasn't uptight about the sex in movies, per ce.  She was uptight about the violence.  And she was uptight about the violence and cursing moreso in music videos, on CDs, and in video games than she was about it in movies as I recall.

Mikaela had an excellent point.  The U.S. in general is way more uptight about sex in general than are our European counterparts.  And yet we have the highest gun violence rate of any industrialized country.  And that's per capita, so please don't throw the population bit into it.  Perhaps we should be more uptight about the violence and less uptight about the sex.

If my son were 11 or 12, I'd let him watch Brokeback - in its entirety - if I felt he were mature enough to fully understand it.  If he came home and said his teacher showed them "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" I'd be rather pissed.  (I wonder if the guardians of this girl would be equally pissed.  I guess we can never know.)  If he said she'd shown them "Shakespeare in Love," which also has an R-rating, I would not be, even if he said the sex in it "traumatized" him.  We'd just talk about why that was and go from there.  It's all relative, I guess.

And please keep your opinions about how mind-boggling mine are to yourself.  Disagree with them all you want, but getting petty about my understanding or lack thereof about "the public and parents" (both of which I consider myself a member) is really unnecessary.  Please don't put words in my mouth just because my opinion differs from yours, too.  I never said R-rated films would be "heralded" if Kerry were President.  I just questioned whether this case would make it to court if he were.  Disagree with that, again, but don't say I said something I did not.

serious crayons:

--- Quote from: Penthesilea on May 14, 2007, 03:23:32 pm ---I really have a hard time to understand why nudity and sex are such a big deal (as long as there's no violence involved in the sex scenes, that is). I wouldn't have a problem to let my 11 year old see BBM if she wanted, including the sex scenes.
--- End quote ---

Well, whatever causes those cultural differences, they go back a long way. Everyone here involved in the situation -- the students, their parents, the teacher -- is a product of a cultural in which pre-adolescent kids are not supposed to be shown explicit sex or nudity. The idea, as I understand it, is not so much that sex is bad or wrong, but to preserve childlike innocence (to the extent that it exists) for as long as possible. Children, even if they are knowledgable about sex, are aware of the taboos. So for a teacher to suddenly expose them to it is jarring above and beyond the specifics of sexual orientation.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with some of the sexuality that my kids see on ordinary TV. Not so much because I don't want them to know there is such a thing (too late for that!  :laugh:), but because I don't like the attitude that often accompanies sexual references: often sexist, or coarse, or exploitative, or cheap and casual. Parents are  held accountable (unfairly, IMO) for censoring the cultural products their kids consume. Eventually, you realize that's nearly impossible -- or at least causes more intrafamilial stress than it's worth. You can't shelter kids forever from the culture they live in. But until then, there's tremendous pressure to engage in the struggle.

In the case of BBM, there are other things that would also upset some parents: swearing, smoking, violence, drug use. Personally, I don't have a problem with those -- at least not in the context of BBM -- but I know some parents would.

So while there would probably be parents who would object to any positive depiction of homosexuality in a movie shown to their children, all this other stuff clouds the issue and causes open-minded parents who might otherwise be on the teacher's side to question the sanity of the decision, too.

On the issue of Bush and Kerry, I partly agree with Barb. In past decades, people have been more open-minded (I'd probably go all the way back to the Carter years as a counter-example, though). However, I don't think it's Bush's influence that made Americans narrow-minded. I think it's narrow-minded Americans who elected Bush. In other words, I'd put the chicken and egg in a different order.

HerrKaiser:

--- Quote from: ednbarby on May 14, 2007, 03:39:11 pm ---I'm not saying it'd be rated any differently.  I'm just saying that I think we're more uptight about sexual situations in films now than we were during the Clinton era.

Tipper wasn't uptight about the sex in movies, per ce.  She was uptight about the violence.  And she was uptight about the violence and cursing moreso in music videos, on CDs, and in video games than she was about it in movies as I recall.

Mikaela had an excellent point.  The U.S. in general is way more uptight about sex in general than are our European counterparts.  And yet we have the highest gun violence rate of any industrialized country.  And that's per capita, so please don't throw the population bit into it.  Perhaps we should be more uptight about the violence and less uptight about the sex.

If my son were 11 or 12, I'd let him watch Brokeback - in its entirety - if I felt he were mature enough to fully understand it.  If he came home and said his teacher showed them "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" I'd be rather pissed.  (I wonder if the guardians of this girl would be equally pissed.  I guess we can never know.)  If he said she'd shown them "Shakespeare in Love," which also has an R-rating, I would not be, even if he said the sex in it "traumatized" him.  We'd just talk about why that was and go from there.  It's all relative, I guess.

And please keep your opinions about how mind-boggling mine are to yourself.  Disagree with them all you want, but getting petty about my understanding or lack thereof about "the public and parents" (both of which I consider myself a member) is really unnecessary.  Please don't put words in my mouth just because my opinion differs from yours, too.  I never said R-rated films would be "heralded" if Kerry were President.  I just questioned whether this case would make it to court if he were.  Disagree with that, again, but don't say I said something I did not.

--- End quote ---

Actually, I was only responding to your direct quote...that "God, I hate what Bush has done to this country.  So to speak.  I also can't help but think that this kind of crap would not fly at all if we had a social liberal in the White House." If that does not mean without Bush as president (and if he wasn't president it would be Kerry) this case would have no standing, then I do not know what you mean. I read your words literally; if your meaning was otherwise, how are we to know? If you really believe that in a Kerry (or clinton) presidency such filings would be less, it is counter to what has been actually occuring since the early 90s with filings. To suggest that any president could cause the current public attitude (spawned largely by trial lawyers) to be less litigious is not based on the facts we see. In fact, Bush is the one who has tried to reduce the knee-jerk reaction to seek legal remedies to issues such as this, but his tort reform is being fought by the democrats.

Again, just responding to the words used, and it seems fair and reasonable to question your belief that social attitudes would be so different (in such as short time) if Kerry was pres.

Also, I think your point about your hypothetical boys aged 11 or 12 seeing the film "...if I felt he were mature enough to fully understand it..." is THE point being made here by some that you seem to disagree with. 'Fully understanding' the film is something this forum continues on toward year 2 in doing. Most kids aged 11 and 12 do not have the maturity; that is why the rating system exists. If yours would, fine, you or anyone else is totally able to show the film at home or take them to the theatre. But, in a controlled, forced situation like a classroom where parents/guardians have not been informed, the law says R films ought not be shown.

How would anyone know if all the kids in any class are "mature enough to fully understand it" if that is your criteria for showing? I think the answer is...no one would know. So, showing the film seems to have been a mistake.

Scott6373:
This debate is the perfect example of just how far the common sense meter has dipped.

There really are NO circumstances under which a 13 year old child should be made to watch a film like Brokeback Mountain without the express permission of the parent(s).

There is NO argument that can be made for a teacher who takes it upon him/herself to inject such topics into a curriculum without the express permission of the school administration.

I would think common sense would dictate this, but then again, I could be wrong, as common sense seems not be as highly valued these days as one's self-given gift of entitlement and the right to say and do whatever one wishes, simply because we want to say and do it.

Somewhere in our earnest search for human fulfillment, we have become a nation of greedy, grabbing, self-involved people, who are raising a generation of children that espouse those values.

Don't even get me started on common courtesy.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page