The Matrix with a small rant on ratings

[psychic_serpent]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Melody" <Malady579 at h...> 
wrote:
> Mel wrote:
> > Question:
> > Is it appropriate (relatively speaking) for a 13 year old? Yes, 
> > he's seen the 1st one (on video) and is trying to make the point 
> > that the "R" rating is because "you know, it's--well, things are 
> > messed up!" Funny thing is I know what he means. Anyone else 
> > seen this? Would you bring the tweens?

First off, as the mother of a 10 1/2 year old and an 8 1/2 year old, 
I think there's a big difference between seeing a film in a theatre, 
on the big screen, and seeing something on the television screen at 
home.  It just doesn't have the same impact.  After a lot of 
begging, we finally let our son see the first Lord of the Rings film 
(rated PG-13) last fall, about the time of his tenth birthday, 
warning him that it was a bit violent in parts, not to mention long, 
so if he needed us to stop the DVD player at any time, we would be 
glad to give him a break.  We also made sure we watched it with 
him.  He decided that he liked it and that it was rather long (a 
couple of breaks were necessary).  He's watched it again since then 
by doing it in even smaller doses.  We haven't let our daughter see 
it yet.

When it comes to R movies, my parents took me to my first when I was 
twelve.  It was "Network."  (I think Paddy Chayefsky would be 
absolutely boggled if he saw the reality programming on television 
today; it just goes to show you, fact is always stranger than 
fiction.)  I believe that "Network" had an R rating at the time 
(there was no PG-13 back then) for a combination of the sex 
(although there wasn't blatant nudity) and the rather complicated 
message.  Although there was some violence in it, it was nowhere 
near as pervasive as the violence in, say, a Van Damme movie or 
something like the original Matrix.  If someone were doing a remake, 
I think they'd have to add a good bit of sex and/or violence to make 
it R, rather than PG-13.  I think the message would still be over 
the heads of most people who like to attend PG-13 films, so they'd 
probably end up putting those things in just to make it feel more 
like a 'grown-up' film, so the film would find its intended audience.
 
> But serious, I did not find anything majorly "R rated" about the
> movie.  Of course there is tons of violence.  Of course, there is a
> wee-bit of profanity in English and French (though the French
> profanity may not of been so wee-bit since I do not know French but
> the guy who said it in the movie said it was profanity...good line
> after too...anyway).  Even a wee, barely even noticeable, bit of
> nudity, but nothing at all blatant and in your face.  Kind of 
> subtle really.  But nothing that I would think a person under 17 
> would not be able to handle.  

The amount of time spent on violence probably had a lot to do with 
the rating.  And different people have different ideas about whether 
or when they will allow their kids to see something with any nudity 
at all, subtle or otherwise.  When it comes to pervasive violence, 
for instance, my husband and I thought the second Lord of the Rings 
film was very, very violent.  The battle goes on for quite a long 
time.  It was very well done for that reason, actually; it was a 
war, and war is protracted and messy.  That was also communicated 
in 'Saving Private Ryan,' which, IMO, because of the intimacy of the 
violence, could probably have easily carried an NC-17 rating.  It 
was so scarily realistic, I don't know of a single WWII vet--and I 
know many--who agreed to go see it.  They have their nightmares for 
that.  Even though we let our son see the first LOTR film on DVD, we 
didn't want to take him to see the second one in the theatre.  He'll 
be about eleven by the time it's on DVD and video, and we think he 
should see it at home again, on the small screen, if he's 
interested.  We liked the controlled environment of watching the 
first LOTR movie with him that way.  The fact that he could stop the 
film whenever he wanted gave him an out when he needed a break.

> You know, I think it is mostly R rated because of the philosophy it
> covers.  I know I saw a few eyes glaze over when they got into the
> philosophy of fate, hope, and faith.  Went *way* over some of their
> heads, but then again, I live in Texas.  

Now, now.  Give your fellow Texans some credit.  (Note: I am not 
from Texas.)  My mother-in-law is from Amarillo and, before her 
stroke, was quite capable of discussing deep philosophical issues.  
I think, though, that you've hit on something else about the 
rating.  By forcing viewers to be older, they might be more capable 
of grasping the underlying philosophy of the story.  The violence 
isn't just in the service of violence; it's in the service of the 
communication of a particular worldview, and if that message is lost 
or flies over a youngster's head, all they're likely to get out of 
it is the violence.  I think that's as good a reason as any for a 
kid who's under fifteen or even sixteen having to wait to see any of 
the Matrix movies.  I strongly doubt that a twelve or thirteen year 
old is going to understand the message instead of just revelling in 
the cool effects that allow Keanu Reeves to appear to defy the laws 
of physics.

> But then again, aren't all intelligent, good movies lost to the 
> inexperienced or uneducated...young *or* old?  So maybe, Hollywood 
> is not rating films the way I would.  Some people should not see 
> some movies when they will not cry at the delicacy of it or the 
> carefully weaved script or the subtle message of its conclusion.

Some wonderful stories will always be wasted on those who only see 
what's on the surface.  For this very reason, our son will probably 
not see a PG-13 movie in a theatre, instead of the controlled 
environment of our home, until he's at least 12, and he will also 
have to see his first R-rated film at home, watched with us 
present.  Extreme and protracted violence on a huge screen, when the 
viewer is too young to grasp any underlying philosophical reason for 
the violence, is probably just too overwhelming for a 'tween.'  And 
if they're not overwhelmed, they should be.  I don't want to 
desensitize my son to violence or have him think it's just fun 
entertainment.  If a kid is too young to understand the reason for 
the violence in the Matrix films, he's too young for the films, IMO.

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb