I heard this morning at radio than "The Chorists", the french movie, is forbiden for children under 12 in USA and England.
This new is the most stunning i heard. This film is not violent oppositelly than Final Cut, or The lord of the Ring for example. It is beautiful and not immoral. So why ?
Somebody can explain why a bloodless, good sentiment movie is censure in these countries ?
[ March 02, 2005, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Choobak ]
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
What's the name of the movie in English? I tried searching for it on www.fimratings.com, but I couldn't find it.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Is this it:
Chorus, The (2004) Miramax Films PG-13 Rated PG-13 for some language/sexual references and violence.
Being rated PG-13 is not a censure of the movie. Many popular movies are rated PG-13 or worse. IIRC, some of the Tolkien movies were too.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
From Filmratings.com:
Chorus, The (2004) Miramax Films PG-13 Rated PG-13 for some language/sexual references and violence.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
PG-13 in the US doesn't mean that younger kids can't see it, just that their parent's have to go with them. I believe LOTRs was rated PG-13 as well. Pretty much everything except for cartoon movies made especially for kids gets at least a PG-13 rating, it could be for violence, sexual situations, language... it just means it's not a show kids should go to alone.
[ March 02, 2005, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
It can't be forbidden in the United States. It may have a PG-13 rating, which means that parental guidance is strongly advised for children under 13, but no one is turned away at the box office.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not forbidden to anyone. It's rated PG-13, the same rating as Lord of the Rings. Kids under 13 are allowed; parents are simply cautioned.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
It is not forbidden, but is PG-13, the same rating as Lord of the Rings. Kids under can see it, but need to be with their parents.
It is rated for language, sexual references, and violence.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Come on...someone else post it...
Added: LOTR was PG-13, right?
[ March 02, 2005, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by HesterGray (Member # 7384) on :
It says it's rated PG-13 for "some language/sexual references and violence."
PG-13 doesn't mean it's completely banned for children under 13, it just tells the parents that some elements of the movie might not be appropriate for younger children.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Yay! *hugs Hester*
[ March 02, 2005, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
In french : les choristes In english, i think it's the same title.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The only rating that people actually can be stopped from seeing a movie for is NC-17. And very few movies get that rating. Some theaters have a policy that they won't let under 17 or 18 in for an R movie without a parent or guardian, but that's the theaters' policies.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
As I understand it, a PG-13 rating doesn't forbid youngsters from viewing the movie, but "strongly suggests" that their parents accompany them.
Hobbes Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
Ok for the "unforbidden". But i don't understand what is bad in this movie ! It's not sexual, not violent (no head cuted), not hard... Sorry, but i think this caution is totally unjustify.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:It can't be forbidden in the United States. It may have a PG-13 rating, which means that parental guidance is strongly advised for children under 13, but no one is turned away at the box office.
Actually, they are supposed to turn away younger children, but in practice this rarely happens.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
A PG-13 rating is pretty blasé, really, almost any movie that isn't about how all mothers love their children and portrays more than situations in which it's almost implied that someone was punched is in danger of a PG-13 rating. It's really just saying to parents: "Watch out: this one has more than picking daisies in it!"
Hobbes Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
After reading this, which is a little over-the-top but does give a rundown of content, I can tell you right away why it has that rating: the language, and the fact that kids are smoking cigarettes in it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Actually, they are supposed to turn away younger children..."
Yep. PG-13 was supposed to be like the PG rating, except that cinemas were supposed to turn away anyone under 13. Ha.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
wow ! It's terrible. Open the TV, and look. Just the news, it's largelly worst ! and i don't speak about commercial... Don't you think it's a little "shift back" ?
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Choobak, European televesion in general (and French television in particular) is very, very different from American television, or Canadian television. Alot of things that are shown on prime-time over there wouldn't even appear after midnight over here.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
This thread amuses me greatly. I think the same thing was said about 50 different times.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
After much careful research, I have discovered that PG-13 means that the movie is not, in fact, forbidden, but that children under 13 must be accompanied by a parent.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Or someone older who buys the tickets. Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: Some theaters have a policy that they won't let under 17 or 18 in for an R movie without a parent or guardian, but that's the theaters' policies.
In all of Tennessee you have to be 18 or over to see an R-rated movie (edit: unless you're with a parent), so it's not just a theater policy here.
[ March 02, 2005, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
The criteria for movie ratings here, Choobak, have a lot to do with how many times something happens (if you say certain words more than once, it's automatically rated R) or the mere presence of something like smoking. It results in a lot of very good, morally uplifting movies getting strict ratings, but more often results in very crude vulgar movies that just happen to not show the right things getting lower ratings than they should have. The Austin Powers movies, for instance, I found far too vulgar for my own tastes and I would never take a child, yet they were rated PG-13, just like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.
Many foreign films get R ratings because of the standards we have here on nudity. Le fabuluex destin d'Amélie Poulain, par exemple, was rated R because of the 10-second nude scene.
The system can be arbitrary, but that's what happens when you try to fix strict criteria for content. I, personally, would like to see a lot more movies "censured," because I don't think children need to be seeing a lot of things without a parent.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I am, however, very excited to see Les Choristes. I doubt it will come here, though, so I'll have to wait until it comes to DVD and order it. It's tough to live in cowboy country sometimes.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
Ok, ok.
I remember the story of the tree and the reed. Whereas the tree is broken by strong winds, reed stay alive because of his flexibility. I think criteria are good to help for taking decision. Not to take the decision without us. I speak as engeneer when i write this. The first thing we learn is can i applicate these criteria here ?
It's a long long debat we may have. But by discussing with you, i can confront our two points of view and it's appreciable.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Responding to Annie's position, I think children should not be seeing any movie without a parent's permission (this does not need to be specific permission, of course, particularly as children get older -- a parent might tell a twelve year old he or she can see any PG13 movie, for instance). I also think, however, that the government has no business enforcing these restrictions, and local businesses should only enforce them if they feel a need to (not be forced to).
Parents should know what their children are watching, particularly their young children, and should not be relying on society to set guidelines for them.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:I think criteria are good to help for taking decision. Not to take the decision without us.
I agree.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Amelie was probably rated R not just for the nude scene, but also for:
The scene in which she wonders how many couples are having orgasms
The scene in which Georgette and Joseph have sex in the bathroom
The conversation with the porn shop where Nino works, and all things related to the porn shop
It's a wonderful movie, but I wouldn't be taking 13-year-olds to see it (not that a 13-year-old wouldn't recognize what was going on...I just don't think that 13 is mature enough to put the sexual references into context).
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I quite agree with you, Choobak.
The trouble is that we are leery of giving too much decision-making power to officials. I believe the phrase is "a government of laws, not a government of men", with the implication that the latter is backward and fascist. And usually that stance is correct, but as you've pointed out, it can give silly results when applied to small detailed problems.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
This is probably the first time I burst out laughing at work.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
To be honest, Choobak, I would like France to do a litle more like USA on this matter... Sometimes the politics of rating in the USA is a little extreme, but when you try to enjoy a movie and have to tell the parents sit next to you that they should go with their child because he is obviously terrified (exemple with Spiderman, there were kids less than 5 years old in the theater when I saw it !), it spoils the joy of the movie, and the children can be seriously harmed by this. I don't understand why some people don't take any precaution before they take their kids to the theater. With a clear rating, at last, they couldn't pretend they didn't know.
[ March 03, 2005, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
That was great you unwitting simultaneous posters.
Ok, and you witting ones as well.
Oh and, PG13 (or PG as it is called here) means parental guidance recommended for children aged under 13, rather than any censure.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I haven't read the rest of the thread, but:
PG-13 DOES NOT MEAN KIDS UNDER 13 CAN'T SEE THE MOVIE!!
IT'S A CAUTIONARY DESIGNATION FOR PARENTS!!
WHO CAN FORBID THEIR CHILDREN FROM SEEING THIS MOVIE!!
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
I agree about :
1/ Children under 12 must be with their parents to go to the theater, 2/ this law have a good start idea.
But : 1/ Children are not as stupid as some people tell us, or want we believe that, 2/ Each thing is unique, 3/ Each person is unique.
I know lot of people forget that all around the world (In France as in USA).
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
That's good to keep in mind, Choobak. But take my example. If you saw Spiderman, you know that there were scenes of big violence. Would you take a 4 year-old child to see it ? Well, I'm sure you wouldn't, but a lot of parents haven't that concern, or simply didn't think it would be violent ; there was a lot of Spiderman toys sold just before the movie, so I guess some parents thought the movie was appropriate for kids. The rating system allows parents to know, not precisely but that's better than nothing, what is appropriate for kids and what is not. Of course each kid is different, and parents can take their child to see a PG-13 movie if they think the kid can handle it, but they know there could be some problems and are ready to go out of the theater with the child if there effectively is. I think, too, that our criterias about what is appropiate and what is not would be very different from the US ones but that does not mean we shouldn't have our own rating system (actually we have one but there are very few movies that are rated -12 or -16 years old, and it is an absolute interdiction for people underage.) EDIT : because I can't type
[ March 03, 2005, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Choobak, what I think you're not understanding is that its a very loose guideline. It's meant to be informative. If a parent sees that a movie is rated PG-13, they know they can check and see what caused the rating, so they can decide if it's appropriate for their children. Or they can just say "Well, I know that I'm comfortable with the standards and have no problem bringing my 11 year old to a PG-13 movie, but not the 8 year old." It's informative for the parents, not a reflection on the movie. And the ratings usually have a little code after them in the newspaper listing, saying if it was rated for violence, sexual situations, language, or a combination of the above, and how much of each. So if I'm comfortable with my kid seeing some sexual situations and hearing a few swear words but not graphic violence, I can pick which movies are okay based on the ratings.
You know, if I had a kid. Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
*nods* because when I'll have kids, I would appreciate to pay only one ticket for me to see the movie with them, and not two because I would have had to see it for myself to know if it is safe for them.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
You know, during this thread i searched to go far in a point of view to understand what is your reaction. I agree with Anna, Jay, and others about the use of PG - 13 to explain to adults they can go with child but warning on litlle part who may shock him.
The real subject of this thread is the disinformation our media (french an american) make to discredit our two countries, one against the other. It's with such disinformation that some Frenches dislike USA and some Americans dislike France. Moreover, our politicians, in each country, don't help us by their discours.
So this is my real message : Wonder if what media said is real and ask directly to the other to know. Don't forget to think and make the part of things.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
So the French media reported that Les Choristes was banned in America?
Aww...that's too bad. Deeply inaccurate, and I suspect dishonerable motives.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
I prefere to say "some" french media. And after that some others followed without verifications...
Posted by Desdemona (Member # 7100) on :
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)