Do You Know Where Your Children Are?
Most likely, they're watching PG-13 movies. Those would be the ones with the foul language, oral-sex references and torture scenes.... (WaPo; marketing questions)
An interesting and disturbing article about "ratings creep", exacerbated by the introduction of the PG-13 movie rating (and ultimately made possible by parental inattention and laxity.) Thank you, Hollywood, for serving up incredible filth to teens and younger, all in the name of greed.
Case in point: the new Cat in the Hat movie (which looks awful to me.) This movie is based on a book beloved of preschoolers and beginning readers -- and is rated PG. Couldn't Hollywood show a little restraint (and a little consideration for the parents of young children who might want to see the movie?)
Ugh. I can't write more about Hollywood and the laughable ratings system without resorting to invective.
I have found movie ratings, particularly PG-13 to mean anything. Some movies that are PG-13 like School of Rock seem OK, while others are very much not. You have to go on a site like Screenit.com and decentfilms.com to see exactly what you want to know.
The Cat in the Hat looks horrible. I am equally annoyed about that as you. Some things should be left to a child's imagination.
For what it's worth, I never liked the Cat in the Hat when it was a book. I also dislike Paddington Bear and Curious George, for the same reason. I just don't see what's so all-fired amusing about breaking rules, destroying property, and sowing disaster on all sides. Some inner kink of mine, no doubt, but the children haven't suffered for the lack of them.
I was never a big fan of Dr. Seuss as a child. I thought Green Eggs and Ham was silly. (But then, that was the point I guess. My childish love of silliness had a kink or two.) Anyway, the only Seuss book I really liked was Horton Hears a Who.
But back to your main point, yeah, I agree ratings aren't worth much with kids. About the only real use is to determine whether the movie is within an adult's level of moral sensibility (and that doesn't always work).
I have the same inner kink as Elinor, I think. I'm very, very concerned about the messages I expose Davey to with books and videos. (Even Emily Elizabeth's apparently greater interest in meeting a new dog instead of a new kid her age kind of disturbs me...)
At first the Cat in the Hat merchandise appealed to me as potential Christmas gifts for little cousins, but once I realized it was there because of a new movie version, I was on alert, without even getting to the point of thinking, "But wait, what does that story teach?"
BTW, saw an OSV family movie/video guide at The Catholic Shop this weekend. Big book.
Ugh! I agree Peony. I'm a BIG fan of Dr. Seuss and have nearly all of his books (thanks to a kind lady whose kids had outgrown them :^) ). I was so upset when I saw the trailer on quicktime.com. The humor is totally inappropriate for young children. And that impression can be made just from viewing a 2 minute trailer. The Cat in the Hat was a bit loopy, but he was never crass. This rude sort of humor with the belching and the put-downs (I'm not saying he belched, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did) is what turned me off of Shrek...and now there's a part two of that as well. Words like "stupid," "idiot," and even "So-o-o-o," (said sarcastically of course ;^) ) are no-nos at my house. These films just reinforce the rude language and behavior. It's such a shame too 'cause I thought the animated films of The Lorax, Pontoffel Pock, and The Grinch were just great. Oh well.
Hey Patty, thanks for stopping by!!
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. I wasn't fond of the Cat myself, but I know a lot of little kids are, and the book was written for little kids. So what's with deliberately going for the PG rating -- a rating that would keep many little kids from seeing the movie?
I bet what they're banking on is that older kids will be up for the the movie because it is PG (since "G" movies are "for babies") and that inattentive parents will give in and just haul the little ones along ("it's just PG, what harm could it do?")
Part of the reason the ratings are a joke is that the raters are all from the movie industry (no ordinary parents or child development experts in the bunch) and are working from their own opinions and an inflexible sheet of rubrics ("kicks to the head" = "R".) So if they don't have a problem with a lovable hero saying "shut up" they're not going to rate the movie up.
Lately the ratings have been including a bit more info on what might be objectionable in the movies. I'm glad Hollywood finally caved in and added that info. If a movie is rated PG for sci-fi violence, like Lilo and Stitch and , that's a different issue to me than gross-out humor and name calling.
I laughed a little the first time I saw Shrek (I was tired and stressed, and the balloon animals made me laugh) but the second time I saw it I thought it was utterly charmless. I was even ashamed of myself for laughing at the balloon animals. Mike Myers could be a great comic actor if he would just get a little class and stop going for the coarse humor.
When I was a child - yes, we had televisions then, but they had bunny-ears antennae on top - "A Charlie Brown Christmas" was always shown on the same evening as "The Grinch". (Interspersed with commercials for York Peppermint Patties, as I recall.) The sisters always told us to be sure to watch "ACBC", and of course we watched "The Grinch" as well. (Children will watch almost anything that moves, I sometimes think.) It wasn't until years later that I had what Eve calls a "D'oh! moment" and realized why I'd always liked "ACBC" so much better than "The Grinch": because Linus tells us "what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown," while the Grinch just finds out that it's nicer to be nice. There's no harm in "The Grinch", as far as I can make out, and it's very well done and amusing, but it's got nothing in the world to do with Christmas.