The Problem with 12A

124

Comments

  • AsarualimAsarualim Posts: 3,884
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Maybe I have picked this up wrongly, but where is it graven in stone that a film rated 12A in this country cannot be a good film in its own right? I don't think they are all watered down 15s. Even for those that are, does it necessarily make them worse films? I am thinking, particularly, of 'The Hunger Games'. I have read the books and the films are definitely not as graphic in their depiction of the violence, but they get the point over and are - at least in my opinion - well-made, well-acted films.

    There's no0thing to say a 12A can;t be a good film, some of them are, but don't you ever want a film aimed at you as an adult, with adult themes and subjects, not sex and violence, just themes aimed at adults not teens or younger. something a bit challenging, thought provoking, rather than watered down action. 12A's just don't portray the reality of some of the situations in those movies. They depict brutal situations for example, but shy away from actually showing the brutality in order to get the 12A rating, so the possible impact of such scenes are lost.
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,896
    Forum Member
    I agree, many 12A films end up falling between two stools. Half the film is trying to be hard-hitting while the other half wants kiddies to be able to watch it.

    It often muddles the tone and message of the film. There's nothing worse than sitting there with that feeling you're watching a deliberately sanitised version of something. For me, anyway.
  • David WaineDavid Waine Posts: 3,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I suspect that the argument here may be age-related. I belong to an older generation and am quite happy to see violence, for example, implied rather than depicted explicitly. I don't think there is anything particularly grown up about watching blood and guts. That was not the case when I was younger. I wasn't a fan of 'Psycho' (the original) then. I am now. The famous shower scene became notorious on first release for its graphic violence and nudity - until the scene was analysed, shot by shot, and people discovered that it did not actually show anything. It is all implied. The scene is a classic case of less being more. One of the scariest films I have ever seen, 'The Innocents', has no violence in it at all - yet I defy anyone who hasn't already seen it to sit through a screening alone without feeling disturbed.

    It all boils down to taste in the end. When I was a teenager, I used to love the blood and gore (at least the amount of it that they were allowed to show then). I haven't been a teenager for a long time.
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    I suspect that the argument here may be age-related. I belong to an older generation and am quite happy to see violence, for example, implied rather than depicted explicitly. I don't think there is anything particularly grown up about watching blood and guts.
    I'm from the younger generation and I agree. Whilst I don't care about showing necessary blood when it's needed to reflect the horror of a situation (e.g. Terminator), it feels immature and is unpleasant when the violence is gratuitous.
    I can think of a recent, but far more extreme (than Psycho) example which used implied violence: episode 4 of Daredevil,
    in particular, the car door head-crushing scene.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVUkz0k3O10
    The brutality of the scene comes from the squishing sounds and Fisk's frenzied reaction, seen by how many times he slams the door and how hard he does it. They don't show any graphic shots of the head itself (being crushed), instead showing blood from under the car and a brief shot of his decapitated body at the end. The implied violence is probably why it got a 15 rating instead of an 18.
  • AsarualimAsarualim Posts: 3,884
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I suspect that the argument here may be age-related. I belong to an older generation and am quite happy to see violence, for example, implied rather than depicted explicitly. I don't think there is anything particularly grown up about watching blood and guts. That was not the case when I was younger. I wasn't a fan of 'Psycho' (the original) then. I am now. The famous shower scene became notorious on first release for its graphic violence and nudity - until the scene was analysed, shot by shot, and people discovered that it did not actually show anything. It is all implied. The scene is a classic case of less being more. One of the scariest films I have ever seen, 'The Innocents', has no violence in it at all - yet I defy anyone who hasn't already seen it to sit through a screening alone without feeling disturbed.

    It all boils down to taste in the end. When I was a teenager, I used to love the blood and gore (at least the amount of it that they were allowed to show then). I haven't been a teenager for a long time.

    A fair point, but Hitchcock isn't directing these 12As, and those that are don't seem to have the skill to imply in the way he did, so the end result just feels like something is missing instead.

    I'm not particularly into blood and gore in movies myself, but I do miss movies aimed at my age group. The last great movie of recent times for me was Wolf Of Wall Street. It wasn't particularly violent, had a bit of sex in it, a lot of drugs, and just couldn't have been told as a 12A, so i have the upmost respect for all involved that they opted to make an 18 movie, to not compromise on telling this story in all it's detail. So all I'm asking for is others to follow suit, to put their art and the story before box office returns
    for a change. The current trend of making 12As seems so short sighted, and ignores the fact that those who might not get to see an 18 rated movie as it comes out, will seek them out when they're older. It leaves something for them to discover as they get older, whereas now there'll be very little they haven't already seen, just in a watered down form.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    Asarualim wrote: »
    A fair point, but Hitchcock isn't directing these 12As, and those that are don't seem to have the skill to imply in the way he did, so the end result just feels like something is missing instead.

    I'm not particularly into blood and gore in movies myself, but I do miss movies aimed at my age group. The last great movie of recent times for me was Wolf Of Wall Street. It wasn't particularly violent, had a bit of sex in it, a lot of drugs, and just couldn't have been told as a 12A, so i have the upmost respect for all involved that they opted to make an 18 movie, to not compromise on telling this story in all it's detail. So all I'm asking for is others to follow suit, to put their art and the story before box office returns
    for a change. The current trend of making 12As seems so short sighted, and ignores the fact that those who might not get to see an 18 rated movie as it comes out, will seek them out when they're older. It leaves something for them to discover as they get older, whereas now there'll be very little they haven't already seen, just in a watered down form.

    The DVD market has basically bottomed out, it's theatrical, VOD or nothing these days. Making money back later is not good enough.
  • brangdonbrangdon Posts: 14,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Maybe I have picked this up wrongly, but where is it graven in stone that a film rated 12A in this country cannot be a good film in its own right? I don't think they are all watered down 15s. Even for those that are, does it necessarily make them worse films? I am thinking, particularly, of 'The Hunger Games'. I have read the books and the films are definitely not as graphic in their depiction of the violence, but they get the point over and are - at least in my opinion - well-made, well-acted films.
    I like the Hunger Games films, but for me they are examples of films damaged by their rating. Especially the first film, and especially the scene in which the games start and about a third of the kids are killed in the first 5 minutes of it. To show such a bloodbath without any blood felt very strange.
  • CLL DodgeCLL Dodge Posts: 115,632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Maybe I have picked this up wrongly, but where is it graven in stone that a film rated 12A in this country cannot be a good film in its own right? I don't think they are all watered down 15s. Even for those that are, does it necessarily make them worse films? I am thinking, particularly, of 'The Hunger Games'. I have read the books and the films are definitely not as graphic in their depiction of the violence, but they get the point over and are - at least in my opinion - well-made, well-acted films.

    The Hunger Games was a cut down 15 (9 scenes were either darkened or cut).
  • David WaineDavid Waine Posts: 3,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I can see that 'The Hunger Games' has a problem. The books were written with a teenage audience in mind, a good few of whom would be under fifteen years of age. That, therefore, is the crux of this thread. There is a problem with 12A (and with 15 too for that matter). If the film makers were totally faithful, and doggedly realistic in their approach, there would have been so much blood fountaining about that it would have looked like something Tarantino did - and it would have received an 18 certificate. That, of course, would also have been utterly inappropriate because it would have excluded much of the film's target audience. The result, therefore, is a compromise. What else could it possibly be? I think that they compromised quite successfully, but that is a personal opinion with which others may disagree.

    There is a lot that the author can get away with that the film maker cannot. Look at the James Bond series as an example. The books contain some fairly explicit sex scenes. These are toned right down for the films, and always have been, stretching right back to 'Dr. No' in the early '60s.

    The question is whether these compromises damage the film's ultimate quality. That can only be answered on an individual basis. A film with a teenage target audience has to bear in mind that some teenagers are 13 or 14. I do agree that there have been cases of films that were never intended for teenagers being emasculated with a view to increasing the potential audience. That is a cynical approach and is unlikely to achieve the film's best potential.

    So what to do about it? Difficult. I suggest getting rid of the 'A' suffix and going back to the old 12 certificate. At east that would put a stop to all the head shaking as traumatised five year-olds are carried, screaming, out of 'Jurassic World'.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So what to do about it? Difficult. I suggest getting rid of the 'A' suffix and going back to the old 12 certificate. At east that would put a stop to all the head shaking as traumatised five year-olds are carried, screaming, out of 'Jurassic World'.

    They wouldn't release Jurassic World as a straight 12, most blockbusters would just end up as cut PG's which wouldn't really please anyone.

    Universal probably could talk the bbfc into giving World a PG with brief cuts to 2 or 3 scenes, and that edit would likely remain unsuitable for 5 year olds.
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    So what to do about it? Difficult. I suggest getting rid of the 'A' suffix and going back to the old 12 certificate. At east that would put a stop to all the head shaking as traumatised five year-olds are carried, screaming, out of 'Jurassic World'.

    IMO 12A should be split into two separate ratings; keep 12A as it is for the most part because it works (if you're a responsible parent) but bring back the restrictive 12 for certain strong or borderline films like The Dark Knight, Woman in Black or Casino Royale.
  • CLL DodgeCLL Dodge Posts: 115,632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    IMO 12A should be split into two separate ratings; keep 12A as it is for the most part because it works (if you're a responsible parent) but bring back the restrictive 12 for certain strong or borderline films like The Dark Knight, Woman in Black or Casino Royale.

    Woman in Black and Casino Royale were cut down 15s so unlikely to be suited to young children, accompanied or otherwise. So yes, 12 a better label than 12A.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Slightly off topic but the strangest rating was Doubt which was given a 15 despite having no sex, violence, bad language or drug abuse.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    brangdon wrote: »
    I like the Hunger Games films, but for me they are examples of films damaged by their rating. Especially the first film, and especially the scene in which the games start and about a third of the kids are killed in the first 5 minutes of it. To show such a bloodbath without any blood felt very strange.

    Watch Battle Royale instead.
    CLL Dodge wrote: »
    The Hunger Games was a cut down 15 (9 scenes were either darkened or cut).

    Hunger Games cuts are a bit odd though, unless you're paying close attention the bbfc cuts aren't that noticeable. It's clear PG-13 style violence even in the uncut version. One of the bbfc podcasts had a rant about parents letting young children watch the 15 cut via torrent sites though, so I guess it was noticeable to them.
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    dodrade wrote: »
    Slightly off topic but the strangest rating was Doubt which was given a 15 despite having no sex, violence, bad language or drug abuse.
    Mature themes. The film revolves around sexual abuse.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dodrade wrote: »
    Slightly off topic but the strangest rating was Doubt which was given a 15 despite having no sex, violence, bad language or drug abuse.

    A few of the recent Warner Bros/DC comics animation division movies have been 15, (Dark Knight Returns, Superman Unbound, Justice League Gods & Monsters) despite arguably not having stronger content than the 90's Batman animated series. I guess Warner wants them to have 15's though.

    They're making a version of The Killing Joke, I do wonder if that one's gonna be an 18. :o
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mature themes. The film revolves around sexual abuse.

    Even then it's never openly stated, it really ought to be a PG.
  • a_c_g_ta_c_g_t Posts: 1,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
  • Stuart1000Stuart1000 Posts: 1,275
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sorry to drag this thread up again after a year but I had another 12A situation today which only reiterated my previous arguments.

    Ghostbusters. Within the first 5mins, a child no older than 5yrs old behind me is crying. He begs his mum to take him out, she doesn't and says "Shhhh, I'm watching the film". Any other time a ghost is on screen, he screams and begs his mum to leave, disrupting most of the other cinemagoers in the screen. She sits in silence. The kid asks his mum what is going continuously throughout the film. The mum is silent other than "Shhhhh" every so often.

    12A needs to be reassessed. These films are made for an adult audience but, for some reason, some parents seem to think 12A means that it's suitable for children.
  • MotthusMotthus Posts: 7,280
    Forum Member
    When I was getting my ticket for Ghostbusters there was a mother taking her children to see it and I heard I saying that they will 6 and 7 but they didn't seem to cause any problems during the screening

    So I guess it does depend on the child although they had trailers ranging from The BFG to Suicide Squad and Star Trek before it which was a contrast!

    Although the original Ghostbusters was PG and I would say that was a lot scarier than the new version!
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Motthus wrote: »
    Although the original Ghostbusters was PG and I would say that was a lot scarier than the new version!

    It's a 12A now. ;)

    (Though the bbfc have said the 12 is just for the shot of Aykroyd having his trousers undone and it'd still be PG without it)
  • MotthusMotthus Posts: 7,280
    Forum Member
    I guess that's why the DVD of Ghostbusters is PG and the Blu Ray is 12A but being down to such a minor detail is strange!
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Stuart1000 wrote: »
    Sorry to drag this thread up again after a year but I had another 12A situation today which only reiterated my previous arguments.

    Ghostbusters. Within the first 5mins, a child no older than 5yrs old behind me is crying. He begs his mum to take him out, she doesn't and says "Shhhh, I'm watching the film". Any other time a ghost is on screen, he screams and begs his mum to leave, disrupting most of the other cinemagoers in the screen. She sits in silence. The kid asks his mum what is going continuously throughout the film. The mum is silent other than "Shhhhh" every so often.

    12A needs to be reassessed. These films are made for an adult audience but, for some reason, some parents seem to think 12A means that it's suitable for children.

    In fairness I wouldn't blame the BBFC for the actions of selfish and inconsiderate parents.

    The BBFC do not consider 12A films suitable for under 8's but I don't think very many people know this, instead they're seen as PG with knobs on that most children can watch without consideration.

    That said 12A has probably become too broad with films more suited to PG or 15 squeezed in at either end. I would personally be more lenient with regard to language (the MPAA's one F word per PG-13 has become a bit of a joke).
  • InkblotInkblot Posts: 26,889
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Motthus wrote: »
    I guess that's why the DVD of Ghostbusters is PG and the Blu Ray is 12A but being down to such a minor detail is strange!

    The BBFC says:

    "The BBFC's Guidelines at 'PG' state there may be 'Mild sex references and innuendo only'. The film contains a number of sex references, both verbal and visual, that exceed this allowance. Most notable is a scene in which it is implied that a ghost is performing oral sex on a man. As the man's trousers and zip are unfastened, the camera moves to his face as he sinks back on the bed with his eyes crossed in pleasure. Later, a woman who has been possessed by a demon rolls about on a bed with a man and tells him: "I want you inside me". Although these references were permitted at 'PG' in the 1980s, when there was no classification available between 'PG' and '15', they are now more appropriately classified at '12A' where the Guidelines state 'Sexual activity may be briefly and discreetly portrayed. Sex references should not go beyond what is suitable for young teenagers'."
  • -GONZO--GONZO- Posts: 9,624
    Forum Member
    Motthus wrote: »
    I guess that's why the DVD of Ghostbusters is PG and the Blu Ray is 12A but being down to such a minor detail is strange!

    The Blu-ray is 12 not 12A. The A rating is only for cinema.
Sign In or Register to comment.