The other day, I was watching a documentary on “Fast Times At Ridge Mont High.” Originally, they had a scene where moviegoers would see full frontal nudity of a man. When sent in to Universal, the movie was rated X.
Why is it that full female nudity is only rated R, but male nudity must carry a X rating? When the director asked that question, Universal said, “The male form is more aggressive.” I thought for a long while about this. I think it only goes to artistic value, but obviously other see the word aggressive to also me offensive.I bring this up only because it relates on a certain level to our discussion in the Entertainment Group.
Violence is dealt with very much the same way. However, I don’t think I have ever heard of a move being rated X due to too much violence. It is and should be the viewers choice to let certain movies/television shows affect them.Violence in movies or television is sometimes necessary to accurately portray a type of person or a particular idea, time period, lifestyle, etc.
For example, The Godfather. This movie is about gangsters. Hello! Violent much? Yeah, violence is necessary to get the point of this movie across. As it is in Requiem Of A Dream, The Basketball Diaries, The Doom Generation, Fight Club, Natural Born Killers, American History X, etc.
The directors of these movies are trying to show the viewer what these types of people are going through and why they do the things they do. And they are trying to show that truthfully. Even if it means being disgusted or angry with the characters.They want the raw stuff.
And frankly, we want to see it. Americans love that stuff. I may not be a violent person or even approve of violence, but if I want to get a good idea of someone else’s life or point of view, you gotta see the bad stuff. I think the term rubberneck was originated by Americans.
We love violence. Does it always have a positive effect? Certainly not. But there are many other things that come into play when defending violence in movies and television.First and foremost, parents are responsible for what their children watch! I was only allowed to watch Jeopardy growing up.
Sad, huh? But when I saw my first bit of violence in a movie, my parents were there watching it with me. To make sure I understood that violence was not okay. And besides, at that point, I already knew that. I did not grow up on it, so I certainly did not approve of it.
Those parents who let their television raise their children, they can not reverse what has been taught. Also, that child is learning from the television, so they will not ever know that My Little Pony is harmless and Grand Theft Auto is instilling immoral ideas. If all they know is television and games, then they don’t listen as much at school or to books or parents, because the two ideas conflict.Second is the law.
Punish kids who have done something wrong! I hope this sniper who is a kid at 17 is tried as an adult. So long as his mind is clear of mental disorders, he knows better! And if he did not know better if he was locked in a cave for 16 years teach him now!Third is the media. Our society glorifies criminals. Even if you don’t allow your children to watch movies or television, they will see criminals and how to commit their crime on the news.
The newscasters give us a play by play on how the crime was carried out, basically giving instructions to someone who may already have violent thoughts.I could go off for days, but all in all, it comes down to this: Don’t censor the violence in movies, censor who gets to see them. A well minded person like myself, I enjoy it and I don’t want to see our first amendment infringed upon because the parents in this country are letting someone/something else raise their children.
