[rant]

[gimlisam]

Last night I went to see Kill Bill Volume 2. It was decent, but I saw something in the theater that very nearly made my blood boil. Someone had taken their young, couldn't have been more than 5 or 6 years old, child to this movie.
I couldn't believe it! One should think long and hard about taking an 12 year old to that movie, but a 5 year old? This is a very violent, VERY adult-themed (the scene where the Bride is buried alive in a coffin comes to mind), R rated film. Some people wonder why the youth of today are becoming more violent. I think that we may have a part of the answer right there. [/rant]

[[wcip]Angel]

What about the personell at the cinema? Didn't they react/throw them out?

[ShadowHM]

Someone had taken their young, couldn't have been more than 5 or 6 years old, child to this movie.

I know that many parents make distressingly bad decisions about their children, but there is a fault on the theatre operator's side too.

Here, an R rating means:

Film restricted to persons 18 years of age or older. No one under age 18 will be admitted to this film.

I am advised by my 16 year old that popular R rated movies will have two people posted at the entry to that theatre room checking both for tickets and proof of age. Further, just before the movie starts, quite often there will be a walk-through by theatre personnel looking for and ejecting those who are too young. Recently, they have also started to send people in during the movie, as apparently as soon as the movie began and the 'bouncers at the door' left, the teenagers would sneak in.

(And yes, he knows this because he has circumvented the rules. Yes, he did see Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and hopes to get to see Kill Bill: Vol. 2., once the initial fuss dies down. And yes, I am going to let this slide - there are more important worries for me than what violence he sees in a move at this age.)

I would also like to offer this comment from him: "The violence in Kill Bill Vol. 1 was not much different than in Monty Python's 'The Holy Grail' where the Black Knight gets his limbs chopped off and the blood spurts out wildly. You let me watch Monty Python when I was about 6 and I knew it was not real."

[Griselda]

Rated R – RESTRICTED: Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

The movie industry counts on the teen dollar to keep the machine running. It still shouldn't count on the six-year old dollar, though, except for movies like Nemo. :(

I have many, many kids in my (preschool) class who talk about all kinds of movies I'd personally prefer they didn't see. When I see evidence that it affects them, I do try to bring it up with parents.

-Griselda (no Kill Bill for little Gris, but she likes Holy Grail, LoTR, and even X-Men- thanks to Mr. Gris and his comic book obsession. She keeps asking me what my mutant abilities are, though. :huh: )

Edit- I did want to add that, while movies are a concern, I am much more concerned about the kids who are witnessing violence in real life. That number is pretty high, unfortunately, and those kids can't tell themselves that it's not real.

[DroopingCactus]

At my local movie theatre, kids under 17 have to go to the movie with their parent: the parent can't even buy the ticket. This stemmed from the (horrendously funny/stupid) Jackass movie where kids were trying to replicate the stunts pulled off. Many of us (me included - I'm 15) think that, yes, R rated movies should be restricted to people over 18 UNLESS the parent acutally buys the TICKET! [/rant]

[Lerkur]

In the U.S. an R rating means that a minor can not be granted access without an accompanying adult guardian. The information that you posted relates to an NC-17 rating in the U.S.

What bothers me about this incident is not the fact that a six year old was watching this movie with his (her?) parent’s permission. Rather, I am bothered by the fact that the original poster of this thread felt that he knew what was right for this child better than the child’s parents did. I realize that society has a collective interest in its young. The problem comes when people outside of the family start thinking that they have more interest (or know what’s right for a child better) than that child’s parents. Why can’t people resist the urge to proselytize? I think the original poster needs to accept the fact that he is not a more capable judge of what is best for this child than the child’s parents.

I think this is a reflection of a cultural problem. The problem, however, is not that a child saw a violent movie, but that the original poster thought that he should have any say in the matter. This—to me—reflects the greater trend towards imperialism in our American culture. (It may also reflect this trend in human nature in general if the original poster is not a resident of the U.S.) Sometimes you will just have to accept the fact that other people choose to live differently than you do and that it is not necessarily better or worse than your way of living. In ancient times, life styles would be enforced with the sword. These days, we use the pen. You tell me which is mightier.

P.S. I see Griselda beat me to the rating information but I will let the post stand anyhow.

[Nystul]

Here, an R rating means:

Film restricted to persons 18 years of age or older. No one under age 18 will be admitted to this film.

I forget, is Gimlisam in the U.S. or Canada? In the States, an R rating only means that you must be accompanied by an adult, not that you must be one. The only thing close to the restriction you listed here is NC-17, for which you must be 17 or older. From what I've seen, that rating is only applied to movies with an extreme amount of nudity or sexual themes. Very few movies get this rating, although I'm sure many movies have to be edited down in order to avoid it.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I am bothered by the fact that the original poster of this thread felt that he knew what was right for this child better than the child’s parents did.

Since the extended family is a thing of the past, parents are the only ones having control of how their children are raised. Given the problems with juvenile offenders, I'd say many parents are doing a crappy job, or no job at all. Since society will have to bear the cost of these untamed brats, in the form of increased insurance, in the form of increased emergency services, and in the cost of extended prisons, I feel that every member of society has a right to have an opinion, if not an input, in how these kids are raised.

Or, better yet, shoot the anti-social bastards when they turn 14, thereby eliminating not only that problem but the problem they'll cause through their potential offspring.

Yeah, the government interferes too much. But I didn't see a government official posting, I saw a (rightly) pissed off citizen.

--Pete

[Obi2Kenobi]

I'm one of those crazy people who feels that it's mental maturity, not physical age that is important. I know that I was watching violent movies as a child, but I am hardly a violent person.

[Nystul]

The problem comes when people outside of the family start thinking that they have more interest (or know what’s right for a child better) than that child’s parents.

In most cases, I'd agree with you. However, there are parents who don't have *any* interest in their children. There are parents who kill their children, or leave them on the street like a stray cat. So clearly there are times when society does know better than the parent. Taking a kindergartener to see Kill Bill is not nearly in the league with these things, but it does seem like a poor parenting decision, and I cannot think of any decent argument in defense of it.

[Obi2Kenobi]

I think this is a reflection of a cultural problem. The problem, however, is not that the original poster felt that it is a poor parenting decision, but that the replying poster thought that he should have any say in the matter. This—to me—reflects the greater trend towards apathy in our American culture. (It may also reflect this trend in human nature in general if the replying poster is not a resident of the U.S.) Sometimes you will just have to accept the fact that other people choose to look out for others more than you do and that it is not necessarily better or worse than your way of living. In ancient times, life styles would be enforced with the sword. These days, we use the keyboard. You tell me which is mightier.
--------------------------------------------------------
If a parent decides to use excessive corporal punishment on their child, do you feel no one else should have a say in the matter? Is the parents word really that sacrosanct? How does having a child automatically make you a good judge of what is right or wrong for your kids?

/edit: corporal, not corporeal

[gimlisam]

Angel,Apr 17 2004, 10:28 AM]What about the personell at the cinema? Didn't they react/throw them out?

No.

Oh, I'm in the US, so people under 17 can go to an R movie when accompanied by an adult.

[Deadlyman]

I dont think this is a matter of someone getting into how a parent wants to raise their kid.
Its more about using common sense, which is something that is mostly forgotten these days.

P.S. Off subject. Gris, what is your avatar? I have been trying to figure it out for a long time. It looks so violent lol. I have been wondering why the admins have violent avatars. Maybe to show the "Wraith of Admins" on us, lol ;)

[gekko]

I'm one of those crazy people who feels that it's mental maturity, not physical age that is important. I know that I was watching violent movies as a child, but I am hardly a violent person.

"Mental maturity" can only be measured to a certain extent, and it can't be tested or verified by a movie theater. If we can agree that some kids are "too young" (physically or mentally) to see certain movies, and further agree that someone needs to restrict who can see a movie based on maturity, a "mental maturity" level is meaningless. If you as a parent feel your 6 year old can watch Kill Bill, wait until it comes out on video. The guidelines governing rated R movies are there for a reason, and should be strict for those same reasons.

The other problem with saying only mental maturity matters is that it doesn't cover the extremes. I don't care how mature you are for your age, a 5 year old should not be watching R rated movies.

gekko

[Griselda]

My avatar is my new plush Secret Agent Chtulhu, the newest of my plush Cthulhu collection. :)

Cthulhu- not just for violence anymore!

-Griselda

[Obi2Kenobi]

The guidelines governing rated R movies are there for a reason, and should be strict for those same reasons.

And the guidelines where I live are that anyone can see "R" rated movies, as long as they are accompanied by someone 18 or older.

[Occhidiangela]

My wife and I saw that film 4 or 5 years ago at a sensurround theatre. In the row in front of us was a couple who brought their 6-7 year old daughter, who tried to hide in terror from the first 20 minutes. Mrs Occhi was more disturbed by those two adults taking their young child to that film than she was with the ketchup count in the movie, and she is not a big fan of high blood count films.

Someone commented up there that we can't help folks from doing nitwitty things.

Occhi

[Obi2Kenobi]

In the row in front of us was a couple who brought their 6-7 year old daughter, who tried to hide in terror from the first 20 minutes.

If her reaction really was as you said it was, then yes, that was a bad idea to bring her. *mumbles about stupid parents these days* <_<

[Lerkur]

You are an excellent example of what I was speaking about Obi2Kenobi. Your example about corporal punishment perhaps reveals more than you intend it to. You expressed your opinion that “excessive corporal punishment” against a child is bad. While I would say that most of us would agree with that, the issue you avoided was the use of any corporal punishment at all. By inclusion of the qualifier “excessive” I assume you mean that you support the use of some corporal punishment against children. I can rephrase this to say that you support parents hitting their children. I realize that this probably has a more negative connotation when written this way than you had hoped to imply, but stick with me for a bit.

What if there were no laws against a parent hitting their children and you were disciplining your child in a public area. Let us say I disagree with corporal punishment and I am unhappy about it. Of course Pete is correct; everyone is entitled to an opinion. The problem occurs when everyone tries to have an input. If I walk up to you and express my displeasure with your assault on your child, you would likely have an explanation or a justification. This is because nobody likes to think of themselves as being in the wrong. If I started shouting that you are a bad parent and should have your children taken away, I would likely get a punch in the face.

Allow me to pose another example which I think is even more relevant. What if I was a devout Baptist and I saw you walking with your young daughter and she is wearing an hijab. I say to myself “Holy #$%&! That kid is going to Hell. I gotta save her!” Now I am fairly confident that you feel I am entitled to that opinion, but what would happen if I were to actually take steps to have her taken away from you? I am also fairly confident that you would not support that action. What if I took the middle position and simply started calling you a bad parent in front of the largest audience I could find? I think you would feel defamed and slighted simply because you and I have a difference of opinion on which religion is right. This opinion on which religion is correct is very like the opinion of whether it is ok for young children to see a violent film. In the end you are trying to force your will on someone due to an opinion that, at best, is debatable and, at worst, untenable.

I feel I must also address a distinction that I may have drawn with too much subtlety. This is primarily in response to Nystul. I used the phrases “society” and “people outside of the family” in a manner where I had hoped they would have distinct enough meanings. By “society” I mean the whole as represented by a (representative or democratic) government. By “people outside of the family” I mean individuals not directly related to the matter at hand. The difference here is that between the rule of law, and vigilante “justice.” I agree with Pete here as well in regard to the opinion that government may interject itself too willingly in the affairs of individual families. This is where I would say there is a fine line to be walked. Where precisely that line lies is not in my knowledge. I am of the opinion that the line’s location should be judged not on who cries “foul” the loudest and most voraciously, but on what arguments can be most soundly supported with reason.

This is to say that I do not hold the opinions of the parents as sacrosanct in this matter. I simply hold them higher than I hold yours.

[kandrathe]

If we were talking about taking a child to a political rally, or if a child were expossed to something other than an "optional" adult situation I would agree with you more. Somethings in the "adult" world can be enlightening and not harmful if parents take the time to teach. I think it is clear in the laws of our society by looking at any number of child endangerment and neglect cases that parents do not have exclusive rights to do whatever they might want to a child. Where the line is is still a bit grey and is mostly determined on a case by case basis.

I can see no good reason for introducing an adolescent to the type excessive violence in "Kill Bill", unless you are John Mohammed and are raising a Lee Malvo. As a father of two future "ninja assassin" boys, I can tell you that my wife and I are very, very careful what input goes into their brains. No matter what you try to do, whatever goes in will come out, and maybe not in the most socially responsible way.

My 3 1/2 year old just got into his first playground fist fight last week with an eight year old girl. He was being annoying to her as only a boy his age can be and so she pushed him, then he roared at her (like the lion he saw at the zoo) and she reacted by punching him. Then, all restraints were off him and he let her have it. Unfortunately this incident occured in one of those tunnel cave complexes that are so popular on playgrounds now, so while all the parents could here an altercation beginning, we were all powerless to squeeze into those spaces to intervene. Luckily, the parents of the girl were equally horrified by their childs behavior and so we all together were able to make this into a positive learning experience for both sides. 90% of the time it seems that when a child meltdown events occur, the other parent believes their child to be an angel and blameless.

Part of me understands my sons primitive need for justice, but as a parent I need to teach him restraint. He needs to learn how to socialize and interact as a member of our society, and that is my job. Where did he learn how to fist fight? From the neighbor boy who is 5 and taking Karate. The boy is very nice and they had a great time one day psuedo "sparring" and wrestling. It was harmless fun, but it was enough of a seed. So now my son is armed with playground terrorism skillz and without a 5 year old brain capable of the restraint and the discipline needed to not become the "bully". Work, work, work. Now I need to take him to the playground as often as I can to insure that he will not repeat (often) that incident from last week.

So while you might pine for the rights of that irresponsible parent to raise their child as they see fit, I hope you can see that through the eyes of this parent how wrong minded for society it really can be. So, when he is 6, or 7, or 8, will I take him to see some violent films? Not on your life. What is hard as a parent in our society is trying to limit what goes into those brains to the good stuff, and not junk food media. Columbine was as much the result of this kind of neglect and a twisted adolescent reality which "Kill Bill" would have fit in just as well with the "Hit Man" fantasy they eventually acted out. I'm not saying that all 14 years old or younger who are exposed will act out, just some. And, some is too many.