Sounds good to me. I still remember seeing The Silence of The Lambs back in 1990/91 and some idiot brought her 3-year-old in to watch the last 15 minutes or so. I didn’t hear the kid cry or anything, but I wanted to strangle her mom.
Heck, I wouldn’t allow kids under 6 to be admitted to R-rated movies at all. But this is good, too.
I’ve linked this article before, but what the heck, one more time can’t hurt: Separate and Unequal? How the MPAA Rates Independent Films. An excerpt:
It’s interesting to note that even in regards to studio films, the standards have changed and, in some ways, gotten stricter over the years. In the 1982 movie Tootsie, there’s a scene in which Dustin Hoffman’s character is trying to make Teri Garr’s character, an actress, angry so she can get in character for an audition. In this scene, he says, “Fuck you,” to her twice in a row. By today’s MPAA rules, just one non-sexual “fuck” will get you an automatic PG-13 rating, but two or more of them will get you an automatic R rating, although some movies – As Good As It Gets comes to mind – have had exceptions made for them. Of course, the PG-13 rating didn’t exist when Tootsie was released, but by today’s standards, even with the PG-13 rating, Tootsie would be rated R. Which would be silly because I can’t imagine a more harmless movie.
Another example: I mentioned The Exorcist in my last post. That movie got an R rating in 1973 and I don’t think any cuts had to be made to get that rating. As I said before, there’s some pretty shocking and disturbing stuff in that movie. For instance (warning, this is disturbing and graphic):There’s a scene in which a demon-possessed 12-year-old girl masturbates violently with a crucifix while repeatedly screaming, “Let Jesus fuck you!” She then forces her mother’s face to her bloody crotch and screams, “Lick me! Lick me!” before slapping her mother across the room.Now, when it was re-released a few years ago, it was allowed to keep its R rating, but I think that was just because it was a re-release of a previously rated movie. Had it been a brand new movie, I doubt it would have gotten anything less than an NC-17.
By the way, I’ve seen Boogie Nights and I’ve seen the unrated version of Requiem for a Dream (one of my favorite movies). The sexuality in Requiem for a Dream is far less graphic than in Boogie Nights. The MPAA may not be discriminating against independent filmmakers specifically, but they certainly don’t seem to be applying their standards equally and fairly.
Mom of a 9YO and a 3YO here. I think this is fine, in fact, I would not object to a theater having a blanket policy that kids under 6 are not admitted to R-rated movies, ever. Very few R-rated movies, if any, are appropriate for pre-schoolers.
I rarely go to movies anymore, I generally prefer to wait for them to come out on video. However if this catches on, and if they enforce being quiet in the theater, I may start going again.
Yeah, but then you’ll have to leave Troy at home-what then?
I agree with not allowing small children in to R rated movies.
However, I was taught from a VERY early age that there are places you can be loud (think Chuckie Cheese or similar kid themed restaurants) but that movie theaters are SACRED. YOU NEVER TALK IN A MOVIE THEATER. PERIOD.
Yes, it was said in all caps, too.
I was allowed to watch pretty much any movie I wanted as a child, and I was able to handle it. I was a VERY mature child, and I understood fully the difference between movies and real life.
However, I did turn into a filmgeek, so who am I to talk?
I remember back when it was not uncommon for a PG movie to have naked breasts - Airplane II was one of them, I’m sure other examples will come to mind when I think back on it. I also remember when disturbing themes didn’t seem to have any effect on movie ratings - ‘The Andromeda Strain’ was rated G - no nudity, cursing, or explicit language, but can you imagine that getting anything less than a PG-13 today?