Requiem For A Dream
When Requiem For A Dream came out in 1999, it was rated NC-17 for its unflinching look at addiction, especially drug addiction, and the damage it inflicts on people mind, body, and soul. The NC-17 rating made it virtually impossible for anybody under 17 to see the film in theaters, and makes it extremely difficult (I would imagine, anyway) for it to be shown in high-school or junior high. I'm being purposefully vague here, but I want to hear the opinion of others before I elaborate on my position. Should the MPAA take the potential social, civic, and moral value of a film into consideration when weighing a rating that would make it practically inaccessible to a portion of the population, especially a portion that could stand to benefit from it? What do people think could be shown in a film that would offset the aforementioned benefits for viewers? Does anybody here who's seen RFAD have an opinion on the above questions based on what they saw in the film?
posted by Mike at 11:12 AM
13 Comments:
Hardcore question, YRF. I haven't seen Requiem, but I'll respond to the general question...
I guess in so doing, it's helpful to ask what the movie rating system is for. Ostensibly, it's to help parents protect their children from seeing something that might have an adverse affect on them. No one wants their six year old accidentally viewing a rape scene.
However, in the case of Requiem, it seems the adverse affect might lead to a positive effect. In other words, the sick-to-their-stomach feeling kids get in watching the movie might make them adverse to trying drugs.
So I guess, in matters like these, there needs to be a separate category altogether. Maybe a PSLL rating: Possibly Scarring Life Lessons. And come to think of it, some of the movies I saw in driver's ed class should have been stamped with PSLL.
This is true. I think that RFAD should be required viewing in maybe, Health class? It is difficult for me to pin down an age at which I think they should see it. Show it to them too old, the lesson might not stick. Show it to them to young, and they might be severely freaked out by the film in a way beyond them being shown an extremely frank look at where hard drugs lead. (While I don't think pot necessarily acts as a gateway drug, I do think it's crap on the basis that it turns people into complete and utter morons.)
Having said that, I do think it should also be up to the parents whether or not it would be appropriate viewing for their children. I'm talking permission slips, with a synopsis of material that the parents might find objectionable, or too intense for their kids. Also on the slip, an explanation of why they might benefit from watching such an intense film.
i've seen RFaD, and part of me thinks that it should be shown to EVERY 14 year-old, be3cause around that age, kids start to rebel against their parents and want to do thing that their parents would not approve of, drugs included. but another part of me thinks, "well, i never tried drugs, and never even WANTED to try drugs." so for me, the showing of the movie in my school when i was 14 would have just freaked me out and reinforced what i already knew to be true. BUT, i'm weird, and most teenagers' experiences do not match up with my own.
since film is a very objective thing, i think every film should be judged in a formalist atmosphere, and the rating for a film should depend entirely on the rater's reaction to the film, not taking any other film into account. "well, we rated Top Gun PG, so this sex scene isn't so bad" is not the way to go. even more offensive is the practice of rating things on a commercial basis, on what audience it's trying to reach. a prime example is Titanic. if you're going to have hard and fast rules as far as ratings go in the first place, (i.e., frontal nudity = R rating), for God's sake stick with them.
Yeah.....there has been some favoritism towards certain directors in the past, and that's not fair. If a film meets the criteria for a PG, it should be rated PG. If a film should be rated R, it shouldn't be rated PG-13 because the director is considered really important or cool. This is, of course, putting aside my question of lowering or raising the ratings on films because of the perceived social or moral value.
I think it should be shown wirh a waiver from parents. I like Dr. Worm's label of PSLL. I think teachers wanting to show it should write a letter to parents and explain the benefits of this and have them sign a permission slip for their child to watch it.
I can't say I'm familiar with the American classification system, nor can I claim to be familiar with the specific film you've mentioned or drug use in general.
What I will say, though, is that I think the values refelcted in the way we tend to rate films are quite twisted.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with exposed flesh. It's natural (I differentiate naked flesh with porn, though). No person I know has ever been harmed by watching such stuff. In Europe, for example, street signs expose a lot of flesh and no one seems to mind; to the best of my knowledge, Europeans have been known to act in a perfectly normal way.
Contrast that with violence: Kids are not allowed to watch a bit of flesh, but they can watch people get shot and killed. If you ask me what it is that I'd prefer my kids to watch, violence or sex, sex would win every time.
I'll add that I grew up at a time when no one limited contents for me, and I could watch whatever I wanted. Some of my friends may argue, but I think that overall I'm a decent person who was lucky to be exposed to stuff I wouldn't have been able to gain exposure to if I was to grow up today. I'd hate to block others from that.
Totally with you on that, Moshe. America is severely screwed up regarding how jaded we are to violence and how uptight we are about sex and nudity.
WLC has a co-worker who will watch a movie with almost any amount of violence, but nothing with any sex or foul language. It completely boggles our minds.
I don't know how things are in Australia, or were in Israel, but I have heard (and to a very small degree experienced) the European chilled-out attitude to nudity, and I agree that it doesn't seem to be doing them any harm.
And, in my own upbringing, I had somewhat the opposite experience you had. Rather than being exposed to almost everything, I was sheltered from nearly everything, and I'm willing to go so far as to say it did have a (slightly) negative impact on me. I remember specifically one incident:
I was a senior in high school, and my ethics teacher sent home a permission slip so he could show the class Schindler's List (which is rated R). My parents refused to sign it, on the general principle that "we don't watch R-rated movies in this family."
So, on the day the whole class watched Schindler's List, I skulked off to the library by myself to do extra busy work.
And yes, I'm happy to accept any sympathy that anyone cares to bestow.
Well, there you go: another example that censorship is all about geography. In Israel you grow up on severely horrific holocaust material pumped directly into your veins, and Schindler's List gets criticized for being too soft (e.g., not going inside the gas chambers). It's on air every holocaust memorial day.
In case you're interested to know, both Australia and Israel are much closer to the USA than to Europe. Australia is pretty much a copycat of the USA (no wonder, given that the place you're most likely to find our Prime Minister is under George Bush). It's actually worse in certain respects, as only one state allows the sale of porn (now I'm not saying porn is good, but I would like to have the choice).
Israel is heavily influenced by the USA, and nudity is fairly rare - pretty much only when they show European stuff. Luckily, that is not as much of a rarity as it is in Australia.
I'll summarize this geographical survey by saying that I think France is the most beautiful country I've been to (rivaled only by New Zealand), the food is the best there, and their attitudes are just about fine. And I'll add an apology for being totally off the point.
That stinks, DW, We watched Shindler's List in High School as a feild trip (since it was still in theaters), and I'm glad we did, it was pretty edifying.
I agree, Moshe. I can scarcely see the harm of nudity in a non-sexual context to young ones. Now let me get more specific: what about graphic depictions of sexual acts, like the one seen in the final reel of RFAD? Anybody who's seen the film, knows exactly what I'm talking about. Anybody who hasn't, please be warned about spoilers in an upcoming post as this will be discussed in greater detail (but not THAT great detail.....)
I am a 14 year old boy who just saw the movie. this film has completely changed the way i look at the world and life in general. Being someone not usually affected by films like this it is surprising how much this film left a scare on me. Since I'm a 14 year old boy i cannot really think how girls would think about this. it could leave a pretty big scare.i wouldn't show it until they are at least 15 and up. maybe even later but I'm not sure. Some people it may have no affect on aspecialy in school when kids may not take it seriously. i don't think it would have had the same affect on me if i watched it in school then watching it alone. if you are doing this for shool make it an asignment to watch at home alone and make them write the meaning of the movie or something like that. Other than that it might be a waste of time.
Anon, when you say it changed the way that you look at the workd and life in general, what do you specifically mean? What changed?
The truth is RFAD has some really gritty scenes, especially at the end. But these scenes have a true purpose. No sane person perceives what happens to Mariam as pornography, its showing how far she has gone for her addiction.
As for the rest of the movie, I've seen far worse in PG-13 or R rated films and it really doesn't deserve the rating it gets. That shouldn't even be up for debate.
Showing RFAD at schools was the first thing that occured to me after watching it. Being a doctor and interested in public health, i see that we should use EVERYTHING we have in the war on drugs. I wrote to various bodies in charge of school curricula and drug education and off course i got a bureaucratic red-taped response. The film is showing a uncontrolled spiral into a deep dark hell of addiction - but it also has other themes; family, love, idealized dreams, loneliness, ambition, obsession and addiction. These are all rich themes that resonate a good Shakespearean play. Agree?
Post a Comment
<< Home