Off screen, on screen, I think it was still far, far too intense for 13-year-olds. The scenes with the joker placing the knife to the inside of his victim's mouth while explaining how he got his scars? The death of a goon by pencil? Incinerating a man alive?
Hell, is there a single action by the Joker that doesn't cause some sort of intense psychological or emotional anxiety on the part of viewers? Nicholson's Joker was lauded for being a dark madman, but he's got nothing, nothing on Ledger.
Yes, all of the violence happens off screen, but in this case I think that the overall effect is far, far greater than the sum of its parts. I'm not saying its bad; I'm just saying that it's not something I'd take *my* 13-year-old to see (granted, I doubt Jordan would ever *want* to see this kind of movie, but I digress).
To me, these ratings are designed to inform parents of the content within. PG-13 says that it may be inappropriate for kids under 13 because it has some adult themes. (definitions here, btw).
An R rating, on the other hand, says that kids under 17 can't see it without and adult, and that "Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R-rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children."
To me, that fits The Dark Knight to a T. This isn't something that parents should be walking into uninformed, and they certainly shouldn't assume that because it's a superhero flick that it's automatically appropriate for kids. It's all the more important with Batman, given the campy history of the 60s television series and the non-Burtan movies. IMHO, a stronger warning is in order.
Ultimately though, it's a hard call because it's so subjective. The MPAA ratings are focused on stuff they can quantify -- is there violence on screen? is there nudity? is there drug use? -- while avoiding the meat of the movie.
If nothing else, the PG-13 label itself needed to be more strongly worded. As stands it reads "Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace."
Mon, 07/21/2008 - 9:19pm
Off screen, on screen, I think it was still far, far too intense for 13-year-olds. The scenes with the joker placing the knife to the inside of his victim's mouth while explaining how he got his scars? The death of a goon by pencil? Incinerating a man alive?
Hell, is there a single action by the Joker that doesn't cause some sort of intense psychological or emotional anxiety on the part of viewers? Nicholson's Joker was lauded for being a dark madman, but he's got nothing, nothing on Ledger.
Yes, all of the violence happens off screen, but in this case I think that the overall effect is far, far greater than the sum of its parts. I'm not saying its bad; I'm just saying that it's not something I'd take *my* 13-year-old to see (granted, I doubt Jordan would ever *want* to see this kind of movie, but I digress).
To me, these ratings are designed to inform parents of the content within. PG-13 says that it may be inappropriate for kids under 13 because it has some adult themes. (definitions here, btw).
An R rating, on the other hand, says that kids under 17 can't see it without and adult, and that "Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R-rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children."
To me, that fits The Dark Knight to a T. This isn't something that parents should be walking into uninformed, and they certainly shouldn't assume that because it's a superhero flick that it's automatically appropriate for kids. It's all the more important with Batman, given the campy history of the 60s television series and the non-Burtan movies. IMHO, a stronger warning is in order.
Ultimately though, it's a hard call because it's so subjective. The MPAA ratings are focused on stuff they can quantify -- is there violence on screen? is there nudity? is there drug use? -- while avoiding the meat of the movie.
If nothing else, the PG-13 label itself needed to be more strongly worded. As stands it reads "Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace."
"some menace" ... are they kidding?
»