Batman

Follow

ALL // POLLS // PHOTOS

12 Followers

See All

/ Photo

Growing anger over Batman's 12A rating as parents and politicians say movie is too violent

2 comments | 0 likes

August 6, 2008

Parental concern over the violent scenes in the new Batman film reached new heights yesterday.
Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith added his voice to protests that the 12A 'family friendly' rating granted by the British Board of Film Classification was woefully inadequate.
He wrote to the The Times saying that after seeing the movie with his 15-year-old daughter he was 'astonished' that The Dark Knight could be seen by much younger children.
His criticism follows Mail columnist Allison Pearson's condemnation of the film last week as a 'symphony of sadism'.
At cinemas yesterday worried parents were voting with their feet and leaving before the end.
Accountant Suzanne Prinz, 31, who took her seven-year-old son Simon to see the film in Bristol, 'instantly' regretted it.
'We came out before the end because it was much more violent than I thought it would be,' she said.
'It's not a film for children. I turned to him and asked if he was OK and he said he was scared, so I decided it was time to leave.'
Meanwhile, experts lined up to condemn the BBFC for its willingness to put extreme violence before wide audiences.
The board's 12A rating for The Dark Knight allows those aged 12 and older to see it unaccompanied, while much younger children can watch it with an adult.
Daily Mail film critic Christopher Tookey said: 'Although it's been allocated a 12A certificate, it's completely unsuitable for children, who will find it murky, incomprehensible and frightening.'
Former chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Gerald Kaufman said: 'I would certainly not be happy to take a young child along to watch this film.
'I believe children should be protected from violence and the BBFC should be more vigilant and stringent with its certifications.'

Posted in:

2 Comments

AlexG

Great story. I love stuff like this 'cause it's so controversial. Here's my issue with it: "Suzanne Prinz ..... took her SEVEN-YEAR-OLD son ...." If you know it's got a 12A rating which means that a parent should think about bringing their child along, and you've at least heard a little about how violent others have thought it to be, then why would you take your SEVEN-year-old child with you to see it the first time? If you think he's up to it, then you were obviously wrong. If you didn't think to see it yourself first so you can evaluate it properly, then you didn't think things through too well, did you? And it's the parent's job to look at movies that they take their children to BEFORE they take them to see it or at least read up on the movie enough if you even have a slight hesitation. I went to see Starship Troopers when I was about 11 or 12 years old. Granted it wasn't as dark and brooding as the Dark Knight, it would still be inappropriate for most kids that age, but my parents knew me well enough to know that I would be able to enjoy it without getting the wrong idea or misunderstanding too much of what was going on in the movie. I wasn't scarred by movies like that in my childhood because my parents had the smarts to keep the movies that were totally inappropriate for me at specific ages till later in my life, and knew their child well enough to know when I was ready for movies of a certain caliber. I understand that parents nowadays are really busy with other concerns, but is that a reason to deprive other parents the right to choose what their children are old enough to see and what they aren't? To deprive kids that want to see a movie that all their friends have been talking about for the last two months? Just because some parents didn't think before taking their not-yet-matured kids to see a movie they obviously weren't ready to see?

August 6, 2008 Like 3