Movie Musings: The 12A Rating for Dark Knight

Kermode on the radio on Friday brought up the subject again, and my good buddy Chris said he's been to see the film a couple of times and kids keep running out and being scared.

BUH!

It's a twelve. When we went to see it there were loads of kids clearly under that age, and these are the kids whose parents write letters of complaints to the Daily Mail saying how unacceptable the rating was since the film wasn't appropriate for their 8-11 year old child.

These people should be sterilised.

Not because they are horrible people but because they clearly are incapable of following simple instructions, meaning we may well all be killed due to them just not paying attention to the written directions on the side of a packet of Nuclear Weapons. Or something.

For your information, here is the definition of the 12A Rating from the BBFC:

12A – Suitable for 12 years and over. No-one younger than 12 may see a ‘12A’ film in a cinema unless accompanied by an adult. No-one younger than 12 may rent or buy a ‘12’ rated video or DVD. Responsibility for allowing under-12s to view lies with the accompanying or supervising adult.

This clearly CLEARLY states that the responsibility lies with the parents. Any child with a parent who thinks Dark Knight will be appropriate for them should be subject enforced adoption. It'd be better for them in a way, since they clearly are in danger of serious death.

Parents these days are confused I think, about what constitutes their responsibility

In my understanding, when you are a parent, your child is 100% your responsibility. But in my old job as a computer game salesman, I was confronted again by parent s who insisted the ratings system was there to cause them grief, since they had to come and buy the games rather than send their little brat to buy them. These parents would then complain that the games were inappropriate!

Main example? It's obvious. Grand Theft Auto. Mainly the San Andreas version, which being based around gangs and Rap culture this particular game was even more sexist and money obsessed than usual. I wouldn't even dream of letting a child of mine play it.

The number of parents of eleven or twelve year olds who were apoplectic over the games content all got the same response - "it's got an eighteen rating, the child should not have been given it". The parents response was almost universally something like this:

"But all the advertising that goes on - of course the kids are going to want it! What am I supposed to tell them?"

My answer?

"Tell them 'NO'" ("you tosser")

Why is it so hard to say no? What' the kid going to do, he's half your height? But in my experience so many kids are essentially Tyrants because these parents just are too lazy to enforce their will, it's just easier to give in and get the kid whatever he or she wants - even if it means the parent is failing in their responsibility.

See, it's not really reasonable to have a go at parents for beingexhausted and wanting the easy way out. By all accounts, being a parent is not easy. What I object to is that they won't admit it's their responsibility they're shirking. As in the cases of the Dark Knight and GTA: San Andreas, they consider it the fault of the BBFC, or the games company, when all it takes is for them to do what they must have wanted to do in the first place - be a parent.

The 12A rating for the Dark Knight is controversial, but I'm really interested in whether it upset kids of 12 and up, not whether those that the rating says are too young were upset (because their parents couldn't leave them at home) - of course they were! A 15 rating is a big thing to give a film, especially a blockbuster (I hear Hellboy 2 is a 12A also) since the film is cost a lot of audience when this happens.

I think they did just about enough, with hindsight, to avoid a 15 rating - the effect for Two Face is really just The Mummy version 6.0 and all the really bloody stuff is edited out (I'm thinking the DVD will be a 15 and have all this back in) - the only bone of contention for me is the home video of the Joker and the Batman impersonator. But it's a 12 in the same sense that Citizen Kane is a U - just because it's not violating the "content" rating doesn't mean kids will enjoy the "subject" and "plot". It's tough to get a twelve year old head around the nuances of the vigilante's dilemma and there's not really enough boom and fun to make it worth their whiles.

But it is GENUINELY a 12. And if you take someone under the age to see it and they can't sleep for a month, it's YOUR fault, not Batmans.

A