Some People Are Just Sick...

Kintarō Hattori

I'm just back from Cineworld where myself and the missus watched Blindness with Julianne Moore. While people were shuffling in we noticed a young kid and an older man (presumably his father).

The movie was progressing nicely when we got to:

The scene where the people of Ward One were debating whether or not to send the women to Ward Three so the men there could rape them for food in return.

This particular scene had a few minutes build up so the adult with the kid would have known what was coming and really should have made a hasty exit.

The scene where the women filed into the ward and were raped was pretty brutal. There was one part where one of the males was vicously beating one of the women to the point where he ended up killing her.

I have to say we were both surprised that he didn't take the young lad (11-13) and leave the screen. So should I not be surprised? I know myself if we had kids I wouldn't be happy to have them watch a scene like this so young.

What would you have done if you were there with your kid(s).

brendansmith

Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.
I started smoking at 12.
11-13 is not young anymore!

Chinafoot

Unfortunately the film has a 15A cert so I don't think you would expect a scene such as that. I haven't seen this film but if it was a brutal as you say perhaps it should have been given a higer cert.

According to the IFCO site..

VIOLENCE: This may be realistic but not gratuitous, prolonged or overly bloody. We take particular account of the way in which sexual violence is portrayed.

*shrug*

Realistically, unless you are aware of the content of the film you only have the cert to go on. I don't see how it makes anyone "sick"..

zAbbo

brendansmith wrote: »

Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.
I started smoking at 12.
11-13 is not young anymore!

I guess not, except, it looks unsuitable from the classification here - http://www.ifco.ie/Website/IFCO/ifcoweb.nsf/SearchViewFilm/C64A640249BA5ADD802574D500504BE6?OpenDocument&OpenUp=True

Strong Violence,Nudity and Language...

Contains scenes of harrowing mob violence and panic, including sexual violence. In a 15A/16 context, this is at the high end of 15A.

And a reminder on 15a's

Films classified in this category are considered to be suitable for those of fifteen and upwards. They may also be seen by younger children provided a parent or adult guardian accompanies them.

Cinemas have always been a cheap childminding service

Kintarō Hattori

Chinafoot wrote: »

Realistically, unless you are aware of the content of the film you only have the cert to go on. I don't see how it makes anyone "sick"..

There was a build up to the scene so the 'father' had ample time to take his son out of there.

Chinafoot

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

There was a build up to the scene so the 'father' had ample time to take his son out of there.

Build up doesn't necessarily mean anything would have been shown on screen. Perhaps the 'father' didn't think a film with a 15A certificate would have a scene in it like that.

Kintarō Hattori

Chinafoot wrote: »

Build up doesn't necessarily mean anything would have been shown on screen. Perhaps the 'father' didn't think a film with a 15A certificate would have a scene in it like that.

Perhaps but regardless I certainly would have taken any son/daughter out during the scene.

Galvasean

Some kids are quite mature for their age. I myself at 12 would have been quite capable of enduring such scenes without any negative effects.

Nevyn

Did you make a complaint to the duty manager ?

Kintarō Hattori

Thaedydal wrote: »

Did you make a complaint to the duty manager ?

I wasn't that annoyed by it, just enough to come here and make my point.

Galvasean

I doubt such a complaint would be much use. The film is 15a, so a parent can bring an under 15 in no bother.

Kintarō Hattori

Galvasean wrote: »

I doubt such a complaint would be much use. The film is 15a, so a parent can bring an under 15 in no bother.

Heh good point.

Chinafoot

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Perhaps but regardless I certainly would have taken any son/daughter out during the scene.

Well thats you. For all you know that kid could have been older than he looks. I think it's a bit extreme to call someone sick because they didn't remove their child from a film that they were perfectly entitled to see according to the IFCO.

As for complaints being made...make one to the IFCO if you feel so strongly about it. The cert on the film allows a child under 15 to be there with an adult. The cinema didn't nothing wrong.

Kintarō Hattori

Chinafoot wrote: »

As for complaints being made...make one to the IFCO if you feel so strongly about it. The cert on the film allows a child under 15 to be there with an adult. The cinema didn't nothing wrong.

I never stated that I thought the cinema did anything wrong. I thought it was a particuarly graphic scene, I thought he should have left and I asked would you have done the same.

And really the kid was no older than 11-13.

MagicMarker

Is there anyone here who wasn't allowed watch anything they wanted to as a young kid?

I remember watching the likes of Childs Play when I was about 5 ffs! Now fair enough, i thought the teddy bear on top of my wardrobe was going to kill me until my brothers put it outside, but it had no long lasting effects!

Likewise when I came home from school at about 10 years old to sit down and watch the movie my dad had rented, Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer.

Kids probably see more violence in video games!

I'm not saying it's right, but I don't think I've ever come across anyone who weren't allowed watch violent/scary movies as a kid.

Galvasean

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I never stated that I thought the cinema did anything wrong. I thought it was a particuarly graphic scene, I thought he should have left and I asked would you have done the same.

And really the kid was no older than 11-13.

I know a24 year old who looks about 15. Perhaps this kid was older than he/she looked?

Although from the description I'm amazed that film got away with a 15a cert.

Chinafoot

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

And really the kid was no older than 11-13.

My cousin looks no older than 8...he's almost 15. Looks can be very deceiving.
If your estimation of his age is correct...there is a big difference between 11 and 13.

It's not really for you to decide what is and isn't acceptable for someone else in this situation. We have an office that does that and according to them it is ok for a child under 15 (assuming of course that he was under 15) to see that film with an adult. You would have taken your child out and thats fine, but to call someone sick because they didn't act the same way is a tad over the top.

Kintarō Hattori

Chinafoot wrote: »

It's not really for you to decide what is and isn't acceptable for someone else in this situation. We have an office that does that and according to them it is ok for a child under 15 (assuming of course that he was under 15) to see that film with an adult. You would have taken your child out and thats fine, but to call someone sick because they didn't act the same way is a tad over the top.

I haven't decided anything, I've merely given my opinion. This is the second time you've accused me of something I haven't actually done.

starn

Ive seen this film and if I was there with a kid. Yes I would definatly of left. quite frankly very uncomfortable scene. I happened to be there on my own. Had a few hours to kill during the day and caught a matinee. I would of felt uncomfortable sitting there with my girlfriend never mind a 12 year old kid

Chinafoot

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

This is the second time you've accused me of something I haven't actually done.

I haven't accused you of anything. Over react much?

My comment about complaining was in response to Thaed's question to you. I didn't say that you had planned to complain or that you had suggested the cinema had done something wrong.

Your thread title suggests that the person who didn't remove the child from the cinema was "sick". I'm merely saying that it seems very over the top considering the person was well within his rights to have the child there with him. I also feel that jumping to conclusions about the childs age is pointless.

Now feel free to completely misread my post, again.

Kintarō Hattori

Chinafoot wrote: »

The cinema didn't nothing wrong.

Here you imply that I think the cinema did something wrong.

Chinafoot wrote: »

It's not really for you to decide what is and isn't acceptable for someone else in this situation.

Here you imply that I have decided what is and is not fit to be shown.

Chinafoot wrote: »

Now feel free to completely misread my post, again.

I haven't misread anything, you've laid it out in black and white.

ryoishin

I hate rape scenes, they turn my stomach!

zAbbo

Has anyone here, bar the OP seen the film, and in particular that scene?

Mark Kermode in his reviews, said it was a particularly disturbing scene, which he nearly walked out on.

From my understanding it's a particularly vicious rape scene involving death?

I'm not sure why some people are defending underage kids viewing an unsuitable movie, especially when a parent takes them to the cinema.

Latchy

Would have being so easy for the film makers to put a warning sign on screen before the film like they do on tv ie, '' this film contains scenes of a graphic violent and sexual nature ''. At least then you have an idea what's to come.

AnonoBoy

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm not saying it's right, but I don't think I've ever come across anyone who weren't allowed watch violent/scary movies as a kid.

I know loads of people who weren't. My folks would let us watch some things but only after they had watched them and vetted them first.

I definitely would not let my kids watch horror movies until they're old enough.

zAbbo

latchyco wrote: »

Would have being so easy for the film makers to put a warning sign on screen before the film like they do on tv ie, '' this film contains scenes of a graphic violent and sexual nature ''. At least then you have an idea what's to come.

That's what the ratings are for, 15a - over 15's only, or under 15's accompanied by an adult.

A quick glance at the IFCO entry for the movie would tell you enough - http://www.ifco.ie/Website/IFCO/ifcoweb.nsf/SearchViewFilm/C64A640249BA5ADD802574D500504BE6?OpenDocument&OpenUp=True

Personally I'd be very uncomfortable taking an underage person in to see, and the only exception would be for those who have read the book...

Latchy

zAbbo wrote: »

That's what the ratings are for, 15a - over 15's only, or under 15's accompanied by an adult.

Personally I'd be very uncomfortable taking an underage person in to see, and the only exception would be for those who have read the book...

Then basically the fault is with the adult who took the younger looking child to see the film .

MagicMarker

ryoishin wrote: »

I hate rape scenes, they turn my stomach!

I love them.

Fysh

latchyco wrote: »

Then basically the fault is with the adult who took the younger looking child to see the film .

It would appear that allocating individual responsibility is less fun than starting a Daily-Mail-esque campaign to demonise people based on FUD Rather than facts.

IF the kid was under age and taken to see that film, then yes, it was in all likelihood an irresponsible action and a complaint to the cinema's manager might have been in order. Similarly a complaint to the IFCO would have been an option.

At the end of the day though, we're talking about one person jumping to a conclusion about someone else's parenting without any facts to back them up. I'm reminded of this, to be honest...

fitz

Going by what someone posted above about the ratings definitions, I think there's definitely grounds for complaint to IFCO. I haven't seen the movie, but the description of the scenes in question is certainly not something I'd expect the certification to allow leeway for someone to bring a 6 year old to.

Kintarō Hattori

Fysh wrote: »

At the end of the day though, we're talking about one person jumping to a conclusion about someone else's parenting without any facts to back them up. I'm reminded of this, to be honest...

Hardly a fair comparison Fysh. The kid was clearly underage.

Latchy

Fysh wrote: »

It would appear that allocating individual responsibility is less fun than starting a Daily-Mail-esque campaign to demonise people based on FUD Rather than facts.

IF the kid was under age and taken to see that film, then yes, it was in all likelihood an irresponsible action and a complaint to the cinema's manager might have been in order. Similarly a complaint to the IFCO would have been an option.

At the end of the day though, we're talking about one person jumping to a conclusion about someone else's parenting without any facts to back them up. I'm reminded of this, to be honest...

We havent seen the person or the youger person /child OP was refering to .But like most people i tend to want to know what the subject film is all about and we read reviews .So the adult in question is either irresponsible or iggnorent of the contents of the movie and didnt take the time to read any reviews .

Cactus Col

I dislike the new ratings system. There are a lot of parents out there who seem to thing just because a kid is allowed into a film should mean the film is suitable for them. I thin I remember hearing several complaints on liveline from parents on liveline who brought their little bundles of light to see The Dark Knight and were shocked by the violence.

Fysh

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Hardly a fair comparison Fysh. The kid was clearly underage.

No, you thought they were clearly underage. Maybe you were right, maybe you were wrong. The choice of boards.ie as a venue to vent your disgust with the quality of parenting/standards of cinema management/IFCO ratings/the world today, however, suggests that you're less concerned about actually effecting a real change to the situation as you see it and more concerned about complaining how "some people" are "just sick" because they don't happen to share your exact perspective on an issue.

(Just to restate, I have no idea if the kid was underage or not, or whether the film should have had a child anywhere near it be they accompanied by a parent or otherwise. I just think that passing judgement of this kind, based on what you have decided the kid's age probably was rather than anything like an actual factual basis, is reprehensible and fundamentally suspect)

For the sake of this thread not going horrendously off-topic considering it's in the Film forum, would you like to see one or more of the following:

a) child-free showings in cinemas? (I've seen these advertised in a couple of cinemas in London, coupled with special "parents & young children" matinee showings of films for mature audiences)
b) changes to the IFCO ratings system to introduce lower-age equivalents of the NC-17 rating? (Eg NC-12, NC-15 for films with significant sexual or violent content which wouldn't necessarily be enough to earn an 18 or NC-17 but is nonetheless unsuitable for kids)
c) stricter enforcement of existing ratings by cinemas?

Kintarō Hattori

It's not a question of I thought the kid was underage, the kid was underage, unless he suffers from a genetic condition which makes him look younger than he is, aka Michael J. Fox. I never once mentioned the cinema management or the IFCO, merely the quality of parenting that allowed him to stay and watch that scene, so I'd appreciate your not putting word in my mouth.

Boards is a discussion forum, so I came on here to discuss what I saw.

The cinema setup as it stands is just fine, the one thing you don't have on your list there is for parents to display a little cop on in regards to what they bring their kids to see. You left that option out.

Fysh

So what you're saying is that, because of what you think in your capacity as Some Person From The Internet, all parents should show "cop on" as defined by you when choosing films for their children to watch, despite the fact that the ratings system may have defined their film of choice as being suitable for children to watch when accompanied by a parent?

What I'm trying to get at here is, the rating of the film said it was suitable for children if accompanied by their parents. It sounds like it wasn't, but that's beside the point - the point is a parent looking at films and going by the ratings would assume it was suitable material. The parent in question would have done nothing wrong by taking their child to see the film. Which means that, if you really feel this is wrong, do something about it. Write to the IFCO. Write to the papers and argue your case. Canvass local politicians about it. Do leaflet runs around your area to make more people aware of the issue. Maybe you'll change people's minds.

The approach you're taking here is "I can't be arsed changing anything or even trying to change anything, but I reserve my right to have a good old moan about how someone did something without asking my approval first", and I don't see what you expect anyone here to do about it except maybe join in with cries of "rabble rabble rabble".

Karl Hungus

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

the one thing you don't have on your list there is for parents to display a little cop on in regards to what they bring their kids to see.

Get some perspective man, there's parents out there who let their kids out drinking dutch gold at 2am every weekend. Fully assuming this a child, what kind of permanent, irreversible damage do you think the parent has inflicted upon him by letting bringing him to see this film? I just don't see the fuss here.

Kintarō Hattori

Fysh wrote: »

...if you really feel this is wrong, do something about it. Write to the IFCO. Write to the papers and argue your case. Canvass local politicians about it. Do leaflet runs around your area to make more people aware of the issue. Maybe you'll change people's minds.

The approach you're taking here is "I can't be arsed changing anything or even trying to change anything, but I reserve my right to have a good old moan about how someone did something without asking my approval first", and I don't see what you expect anyone here to do about it except maybe join in with cries of "rabble rabble rabble".

You're way way off the point. As the film was 15A then the father was within his right to think that he could bring along his son BUT, in the build up to that scene he should have realised 'Wait a second, maybe this isn't the most suitable thing for young Tommy to watch'.

However you make an interesting point about writing to the IFCO, I may just do that.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Get some perspective man, there's parents out there who let their kids out drinking dutch gold at 2am every weekend. Fully assuming this a child, what kind of permanent, irreversible damage do you think the parent has inflicted upon him by letting bringing him to see this film? I just don't see the fuss here.

Karl karl karl, I have all the perspective in the world thanks. Yes of course there are far worse things being commited by kids/parents as we speak. Do you think it's acceptable for a young kid to witness a

gang rape where one woman was so brutally assaulted that it lead to her death?

Karl Hungus

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Do you think it's acceptable for a young kid to witness a

gang rape where one woman was so brutally assaulted that it lead to her death?

You mean like watching Last House on the Left when I was 14? No, completely unacceptable.

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

Did you make a complaint to the duty manager ?

What can the duty manager do though? The movie was a 15A, which means the kid was perfectly acceptable for being there with the adult over 18. If anything, they should have made a complaint to the adult.

It's amazing how many parents get furious when we tell them that their 15 year old kid can't go into the 18's movie with them. Even after you explain that you, as the employee, could get in some serious trouble.

Mitch Connor

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Here you imply that I have decided what is and is not fit to be shown.


.

You called the dad sick for allowing his kid to watch the scene which you clearly felt was not suitable to be shown to a child of the age you have assigned to them. If that doesn't mean you do not think it was fit for the rating given...

Mitch Connor

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

You're way way off the point. As the film was 15A then the father was within his right to think that he could bring along his son BUT, in the build up to that scene he should have realised 'Wait a second, maybe this isn't the most suitable thing for young Tommy to watch'.

However you make an interesting point about writing to the IFCO, I may just do that.



Karl karl karl, I have all the perspective in the world thanks. Yes of course there are far worse things being commited by kids/parents as we speak. Do you think it's acceptable for a young kid to witness a

gang rape where one woman was so brutally assaulted that it lead to her death?

you see hardly anything given the light and about 3 punches.

lottodrink

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I'm just back from Cineworld where myself and the missus watched Blindness with Julianne Moore. While people were shuffling in we noticed a young kid and an older man (presumably his father).

The movie was progressing nicely when we got to:

The scene where the people of Ward One were debating whether or not to send the women to Ward Three so the men there could rape them for food in return.

This particular scene had a few minutes build up so the adult with the kid would have known what was coming and really should have made a hasty exit.

The scene where the women filed into the ward and were raped was pretty brutal. There was one part where one of the males was vicously beating one of the women to the point where he ended up killing her.

I have to say we were both surprised that he didn't take the young lad (11-13) and leave the screen. So should I not be surprised? I know myself if we had kids I wouldn't be happy to have them watch a scene like this so young.

What would you have done if you were there with your kid(s).

How do you know the child was only 11-13?? He coulda been a young looking 17 year old for all ya know. My niece is only 8 and loves horror films (The Ring, The Excorcist), I watched horrors(IT, Freddy) when I was a kid as well... It's not a big deal!!

Just realised how to read the spoilers there... Yeah maybe they shouldnt be allowed to see scenes like that, By the sounds of it the film should have been 18's....

abouttobebanned

Some people are just sick? A bit melodramatic no?

lottodrink

Just a tad yeah lol

Kintarō Hattori

lottodrink wrote: »

How do you know the child was only 11-13?? He coulda been a young looking 17 year old for all ya know. My niece is only 8 and loves horror films (The Ring, The Excorcist), I watched horrors(IT, Freddy) when I was a kid as well... It's not a big deal!!

Just realised how to read the spoilers there... Yeah maybe they shouldnt be allowed to see scenes like that, By the sounds of it the film should have been 18's....

It wasn't the fact that the movie was a horror that was the problem, it was that one scene, which you seem to agree wasn't suitable for a minor.

Dudess

"Sick" is way too extreme Kintaro. But yeah, I haven't seen the film, but if it was a very violent, graphic rape and beating... well that's on another level to Nightmare On Elm Street, Child's Play etc. Those are fantasies, escapism... this is a bit too much gritty realism, not the same as your run-of-the-mill horror film.

lottodrink

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

It wasn't the fact that the movie was a horror that was the problem, it was that one scene, which you seem to agree wasn't suitable for a minor.

Yeah I agree, I only figured out how to read the spoiler thing after I replied... New to this ya know.

Nevyn

Some people are idiots.
Some parents are idiots.

Kintarō Hattori

Dudess wrote: »

"Sick" is way too extreme Kintaro.

You're right there dudess (as other posters have been also). I just couldn't think of something appropriate at the time, title changed.