Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Some People Are Just Sick...

Options
  • 23-11-2008 11:55pm
    #1
    Kintarō Hattori
    Registered Users Posts: 14,966 ✭✭✭✭


    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).
    Tagged:


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    brendansmith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,526 ✭✭✭brendansmith


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


  • Options
    #3
    Chinafoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭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"..


  • Options
    #4
    zAbbo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,987 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #5
    Kintarō Hattori
    Registered Users Posts: 14,966 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #6
    Chinafoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Kintarō Hattori
    Registered Users Posts: 14,966 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #8
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #9
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Did you make a complaint to the duty manager ?


  • Options
    #10
    Kintarō Hattori
    Registered Users Posts: 14,966 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #11
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Kintarō Hattori
    Registered Users Posts: 14,966 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #13
    Chinafoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #14
    Kintarō Hattori
    Registered Users Posts: 14,966 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #15
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #16
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #17
    Chinafoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #18
    Kintarō Hattori
    Registered Users Posts: 14,966 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #19
    starn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #20
    Chinafoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #21
    Kintarō Hattori
    Registered Users Posts: 14,966 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    ryoishin
    Registered Users Posts: 754 ✭✭✭ryoishin


    I hate rape scenes, they turn my stomach!


  • Options
    #23
    zAbbo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,987 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #24
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #25
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #26
    zAbbo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,987 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #27
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭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 .


  • Options
    #28
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    ryoishin wrote: »
    I hate rape scenes, they turn my stomach!
    I love them.


  • Options
    #29
    Fysh
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #30
    fitz
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 7,957 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Kintarō Hattori
    Registered Users Posts: 14,966 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement