CNN is running a piece questioning the current crop of G-rated films in the theater and whether they may be far more violent and objectionable than those in the past. They cite examples from the new Disney film "Chicken Little" where animal are vaporized by invading aliens. They cite examples from the recent "Wallace & Gromit" film where (1) a female character holds up melons in a strategic spot and (2) where the villain hunts the main character with a shotgun. The MPAA appears to be on the defensive, excusing such G-ratings as "subjective ratings that change with the culture."
Now, I am adult who watches films from G to R, so perhaps I am desensitized. But the examples cited seem no more (or less) violent than the first G-rated film I saw as a child - Bambi. The violence of the fire, and the death of Bambi's parents were more than a little traumatic for my young mind. But that did not mean they were PG or above! Likewise, should the Muppet Movies have been rated higher for the "violent" behavior of the Sweedish Chef? Of course not!
While Hollywood ratings have certainly slipped over the years between PG and R, I think G is still a relatively safe haven for the innocent. Nothing is truly safe, unless a parent carefully pre-screens movies for their child. But G is about as close as it comes.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder