|
Author
|
Topic: The Hunger Games
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted March 30, 2012 01:12 PM
Coming in on what Tom is saying regarding "A Clockwork Orange"
and "The Exorcist".The first one made it's name on violence that
was given added impetus when the author Anthony Burgess was
successful in getting the film withdrawn, and the second gained
it's notoriety by it's foul language,which at the time was very
shocking.People who went to see the film in droves,weren't
going to see revolving heads etc,they wanted to see a child
masturbating with a crucifix and a plethora of expletives being
used.The films were not made for minors to view.Regarding
Mary Whitehouse,she was correct in what she believed, in the
viewing standards being eroded.At that time bad language on
TV and cinema was unheard of because we had standards.
Remember the very famous TV interviewer in the UK named
Bill Grundy,who had a very popular show at the time,that is
until he had the Sex Pistols on it.The boys were given their head
and encouraged to use foul language,Bill Grundy not only lost
his job,he lost his livelyhood and became a pariah overnight.
Foul language now is commonplace and used as punctuation
by some people,is that a good thing?Would it be accepable to use such language in front of children?The point is once you
nibble away at standards and bend the rules for this and turn
a blind eye to that,eventually you don't have any standards,or morals or ethics, and all you'll have is decadence,and that my
friends was in part responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted March 30, 2012 01:17 PM
There was a very good point an earlier post brought up, in that children will usually attempt to imitate what they see or idolize in thier lives ...
This whole literally aneorxic look of the young men in the "Twilight" series, for instance, has been being aped by young men. It was on the "Today Show", how more and more young men are going the way of bulemia and or aneorexia (I'm probably mis-spelling those words) and are astarving themselves to death just to look like the stick then pretty boys of those films.
... and yes, you will see some kids who will hunt other kids, just to see them die. Yes, this has happened and is already happening in society (which is quite sad), young teens around 12 or so, enticing a little kid with candy or friendship and then brutally murdering them and when asked why they did it, they just wanted to watch someone die. It was entertainment for them.
Has this been going on for a long time? Perhaps ... our generation today doesn't have a cornered market on evil or any form of horrendous crimes, look at the very history of humanity in general. I will say it is more pronounced today and becoming more societally acceptable today.
Ahhh, my friends ...
"Don't ya believe, were on the Eve of Destruction!"
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted March 30, 2012 03:17 PM
Yes we were Mike,and the point is violence in films has always been there usually the more graphic stuff for ADULT audiences
Stuart makes the point that he didn't come across any of this
sort of thing as he was a youngster,which underlines the point
that then you wouldn't have been allowed to view such stuff
you were considered a child, and for your protection,there were
rules in place to protect you,starting with the certification of films."Mask of the Demon"was banned for seven years on account of the violence on show for ADULT audiences in '67
Now anything goes and vulnerable young people are exposed to
filth and depravity on computer sites,drugs available and
encouraged to drink alcohol,why else did they introduce the
sweetie drink known as "alcopops".I don't know of any adults
that drink these,but they're very popular among the young
and these so called "caring governments" wring their hands but
won't ban them.Don't be suprised some day soon on the news that some kid will have been murdered in a re enactment of
one of the scenes in"The Hunger Games",and then comes the drivel from Parliament about protecting young minds from such
stuff,no doubt there'll be a "crackdown".Another overworked
little synonym like "classic" and "stunning print"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted March 30, 2012 04:11 PM
Well Tom,I don't think policing anything is a good idea,but we
did have a perfectly good set of censorship certificates in place,
but our powers that be,always looking for a way to cock things up
do away with that idea and implement something that doesn't
work,The politicians in Gt, Britain all have one thing in common
and that is.if it isn't broken,break it!Things that have served and
proved themselves over the years like censorship regarding the
young,suddenly are not fit for purpose and must be changed,
and we see the stuff that children are exposed to.Childhood
is a very special time because you only get the one and that to
my mind at least makes it very precious.Children should be
enjoying stuff like "Star Wars","Harry Potter" etc not the crud
that seeps out of Hollywood now like "The Hunger Games"So
there was no need to police anything Tom,the rule of common
sense and decency applied,sadly very rare these days.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy Woods
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 146
From: Scouser
Registered: Feb 2011
|
posted March 30, 2012 04:49 PM
This is getting political and far away off topic,soon we will be discussing socio/economic policy,I will end my little forage on here with this thought.
Helter Skelter was on an album of music by the Beatles,it does not contain any messages telling people to kill.
Catcher in the Rye,by Salinger,did not instruct people to kill.
These are just two examples of how deranged people view things differently,I really could go on and on with examples,starting in the garden of eden,but alas I won't.
--------------------
Let there be light,so god created the projector
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted March 30, 2012 09:33 PM
I'm really baffled by this thread as everything I've heard about 'The Hunger Games' - including the glowing review on 'Film 2012' - seems to be at odds with the references here to it being "filth" and made by "pathetic specimens of humanity".
Thankfully, Tommy has helped to put things in perspective and contributors such as Joe are hitting the nail on the head with remarks such as: "O.K. Lots of comments, but has ANYONE on this thread actually SEEN this film???? Then how can you really criticize it?"
Like everyone here, I haven't seen it either but in view of the acclaim it has received, I hope to do so on Tuesday, so I'll say something afterwards. I'll be surprised, though, if I find it to be an ultra-gratuitous film pitched at the lowest possible level. Whether it's suitable for 12 years olds is another matter and it's quite possible that I'll disagree with the BBFC, who sometimes make decisions that I consider misguided. E.g. 'The Woman In Black' is a very good film with practically no gore but it's debatable whether that should have been a 12A (following brief cuts in the UK) as some younger audience members found it too intense and frightening to cope with.
But a kew factor with 'The Hunger Games' is that the three novels were for the young adult market and in view of their success, there was bound to be massive interest from young people. This, plus the fact that the literary source is 'respectable' and acclaimed, may have encouraged the BBFC to have been more lenient than they would have been with a more expoitative film.
--------------------
Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michael O'Regan
Film God
Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted March 31, 2012 04:27 AM
Once again, my impression was :
quote:
... we've not been specifically discussing this particular film, but, the increasingly violent content of movies in general.
Martin's original mention of this film simply served to introduce the topic.
However, whether or not anyone has seen the film, they would be perfectly entitled to feel as Graham does:
quote:
I find a movie with a story content like this disturbing.
As I've said above, I haven't seen THE HUNGER GAMES , but I do find the idea contained in it disturbing. Maybe, on viewing the film I'd find that the subject has been treated in an artistic and...ahem... tasteful manner.
I'm somewhat reminded of the furore over Oliver Stone's NATURAL BORN KILLERS a few years ago. I loved that film, still do. I think it's a powerful, accurate, well observed piece of work. However, I wouldn't have wanted my kids of 12 or 13 or even 15 seeing it. Teenagers, in particular those in the lower teens, are very emotionally vulnerable, whether they like to show it or not.
Likewise, whether or not THE HUNGER GAMES turns out to be a good film is neither here nor there. Whether or not it receives rave previews and/or reviews or great acclaim is equally neither here nor there. Whether or not I personally think it's a wonderful piece of filmmaking is, once again, neither here nor there. None of these things imply that it's OK for it to be viewable by young teenagers of 12, 13, 14 years of age, which was the original point introduced in the first post by Martin.
That's my opinion, anyway ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted March 31, 2012 11:44 AM
I agree with the above posts,but I come back to the simple fact
that we had a certification system in the UK that actually worked
and that means this film would have gained an X Certificate,
that meant no one under 16 years of age could view this film, and
that would have killed this discussion stone dead.If you looked
underage you were not admitted to the auditorium,no argument.
That went out the window,when they reclassified horror and sex
films,why they did this is beyond me, and we are still on track
with the discussion.What we had worked,what we have now
doesn't.The problem now is the availability to download this
film,so any moppets with the where withall can view.As for the
rest of us,I myself will give this the wide berth I gave to the
likes of "Brokeback Mountain"which I considered an insult to
the American cowboy,"Avatar" pure self indulgence from
Cameron,and the remake"Clash of the Titans" which was totally
unnecessary,so I won't be contributing to the box office here
as the subject comes across as distasteful,and a step away from
paedophilia.
,
| IP: Logged
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted March 31, 2012 12:51 PM
Hugh did make a good point earlier ...
Those horror fests ect. of the past were marketed to ADULTS, who we would hope (fingers crossed, eh?) are capable of realizing that it's just a film, an entertainment and not end up "emulating" what they see on the screen.
I was actually surprised to see politics get intermixed with this series of posts, as either or any "party" is just as capable of bad tastes or immorality, (though both are quick to make themselves the "champions of decency" when it is politically savvy to do so, hee hee) ...
... It's more just that, with the freedom to allow for permmissive-ness in society or for the individual, this must also go hand in hand with responsibility, and that is the element that is sorely missing today. Yes, we all want our little "freedoms" to do or watch what we want, however, we rarely realize that at times, in exercising our freedom to do so, we are dropping the bar a little further for the next generation ...
and, ironically, when society completely goes to hell, the very generation or individual that allows for this or that "permissive-ness", has the gall to look around themselves, (not taking responsibility) and saying ...
"Wha happened?!"
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin Jones
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1269
From: Thetford , Norfolk,England
Registered: May 2008
|
posted March 31, 2012 01:44 PM
Thank you, gentlemen. And thank you Hugh for pointing out that this is all about whether we should have PROPER control on what our children can see or not see of what is served up in the name of entertainment or ART(?).
As I said before, I have NOT seen the film., but I don't think I would be incorrect in saying that it graphically presents CHILDREN killing CHILDREN. The questions we have to ask are...
1.Would you consider it OK for your 16 year old CHILD to KILL another 16 year old CHILD?
2. Would you consider it OK for your 10, 11,12,13, 14 and 15 year old CHILDREN to watch those 16 year old CHILDREN doing it?
I suspect that NONE of you would answer YES to either of those questions... which is why I made the point in the first place. And I repeat the question "Has our world really sunk so low"...
that we can no longer prevent our VERY YOUNG CHILDREN from seeing this kind of content, or even prevent it appearing in the first place?
And you will NEVER persuade me that it is ART!
Martin
--------------------
Retired TV Service Engineer
Ongoing interest in Telecine....
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted March 31, 2012 05:15 PM
Hello Tom,I thought you'd thrown your hand in.Well politics do
have a bearing on this discussion,because politicians are the ones who make the rules we all have to live by,and at the sake of repeating
myself,they are the ones that changed the rules on Certification
if they had keft it as it was,we wouldn't be having this carry on.
So you see that politics does have a bearing on the film industry
especially in the UK,Where the majority of our screens are American owned through default,mainly through the actions of
two arseholes named Golan/Globus & the Cannon group.As for
actually paying to watch this garbage"The Hunger Years",I have
already said my piece on that.Like I said,you keep nibbling at
standards and you end up watching pornography and probably
some folk won't even know the difference.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted March 31, 2012 06:56 PM
Stuart I agree with Michael here,the issue isn't our being forced
to watch the film,we are all adults and can make up our own minds on a variety of things,the issue isn't even the film and it's
dubious subject matter the issue is young impressionable people
served up this as an entertainment,and as Osi has already stated
kids have been re enacting this in America.I am not saying to anybody
you haven't the right to see this movie,what I'm saying is that the
young folks can view it at an appropriate age,and children at the ages of 12 years and upwards isn't fair on them and I do
think our society is failing these kids God knows they've failed
them on everything else.That I believe was Martin's point at the
start of this very interesting debate,but no, I am not an advocate of censoring stuff,but for young impressionable minds
we must be very careful the moving image is a very powerful
form of communication.I remember as a youngster viewing
Andrzej Wajda's "Ashes and Diamonds" and wished I hadn't
because some of those very powerful images remained with me
and it isn't pleasant.For all the bravado the young put across
they are still children,I know of some people that let their kids
watch "Saw" and the like, which shows that some parents can't
protect their own.Like I've said adults can watch what they want,so can children............when they're old enough.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I find a movie with a story content like this disturbing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
