Moore seeks PG-13 for "F9/11"

[Kid_A]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/15/film.fahrenheit.911.ap/index.html

"The film's images include a public beheading in Saudi Arabia, Iraqis burned by napalm and a grisly scene of an Iraqi man dumping a dead baby into a truckbed loaded with bodies."

Dead babies...yikes...

"It is sadly very possible that many 15- and 16-year-olds will be asked and recruited to serve in Iraq in the next couple of years," Moore said. "If they are old enough to be recruited and capable of being in combat and risking their lives, they certainly deserve the right to see what is going on in Iraq."

Good point...

[mzmolly]

1. I gotta disagree with Moore on the PG13. 13 Year olds won't be drafted.

15 and 16 year olds will see F911 if they really want to.

I saw Saturday Night Fever when I was 12. It's not that hard to sneak into a theatre for a movie you really want to see.

Also, parents will have the right to let their children see this movie in their homes if they wish.

:shrug:

[el_gato]

2. Yet recruiters are entering our schools to snare kids

They are part of this country and have a right to see it if they want.

Plus I think it is vital for future voters to see a little bit
of truth to counteract all the bullshit they are fed on tv everyday.

[mzmolly]

5. I will be traumatized seeing this movie. I don't think can expect an avg

year old to digest this material in a healthy manner? I know that my 13 year old would not be seeing this movie (un-edited) given what I know.

I would let them see the dvd, editing the context which is 'too much.'

Keep in mind the new "Garfield" is PG-13. :eyes:

[ClassWarrior]

7. I showed my 13-year-old Bowling for Columbine...

...just last night. He wasn't traumatized. He laughed and hissed in all the appropriate places, and asked "is that real?" after the montage of on camera gun shootings, but that was about it.

[mzmolly]

10. Your child may differ from many others? My child is very sensitive.

It sounds like F911 is violent with a capital V...??? I wouldn't want kids to be able to walk into a theatre and see it without parential discretion.

[ClassWarrior]

4. First of all, I know a 13-year-old whom I worry I may lose to the draft.

Second, sneakers or not, you still lose a portion of the audience this way - and what about those who only kinda want to see it, but decide to go because VanHelsing doesn't start for an hour.

Third, let him fight it. Whatever the final decision: publicity, publicity, publicity!

[mzmolly]

6. I agree that MM should fight it for the reason you state.

publicity, publicity, publicity! ;)

[hlthe2b]

3. As one who grew up during the Vietnam era when

TV news actually covered the horror of war, I certainly saw things nearly as bad (Mi Lai, the famous napalming of the Vietnamese girl, the "in your face" handgun execution of the VietCong soldier at the hands of our South Vietnamese allies and countless bloodied wounded, or dead US soldiers). Then there were the oncamera assasinations of JFK, Oswald, Bobby Kennedy, and the aftermath of the shooting of MLK). Maybe all this violence that I grew up is why I don't like violent movies, but I don't think older teens should be so sheltered from real life.


I agree that those who might well be drafted (or tempted to enlist not understanding the true nature of war and violence) should not be sheltered from the truth. So, I join Moore in asking: why now do we need to protect 15 and 16 year olds from the horrors of war?

[Wickerman]

12. great post

I grew up with similar images. I saw the first footage of the Hinckley attempt on Raygun and I can still see Brady twitching on the pavement as his life drained from him (those images were edited out of later clips). All those things helped shape who I am and I think kids today can see such images and not be any more warped than they are by Terminator movies and such.

[Joanne98]

8. MM is just starting a buzz

It's a good argument though. If your almost old enough to kill for your country. Your old enough to watch the killing. The pentagon is going to hate this. It's screws up their recruiting. Cause they LIE to get little kids to enlist. MM won't win this one but it will cause a buzz anyway so he still wins. haha

[ClassWarrior]

9. You got it Joanne.

n/t

[neoteric lefty]

11. I don't think 13 year olds should be allowed to just walk in

and watch someone beheaded (if that is actually what is shown). The images will affect them in ways that are unintended. As fast as kids who are growing up these days, some images shouldn't be seen unless their parents feel it is approprieate. If their parents do, then they can go take them to see an R-rated movie. And remember, the restrictions on a PG-13 movie are much more lax than an R-rated movie. I have no doubt that middle-schoolers could easily get in and watch this movie to see a few dead bodies and miss the whole point of the film. I do not think an R rating is out of line for the scenes described. However, I haven't seen it and am not sure how brutal these images are. So, I cannot say 100% that it should be resricted. Burt that is how I feel. I don't think R-rating will hurt the movie and its message one bit. It will do very well at the theatres showing it and will show Eisner that he is as big a failure of a CEO like everyone else thinks.

[jackstraw45]

13. Anyone see Lord of the Rings? Amazingly it was PG-13

And I remember at least 2 clear beheadings. And non-stop violence.

Now I KNOW there is a difference between real and fake but I'm guessing that the extreme close-up beheadings in Lord of the Rings are probably clearer than the smuggled home video, from afar, of a Saudi beheading.

PG stands for Parental Guidance. PARENTS need to decide about whether the film is right for their child.

But I think it's wrong for a 16 year old not to be able to go to a film their Right Wing parents won't take them to when the army is recruiting them in their high schools and they may be drafted in 2006.

[ClassWarrior]

14. Excellent point, Jack...

n/t