Oh dear, it seems certain Members of Parliament in the UK are completely outraged that The Dark Knight has only been rated 12A. Apparently the gentlemen think the movie is violent enough to warrant a 15 rating.
Says Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative Party leader (and who now works part-time at Carphone Warehouse):
Unlike past Batman films, where the villains were somewhat surreal and comical figures, Heath Ledger’s Joker is a brilliantly acted but very credible psychopathic killer, who extols the use of knives to kill and disfigure his victims during a reign of urban terrorism laced with torture
Wow, really? It’s a silly Batman movie. I remember watching Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street when I was like 5-years-old, and you don’t see me running around with a chainsaw or invading people’s dreams. I guess the British are a little more skittish when it comes to wanton violence than Americans (like me!)
they must be wanting attention, because there are far worse films from the UK that aren’t even mentioned in regards to violence.
This doesn’t come as a surprise.
I loved the movie. It’s one of the best I’ve seen in a very long time.
I did walk away thinking that it was pretty violent for a PG-13 rating, though. I’ve seen far less violent movies get slapped with R ratings.
Nicholas, you may have seen Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm St. when you were a kid (like I’m sure we all did), but those movies were also properly rated. None of them received PG-13 ratings. They were all rated R, and most of them had very cartoony violence compared to The Dark Knight.
Not that I really care about any of this.
Fantastic film, I love every second. I just made plans to see it a third time. I don’t have kids but if I did I would also be concerned with the credibility that Ledger’s performance lends the role. That’s part of what makes it so deliciously dark. But I think it should definitely have received an R rating.
I believe parents should police their kids and not some movie board but if this had a sex scene it, it’d be rated R. That’s what we do in America, revel in violence but be horrified at nudity. At least the Brits have their priorities “straighter.”
I think fundamental issue is that old adage ‘you are what you eat.’ If we, as a nation, consume so much violence and allow our childer to do so as well, we’re running the risk of desensitizing ourselves to a dangerous level.
Gosh! I went to see The Dark Night and didn’t have a clue it WASN’T rated R. It was too realistically violent for my taste, but I’m a girly man who enjoyed Music and Lyrics 10 times more than The Dark Night.
You can say a lot of legitimate things about the movie, but sorry, “it’s not that violent” is certainly not one of them.
You are completely missing the point. At England in the moment and especially in London there are severe issues regarding teenage knife crime. Gang culture is becoming increasingly prevalent and the number of young people killed by knives on the streets of England’s cities is sprialling out of control. The police, the government and ordinary people are all trying to find some solution to this very difficult and very upsetting problem. Barely a week goes by where the is not some impassioned plea on the news or in the papers from the friends and families of individuals who have been killed, often with little or no provocation. You need only do a search on the BBC website for knife crime to see the kinds of things I’m talking about.
Personally I don’t think the correlation between screen violence and real life violence is as strong as some might make out but it is still, naturally, a very sensitive issue when an insanely popular film features a violent protagonist, leader of a gang, whose modus operandi is knives, cutting and stabbing; especially when this film is viewable by younger and, perhaps, more impressionable children.
I think the issue here, really, is that it has hit a raw nerve and so the reactions to the film do not stem merely from its depicitions (or not) of violence but from the fact that it seems to chime with a very real social problem that england is now facing.
You are completely missing the point. At England in the moment and especially in London there are severe issues regarding teenage knife crime. Gang culture is becoming increasingly prevalent and the number of young people killed by knives on the streets of England’s cities is sprialling out of control. The police, the government and ordinary people are all trying to find some solution to this very difficult and very upsetting problem. Barely a week goes by where the is not some impassioned plea on the news or in the papers from the friends and families of individuals who have been killed, often with little or no provocation. You need only do a search on the BBC website for knife crime to see the kinds of things I’m talking about.
Personally I don’t think the correlation between screen violence and real life violence is as strong as some might make out but it is still, naturally, a very sensitive issue when an insanely popular film features a violent protagonist, leader of a gang, whose modus operandi is knives, cutting and stabbing; especially when this film is viewable by younger and, perhaps, more impressionable children.
I think the issue here, really, is that it has hit a raw nerve and so the reactions to the film do not stem merely from its depicitions (or not) of violence but from the fact that it seems to chime with a very real social problem that england is now facing – and that’s where, I suspect, this response is coming from.
sorry too violent for me, seen the first 10 minutes and left
The problem with this film is not that it is an orgy of violence, but that it is an orgy of violence without consequence. It leaves the watcher completely desensitised to what they have seen. There are much more violent films out there (clockwork orange, irreversible etc) but in these films the scenes of violence leave one hurting and in abject horror of the violence. Children need to know that a single punch or a single stab may kill someone, and that neither are acceptable. This is why children should not be exposed to this film or its ilk.
As a researcher, let me say this. No one knows precisely what the connection between screen violence and real life violence is. It’s too hard to work out. However, the fact that we can’t work it out does not mean that it is not significant. We learn from experience (vicarious and direct) and a film in a cinema is an incredibly powerful experience.
Those who are not worried about the effect of such films on their children should think again. Don’t blithely repeat what you’ve heard others espouse and say it is nanny state nonsense, don’t just state that children can distinguish between films and reality, really think. Whatever your decision, you at least owe it to your children to seriously consider the consequences.
Im a male that went to see this during the day and thought that is was way too violent. I came out of the movie to a nice sunny day and thought that I wished I hadnt seen it. I was going to walk out but decided not too. Should have walked out. Just rented a really good NICE movie with Ryan Reynolds called
“definitelty, Maybe” Very good. Would have rather
seen that. If I would have been with my kids I would
have took them out of the movie .
We should think about what the consequenses of exposing our minds and bodies to fear inducing movies actually does, on a psychological level they are very powerfull.