Does anyone here truly think F9/11 should be PG-13?

[Kid_A]

After seeing the film last Friday, I was appalled that Moore was contesting the R rating. There are images in the movie that would warrant an R even if they weren't real. The fact that peope want a PG-13 rating for a movie where you charred corpses of soldiers hangin from overpasses, an actual beheading, and a truckload of dead children is absolutely beyond me.

F9/11 is an important movie that everyone should see, but to want a PG-13 rating for it is just insane.

Flame on!!

[prodigal_green]

1. Nothing in there that a mature child couldn't see

They get worse on tv and video games (assuming you're talking about footage of war injuries).

[phillybri]

2. It should've been R...

I don't have any problem w/ the R rating...

[redqueen]

3. No I don't

I think it deserves the R.

[DrWeird]

4. Yeah, I do.

13 years is old enough to see F911. There wasn't anything worse in F911 that you don't see on the evening news.

[Goldmund]

5. Well

I'm against rating movies at all. And particularly movies that are "real", or in other words, documentaries -- this is the way that the world is, and these are the ultimate consequences of our actions and inactions, not the watered-down cool-aid crap they teach you in social science classes, and there is nobody who would benefit more from witnessing it than children.

But within the accepted confines of rating philosophy, you're right.

[Cat Atomic]

6. I do, but then I think that footage should be on the evening news.

Many people don't mind war because our networks make it clean.

[demnan]

7. Every child over 13 should see F911

before they even consider signing up for the military.

If I had my way, they'd show it in the schools!

[LuminousX]

21. With a parent / guardian there to talk to them afterwards, sure

[Killarney]

8. I think it deserved the R.

It was pretty gory and the gore was REAL not Hollywood make-up.

I don't think it was unreasonable for it to be given an R rating.

[porphyrian]

9. You Don't Think 13-Year-Olds See Worse?

Come on, give me a break. At least these images are real and not sensationalized. What does an R rating protect them from? Hell, the way things are going, this is exactly the stuff 13 year-olds have to look forward to in just about five years, anyway. I think they deserve the right to make an informed choice about whether or not they should see it for themselves. Censorship has never done any good, and lack of censorship does not mean mandatory viewing.

[LuminousX]

23. Of course they see worse, but SHOULD they

and isn't it better if they have a parent or guardian present to talk about the things the movie presents?

[porphyrian]

30. No one talks about a movie during a movie...

...at least, not if you don't want to be asked to leave. What's wrong with talking about it afterwards? The only reason I can see for having a parent or guardian present is when that person has not yet seen the movie, and they want to be able to see the same thing the kid may want to talk about later, or that they feel they should talk about with their kid. However, by age 11, most kids have at least a rudimentary understanding of all the things that make a movie get an R rating, and they seldom need a parent or guardian to hold their hand while watching an R rated movie.

[Kid_A]

24. Rating movies is not censorship.

The system was designed to give parents an idea of whether or not a movie is suitable for their children. Parents with especially mature 12 or 13 year olds should absolutely take them to see the film, but there are also parents with immature teenagers who might appreciate them not being able to see the film themselves.

Surely you must admit that some films are just not appropriate for younger teenagers. "Schindler's List", "Saving Private Ryan", and "American History X" are just a few examples of films that are extremely graphic in the images they show, but also incredibly redeeming in their message. I would put F9/11 in that category. Those films absolutely need to be rated R, just as a warning to parents with kids who might not be mature to handle the material presented in the film. Parents know their kids better than any ratings board, and it's ultimately up to them to decide whether their young child can handle a movie or not. That is NOT censorship.

[porphyrian]

31. Then, it's a system that fails at its intended design.

What a bunch of arbitrarily-decided-and-enforced labelling it is, though. If it weren't used primarily as a political tool, it might be a fair way for parents to avoid taking responsibility for what their children watch.

[Sirveri]

36. What are you smoking.

The system is not arbitrarily decided. They have specific guidelines.

If you swear once in a non-sexual context you get a PG-13 warning.
If your swear once in a sexual context you get a R rating.
If you swear TWICE you get a R rating.

The fact that they even played let the roof burn, and quoted a soldier singing it was enough right there to garner the R rating.

(PG)Let the mother fucker(PG-13) burn, burn mother fucker(R)...

Add to that the pictures of devastation, gore, beheadings, dead bodies, etc etc etc... and you get a R rating. Because these were real pictures the MPAA rating board could have given it a NC-17 rating. THAT would have been political.

[fishwax]

39. Not so fast

Some of your statements are wrong. They can swear in PG films, and they can swear repeatedly in PG and PG-13 films. It's only if they use "one of the harsher sexually-derived words" (like fuck, I suppose) that they fall under the guidelines you describe.

Also, they don't have to follow those guidelines, they can vote not to.

And while you seem to say that the system isn't arbitrary b/c it has guidelines, well, the guidelines themselves seem pretty arbitrary to me. Show a murder, get a PG rating, show a joint or pull a Cheney and you get a PG-13 rating. The ratings (since the Hays days) have always been more tolerant of violence than sex.

[Junkdrawer]

10. So teenagers should be kept out, but 18 yr. olds are expected..

to PARTICIPATE in such an action??? Can you tell me why we should shelter children from reality, only to have reality kick them right between the teeth, ready or not, at 18????

[leftistagitator]

11. It's a tough call

If this had all been fictional I'd have no problem with rating it R. But this is reality, and the kids need to see this stuff if we're expecting them to go over there and die for us one day. I wouldn't want a young child seeing it, they probably wouldn't understand it anyway, but every teenager in America should see it in my opinion.

[jobycom]

12. I agree with the rating. Some 13 year olds could handle it, some not

Rating it R doesn't stop kids from seeing it, it just makes their parents take them. I don't see a big deal. I doubt many fourteen year olds would choose it as a date film, anyway. It's a good film to show your child, if your child can handle a few dead bodies and mangled arms.

[Skittles]

13. years ago I may have said no

but now I believe teenagers, who are fed a steady diet of violence on TV and in movies their entire lives, need to understand what war really is. Remember the soldier in the movie who said he didn't know? I want future generations to work at preventing war. I don't want them to find out when they are drafted and are in combat.

[hlthe2b]

26. Exactly.... that scene captured the fact that kids raised on

video games and movies, do not take violence as REAL. I would prefer they get this lesson prior to supporting public policy that inflicts needless horror and violence on others. We should be preparing teens for dealing with the realities of real life--not protecting them FROM it.

[Skittles]

27. also

this movie will show youngsters the importance of VOTING and how shameful it was that the theft of democracy was allowed to occur. AND it shows them just how complicit the media was in allowing all this to happen.

[Carni]

14. Doesn't the F word garner a film an automatic R rating?

I thought it did?

In any case I think it's a shame it's rated R but in fairness to the ratings people, it is pretty gory.

Yeah, that's reality and I personally think teens should see it but on the other hand I don't think the movie drew an R rating just because of politics.

I cannot think of any PG13 movie I have seen with that much graphic content in it.... although I may be wrong because I am not a big movie goer.

On edit: I guess I mean to say...

I am not a big fan of ratings in general (esp on a documentary) but to me, this film seems consistent with the way they rate other movies. I have also seen countless PG and PG13 movies that should be rated G IMO.

[hlthe2b]

15. As a very young child/pre-teen during some of this country's most

turbulent periods, incuding Vietnam, (when TV news actually covered the horror of war), I certainly saw things as bad and more. I was 5 when I saw the JFK assasination and the on-camera shooting of Oswald by Jack Ruby. As a young pre-teen, I saw the images of 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, not to mention the aftermath of the RFK and MLK assasinations Kent State, and the violent Chicago protests at the Democratic Convention. 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.

My views were developed early in life re: civil rights, the importance of avoiding war whenever possible, the sanctity of life, and the need to help those in poverty. Had I been "sheltered" from much of this unpleasantness, I'm not at all sure my convictions would be so strong.

The grisly civilian and soldier deaths from F9/11 were shown on tv (albeit, not in such close detail). The beheading scene was from such a distance you had to look for it to detect it. All of the Iraqi still photos were certainly available to varying degrees in Time and Newsweek or in full detail on the internet.

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? I prefer to protect them from those who would exploit their naivete for their own despiccable purposes. Educating them with full disclosure of the consequences of our Nation's policies and the true (nonglamorized) horrors of war is the best way to do that in my sincere opinion.

On a positive note the R-rating will automatically encourage more teens to TRY to see it! So, the allure of the R-rating may have the effect of more seeing, not less.

[lapislzi]

16. Definitely yes. You are still free to take your child to the film

if you believe the child is mature enough to handle it. But children require adult guidance with a film this disturbing.

I thought it might be OK for my daughter but after seeing it definitely not. She would freak big time.

[eyesroll]

17. I think it deserved the R -- but I think plenty of parents

are taking their teenagers to see it. I think my parents would have let me see the film at 15 or so, if they'd previewed it first.

I do think a few things probably could have been edited out for a PG-13, without disrupting the total impact of the film, but I understand why MM and co. didn't want to do that.

[NewJerseyDem]

18. As if an R rating means anything

I don't know about elsewhere but at my local theater they just let any teenager right in for an R rating. And if they don't let you in anyone can just buy a ticket for another movie and then go. So, the ratings are all fairly meaningless, except for NC-17 I guess.

But, an R rating seems appropriate for it in comparison to other movies that get R ratings. One can argue that fewer movies should get an "R" but that really isn't the issue. The rating was correct because I believe that a PG-13 is just an advisory (I could be wrong) and that any 6 year old can theoretically see a movie with that rating. So this at least gives theaters the authority to try to stop younger kids from seeing the movie.

[goodhue]

19. I do. n/t

[SaveElmer]

20. I agree with the "R"

Too many F'Bombs, and too many graphic shots of war casualties for children of just any age to be allowed in. PG-13 does not mean you have to be 13 to get in...Having said that, I think mature teens should see it with their parents.

[LuminousX]

22. A 13 year old should have a guardian present to help

process the information. I think an R rating is alright.

[Skittles]

29. yeah, and if the adults in their lives are fundy rightwing assholes?

nt

[never cry wolf]

25. I took my 14 year old daughter to see it

She is an amazingly mature kid, however. I did wince a bit during the EM EFFing part but she enjoyed the flick.

[doni_georgia]

28. You can see that stuff on The History Channel

I remember the evening news when I was a kid, and the images from Vietnam were very intense. Personally, I think some things are so important that ratings do not imply. I felt this way about Schindler's List, and I feel this way about F/911.

[Selwynn]

32. No I don't. If you want your child to see it...

Then have a parent or gardian accompany him/her.

[Boomer]

33. The PG-13 rating was absurd

Just a few days before watching F9/11 I caught a horror flick on the Sci-Fi channel that made me blanch -- countless scenes of stiff corpses of people hacked to death, loving pans across blood-splattered walls and floors, and the unrelenting pursuit of nubile teeagers by a maniac trying to kill them. Yes, it was fiction, but the special effects were incredibly realistic and served as the primary visual images for the entire film, which lacked any content beyond moronic dialogue stitching together the chase-and-hack episodes.

I stopped even looking at demos of "action-adventure" video games several years ago -- and I know they are much more "realistic" now -- because the mind-numbing carnage was so appalling.

So why is stomach-churning gore acceptable when it is "entertainment" but not when it is informing us of the true-life horrors that result from our actions?

What I saw in F9/11 was brief, restrained and used in a meaningful context to make an important political statement. I'd rather any child see that film than spend an afternoon watching horror flicks that trivialize violence by using it for idle entertainment.

[shimmergal]

37. Agree with you, Boomer.

I'm an adult woman "of a certain age" and I _hate_ on-screen violence. Not only have I deliberately stayed away from movies that i might have otherwise liked because of this: Schindler's List, SAving Private Ryan, The Passion of the Christ, for examples, but I even had to stop watching Ladyhawke, supposed to be an evocative fantasy love story, because of the violent swordplay at the beginning.
(Still may go back and try it again, though.)

I was crying through a lot of that footage in Iraq, because of the dead children and other civilians and our troops, but I _didn't_ find it too much. It was needed in this movie. In fact I'm probably going to go again.

Kids can see much the same sort of images on TV, not to mention in PG-13 rated "action" movies. In fact when I saw Fellowship of the Ring a few years ago, I was grossed out by the relentless fighting and gore. Meanwhile my 5-year-old granddaughter wasn't fazed at all. I'm not suggesting that kids of that age go to see F9/11--they probably wouldn't understand it--but certainly mature teenagers can benefit. Especially those who are thinking about volunteering for the armed services. (They need to see the Marine recruiters' relentless search for teenage prospects, too.)

[Boomer]

42. Agree with you back!

>> I'm not suggesting that kids of that age go to see F9/11--they probably wouldn't understand it--but certainly mature teenagers can benefit. <<

Yes, I would be more concerned about whether children could grasp the concepts of the film. If they aren't old enough to understand it intellectually, then it's simply a waste of a ticket.

Upon reflection, I think the *emotional* violence in the film is much more problematic than the violence. The parts of the film that unstrung me were ones like the Iraqi woman wailing and cursing over the deaths in her family -- there was no blood in that long scene, yet for me it was incredibly intense and disturbing. I'd be much more worried about a child's exposure to her raging grief than to the sight of the dead bodies that inspired it.

[BringEmOn]

34. As long as military recruiters are allowed into high schools

and granted access to names, addresses and phone numbers of students per No Child Left Behind Act, students should be allowed to view this film.

[IkeWarnedUs]

49. I figured by now someone would voice my opinion

I would just add that since the Marine recruiters in the film were able to try to recruit that 9th grader (and the recruiters are able to go into the high schools to gather their prey) I think it should be shown in school assemblies across the nation when school starts in the fall.

I have seen the movie three times so far and twice while in line 15-16 year olds were stopped by the ticket sellers and "accompanied" by adults in line.

[spanone]

35. As the Rev. Jackson would say "the point is moot".

[mvd]

38. I have heard the "F" word used in PG-13s

In F9/11, MF is repeated in one scene, though. Based on the current language standards, I'm not sure I can argue the rating. And these violent images are the real thing - not gratuitous or sci-fi or cartoon. Still, I think many 13 and 14 year olds could handle the film without a parent being there.

[sldavis]

40. I agree

I saw it last night, and I agree, some of the material probably deserved the R rating. But that shouldn't stop teenagers from seeing the film with a parent, which isn't a bad idea anyway.

[Misunderestimator]

41. Hell... that gory film I saw when I was much less than 13...

about the safety of bicycling was much worse than anything in Moore's film. Of course children should be exposed to the truth.

[Lisa]

43. it's rated 14-A in Canada (BC anyway)

"14a
Suitable for persons 14 years of age or older. Persons under 14 years of age must view these motion pictures accompanied by an adult. Motion pictures in this category may contain violence, coarse language or sexually suggestive scenes."

http://www.mytelus.com/movies/ratings.vm

[gator_in_Ontario]

44. It's 14A in Ontario

Everyone, especially teenage males, should see what war is like. Maybe then they'd be less likely to dress in fatigues and play around like war is fun, and dream of being macho.

[alittlelark]

45. My 9 year old daughter saw worse pic's at the protests

We talked about what she saw....good mommy-daughter conversations. I will not take her to the movie unless she asks.

She told me that she would rather be a kid, because they don't have to deal with 'really ugly' stuff.

My princess is becoming an insightful, beautiful young adult!

[Cheswick2.0]

46. I saw worse than that on the nightly news during Viet nam

Kids aren't made of sugar. They won't disolve with a bit of the truth

[OpSomBlood]

47. Sorry to rock the boat...but F9/11 deserved the "R" rating.

Graphic gore and multiple uses of the word "fuck."

I think everyone should see this movie, too...but the "R" rating was warranted.

[ShaneGR]

48. I agree with the R rating

In principle.

[IkeWarnedUs]

50. If anti-abortionists can display posters on the street . . .

I just thought about the gruesome scenes in F911 and then about the posters the anti-abortion groups display on the neighborhood streets around here.

I'm not talking about downtown Chicago - I mean residential suburban semi-main streets. In other words, all houses, but enough traffic to have stop signs and a stop light where it crosses the main thoroughfare. Kids playing and riding their bikes. In the mini-van with mom on their way to summer camp or the store.

About a month ago some anti-abortion group stood on the street in groups of 2 on street corners every 4-5 blocks - I think 3 sets plus one at each end with signs saying "DISTURBING PICTURES AHEAD". And the signs were (about) 5'x3' pictures of aborted fetuses. And it was the third time I have seen this in the past year or so.

If the right wing can involuntarily subject innocent citizens of all ages to such gruesome images, I think the 15-16 year olds who are asked to be cannon fodder for PNAC's war can see F911.

[JSJ]

51. Ah, A Defense of Censorship...

...out of fear the kinder might be what? Enlightened? Corrupted? How about emboldened- yeah, that's probably it. Or, they might ask the 'rents some embarrassing questions. Oh my!

[OpSomBlood]

52. An "R" rating is censorship?

All it means is that kids have to have an adult with them.

In my opinion, if the movie was being censored, we wouldn't be allowed to see it at all.