Last week I watched Slumdog Millionaire for the first time. I had known of its rating before watching it, but I was still somehow a little surprised when I saw the "R" after the movie was over. I thought back over the storyline and concluded that it must have been given that rating because of the violence and perhaps the little bit of sexual content as well. Then I wondered, "Why did the rating surprise me?" I quickly realized that I was comparing it to other movies, mostly geared towards tween- and teenagers, that in many ways are equally violent.
What made the violence in Slumdog Millionaire different than the impaling of the Green Goblin in Spiderman, or the many battles in Harry Potter? I don't know that it was any more graphic; however, it was more real. You don't watch the images of the Bombay Riots and think, "Oh, that could never happen." Maman disfiguring children so they are worth more to him as beggars (blind singers get more money) turns your stomach and makes you question how humanity can be so cruel.
On the other hand, many PG and PG-13 type movies are rated such for "comic book style violence." We're not talking about Spidey throwing a punch with a "POW!" in a balloon over the image, though. It has become full-on violence. And it is almost celebrated. Violence solves problems because the good guy always wins.
There's a line in The Incredibles that comes to mind here. Helen has gone to the island to save her husband, and the kids have stowed away in the jet. After the plane is shot down and they have made it to shore, she hides Dash and Violet in a cave, telling them to stay out of sight and not be afraid to use their powers. "You know the bad guys in the movies? Well, these guys are not like those bad guys. They do not care that you are children. They will kill you." Of course, the kids don't get hurt, and once again, the good guys win. When Syndrome is sucked into the jet engine because of his cape, it doesn't bring up much emotion. In fact, none of the violence really does. But the line is true of the real life bad guys - they really don't care about the children. They will use them, maim them or kill them - whatever suits their purpose.
Compare to Slumdog Millionaire when Salim kills Maman at point blank. Rather than an emotionless scene, I remember thinking, "What choice did he really have?" There was no other way to be free of Maman, though he swore he would leave them be if he spared him. Was there any way they could trust him? Not likely. The police were almost as corrupt as Maman, so going that route wasn't an option. It still didn't leave a satisfied feeling - more of an empty, hopeless one.
They say exposure to violence can make kids more violent. I'm sure there is truth to that; however, perhaps it is the almost consequence-free violence that is more at fault. The stuff that doesn't really happen except for in the movies. I'll be honest - I let my kids watch those movies. I am selective, though, as to which ones. There are many that my 10 and 12 year old kids watch that are still forbidden to my 8-yr. old. They get frustrated because their friends have seen movies that they haven't. Of course, I'm more ok with that than they are, hoping that when they are parents that they will understand.
Having said that, I made my son watch Hotel Rwanda after getting sick and tired of hearing him say that he hated his sisters. I decided he should see what real hate was. He wasn't quite 10 years old. The movie impacted him though. He saw that hate and violence were real, and the consequences devastating. I'm not saying we should all make our children watch such movies, but maybe letting them see little glimpses of what true evil can do rather than filling their heads with "fun" violence would do a little good.
No comments:
Post a Comment