Okay for a 12 year old?


Is it okay for a 12 year old to see?

FINAL DESTINATION 3<3333333333333
STICK IT<333333333

reply

Not unless you want the 12 year old to see extended sequences of full frontal female nudity and a lot of goofy but salacious bondage footage.

reply

[deleted]

There are no depictions of a vagina anywhere in the movie. There is one full frontal nude shot that shows pubic hair. I would hope a 12-yr old would understand that females have no penis, but I know there are some people who keep that information secret.

reply

[deleted]

This film is not appropriate for a 12 year old. Anyone who has seen this film and questions that perspective has issues which need to be resolved through therapy. This film should be viewed by adults only.







--------------------------------------
America put the "fun" back into "Fundamentalism".

reply

It's rated R. Now, what do you think?

Stop trolling and go do your homework.

_____________________________
When in doubt, watch a movie!
Once certain, watch it again!

reply

I was disappointed to see it get an 18 certificate in Britain and one of those damned R certificates in the USA. The pornography is very tame by today's standards, which is half the charm. I don't know that 12 might be a bit young unless it is a very mature 12yr old, and certainly barred from a public screening.

One of the story lines is that the material (which is quite goofy and fun) will corrupt youth so much that 'suicide, murder and psychosis' will be the result. Most people would maybe think that is silly nowadays, but we have crazy judgements still, the same type of unscientific thnking in courtrooms sometimes, and children probably suffer more as a result of the repression than of the viewing (see my review if you can be bothered - posted - should appear in a few hours - for a slightly extended version of this point).

There is full frontal nudity in the film but I certainly don't recall seeing any vaginas as an earlier post suggested. She keeps her legs crossed, poses demurely etc etc.

This is not a film to go to if you are into porn. If you like the kitsch and cheesy campiness of the period, do see it. If you want to look at the phoney way decisions are made on such matters (Notorious Bettie Page is to pornography a bit like Good Night Good Luck was to abude of personal freedom - they are both from the same era).

I think it was given an 18 certificate in this country because of the fetish theme. That is a bit advanced for most youngsters unless they are fully conversant with normal sexuality and emotions, so I find the UK certificate reasonable in a way (though 15 would have been better). The US 'R' certificate is an abomination and should be reserved for pornography (as it is in this country). It stops many works of art being shown in that country as they don't get mainstream release as a result and the economics make them unviable.

reply

I agree that it would have to be a very mature 12-year-old. Pre-teens have enough problems with their nascent sexuality without having to deal with things like bondage and discipline, abuse and rape, and sexual titillation in general.

The vagina reference was probably in regards to the scene in which Bettie poses starkers for her shutterbug friend. Mol's outer labia are easily discernible, mostly because she doesn't have the thick pubic bush that Bettie had.

Bear in mind that films released in the U.S. will garner an "R" rating for any number of things beyond nudity and/or sexuality. Hard language, graphic violence, drug use, and a number of other things will flag a film with an "R" rating. The "X" rating is reserved for pornography and/or flags that go too far beyond an "R". Also, if the filmmaker/distributor doesn't submit their film to the MPAA ratings board, it will go out unrated (assuming it actually has found a distributor). Such was the case with George A. Romero's "Day of the Dead," due to its extreme gore content. IIRC, his "Dawn of the Dead" was released as an "X" film.

You are mistaken, though; the "R" rating does not overly hinder distribution or film display in the U.S. It merely makes it somewhat more difficult for 17-year-olds and younger to see the film, at least until it's released on video or played on TV. The "X" rating is actually rarely used for either mainstream releases or smut. Porn films generally bill themselves as "XXX" or whatever, and if a mainstream film can't garner an "R" rating, it will more often than not be released as "Unrated."

"G" is very often (though not always) the kiss of death for a film. Remember, this is a system that motivated Steven Spielberg to insert the word "penisbreath" into E.T. in order to gain a PG rating and increase the film's potential audience. Teens and young adults, by and large, won't go see a "G"-rated film unless it's something like "Cars".

Excellent commentary you posted on "The Notorious Bettie Page" by the way; I'll be going back to read more of your prolific reviews at a later date.

Cheers!

_____________________________
When in doubt, watch a movie!
Once certain, watch it again!

reply

I agree that it would have to be a very mature 12-year-old. Pre-teens have enough problems with their nascent sexuality without having to deal with things like bondage and discipline, abuse and rape, and sexual titillation in general.

No, pre-teens have enough over-protection and oversensitive parents to deal with without having to be hindered from watching a harmless movie such as this one. No kid should have to endure being turned into a zombie.

"Did I leave the gas on? No, I´m a @#¤%ing squirrel!"

reply

No, pre-teens have enough over-protection and oversensitive parents to deal with without having to be hindered from watching a harmless movie such as this one. No kid should have to endure being turned into a zombie.


I agree that no kid should have to endure being turned into a zombie, but disallowing them to watch a film like "The Notorious Bettie Page" hardly qualifies as zombification.

Are you suggesting that most 12-year-olds are sufficiently mature to comprehend the intricacies of deviant sexuality? Seems to me that they're barely able to handle the intricacies of their own newfound capabilities. Why would you want to complicate their difficulties without the benefit of parental involvement? I'm not saying they can't watch a film like "The Notorious Bettie Page" at all; you will note that I agreed that if a pre-teen is adequately matured, they might be able to handle the subject matter, but I'd hazard a guess that it'd be the rare 12-year-old who wouldn't focus on the titillation aspect of the film to the exclusion of whatever deeper messages might be there.

There's always plenty of time later in their lives for 12-year-olds to be turned into good little zombies by our sexualized consumer society, don't you think?

_____________________________
When in doubt, watch a movie!
Once certain, watch it again!

reply

I agree that no kid should have to endure being turned into a zombie, but disallowing them to watch a film like "The Notorious Bettie Page" hardly qualifies as zombification.

Are you suggesting that most 12-year-olds are sufficiently mature to comprehend the intricacies of deviant sexuality? Seems to me that they're barely able to handle the intricacies of their own newfound capabilities. Why would you want to complicate their difficulties without the benefit of parental involvement? I'm not saying they can't watch a film like "The Notorious Bettie Page" at all; you will note that I agreed that if a pre-teen is adequately matured, they might be able to handle the subject matter, but I'd hazard a guess that it'd be the rare 12-year-old who wouldn't focus on the titillation aspect of the film to the exclusion of whatever deeper messages might be there.

There's always plenty of time later in their lives for 12-year-olds to be turned into good little zombies by our sexualized consumer society, don't you think?

No, but not letting them watch a movie such as this as a part of a greater scheme to "shield" the kid from all input the parents see as negative, is indeed zombification.
I would like to hear for once from someone like you what exactly you think would happen to these "damaged" kids. Would seeing a humorous depiction of a woman fake-spanking another make them into child molesters when they grow up? Or would they be more prone to be into spanking? Most twelve year olds I´ve ever met already know the basics of sexuality so it´s not that big a deal in my opinion.
I´m not saying we should let our five year olds watch hardcore porno here, but it seems they just slap some rating on there that seems safe, so they don´t have to deal with the real issues in society.

"Did I leave the gas on? No, I´m a @#¤%ing squirrel!"

reply

No, but not letting them watch a movie such as this as a part of a greater scheme to "shield" the kid from all input the parents see as negative, is indeed zombification.


I would agree with that. However, that's not what I'm suggesting. Personally, I wouldn't want my 12-year-olds watching it because it's unlikely that they're ready to deal with topics of sexuality like B&D and S&M, let alone exhibitionism and voyeurism. Admittedly, my kids are already in college, so for me the question is moot.

I would like to hear for once from someone like you what exactly you think would happen to these "damaged" kids.


Ah, careful where you tread, please. You're making unwarranted assumptions. You have very little idea who I am or what I'm "like." You'll also please note that I never said the experience would "damage" them. I would argue that it's simply unnecessary for them. And, of course, if I'm watching it with them, then that's an entirely different story. Remember, the purpose of the "R" rating is to simply weed the unescorted little beggers out of theatrical viewings.

Would seeing a humorous depiction of a woman fake-spanking another make them into child molesters when they grow up?


Nope, hopefully not. But, in return, is there any particular positive aspect of seeing such a scene for a 12-year-old?

Or would they be more prone to be into spanking?


Certainly a possibility if the exposure was repetitious, but no, I doubt that seeing the scene once would twist their psyches exceedingly.

Most twelve year olds I´ve ever met already know the basics of sexuality so it´s not that big a deal in my opinion.


The "basics," perhaps, but I doubt that many of them are conversant with the wider world of deviant sexuality. Most 12-year-olds I know (friends' kids) are, in fact, remarkably (how shall I put this kindly?) ignorant about so many things that it's hard to put a value on their knowledge of human sexuality.

I´m not saying we should let our five year olds watch hardcore porno here,


Glad to hear it.

...but it seems they just slap some rating on there that seems safe, so they don´t have to deal with the real issues in society.


Why do you think it's worthwhile for 12-year-olds to be dealing with the various issues in society that are raised by "The Notorious Bettie Page"? Just wondering...

_____________________________
When in doubt, watch a movie!
Once certain, watch it again!

reply

Thanks for butchering up my post :p

It´s hard to argue with you because you´re not a hardliner, but I must say that I still think this was a completely harmless movie. Sure, some kids might be wondering why these people do these things, but that´s not the same thing as not being able to handle it. When I saw Jack Nicholson go berserk with an axe in The Shining as a kid for example, i had no idea why he did it, and the consequences where far "worse" than what we saw in Bettie Page. Still, it didn´t give me any emotional scars or KILL KILL MUST KILL!!!! screwed up views on human violence or murder. I just saw it as part of a nutty movie and moved on. I think that your view is a slight overreaction to the fact that the material in question is sexual in nature. In many peoples eyes that has to be dealt with differently from acts of human violence or cruelty, which is just silly.

And by "people like you" I just meant people who want to keep twelve year olds from watching movies like these, believe it or not.

"Did I leave the gas on? No, I´m a @#¤%ing squirrel!"

reply

Thanks for butchering up my post :p


You're welcome. I used Jack's axe.

It´s hard to argue with you because you´re not a hardliner, but I must say that I still think this was a completely harmless movie.


I tend to agree. "TNBP" is basically a modern look at the censorious 50s through the prism of Bettie Page, one of the period's most enduring icons.

Then again, I tend to believe that ALL movies are "harmless," even the really, really deviant ones. What can be harmful is the people watching them.

Sure, some kids might be wondering why these people do these things, but that´s not the same thing as not being able to handle it. When I saw Jack Nicholson go berserk with an axe in The Shining as a kid for example, i had no idea why he did it, and the consequences where far "worse" than what we saw in Bettie Page. Still, it didn´t give me any emotional scars or KILL KILL MUST KILL!!!! screwed up views on human violence or murder. I just saw it as part of a nutty movie and moved on.


And yet I knew a kid who saw it when he was about eight, and because of his particular family situation, was seriously terrified and transferred that reaction to his stepfather for a good number of months. Which is probably one of the reasons that our culture professes to believe that young children are better off not viewing such entertainment until they're a little more emotionally mature enough to deal with it. Of course, with the rise of home video and the Internet, controlling what young people see and hear has become a lot more problematic.

I think that your view is a slight overreaction to the fact that the material in question is sexual in nature. In many peoples eyes that has to be dealt with differently from acts of human violence or cruelty, which is just silly.


Although I also tend to believe that sexuality and violence are inextricably linked in the human psyche, I will cede your point. We definitely live in a society that seems to turn a blind eye to some of the most outrageous violence in our popular entertainment while frothing at the mouth at the exposure of a bare female breast. Our commercial culture exploits and seduces us constantly with sexualized imagery, all the while piously preaching one hypocritical standard or another; small wonder our children engage in sex at younger and younger ages and are producing more and more children out of wedlock. Meanwhile, we wallow in ultraviolence and periodically churn out Columbines and Virginia Techs. And then whine about it.

You reap what you sow.

And by "people like you" I just meant people who want to keep twelve year olds from watching movies like these, believe it or not.


I understood that, which is why I refrained from going postal on you.

Anyway, I don't have much interest in keeping other people's twelve-year-olds from watching films like "TNBP" or "The Shining." Heck, it keeps them off the streets and my property.

_____________________________
When in doubt, watch a movie!
Once certain, watch it again!

reply

The US rating system is a joke, so the "R" rating in the USA means nothing. This film is rated PG in Ontario (Canadian province) and 14A in other Canadian provinces. What is the big deal about showing the female body, and why do Americans hate vaginas so much??

Its strange that some of you yanks say, "well, they show a little pubic hair but you couldn't see the vagina, so that's okay". Why shouldn't they show full female genitalia (clitoris, vulva, labia)? There are plenty of American movies that show penises and testicles and get passed with R-ratings. Are Americans all closet homosexuals ? Why is it that female genitalia makes them uncomfortable, yet they accept penises being shown in movies? All women have them, so they shouldn't get offended by seeing another woman's vagina/vulva, and men like to look at p*ssies, so what's the problem? They SHOULD show a lot more vulva/labia in movies where women are nude; that would be a lot more realistic. Women having a big puff of pubic hair and keeping their legs closed is ridiculous, especially nowadats when virtually all women are shaved.

I would say the film is suitable for anyone over the age of 12. A little female nudity never hurt anybody.

reply

The US rating system is a joke, so the "R" rating in the USA means nothing. This film is rated PG in Ontario (Canadian province) and 14A in other Canadian provinces. What is the big deal about showing the female body, and why do Americans hate vaginas so much??

I suspect that it's not so much that Americans hate vaginas so much as they fear them. As you may or may not be aware, a very strong current of Biblically-inspired puritanism runs deep in the river of American culture, and the Bible is not a tome that casts women in a particularly favorable light, Mother Mary notwithstanding.

Its strange that some of you yanks say, "well, they show a little pubic hair but you couldn't see the vagina, so that's okay". Why shouldn't they show full female genitalia (clitoris, vulva, labia)? There are plenty of American movies that show penises and testicles and get passed with R-ratings.

Oh, not all that many, and even more rarely in a sexual context.

Are Americans all closet homosexuals?

That rhetorical question is a bit off-topic, but no, it's unlikely. More and more of us are even coming around to the conclusion that other people's sexuality is none of our damn business.

They SHOULD show a lot more vulva/labia in movies where women are nude; that would be a lot more realistic.

If it advances the story, I agree with you. How many times is that the case, outside of pornography?

Women having a big puff of pubic hair and keeping their legs closed is ridiculous, especially nowadats when virtually all women are shaved.

I won't argue that pubic depilation has become quite popular over the last 30-40 years, but "virtually all?" I suspect not, but would love to see what sources you might have for this claim.

I would say the film is suitable for anyone over the age of 12.

No, for reasons I have offered earlier in this thread.

A little female nudity never hurt anybody.

Context, my friend, context.

Btw, I highly recommend this film for a better understanding of the U.S. movie rating system: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/combined.



____________________________
This used to be a signature

reply

I seen it, it was rated 15s. I wouldnt say it would be sutible for 12 year olds, 14 at the youngest.

reply

[deleted]

I dunno I saw much worse than that at 15, and I turned out ok. I dont' get why you'd want to hide the human body from kids, but ok.

reply

Because the human body is a work of Satan and filthy! No, wait, god supposedly made the human body... Sorry, then I don´t know what the problem is.

"Did I leave the gas on? No, I´m a @#¤%ing squirrel!"

reply

Gang rape inneunedo stuck with me for weeks afterward. No one should have to suffer that. And i certainly wouldnt want my 12 year to see it.

reply

I'd say it was more than innuendo; although not graphically depicted (thank God), it was pretty clearly stated what happened. It SHOULD strike fear into you, no one should EVER have to suffer that! Deranged animals deserve to be put down.

No way in hell I'd ever want my 12-year old to see it, but I'd want her to know it can happen and be damned sure she never puts herself in a place where it could happen to her. Poor Bettie should NEVER have gone off with some stranger she met on the street. I think everyone in the audience knew what was going to happen the minute they got in the car. Poor baby.

reply

[deleted]

is you 12 year old a boy or girl ?
then i will tell you

reply

Stupid topic. It's obvious that this film isn't appropriate. Go back and let the kid watch his pokemon and disney movies. This movie isn't for little brats like your son.


---

People who post Gay topics here are indeed GAY. Admit it, if you think celebs are gay, so are you.

reply

[deleted]

Sure. In fact, make it a triple feature: _Bettie Page_, _Story of O_, and _Lolita_.

reply

I'm 14 now, haha. I originally posted this... and I can watch this, nothing I haven't seen or heard of before.

[DIGLIFE]@+[shelbysrules.com]

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]