http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/movies/1...ies&oref=slogin

Upon reading the article by A.O Scott, I began to wonder whether the cinematic literacy of the general public is somewhat negatively influenced by parents seeking only “age appropriate” viewing material for their children. I know individuals who only let their young children (2-10) view Disney films, which is fine, but I can recall being in first grade myself and getting into a discussion about Roger Corman’s THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM with a few other students who had seen it on the 4:30 movie the day before. Whether or not we understood the nuances of the story being told, we were being exposed to a film whose sensibilities were decidedly, and benefically in my opinion, not childish.

I agree with Scott wholeheartedly when he says there’s pleasure to be found in bewilderment, for I certainly didn’t completely comprehend films such as FAIL –SAFE, Z, or BLOW UP, all of which I viewed on either public or late-night commercial television by the time I was ten. While it was entertaining to see films like MARY POPPINS or, or course, the original STAR WARS, the real sense of discovery that I felt watching films came from engaging with material that exposed me to more adult fare like ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN, ANNIE HALL, or even BULLITT, in which the politically driven machinations of the Robert Vaughn character towards Steve McQueen hipped me to the fact that doing your job correctly was not always appreciated by people in high places with different agendas.

As a result, at a relatively young age, my perspective on the complexities of the world was somewhat more advanced than the Disney “good always prevails” point of view. I can’t help but feel that the simplistic messages of the average film directed towards children, or even typical blockbuster fare, diminishes the capacity of the general public to process more sophisticated concepts (the obvious incompetence of our elected leaders getting us into and conducting a needless war, e.g. NO END IN SIGHT), in the course of addressing real world events.

Any discussion of the recent STAR WARS films with my presently eleven year old son pale in comparison to the bounty of food-for-thought we’ve found in Kurosawa’s SEVEN SAMURAI, or YOJIMBO, both of which he devoured, subtitles and all. In fact, I’ve used his love of all things samurai and martial arts to expose and acclimate him to subtitles in general. This doesn’t mean he bypasses the opportunity to view MR. BEAN’S HOLIDAY, ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS, or TRANSFORMERS, but the idea that there is more to the world than singing chipmunks is quite apparent to him. Indeed, even something as challenging as Kieslowski’s THE DECALOGUE (specifically the first episode with the little boy and his mathematician father) he’s seen and demonstrated a good grasp of. Whenever possible and, yes, appropriate (GRINDHOUSE, enjoyable though it is, will be available to him when he turns, oh, maybe sixteen), I allow him to see films along the lines of THE ILLUSIONIST, NEVER CRY WOLF, and LAST HURRAH FOR CHIVALRY, in the hopes that a diversity of experiences now will influence the choices he makes in the future.

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with your post, Lenny, because I can think of examples from my own life that weigh on both sides of the issue. Up until my middle teens I was restricted as to what I was allowed to watch. Nothing was specifically disallowed, but I would be punished if I was "caught" watching something my mother found objectionable. This included banalities like ANOTHER 48 HOURS and reruns of THE WHITE SHADOW, and had the effect of seriously limiting the films I was exposed to. To go outside my own experience, studies have shown that up until about the age of 10 children cannot even comprehend visual media in the same manner as adults because they aren't able to associate that editing cuts between scenes represent a fluid progression in the story. (I don't have the inclination to dig up the old study as it is sitting amidst my undergraduate textbooks that I haven't touched in many years, so you'll just have to take my word for it). Anyway, my point is that despite the restricting factors of both nature and my personal nurture, I became a cinephile and, I like to think, a reasonably intelligent person.

On the other hand, I was exposed to a fair amount of adult-oriented media during my youth. Most nights I would sit in front of the family's lone tv set and watch whatever my parents were watching. This usually was stuff like tv news or episodes of Simon and Simon. So perhaps that influenced how I developed intellectually, although I'm inclined to believe that tv news will make a person dumber rather than smarter... but that's another topic entirely.

Lenny, this opens quite a can of worms. I’ve been trying to compose a response, but there are so many different angles here, the rants have been getting too long to post, so I’m going to try to keep it short.

Baby boomers are the most controlling parents in human history. This overprotection has extended to what kids can or can’t watch or what they can or can’t discover for themselves. We have a generation of people in their 20s, many of them college grads with good jobs, who simply won’t leave home. (I’m speaking as both a baby boomer and a parent.)

It was easier to discover new things when there were fewer choices, when you couldn’t always get what you want, i.e., when there were only seven channels. When you’ve got hundreds of choices, it’s easier to stick with what you know and are comfortable with, so you have to be super-motivated to want to go out and discover something new and different. (I.e., a kid who watches the Disney Channel or Nickelodeon all day will never go to TCM or TV Land.)

So a certain amount of infantilizing goes into effect when a boy of eight only watches made-for-TV Disney cartoons or new Cartoon Network stuff or watches a tape of TOY STORY for the umpteenth time and never comes across a western or a Bogart movie or an episode of "Police Story." Or even a Looney Tune or two. A bubble effect is created. I remember a week at my relatives' house in New Jersey when I was a boy of 8 and I watched tons of old movies on TV during that time, including dramas like OUR TOWN and PENNY SERENADE (in addition to BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA). That experience has always stayed with me and I remember every movie I saw that week. The movies just ran and I soaked them up, eager to see more. If my aunt had put only cartoons or game shows on (or soap operas!), it would have been a different experience. Instead, new worlds had opened up for me.

A young person today has to be really curious and really motivated to discover things they’d like that their friends wouldn’t. There are a lot of bright and curious young people; anime wouldn’t be so popular in this country if there weren’t. But part of that is because it’s so easy for them to download. If it were only on an anime TV channel or on DVD, a huge portion of that audience would disappear. I know lots of young people who are into anime and have seen plenty of things that aren’t “age-appropriate.” They’re curious. They want something that goes beyond the blandness and mediocrity of the general pop culture in the U.S. and they find it in anime. (I could give a whole lecture on this subject--and I have on occasion--but read my book if you’re interested.) But a lot of parents are scared of anime. Some kids won't let their parents know what they're watching. I remember withholding NINJA SCROLL because it’s too violent from a kid in my building whom I lent anime to regularly. Finally when he was 14 I gave in and lent it to him. He loved it. I felt stupid withholding it for that long. Kids who are into anime have a higher threshold than other kids.

I was upset with my parents for not letting me see James Bond films until I was 12. I was upset with my mother for not letting me see LOVE WITH THE PROPER STRANGER when I was 10. (I was a big fan of Steve McQueen and Natalie Wood.) I understand the latter. But still, withholding something like that can sometimes cause resentment that’s more damaging in the long run than taking a chance and letting me experience a kind of movie I hadn’t experienced before. And we did have our battles later when things like MIDNIGHT COWBOY and CLOCKWORK ORANGE rolled around.

I had different experiences with my daughter. When, at the age of 14, she went to her first R-rated movie (and without an adult, either), it was John Woo's FACE/OFF. Since I had a shelf of Woo's Hong Kong movies at home, I couldn't very well complain now, could I? The apple never falls far from the tree. But, frankly, she also was never that interested in pushing the envelope either or seeing anything too controversial. When she bought an Alanis Morissette CD that had lyrics about "going down on your boyfriend," she showed me the lyrics sheet right after buying it to make sure I knew about it. I never would have done anything like that with my parents. I'm not sure that's such a good thing. The baby boomers' kids don't seem to mind their parents' control. (Granted, my daughter's move may have been a little crafty; she showed the lyrics to me after buying it, not before.)

I'm only scratching the surface here, since there are so many aspects of this to deal with and different sides even to the points I already made. And I'll probably think of other points once I sign off. But, at least I kept it short. :P

Ian:

"...studies have shown that up until about the age of 10 children cannot even comprehend visual media in the same manner as adults because they aren't able to associate that editing cuts between scenes represent a fluid progression in the story."

Perhaps, but at some point during that time frame, and sooner rather than later in my belief, children do instinctively come to recognize this fact, even if they are unable to articulate it. Not understanding is fine; it's part of the mystery that makes one lean forward a little more closely and try to figure out what's going on.

"Anyway, my point is that despite the restricting factors of both nature and my personal nurture, I became a cinephile and, I like to think, a reasonably intelligent person."

Understood. However, a great many people who do not have their horizons expanded at an early age, in my opinion, never get beyond a rather narrow conception of what cinema can offer, or be about. As the resident cinephile in my family and at work, the lack of curiousity expressed by people about films outside their frame of experience has been a lifelong (I'm almost 40) source of frustration.

Brian:

"A young person today has to be really curious and really motivated to discover things they’d like that their friends wouldn’t."

As a child, one had to watch cartoons either very early in the mornings during the school week, or on the weekends, particularly Saturday. After that, television made no real effort to cater to you as a child. Either you engaged with whatever else was on, usually geared for adults, or you turned the televison off and did something else. To paraphrase your point, having fewer options had the effect of opening up a greater world to you than had you been allowed to traipse around, say, Cartoon Network for four hours, then four hours of MTV, day after day, leading to the rather provincial habits that many young people presently have and never shake.

I (and probably everybody on this particular forum) can completely relate to this. But we have to bear in mind... it's really not that important. I could stare at people I know in disbelief and scream, "how can you watch this mindless, generic studio-fare full of lazily written plot points, awful dialogue, stunt casting, cliches, etc etc etc" all day. And they'd just shrug or call me pretentious. As a ciniphile, I've watched an obscene amount of movies and continue to. It's a major interest of mine and I pursue it. Most people don't care that much about movies and are happy watching junky stuff for cheap novelty.

Now I could act all superior (and sometimes it's tempting to when someone challenges my dislike of a really popular, really empty-headed flick), but you can just as easily turn that logic/attitude around on me. Take, I don't know... architecture... sports... or fashion. You could hold up the greatest, most expensive, top-quality, hand tailored and designed suit by the leading visionaries in the industry, and something tacky from Sears right next to it. And I'm just as likely to choose one over the other. Someone who's really taken an interest in fashion could scream at me, "are you mad?? Look at the seams, the stitching, the color, the materials, etc etc etc" and I'd be like: "the whats? Why can't I just wear a t-shirt and jeans to this, anyway?"

It's just a question of what little fields we choose to specialize in and really learn to appreciate. And you know what? Sure, film is one of the arts and can have much deeper value than just immediate entertainment. But film - or music or fashion or whichever - ain't world politics or the human soul. If someone goes out and spends all their energy and time volunteering at a homeless shelter and really making a difference in bettering peoples' lives, and then comes home and watches his favorite movie ever: the two hour Baywatch pilot... am I in a position to look downward because I work fewer hours and have more time to devote to Bergman and Rohmer and know every reason why "the original was SO MUCH better than the remake?" Should I have purchased and watched all five versions of Blade Runner and listened to all the commentaries and watched all the extras... or should I have gone to med school and researched a cure for cancer? After all, it was almost the same level of investment. ;)

Personally, I really don't listen to or know much about classical music. Not because I think it sucks or that I couldn't learn to fully appreciate it if I took the time... but my heart's just in another genre of music. And between that and film, I just don't have the time or resources to really "get into" classical music properly (i.e. learn the difference between different performances of the same composition... pick out the best or most compelling recordings... or even just remember which famous composer wrote which iconic tune). And unless you have done so... with every kind of music, film, book, painting, etc - you're doing the same thing as me and the kid who only watches Disney cartoons (look! I'm still on topic - who knew??).

You may be frustrated at your family members' lack of curiosity in the richer varieties of cinema that they're not exploring; but they probably feel the same way about your lack of interest and involvement in rap music, video games or floral arrangements.

What? Which major anime production studio pays you to write this propaganda?



And can I get in on the action? :D

Well, one can certainly rewrite that statement to fit whatever fan world you come out of. E.g. Kids who are into horror have a higher threshold... Kids who are into rap have a higher threshold... Kids who are into forensic science... etc. I just put it that way because I tend to come across anime kids more than any others. It's easy to lose sight of other parallel universes. :blink:

John:

The larger issue for me concerns the value of children, or young people, being exposed at an impressionable age with material that might be outside and beyond their frame or reference or interest, in the hopes that with time and maturity, such exposure might inform and benefit their adult selves in some way.

For example, I can remember seeing Milos Forman's AMADEUS while in high school, with my music class . Now, I was aware of who Mozart was and had listened to his music, both in a formal and casual setting, long before viewing the film. Indeed, some of the students in the class had also, along with me, been in music classes in junior high school where we had also been exposed to classical music. After viewing the film, the music teacher asked for our thoughts on both the film and music, with the discussion that followed revealing that students having been exposed to, or having previous knowledge of Mozart, enjoyed the film and music, while those who had not been exposed to his music, in fact, did not. The only connection made across that up or down divide concerned the remarks made by a few students that Mozart dressed a lot like Prince did in PURPLE RAIN.

I am, to this day, by no means a classical music expert, but I am certainly versed in it to some degree, enjoy it, and have various works in my own collection. Such is the case as well for jazz (Miles Davis), rock (Radiohead) , hip - hop (Lupe Fiasco), etc. Whatever artistic endevour in which the participants obviously strive for some manner of excellence, interests me, and I attribute that, in no small measure, to being exposed to various genres from a young age.

The media sturm und drang that met the broadcast of the nuclear drama THE DAY AFTER was laughable to me, having viewed as a youngster films like FAIL - SAFE and DR. STRANGELOVE. Psychologists were on television counseling parents about the emotional "fallout," as it were, that might result from their children being allowed to see the movie. To my, perhaps, jaded eyes, these folks were being manipulated by a media that didn't want the general public, particularly young people, viewing in any way negatively the U.S. nuclear build - up vis a vis the Soviets, leading potentially to the birth of a generation of peaceniks. The manipulation and pandering to the people's fear, and indeed, the institutional fear of what might result from that fear, were obvious to me, due in no small part to my understanding of the real world natures of government and media, as gleaned from literature and cinema that some might have thought above my age or maturity level.

Ultimately, it's my opinion that children, in a general sense, can benefit from exposure to ideas and influences that seem, perhaps even reasonably, outside the range of appropriateness as per the larger societal view.

I sat my son down to see "Meshes of the Afternoon" with me when he was 11 or 12 (he's 13 now), and we had a good half-hour discussion about it. He also appreciated "La Jetee", and though he hasn't asked to see either of them again I'm sure he wouldn't balk at doing so on my suggestion. We'll frequently read over and analyze the lyric sheet to whatever punk or nu-metal band he's into at the moment, and he's quite capable of wrestling with complex concepts there, too. So when he opts for an Adam Sandler movie or comes home telling me about the Farrelly brothers he saw at a friend's, I'm willing to cut him some slack. We sat in the car another half-hour discussing the whys and wherefores of "1408" after dropping his otherwise unengaged buddies off at home, so I know that other stuff hasn't clouded his critical ability. And I know that eventually he'll expect only the best out of his viewing choices, as he does with his listening, and recognize too that it's okay to slum a little bit once in a while as long as you know what you're doing. (Still not sure about the video gaming, but I take some heart in the fact that his gameplaying and comicbook-loving cousin is now considering a master's in European Intellectual History, so it's possible to live expansively in both worlds.)

On a side note, I took him and a neighborhood girl (and a precocious reader) to see the Cocteau BEAUTY AND THE BEAST when they were 11 and 12, and she surprised me by announcing that it had been the first black and white movie she'd ever seen. I thought with a doctor dad and grandfather and a teacher stepmom she would have been exposed to a broader range of media, but that just goes to show about my prejudices. She thought the story was okay, but said the contrast gave her a headache.

My children decided at an early age that they preferred Sondheim (and Bernstein and Gershwin) to Rodgers and Hammerstein or Lerner and Loewe.

While I didn't show them the _video_ of Sweeney Todd when they were little -- they had memorized the original cast album by age 7 or so.

My wife and I introduced our children to spicy food and real movies (Casablanca, Maltese "Falcon, Marx Bros., W.C. Fields, etc) very early -- as we selfishly did not want to be stuck with bland food or entertainment for a decade or two....

One said to us, after we had watched some especially good movie, "You do realize, don't you, that you have made it impossible for us to sit through movies like "Beethoven" anymore?"

I think that the discussion is whether you push your child into the realm of more adult fare or let them discover it on their own. My 13 year old daughter, for instance, I know couldn't handle an EVIL DEAD film, but I know my 8 year old son can. We were flipping through channels recently and I landed on THE BLUES BROTHERS. My daughter loved it and I brought the dvd home for her to watch her first rated-R movie. I was watching cannibal movies by 16 but really don't want either of them to be exposed to that yet.

Wasn't there a recent New York Times article on the reporter's mom taking her to see THE EXORCIST at age 4? That's 70s irresponsibility in a nutshell.


marc

Word!
Kids should at least have a kindergarten education, maybe first grade, before watching a Friedkin film. <_<

Marc:

"I think that the discussion is whether you push your child into the realm of more adult fare or let them discover it on their own."

I had a discussion recently with my wife, during which I pointed out how little time our son actually spends with us, in comparison to the larger world of school and his burgeoning friendships. In the sway of these friendships, new life experiences and interests come into play, and others recede due to various levels of peer ascendancy and group think. If the group thinks that CASABLANCA and THE MALTESE FALCON as films, and the Marx Brothers and W.C. Fields as comedic actors are, ultimately, passe, and particularly decrepit and old school at that, what's a parent to do? In our case, limited though our time may be with him on a daily basis, we introduce Humphery Bogart and Sidney Poitier and The Marx Brothers into his entertainment options, in the hopes that the memory of the qualities of these actors and their films will take the journey into greater maturity with him.

What's the value?

He'll understand that black and white cinematography was an artistic choice on the part of many filmmakers who used it, as in THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER (a favorite of his), which could have been shot in color. The only thing old about these works are the eyes that have been prematurely jaded by contemporary culture ravenous for the next cash cow.

Hopefully, he'll be able to speak from across wide areas of cinematic history, or on other disciplines such as literature and music, with a tone and tenor that leaves behind connectable values and insights which may prove beneficial to others who don't recognize the fetid nature of so much mass market culture that they consume. Any movement begins with one person who says, hey, you know what? things don't have to be this way.

I think the approach of introducing children to worthwhile films that may exceed their expectations for themselves is merely a counter-contemporary function of what was once known as family centered culture. Imagine, the impetus for a child's future exploration coming from his or her nascent viewing being inculcated, consciously or not, during the time when parents have too brief upper hand on their interests.

Being in possession of knowledge from this perspective undergirds the cultural heritage that the child can then take forward with them into their own lives, making their own choices, but with an entrenched appreciation for diverse and wide-ranging forms of artistic expression.

The vigor of my response to this topic stems from dealing with people in my personal travels who, all too frequently, view something that happened five years ago as ancient history. Ten years from now is double ancient history. What is there to teach? on so many levels, if the past is deemed irrelevant? What does that augur for our collective future in all sorts of artistic mediums? Some might argue that form has already supplanted content, to the point of certain studio tentpole releases being known, before opening, as creative black holes that, nevertheless, suck up every dollar in vicinities local and far, leaving the viewer dazed and confused, with a nagging sense of disappointment. Until next time.

2007 has been an extraordinary year for films, due to the artistic drive of Paul Thomas Anderson, Joel and Ethan Coen, John Carney, Joon-Ho Bong, David Fincher, Charles Ferguson, David Cronenberg and many others; none of whom play in the fields of the lord of conformity. In the end, it's the individual artist and viewer, together, who make works such as they've produced, meaningful. Without an educated populace, to whom do they speak?

Two stories, similar in some ways, but hugely different in terms of immediate impact age inappropriate films had on children--

The 8 year-old son of one of my wife's co-worker was invited to a birthday party.
For the next week he had nightmares and was terrified to sleep alone because of the film the mother at the birthday party had shown the kids. The movie was THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.

Another time I was shopping in Borders and a family of 4 was browsing the videos. The daughter (my guess she was about 4 or 5) pointed at one video and started saying "Remember this one, mommy?" gleefully describing the movie in detail, details I'd never expect to hear from a child of this age. After they left I looked at the package she was holding, and it was BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS.

Can't really draw any conclusions, except perhaps that there's no way to take a one-size-fits-all approach when exposing kids to films with adult content.

This is one of the most interesting threads of the last few months.
I don't have much to add to all your fascinating posts, mainly because of my limited command of the english language.
So let me just say that at the age of 11 or 12 I was watching stuff like WAGES OF FEAR and SOLARIS on TV as well as many film noirs (not to mention DAWN OF THE DEAD in the cinema) and now look what has become of me...;-)

Like many of you I was fascinated by all these "strange" movies. (Although I have to admit that my favorite movie at that time was STAR WARS, I saw it nine times during it's original theatrical run.)
A little bit later I catched a re-release of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It was in the theater for a week or two and I watched it three times in those few days.

Raymond:

Both the instances you site strike me as derelictions of parental duty to such an absurd level as to be unquestionably true. I've seen such examples personally and view the same as evidence that not all people should be parents just because they can. It's not a radical act of free expression to take or allow children to see THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE or BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, it's an act of mindless conformity.

A radical act would be for the parents of youngsters of the ages you mentioned, to be shown something like ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, as it was made a few generations ago, is in black and white, and is confident enough in its function to entertain without descending into the profane. The connection to the past, I think, is quite impotant, because if children are able to understand in some concrete way that there was justifiable life occurring before they came into existence, it goes a long way towards beginning the reconciliation of the rather myopic intergenerational schism that has afflicted American popular culture since the 1950's, if not earlier.

Wisdom is either received or accrues over the passage of time; it doesn't spring full formed from the mouths of babes. The engagement with the thoughts and modus operandi of previous generations of actors and films, or just the past itself, can be extraordinarily beneficial, whether as inspiration or as a signpost of what to avoid. A child growing up viewing James Cagney or Steve McQueen as a contemporary of Brad Pitt is, wishful thinking, more likely to expect a higher standard of ability in the performers, in general, of these cinematic times.

Would it occur to a well-adjusted teen-age girl of today watching Barbara Stanwick in something like, say, 40 GUNS, and other films of that ilk and pedigree, that women were far more central to the pulse of cinema in the past than they are today? Would it also occur to her that one saw more women of different ages, shapes and sizes central to film narratives forty years ago than today?

Parents thoughtfully guiding through, rather than passively placating with, worthwhile and challenging films that do not conform to the parameters of Disney-fication, are doing a solid to the present and the future. To focus on just the current moment of commercial, mass media imperatives would be like, to quote Bruce Lee in ENTER THE DRAGON, "...like a finger pointing to the moon...don't focus on the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly glory. Do you understand?"

By the way, my mother took me to see ENTER THE DRAGON when I was five. It's the first film I can recall seeing.

It's hard to know where to draw the line. I wouldn't want a child to see THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, but I loved Bava's BLACK SUNDAY when I was eight years old, including the famous execution sequence at the beginning of the film.

A friend of mine had weeks of nightmares as a child, caused by the 1956 version of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS! He was a first-born son, and was totally terrified by the whole Angel of Death sequence.

“Wasn't there a recent New York Times article on the reporter's mom taking her to see THE EXORCIST at age 4? That's 70s irresponsibility in a nutshell.”

The 70 were a dark time family fare.

Just to let you know, my Mom was a music teacher for an elementary school. She decided to show parts of THE BAD SEED due to its use of music for her fifth grade class. It utilizes some classical music and she wanted to show how it could create moods and evoke character. I can’t recall what the music was it’s a piece that Patty MCormick plays at a dinner party or something like that. This was a favorite of hers when she was a kid thus a natural pick. Well this movie frightened the class. They were not only scarred of the girl but of all the drinking and smoking by the adults. So much so that parents called and complained and my Mom had to report to the principle’s office.

What a bunch of wimps!