The BBFC have come in for a lot of stick recently for the 12A certificate given to the new Batman film. The general thrust of the criticism, from former tory leader Iain Duncan Smith among others, seems to be that the film exposes children to excessive and depraved levels of violence that might not have been anticipated by parents. This criticism misses two key points.
Firstly, the age of criminal responsibility is ten years old. The law holds that a person of ten years old is sufficiently mature to know that the acts depicted are unacceptable and illegal should they be considering committing them themselves, but the critics are then suggesting that a person two years older is not capable of making the same judgement when seeing them performed on a screen.
Secondly, the criticism is predicated on the notion that parents have no role or responsibility in the process. The certificate allows younger children to attend if accompanied, but there must surely be an obligation on the part of the accompanying adult to ensure that the film is suitable, and on the part of the parents to ensure that the accompanying adult, should it be someone other than themselves, is fit to exerc ise that judgement. All films are subject to a plethora of reviews, and it would require minimal effort for the parents to establish the nature of the film before granting or refusing permission to watch the film.
Unfortunately, Mr Duncan Smith and his fellow critics have fallen for the siren song of Nanny and the theory that she knows best.
Posts
2 comments:
Let the Nannying continue, then eventually children will not be allowed to the cinema at all incase they suffer nervous breakdowns and adults can watch a film in peace!
Cat
This comes back to parental responsibility. The parents should ensure their children don't upset other viewers.
Post a Comment