Went to see No Country For Old Men on Monday night. It is magnificent. Though as Cormac MacCarthy is one of my favourite authors, the Coen Brothers two of my favourite filmmakers, and I adore Tommy Lee Jones to a level which stays this side of healthy only because he is a bit old, it would have to have worked very hard to put a foot wrong with me. It's very nasty and very bleak but beautifully done. You do have to have a reasonably high tolerance of people getting blown to pieces by a psycho with bad hair and a very unpleasant kind of gun.
Which does make it rather surprising that the film has a 15 certificate. The tone is so distressing and the gore so graphic and unrelenting, and the themes very dark, complex and adult. I'm not sure where I stand on certification of films in general, but if it is going to be done, it should at least have some logic and consistency. My cousin, who works in cinema, explained it to me. In this country, apparently, the method of setting a certificate for a film is done with the aid of a checklist. You tick every time something happens which might give a film a higher certificate and then count the ticks at the end. There is only one tick per type of infraction and no subjective judgement about the overall feel of the film. So No Country For Old Men gets one tick - *one* - for gun violence, and another for blood. But there's no sex, no swearing, no punching, no stabbing, and so it's a 15. This also explains why The Bourne Ultimatum, with that charming sequence where a man gets bludgeoned to death in a shower cubicle, is a 12A. Show some tits and say motherfucker, though, and it suddenly becomes unsuitable for kids.
Still, that has to be better than the closed system they have in the US, which was exposed to brilliant effect by one of my favourite documentary makers, Kirby Dick, in his movie This Film Is Not Yet Rated. There, it's a panel of "concerned parents" who are in charge of deciding who can see what. And nobody knows who they are. Feel confident?
To return to No Country For Old Men, I had a glance at the BBFC guidelines for certification and apparently, for violence in a 15-rated film, "Violence may be strong but may not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury." Have you seen this film? More to the point, have they?
Posts
4 comments:
Thanks so much for this! I am squeamish to the point of gagging, I'm afraid. Doctor Who and Harry Potter are about my limit for violence. (Sex is fine, as long as it has something to do with the story and is not simply because the lead or supporting actress failed to get a no-nudity clause.) Unfortunately, this qualm shuts me out of viewing a lot of Oscar nominations, though I really liked Atonement. Still, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. There! Names for the next two Bond flicks! (I don't watch those either...)
I haven't seen this film, but I think I'd be concerned about appropriateness concerning my kids. Mind you my other half is incredibly good at showing them things which are inappropriate. However, there is a world of a difference seeing stuff in your lounge, where you can fast forward if necessary, and watching it on a big screen.
I agree about the bit in The Bourne Ultimatum, though I love the series, and have to fess up that my kids are among the few of their peers not to have seen the last James Bond because I think the torture scene is too gratuitous.
They have however seen Shaun of the Dead where blood and gore is funny, and Van Helsing where it's fantasy so that's ok then...
I've read so many good critiques, but the "people getting blown to pieces by a psycho with bad hair and a very unpleasant kind of gun" is really a no go for me. I even walked out of a Harry Potter film, can't remember which, but I could hear people saying, "wush" from the back seats.
I had to look at the torture scene of the James Bond on DVD. A friend mentioned to me that David Craig was nude, which I didn't know since I'd closed my eyes and ears during the cinema showing. That just goes to show, "Keep your eyes open!"
This is a bloomin' good point, very well made. I've spent quite some time over the years trying to assess which films were actually 'suitable' for my children to watch when they were younger, in spite of supposedly appropriate ratings, which seemed in no way reflect the actual content. There's been many a 12a film too full of rudeness or a 15 that I've considered far too scary. It made me unpopular though, especially when they had friends to sleepover and I'd refuse to let them watch a certain film, and they'd come back with 'well I watched so-and-so last week and it was an 18' WHY???
(And...relax).
Post a Comment