There is no sex, but there is pornography?

Wasn't planning on seeing this for a number of reasons: reeked of Nat Lamp road pics; Steve Carrell; Dayton's career is practically all about music videos; it was co-directed (always a sign of trouble except in the case of the talented Coen Bros, who make movies I generally don't appreciate). Usually the kind of Hollywood formula pic we avoid.

On the plus side, it has Alan Arkin...Anyway maybe now we'll give it a shot.

Here's my movie recommendation. We finally caught 2003's "The Station Agent" on Friday night and it's an absolutely perfect little movie about a dwarf who tries to escape from life by running away to South Jersey. Really, see it, it's surprising.

There is no sex, but there is pornography?

Yeah, a couple scenes revolve around one of the characters buying pornographic magazines, and the camera focuses on the covers.

Those who wish for films that are "appropriate for all ages" often seem to mean "films that edit out anything we don't want our kids to learn about life yet." Which usually means any challenging issues will be glossed over or ignored.

"All-ages" films generally have to reflect what someone wants to pretend the world is like, for the sake of their children. It's very difficult to make such a film work in a way that doesn't feel absurd and forced to those of us who aren't in on the "let's pretend" game, and who just want to see a thought-provoking film that really examines life.

I've seen very few films that do a really good job of pleasing both the "protect the children" crowd and the "I want a movie that deals with real life" crowd.

That said, a movie about a family, told from the perspective of a child, can sometimes be that rare exception, where things can go on in the background unnoticed by child viewers, but immediately picked up on by adults.

My favorite film in the genre of "realistic but told through a child's eyes" is "A Christmas Story." I saw a completely different story in that film as a child than I did as an adult. "Little Miss Sunshine" might have worked that way, who knows.

As long as "age-appropriate" demands don't include eliminating all references to unacceptable behavior, or the actual motivations of people. One of the most annoying things about "age appropriate" films is they tend to have extremely flat characters with just one purpose - to advance the central storyline. Of course this is by no means a flaw unique to "age-appropriate" films.

Those who wish for films that are "appropriate for all ages" often seem to mean "films that edit out anything we don't want our kids to learn about life yet." Which usually means any challenging issues will be glossed over or ignored.

That is not true in this case. Raunchy language rarely adds any kind of depth to a movie; in fact, it usually detracts. The other negative elements were mostly used for laughs, and clever writers could have achieved the same effect with "cleaner" humor.

The challenging issues in this film could have been portrayed without these things. It could have been rated PG, or maybe PG-13 (if suicide is a theme deemed inappropriate for a PG movie), and in either case I think most conservative-minded folks would agree that those would be things that are appropriate for kids mature enough to handle them--whereas obscene language and other content is best avoided (even by adults).

Phil

Nice post.

My favorite films in the genre of "realistic but told through a child's eyes" are Alfonso Cuarón's 1995 version of "Little Princess," Roman Polanski's 2005 version of "Oliver Twist," "Manny and Lo" from 1996, "To Kill a Mockingbird" (a particular fave!) and John Duigans classics about growing up in the 60s in the Australian outback, "The Year My Voice Broke" and its sequel, "Flirting."

It's kind of a stretch, but you could probably add Disney's wonderful "Cry Wolf" to that list, and "White Fang" from 1991 with Ethan Hawke.

Those who wish for films that are "appropriate for all ages" often seem to mean "films that edit out anything we don't want our kids to learn about life yet." Which usually means any challenging issues will be glossed over or ignored.

As Eric pointed out, part of the problem is the way that films address challenging issues, not that they are raised at all. The question to ask is: does the film communicate the proper way to face such issues?

There are also issues that younger age groups are simply incapable of grappling properly. Sexuality is an obvious example; nobody who hasn't achieved puberty can understand the concept beyond the mechanical reproductive functions. (So adultery is not a theme for a family film.) Suicide and domestic violence are too traumatizing for preteens, IMO.

"Sexuality is an obvious example; nobody who hasn't achieved puberty can understand the concept beyond the mechanical reproductive functions. (So adultery is not a theme for a family film.) Suicide and domestic violence are too traumatizing for preteens, IMO."

Nonsense. Anything that reality throws at a substantial number of young people on a regular basis is appropriate material for a movie directed at young audiences at large. If you don't want your child to see the movie because you'd rather handle the topic with them personally, don't let them see the movie.

I don't advocate movies as life-lesson instructors, but a child victim of domestic abuse (as well as children who know others who are victims of such) has to learn from somewhere that the parents' behavior is wrong and isn't the fault of the child him/herself--and they're not going to learn from the abuser.

Insulating children from exposure to certain behaviors only seems to end up promoting them; I'd rather see a child exposed to something they may not be ready for and instructed that said thing is bad behavior than let their first exposure to it be a glorification of that bad behavior.

I don't think most kids would come away damaged by seeing a movie like "Manny and Lo" as it was beautifully directed by Lisa Krueger---the story of a pregnant teen and her younger sister who run away from their foster home and kidnap a nurse (Mary Kay Place) to help with the pregnancy. Probably just the reverse.

Whereas I KNOW I wouldn't take 'em to see it if it were remade by say, Paul Verhoeven of "Basic Instinct" fame.

It's not whatcha say, it's how ya say it.

Nonsense. Anything that reality throws at a substantial number of young people on a regular basis is appropriate material for a movie directed at young audiences at large.

That certainly precludes domestic violence and suicide, at least in this country. As for sexuality, it screws kids up when they are exposed to sexuality before they are biologically capable of understanding it. Just because reality messes up people's heads doesn't mean that we should aggravate the situation.

For example, The Scarlet Letter is an excellent novel. But someone too young to know what sexuality is will only be confused by the adultery theme. When kids ask, "Why did Hester sleep with Dimmesdale," how do you give a satisfactory answer when they can't relate to sexual feelings?

Alan,

Wow. Domestic violence and suicide are de minimus problems in this country? Or is it that domestice violence and suicide happen in a vacuum, and they don't really affect the people who aren't either abuser or victim?

And I'm not sure what your obsession with Adultery as a Sex issue is, but far before sex enters the picture, adultery is about infidelity and a breach of trust. It takes no effort to approach adultery head on while avoiding sex.

Domestic violence and suicide are not in a majority of households, and are thus not faced directly by a majority of early elementary kids (the age groups I was talking about).

And I'm not sure what your obsession with Adultery as a Sex issue is

I was rebutting your rebuttal, with a work of literature I'm familiar with. My point is that kids should not be immersed in concepts before they are capable of understanding them. Sex is an easy example to demonstrate; prepubescent kids obviously can't deal with the subject.

As I stated before in different words, the other issue when discerning age-appropriateness of films (and literature) is the type and degree of trauma. Suicide, domestic violence, and adultery are the three examples I cited earlier (focusing on issues that might show up in a "family" film). Monster movies are another; no pre-schooler should watch Godzilla. War flicks are yet another; some are more graphic, and some are more psychologically intense. (Apocalypse Now overachieves in both respects.)