16 replies to this topic

[Cody]

Just thought this was an interesting mention. During Hollywood Reporter's 2010 director roundtable, there's a discussion about the ratings system. After talking about The King's Speech getting an R in the U.S. for language, director Tom Hooper says:

"What I find strange is, I cannot think of a single time that language has caused me any kind of repetitive trauma after seeing a movie. I can't think of a single film where that's the case, but there are cases, even at my age, of films where visual violent imagery has stayed with me in an unwelcome way. I mean, the Bond movie where Daniel Craig gets his bollocks smashed in through a chair with no bottom in a torture scene, that's PG-13. The beginning of Salt where Angelina Jolie has a plastic tube forced down her throat and then water poured into it to simulate drowning, that's a PG-13. Both of those images have stayed with me in a way that I'd actually rather have rid of, and that's considered less problematic than the language. So there does seem to be an extraordinary permissiveness in terms of violence coming in to us."

[Safari Suit]

I actually agree with him that it was a bit too strong for a PG-13/12a. I don't mean to say that I don't think 12 year olds can't take it (I'm sure they can) or that it will do any damage, but I think when contrasted with some of the films that have recieved R/15 certificates it seems a bit much. There was a lot of fuss about The Dark Knight getting a 12a over here, but that seemed tamer than CR to me

[The Shark]

Really?

I was similarly disturbed by THE KING'S SPEECH's amateurish direction. Perhaps Mr. Hooper should spend less time getting his knickers in a twist over violence in contemporary cinema, and actually hone his craft.

[Zorin Industries]

Really?

I was similarly disturbed by THE KING'S SPEECH's amateurish direction.

Have you seen it then?

[The Shark]

Really?

I was similarly disturbed by THE KING'S SPEECH's amateurish direction.

Have you seen it then?

I got invited to a private press screening by a family friend. Most of the critics loved it.

[terminus]

There was a lot of fuss about The Dark Knight getting a 12a over here, but that seemed tamer than CR to me

Really? I'd say that the scene with the Joker forcing the pencil into the thugs eye was a lot more disturbing (it made me, at the time 26, flinch) than anything contained in Casino Royale, and the 'creation' of Two Face, similarly more extreme. I can fully understand why there were people pushing for TDK to have a higher rating.

I agree that there's an interesting unbalance between the level of violence that's allowed when compared to the level of swearing.

[jrcjohnny99]

Really?

I was similarly disturbed by THE KING'S SPEECH's amateurish direction.

Have you seen it then?

I got invited to a private press screening by a family friend. Most of the critics loved it.

Everyone I know who's seen the film (including myself) loved it, and indeed, Holland's direction of it, which is first class;
as was his direction for "The Damned United"; can you explain what you weren't impressed with?

[Royal Dalton]

Everyone I know who's seen the film (including myself) loved it, and indeed, Holland's direction of it, which is first class;
as was his direction for "The Damned United"; can you explain what you weren't impressed with?

Hooper, you mean. Tom Holland's rather good, too, though.

[Guy Haines]

I haven't seen "The King's Speech" yet, but from what I've read about it, it involves attempts to cure King George VI's stutter, and that during the course of this certain words not normally acceptable in polite society are forthcoming from His Majesty. (Anyone who has seen the film please feel free to put me right about this summary - up here in what is now, once again, snowbound Notts., it may be a short while before I get out to the flicks again!)

Might the "R" rating have been imposed, not only because of certain words, but also because of the person who is shown to use them? In other words, the censors were squeamish about showing His Majesty blurting out "The Old Hundred", as we sometimes call it?

As for the torture scene in CR, I've commented elsewhere that I was surprised it was filmed, but I think it got past the censors because the director and screenwriters leavened it with some humour - not slapstick or cheesy quips, but Bond showing his contempt for Le Chiffre by inviting him to deal with that "little itch down there". (I can tell you, that comment got by far the biggest laugh in our local cinema, followed by "to the right, to the right, TO THE RIGHT!!" and "now the whole world knows that you died scratching my b***s!" )

[Safari Suit]

There was a lot of fuss about The Dark Knight getting a 12a over here, but that seemed tamer than CR to me

Really? I'd say that the scene with the Joker forcing the pencil into the thugs eye was a lot more disturbing (it made me, at the time 26, flinch) than anything contained in Casino Royale, and the 'creation' of Two Face, similarly more extreme. I can fully understand why there were people pushing for TDK to have a higher rating.

I'm not saying I can't understand why people were concerned about TDK, but I did feel the violence in CR was harsher, more brutal, more realistic in a sense. I'm not just talking about the torture scene, but also scenes like the stairwell fight.

[The Shark]

Really?

I was similarly disturbed by THE KING'S SPEECH's amateurish direction.

Have you seen it then?

I got invited to a private press screening by a family friend. Most of the critics loved it.

Everyone I know who's seen the film (including myself) loved it, and indeed, Holland's direction of it, which is first class;
as was his direction for "The Damned United"; can you explain what you weren't impressed with?

Selfconscious over-abuse of certain cinematic effects - desaturated digital grading, off-kilter framing (inverting the rule of three) racked focus, digital blur, awkward close ups, steady cam, and fish eye lenses. An abuse you'd something you'd expect from a film student, who'd just discovered the techniques. Along with a poor handling of mise en scène.

[Messervy]

I'm not saying I can't understand why people were concerned about TDK, but I did feel the violence in CR was harsher, more brutal, more realistic in a sense. I'm not just talking about the torture scene, but also scenes like the stairwell fight.

Off-topic, I always found the torture scene in CR quite shallow and inept. It's supposed to be one of the highlights of the movie yet it looks like some light spoof for teenagers. I'm not calling for a real torture scene; after all this is a Bond movie, meant to be good family entertainment. But I think they could have come up with something more to-the-point than this.

[The Shark]

I'm not saying I can't understand why people were concerned about TDK, but I did feel the violence in CR was harsher, more brutal, more realistic in a sense. I'm not just talking about the torture scene, but also scenes like the stairwell fight.

Off-topic, I always found the torture scene in CR quite shallow and inept. It's supposed to be one of the highlights of the movie yet it looks like some light spoof for teenagers. I'm not calling for a real torture scene; after all this is a Bond movie, meant to be good family entertainment. But I think they could have come up with something more to-the-point than this.

I'd go as far as to say that there's too many jokes thrown to the expense of the drama (compared to the novel, and shows a lack of confidence in the source), and it's poorly written (real clunkers that reek of Purvis & Wade like "But you are so! Wrong! Because even after I slaughtered you and your little girlfriend, your people would still welcome me, with open arms, because they need what I know." and the pantomimey "So I think l'll feed you what you seem not to value!" - all written in a pseudo-formal diction, that feels very false and stilted) - but performance-wise, it's the best thing in the film. Far more engaging than the stagy 'verbal duelling' scenes with Vesper.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I find this interesting because you don't actually see very much violence in the torture scene at all (or at least that's how I remember it). It's all done mainly with facial close ups and very much with a nod to the sensor. Not saying it should have been more explicit but I don't really see it as 'visual violent imagery' myself.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I find this interesting because you don't actually see very much violence in the torture scene at all (or at least that's how I remember it). It's all done mainly with facial close ups and very much with a nod to the sensor. Not saying it should have been more explicit but I don't really see it as 'visual violent imagery' myself.

Yeah, I think that too. I guess everyone differs on what counts as violent or vulgar in this day and age.

[The Shark]

I find this interesting because you don't actually see very much violence in the torture scene at all (or at least that's how I remember it). It's all done mainly with facial close ups and very much with a nod to the sensor. Not saying it should have been more explicit but I don't really see it as 'visual violent imagery' myself.

I would say the violence is not in the visuals, but in the amplified sound effects. That's where the intensity of the scene lies, other than Craig's yelping.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I find this interesting because you don't actually see very much violence in the torture scene at all (or at least that's how I remember it). It's all done mainly with facial close ups and very much with a nod to the sensor. Not saying it should have been more explicit but I don't really see it as 'visual violent imagery' myself.

I would say the violence is not in the visuals, but in the amplified sound effects. That's where the intensity of the scene lies, other than Craig's yelping.

You've got a point there, as I think I'd wince just as much if I watched the scene with my eyes closed!