what do you think about letting a 8yo and a 7yo watch a 15 cert film?

[bunnyhunny]

we were over our family's over the holidays, and their children were allowed to watch a 15 certificate film which had gory violence and sex scenes in.

I was a bit that the parents didnt bat an eyelid, but I am beginning to think I may be a bit prudish about these things! I felt very odd sitting in the same room as a 8yr old and 7yo watching a lady writhing about with her boobs barely concealed, and men being slaughtered...

When did you let your kids watch these sorts of films?

15 certificate films are much to old for an eight and seven year old to be watching.
It depends on the film but I didn't let any of my children watch a 15 at home until they were 14.

It depends on why the film got a 15 rating in the first place, sometimes it can be for one very graphic scene, others it can be for constant bad language/violcence/sex scenes, so personally unless I had seen the film I would not allow them to watch it.

However I am sure there are some films of a 15 certificate that I would allow DD to watch (7) partly because the things that are considered too old for her would go over her head anyway.

Ghost, Bridget Jones' Diary, The Notebook, Love Actually, Billy Elliot, Drop dead Fred are all 15 certificates that I wouldn't have a problem with my DD watching, though I would watch with her so I could explain in a way I felt appropriate to her if she didn't understand anyhing.

So personally, I think the content is mroe of an issue than the certificate, though the certificate is a good guide to go by.

nah I wouldn't. Sometimes 12 certs are near the knuckle imo.
I can remember when I was 8 my cousin sneaked Midnight Express into her bedroom and we both watched it. I didn't understand it for a start but there was alot of violence and blood and sadistic beatings by prison guards!! I never slept properly for weeks.
You don't know how you DC will receive such graphic and sexual images and they could end up giving them lots of sleepless nights.
I wouldn't risk it.
Yes I am a prude and very proud of it!!!!

i would not let a child of that age watch a 15cert.

i have let my dd (3yo) watch a 12 cert, if i have watched it first and it is only 12 due to minor language or sex references, possibly even a sex scene.

but id never show he violence of that kind.

not till she was 15 i dont think!

This drives me bonkers.
It especially drove me bonkers when my 10 year old ds was on a mixed ward in a VERY famous children's hospital, with kids up to 15. The oldest ones kept watching Dirty Dancing on the communal TV up on the wall and there was no escape. I love the film but don't particularly want to ds confronted by abortion issues/having sex secretly without your parents knowing etc at age 10 whilst recovering from serious surgery.
Although I did speak to staff about it, no-one intervened - we spent a lot of time with the curtains drawn talking in loud voices.
Nightmare!
Sorry, there's a reason why films have certificates and TBH I think some pre-watershed TV could do with censorship.

VS, drop dead freds a 12!

just had to check that one, was sure it wasnt 15!

The film was a 15, the DVD however is a 12.

how cna the film be a 15 and the dvd a 12 huh?!?! now im confused

I have no idea, I wasn't sure of the certificate myself when writing that postso checked it, but according to imdb you can?!

odd odd odd

Going back to Hot Fuzz - I was really surprised that they let their kid (7 yr old) watch it..and like the OP wondered if I was being prudish and a bit wet.

Having just watched it again the other night I asked myself why someone would want to subject their 7 yr old to that kind of gore anbd scenes of violence? Can a 7 yr old ever be able to cope with that?

Im with you too, no way would I allow them

Glad its not just me then. The parents are really well educated people, posh arty types. I know this shouldn't make a difference but they just weren't the sort of people I'd expect to let their kids watch it. Serves me right for having these preconceptions.

Please don't jump down my throat for this - I know it sounds snobby!

My DD is 10 and she's not allowed to watch 15s. Depending on the film and why it's 15, my DS has been allowed to watch them since he was 12 - 13. He's 14 now and he's allowed to watch all 15s, on the basis that most of his mates are 15 already. Not 18s tho.

I think a 15 is pushing it because of the sex & violence.

My 4 & 6yo have watched the Harry Potter & Order of Phoenix - but not the Goblet of Fire, which was scarier. DH & I watch them first and then watch it with them. Violence with a wand is OK. But I wouldn't let them watch Eastenders or other TV drama of that ilk.

They have also seen the opening 5-10 minutes of Pirates of the Caribbean to see Jack Sparrow but I wouldn't let them watch the rest as the ghosts are too scary for them atm.

I just said to DH "Why on earth is Love Actually is a 15" and he reminded me. Martin Freeman & girlfriend!

YANBU - I can't think of any 15 certificate films I'd let my 8 year old watch, but I possibly wouldn't wait until she is 15 to let her, maybe a couple of years before that.

Hot Fuzz for a 7 year old??? Blimey!

There's actually quite a bit of violence in Gremlins the Gremlin in the microwave, the one in the blender, the teacher being killed in the school and IIRC at the time it came out there wasn't anything between PG and 15, certificate-wise, so if something was seen as too violent for PG it would wind up as 15.

P&L - I was still pondering that - and did a bit of googling - I think it was the gremlin in the microwave that tripped the balance to a 15

Bunnyhunny - am with you. I the certifications are there for a reason and 7 and 8 are too young IMO

Actually I thought the violence in Revenge of the Sith was much worse than Gremlins and RoS was only a 12

Yes, but they didn't have 12s when Gremlins came out, which is why they had to make it a 15 if they were going to restrict it at all. I can't imagine that if it were being classified today under the current range of certificates it would be anything more than a 12A.

Thinking back, I remember being shocked by Last of the Mohicans being a 12 -- you get someone being reasonably graphically (far more so than in RotS, and in a more "realistic" setting) burned alive, for goodness' sake (OK, so eventually he's finished off by a bullet, but still).

OK forget who was asking about different certificatios for the same film but at one stage and maybe still: films were/are given stricter certification on DVD than for cinema release, on the not entirely unreasonable grounds that cinema staff are at least supposed to keep, say, 6 year olds out of a 15 film screening but a film rented for home use is only under the control of the renter.

Oh, and this idea that you shouldn't make any kind of independent assessment of an individual film's suitability for your own DC to watch - sheesh! Are you people really that convinced that the GOvernment Know Better THan You on everything? I once attended a panel discussion on film censorship. sorry, classification, and got them to admit that sometimes the difference between a 12 and a 15 is a few fucking swearwords - like your DC can't hear those on the bus without crumbling to dust anyway.

I would trust more to my own judgment than the censor's tbh. There are U films that I wouldn't think suitable for my 7 yo- and 12 films that I would let him watch.

Quick look at the DVD shelf confirms that the Beatles film A Hard Day's Night is a 12. I think somebody says a rude word in it, very quietly. If the language is no worse than what he can hear every day from parents waiting in the playground, then I really don't see the problem.

(Btw, in his school assembly they sing "I get high with a little help from my friends"- sniggers cynically).

On sex and nudity, the censor and I also have different views. I have no objection to nude bodies per se or to 7 yos knowing about the facts of life, but as for sex treated with cynicism, I am quite prudish about that.

And I am VERY sensitive about violence, much more so than the censor, it would seem. So there are films that I won't let him watch because people hurt each other or have an accepting attitude towards violence. Or beacuse the films are generally scary.

Another quick peek at the shelf- yes, several of the scarier Bergman films are PG, or even U. But I can tell you, he won't be watching those for many years to come!

Anyway, this is DVDs: I would not let him go to any place of entertainment where he would be expected to fib about his age. I was furious when his mate's mum took him to a fun fair and asked him to tell the guard at the ride that he was a year older than he was. To my mind, that it a lot more damaging than hearing somebody in a film say a rude word.

Anyway, I would be very careful about what I let other people's kids watch- you don't know how sensitive they are.

And I wouldn't let my kids watch the news. They know that's real- that's different.

wow I didnt realise I would spark such a discussion!
The film was 300 (if anyone has seen it).

Personally I would watch any film first and check the violence etc in it. Some violence - like dinosaurs eating stuff, or a baddie getting seen off at the end (nor graphically), or perhaps a gremlin in a blender, I wouldnt mind. But not gore (though I love it myself!!) And I don't think nudity is bad, but if it is gratuitous then I would object. And as for people hurting each other, whether graphic or not, I hadn't even thought about that one... Or language...

300?

I thought it was a really good film, but personally I'd have rated it 18 rather than 15 in the first place. And in no way suitable for small children.