Kids Don't Belong in Adult-Themed Films

Exposing small children to grisly acts of violence is okay.

To me that idea sounds absurd. And yet, almost every R-rated movie I attend has at least one child under the age of five in the audience.

One example was a screening I attended of The General's Daughter. A naked woman, lying spread-eagled on the ground wrists and ankles secured to tent-stakes with pieces of rope. Her skin was blue-white, clothes nowhere to be seen, bruises on her face, eyes staring at nothing. She had been raped, they thought, and strangled. Her panties were wrapped around her neck, underneath the nylon chord that stopped her breathing. The detective leaned over her and asked his colleague, "What are those marks on her cheek?" "Tears," she replied, "Those were tears." I had to look away; the guy one seat over never even flinched. Pretty stoic for a six-year-old. A gun battle and subsequent murder on a house boat. A gang-rape reenactment. Suicide by gunshot to the head. Sado-masochistic sex tapes. Disturbingly realistic violence. And everytime I had to look away, to my right I would see this little boy. Summer buzz-cut barely grazing the top of the seatback. Just staring. Hands in his lap. Eyes wide. Quiet as a mouse. And I'd have to look away. His parents must have been proud. I was horrified.

It isn't the first time, unfortunately, that I've been in a movie theatre with children whose parents don't seem to mind exposing their kids to things on the movie screen that they'd be horrified to find happening in their neighborhood or at school. I remember a woman hushing her little girl--who looked about four--when the lights went down and the opening film credits began. "Sit down, be quiet, and watch the movie," she was saying. I'm there to watch Clockers, and all I hear is a little girl's voice pestering her mother for snacks while her mother tries to divert the child's attention to the dead bodies on the screen. Photo after photo of dead gang members and junkies. It was surreal.

If an R-rated movie may be unsuitable for someone under seventeen, isn't it reasonable to conclude that it is definitely unsuitable for someone under ten?

Yes, according to Dr. Susan Linn, of the Judge Baker Children's Center at Harvard Medical School, who says there is clear evidence that watching and being exposed to a lot of violence inures children to violence and makes them less sympathetic to the victims. Parents bringing toddlers to inappropriate films concerns her. "Most kids are not going to grow up to be serial killers, and people who do... probably have issues in their lives that go beyond...watching violent movies...But the point is, that there is a level of violence that becomes acceptable in society,"says Linn. The movie Titanic, she feels, is one example.

"Millions and millions and millions of children under the age of thirteen watched those people drowning...and it seems we're not particularly phased by it." Dr. Linn continued,
"The [sinking of the ship] Titanic really happened. People really did drown like that, and for kids to be exposed to that and not to have feelings about that is worrisome to me."

The argument I most frequently hear is, "My kid knows it's just a movie." Clearly that argument doesn't hold water with Titanic, but could it make a case for, say, Disney's Tarzan, where the leopard devours the hero's parents, leaving a trail of bloody footprints? (Can Disney make an animated feature without at least one dead parent?!) Apparently not.
"One of the problems is we don't know how kids will understand what's going on," says Dr. Linn. "They don't differentiate well between reality and fantasy. They could have nightmares afterward that could haunt them for years, for their entire lives...And also, children learn about the world from everywhere...So what are the movies saying, for instance, about how men treat women...about how safe the world is?...Those are things that kids sort of take in subliminally that can grow into their attitudes about people in the world." Research shows that children who watch a lot of violence tend to think the world is an unsafe place. And many, like the stoic youngster in my earlier example, perhaps, feel pressure not to respond to violence in films because of how they would be perceived.

At a time when most movies are available to rent six months after theatrical release, I don't see how parents justify dragging small children to such inappropriate movies! Perhaps they're simply unaware of the damage to their children in such situations. And I know "First Amendment!" will be shouted from the rooftop of every cineplex from here to Kalamazoo if theatres tried to ban toddlers from R-rated films. So I can only hope that if people find themselves guilty of this transgression in the past, they just knock it off: Spring for the babysitter, or wait for the video. Please. And spread the word: the child you save, may be your future son- or daughter-in-law!

While researching this topic, I went to see The Sixth Sense. About five minutes in, after a freaky-looking guy shoots Bruce Willis, I nudged my companion. I pointed to a happy, fascinated film-goer, about six months old sitting on her(?) mother's lap in the row in front of us. "Gee," I whispered LOUDLY, "I guess you can never be too young to see somebody get blown away!" From the way the woman covered the baby's face with a blanket and began bouncing her furiously to sleep, I suspect that might've been Baby's last night at the pictures for quite some time...at least I hope so.