Being a parent is opening my eyes – and my ears – to the dilemma of R-rated content.
Lil’ WWTW can watch movies like “Bambi,” “Toy Story 3″ and other PG fare with me, but I have to screen films like “True Grit” when he’s not around. That’s hardly a crisis, and it won’t stop me from watching the occasional zombie fest.
You’ll have to pry the remote out of my cold, undead hands for that to happen.
So when I heard The Weinstein Company was mulling a PG:13 version of “The King’s Speech” for theatrical release it caught my attention. It sounded like a fine idea, especially since the original R-version wasn’t going away and will still be available in the enduring Blu-ray and DVD format.
The only casualties would be an F-word or two.
My fellow film lovers felt differently.
I quickly noticed an uprising against the move across the film blogosphere. And, now that the modified film pared poorly at the box office the news is being celebrated by those same film scribes. Some quickly dubbed the move “censorship,” a silly use of a pretty important word.
What’s being censored? The film is still out there in all its R-rated glory, unlike the “Star Wars” films director George Lucas dispatched to cinematic Siberia when he introduced the newer, shinier versions.
Some cried the move smacked of capitalism, a final attempt to wring a few more dollars out of the project. Ya think? When a film studio test screens a movie, shoots an alternate ending or upgrades the visuals to 3-D it’s all about maximizing ticket sales. So what?
And, most, importantly, where is the outcry from entertainment blogs about The History Channel dropping “The Kennedys” after several of the famous family’s clan applied not so subtle pressure against it? The miniseries eventually landed on ReelzChannel, but shouldn’t the same folks outraged at suppressing an F-bomb or two from “The King’s Speech” be equally horrified by “The Kennedys” imbroglio?
(Photo: Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush star in “The King’s Speech,” the Oscar-winning film which endured a few minor cuts to earn a new PG:13 rating. Photo credit: Laurie Sparham, The Weinstein Company)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
A PG-13 version of a film that was already seen by anyone who cared enough to see it the first time around will perform poor at the box office.
I mean really?
When I was younger and really wanted to see a R rated film I would find someone who was over 18 and beg them to take me to it. I wouldn’t wait for another version to come out. Why, if I cared to see the film the first time, would I see a film with less content the second time around?
It didn’t work because it was a stupid idea to begin with. Anyone who wanted to see it, saw it. Everyone else, it seems could have cared less.
My theory is that the PG-13 version, and the costs associated with making, marketing, and releasing it as an excuse to tell all the film’s profit participants that the film didn’t make a dime after $130+ million domestic, & almost $250 million internationally in box office.
I agree… much ado about nothing. Both versions are out there and as a parent I’d like for my kids to see the movie perhaps… especially my daughter who has a slight stammer. Unless he gets stuck on the F-word. Comedy gold like that should not be bowdlerized.
I guess it’s the libertarian in me, but I let my kids see tv and movies that were more adult, at a pretty young age. I was more concerned with limiting the sexy movies, versus the rough language flicks. They saw all the Die Hard/Terminator movies, Beavis and Butthead, Eminem videos. I found that by letting them see what was out there curtailed the desire to sneak around and be obsessed with the unknown. They are both adults now, and more conservative than I am.
Wait, are the original versions of Star Wars NOT available?? I thought the dvd boxes included both versions?