It sounds different when you put it that way...

Wrap your kid in cotton batting away from reality:

The website lists every incidence of violence, sex, and drug/alcohol in movies. The link above is for the most recent Harry Potter movie.

I realize that such analyses are likely more informative for parents than just PG or G. Most parents probably object to some things more than others. Still this is pretty silly sounded when sanitized and taken out of context.

The following is a small portion of what's listed for sex in Harry Potter #6
A teenage girl and a teenage boy are shown kissing passionately in a couple of scenes. A teenage boy and a teenage girl share a lingering kiss in a few scenes. A teenage girl, clothed in a robe, and a teenage boy stand very close to one another, they pause as if to kiss but they are interrupted before doing so.

A teenage girl blows a kiss to a teenage boy. A teenage boy and a teenage girl are shown holding hands in a couple of scenes. A teenage girl tells a teenage boy to take her hand and they hold hands.

A teenage boy stares wistfully at a teenage girl. A teenage girl looks longingly at a teenage boy. A teenage girl looks as a teenage boy and winks, flirtatiously. A teenage boy looks at a teenage girl suggestively, waving at her with a longing look in his eyes. A teenage girl sits down on a sofa next to a teenage boy and feeds him a cookie.

A teenage girl asks a teenage boy on a date. A teenage boy asks another teenage boy if he and a teenage girl "did it" -- not intending to inquire about sex, but the implication is there. A teenage boy angrily expresses his displeasure with another teenage boy who had run his hands over his sister.

While I realize that people, including myself, would like to know what's in a movie before letting my child see it - especially if it's something I would expect to be G but is rated PG - this is just over the top in the detail. Why not simply list the most egregious sexual act in the movie?

Teenage boy gives teenage girl a passionate kiss.
Teenage girl gives teenage boy a passionate blowjob
Teenage girl gives teenage boy great sex: penis shown
Teenage boy gives adult woman great sex: vagina shown

Come on ... if there's sex shown, it's a pretty safe bet that passionate kissing is also on-screen, and at that point, it's pretty irrelevant if kids are holding hands. And, strangely enough, it doesn't mention exactly how long any of this is going on. Nor does it mention how the activities are perceived within the context of the story line. Perhaps the passionate kissing scene is derided or ridiculed? (Although, assuming it's the big kissing scene I recall from the book, it probably is accompanied by anger and heartbreak from one of the other characters.) I think the context within the movie is as important as the individual activities.

To put this in perspective, Over the Hedge and The Incredibles are both rated PG, as is Harry Potter #6. I simply cannot imagine how these are on par with each other.

And, for Over the Hedge, IMDb's parental information page (so help me) states: On several occasions, we see Verne's bare turtle butt, but it's nothing explicit (and is played for laughs when his shell is off) -- a turtle's ass with no anus is sexual?? Hey, Marge, get that Barbie the hell away from little Suzie! Don't let her undress it! I think there are buttocks on the doll! Is Toy Story 2 rated PG because Mr. Potato Head is muttering to himself "I'm a married spud! I'm a married spud" after finding himself in a car with Tour Guide Barbie?

Okay, so after writing that I - of course - went to the Kids In Mind website and queried Toy Story 2. Sex rating: 1 of 10 (and, yes, it is possible to get a 0). Reason for this (again, so help me):
A few kisses on the cheek. Some "male" toys admire lots of dancing Barbies in swimsuits.

If movie is rated PG and you can't figure out that a few seconds here and there of heavy-duty kissing might be on screen, then you seriously need to learn what criteria the MPAA uses to assign ratings. Although, I must admit I like the German system (link in English) better, which is like:
no age limit -- 6 and under -- 12 and under -- 16 and under -- 18 and under

Ah, well - back to writing my paper. The Author & I have a date for seeing Public Enemies tomorrow if I've got the paper done.

Movie vs. Novel

My friend the Author posted a review of The Road on her blog. I want to see the movie next year, the story line being moderately interesting and the cast interesting. Her review makes the story line even more appealing. (i.e., not just some post-apocalyptic meandering) The ’stuck’ part is my general philosophy: haven’t read the book? Don’t do it before seeing the movie. I’m looking forward to having a bit of free time around the holidays. After reading her review, I’m tempted to put it on my holiday reading list. But the movie’s coming out! What am I to do??

One of the most striking examples of why I cling to this Kinoweltanschauung ... L.A. Confidential The Movie. If you've never read the book, I recommend it in the strongest terms. It's huge. It's an epic work of modern American fiction. James Elroy writes brutally honestly. The violence was occasionally brutal. It's the first time I've ever had a "oh, god I can't look" moment while reading.

The film remains one of my all-time favorites. The multiple stories intertwine elegantly, an accomplishment few manage, much less manage well. It's a story of huge scope, with a cast of - if not thousands - hundreds. Yet the book is ... surprisingly different.

L.A. Confidential The Book is far more complicated than the movie. In an interview with Elroy, he expressed his enthusiasm for the quality of the screenplay, since he thought the novel was "just fucking un-adaptable". Thankfully he was wrong. The simplification of the story lines into the screen play is an example of the scriptwriter truly seeing the important events & facts. Rather like Lord of the Rings, where lines appear in the script in different places by different characters, but being artistically critical (rather then person-critical) are used where needed to make the screen play work.

The Mexican girl in the movie, who gets rescued by Exley, is indeed in the book as well, with a completely different role beyond "girl who gets rescued". Or Rollo Tommasi, who appears from a completely different direction (as Exley Sr. isn't dead in the book).

One is left realizing the film and the book are two very different creations using the same ingredients to achieve very different, if superficially similar, pieces. The movie, to be taken on its own merits, really needs to be seen without prior knowledge of the plot. Else one is left, sort of like Harry Potter, with the abrupt interruption your submersion into the story by realizing 'hey, that's not in the book'. It's easier to ignore things that are missing than things that have been added, no matter how effectively. Prisoner of Askaban being a good example: it wasn't just a matter of cutting things out, but how some integral information is put back in, done well, but a burp in the story flow, if one's already read the book.

One is, in the reverse, conflicted with the impact of the director's visual presentation versus your personal imagination. Having seen the movie version, I was left with the images of Guy Pierce, Russel Crowe and Kevin Spacey while reading L.A. Confidential. Whereas with Harry Potter or Master & Commander, I had a pretty clear picture from the books of what I thought the characters looked like before seeing the films. While I'm not so sure about Potter (having read Sorcerer's Stone a week before the movie), watching Lord of the Rings or Master & Commander was like putting on a jacket you are surprised to find fits so nicely: that's just how it ought to look, even if it's not how I had pictured it myself.

I've rarely been disappointed in a book, after enjoying a good movie. The reverse is, unfortunately, not true.

-- ed. - The Road got postponed to "some time in 2009" ... sigh ...