NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thirdtablet.com/WhyIsMaVieEnRoseRatedR/
Ludo -- a 7-year-old boy, who is very comfortable with, and intent on living his life as a girl -- has absolutely no understanding of adult sexuality, and no aspect of adult sexuality is presented in this film. The topic of sexual identity (which children start dealing with at the age of ... zero) is seriously presented, and there is some grief and anger (on the part of adults) around issues of conformity to gender -- with a level of conflict children are accustomed to seeing in the less intense films shown to them. (Is this expression of conflict the "brief strong language" on which a rating of 'R' is based? Or is it the pejorative use of the word, "bent?") Overall, the tone of the film is very light, playful and positive.

It's rare for a foreign language film that's so appropriate for youth to be distributed in the U.S. -- a film that provides a glimpse of western European culture and very sensitively addresses a subject which children deal with every day: rigid gender roles and identity.

The MPAA Ratings play an important role: to alert parents to movie content which is inappropriate for children -- material that would be distressing to children for its intensity (e.g. violence) or mature subject (e.g. significant physical intimacy beyond expressions of affection). It is not appropriate for film ratings to be used for political purposes such as perpetuating bigotry.

A film such as "Ma Vie en Rose" being rated 'R' casts serious doubt on the intentions of MPAA and their rating committee. What interests are being served by this "voluntary" -- and anonymous -- national authority?
Do you think it is justified that this movie is rated R? Is it truly the case that explorations of gender identity are inappropriate?
Why?
I can't seem to comprehend what is wrong with it...

I've seen it (and loved it!) and there truly isn't anything in the film to warrant an R-rating.

It's just puritanism that made the film get the rating it got in the US. In Europe, I don't think it even had a rating.

I've never even heard of it, but no it shouldn't even have a rating (or it should be rated at the lowest, which is U in the UK)

Well, there's a big difference between being a tomboy and actually deciding you are another gender. I'm a bit confused, though, since people have referred to the film as regarding issues of "sexuality." Is this just gender, or are they talking about sexual relations?

It's rated 'R' because God forbid children should happen to see something that's concerned, if even only in the most cursorily of ways, with what lies betwixt the left toe and the right toe.

However, if it's decaptiations and disembowlments, hey, bring the toddlers. Nothing special there.

By the way, 'Ma Vie En Rose' is one of my favorite films, I have it on DVD, and it actually came in handy for my sister-in-law, whose son is exhibiting behaviours similar to those of little Ludo.

It's rated 'R' because God forbid children should happen to see something that's concerned, if even only in the most cursorily of ways, with what lies betwixt the left toe and the right toe.
What is wrong with my book bag? Its not hurting anyone sitting under my desk, and it certainly isn't dangerous. Why must my parcels always be subject to suspicion? WHY, GOD?! WHY!?

However, if it's decaptiations and disembowlments, hey, bring the toddlers. Nothing special there.
And now you're comparing it to violence and murder? What did my bag ever do to you?

By the way, 'Ma Vie En Rose' is one of my favorite films, I have it on DVD, and it actually came in handy for my sister-in-law, whose son is exhibiting behaviours similar to those of little Ludo.
Children don't have gender identity disorder. In fact, up until they start developing actual physical traits (decent ways into puberty) they have more of a Gender Identity Ignorance. A female childhood friend and I use to play house, and we frequently played the opposite sex (I the mom, she the dad), and I ended out quite definitely male. Although I did pretend to be gay for most of my highschool career and once skipped through the town in drag, but that stuff was more aimed at pissing others off than anything else.

Side note: What is it that you all find so fasinating about thise move? Sounds quite dull to me. And, no, I am not going to watch it, as that would involve flashing putting my name in association with it, and when the big 6 that rule the world start investigating my activities, I don't want them to find any more movies about transexualism then absolutely neccessary in my past.

Children don't have gender identity disorder.
Yea, some do.

And the fact that you continiously ended up playing the "male" character even when you started out playing a "female" character is evidence that children do indeed have a gender, and contradicts your earlier statement.

I saw that movie and was surprised that it was 'R'.

Yea, some do.
Yea, I did.

Yea, some do.
No, there is no gender identity to foster prepubescent. Children are largely ignorant of sexuality until they start progressing and you see noticeable biological differences. Until then you are just reading things in to childhood play that don't really exist.

And the fact that you continiously ended up playing the "male" character even when you started out playing a "female" character is evidence that children do indeed have a gender, and contradicts your earlier statement.
I am confused here. Now are you saying that I am "playing the male character" now, as a method of revealing your disgust at the existence of gender identities in society. Or are you misinterpreting what I said when I said I ended up male. I was refering to the now, the current day, the present. In the games if I started out the mom, I ended the mom. That was one of the rules, and yes we had rules when we played house.

No, there is no gender identity to foster prepubescent. Children are largely ignorant of sexuality until they start progressing and you see noticeable biological differences. Until then you are just reading things in to childhood play that don't really exist.
Erm...no. It's scientifically accepted that children do have gender. And in any case, are you trying to tell me what I did and didn't feel when I was a child of 2, 3, 4, 5 etc?


I am confused here. Now are you saying that I am "playing the male character" now, as a method of revealing your disgust at the existence of gender identities in society. Or are you misinterpreting what I said when I said I ended up male. I was refering to the now, the current day, the present. In the games if I started out the mom, I ended the mom. That was one of the rules, and yes we had rules when we played house.
I read your post to say that in games in childhood you started out playing the game as a female character, and ended up playing a male character. My mistake.

Although, I'm not sure why you thingk I have a "disgust at the existence of gender identities in society" when I have no such thing, and have never expressed anything like that.

Yea, I did.
You are probably reading to much into your past. It is a relatively common occurance, as you went looking for evidence of a GID in your past with the conclusion that one existed. As a result, you found one because you forgot all the examples that would oppose your hypothesis (Unless of course every moment of your childhood was recorded in hard copy, in which case I want the transcripts as proof that other people's early years were just as dull as mine).
Further, I might assume that you are still suffering under GID, yes? If so, then you are probably projecting your problems onto your sister-inlaws son. Everyone, after all, secretly believes that everyone else is like them. After all, there is no other way to relate, my perspective on life is the only one I will ever know fully, and the same goes with you.

Erm...no. It's scientifically accepted that children do have gender. And in any case, are you trying to tell me what I did and didn't feel when I was a child of 2, 3, 4, 5 etc?
I'm telling you that there is no real difference between prepubescent sexes. Any thing like gender identity is most likely formed through sympathies to whichever guardian you preferred/had.

Although, I'm not sure why you thingk I have a "disgust at the existence of gender identities in society" when I have no such thing, and have never expressed anything like that.
Because you said that I ended up "playing the 'male'", by which I thought you were equating modern ideas on gender to a game, much like House was for kids.

I repeat, what is so fascinating about this damn movie?

I'm telling you that there is no real difference between prepubescent sexes. Any thing like gender identity is most likely formed through sympathies to whichever guardian you preferred/had.
And I'm telling you that kids do have a gender identity. Every time a child says "I'm a boy" or "I'm a girl" they are reinforcing their own identity. And I certainly felt it. And, no, that isn't just me looking back on it, people who have no idea I'm transgendered have mentioned it as well.


Because you said that I ended up "playing the 'male'", by which I thought you were equating modern ideas on gender to a game, much like House was for kids.
Like I have already said, I thought you were talking about when you were playing 'house'. That you started off playing the mother and always ended up playing the father by the end of the game.

And in any case, that shows no "disgust at the existence of gender identities in society", that's just me reading the writing on the screen in front of me.



Anyway, we have taken this ridiculiously off topic, so it's probably best to end here, unless you want to start a new thread.

As for the film, this isn't asking what's so fascinating, it's just asking if you agree with its rating.

http://www.thirdtablet.com/WhyIsMaVieEnRoseRatedR/

Do you think it is justified that this movie is rated R? Is it truly the case that explorations of gender identity are inappropriate?
Why?
I can't seem to comprehend what is wrong with it...


I haven't seen the film but its rated 12 in UK on dvd

No-one younger than 12 may rent or buy a ‘12’ rated video or DVD. Responsibility for allowing under-12s to view lies with the accompanying or supervising adult.

I believe it had the same rating in the cinema

I haven't seen the film but its rated 12 in UK on dvd

No-one younger than 12 may rent or buy a ‘12’ rated video or DVD. Responsibility for allowing under-12s to view lies with the accompanying or supervising adult.

I believe it had the same rating in the cinema
I don't think many twelve year olds are buying DVDs anyway.

Fiddlebottoms:

Stow it, man, respectfully. You have managed to make a complete hash out of trying to analyze my life with the barest of information, let alone the lives of my sister-in-law and her son.

As it happens, she was the one who called me. I had no idea this was going on, and it wasn't until she told me about her boy that I thought of Ludo's struggles. I spoke with her about her son at great length (mostly to put any undue alarm to rest), and reminded her that no matter how he grows up or who he grows up to be, he'll always be her child, and that's all that really matters anyway.

Sheesh. Some people.

You have managed to make a complete hash out of trying to analyze my life with the barest of information, let alone the lives of my sister-in-law and her son.
You made them the issue by bringing them up? Is it my fault that you provided the barest information? You made them and yourself an example, and then you complain when I address it.
Sheesh. Some people.

Anyways, I'll agree with Nadkor and say that we have really hijacked this topic. (Although it probably would have been forgotten and away with if I hadn't hijacked it, so HELL YEAH! I R Impoortent!)
Good night, all.

You made them the issue by bringing them up?Hardly. I mentioned it in passing, I'm not 'debating' an issue.Is it my fault that you provided the barest information? No it's your fault for assuming I was being an attention-whore, though - see your next quoted line:You made them and yourself an example, and then you complain when I address it.No, I was just making conversation. You're the one running around 'addressing' things.Sheesh. Some people.Indeed.

http://www.thirdtablet.com/WhyIsMaVieEnRoseRatedR/

Do you think it is justified that this movie is rated R? Is it truly the case that explorations of gender identity are inappropriate?
Why?
I can't seem to comprehend what is wrong with it...
human genders have evolved that way for a reasone(the ones that had these traits of gender separation are the ones that survived, so there is something superior about it). such a film displaying disorders in any good should be banned as such.

From filmratings.com:

"Ma Vie En Rose"

Rated R for brief strong language.

The mother did say the f-word quiet a few times, and that word is an above-R taboo if it's used enough.

http://www.thirdtablet.com/WhyIsMaVieEnRoseRatedR/

Do you think it is justified that this movie is rated R? Is it truly the case that explorations of gender identity are inappropriate?
Why?
I can't seem to comprehend what is wrong with it...

I think perhaps it's rated R because it's a young boy convinced he's a girl. That's a bit inappropriate for children. I would probably not let my kids watch it if I had kids, because they may get confused. And I don't like the premise, which is that it's perfectly okay and normal for a child to be disconnected from reality in such a way. I think the boy has a psychological problem of sorts. He should undergo therapy, which is what I think people like that need rather than to go mutilate themselves. I voted it should be R, but perhaps that's a bit much. PG-13 would be perfect.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

At whom are you rolling your eyes in contempt? (Just wanted to be sure about it.)

:rolleyes: (Just wanted to be sure about it.)No doubt you do, no doubt you do. Why? Why do you?

No doubt you do, no doubt you do. Why? Why do you?

I wanted to know if you were picking a fight. You struck me as a supercilious, coastal elite that doesn't like for others to disagree, and I wanted to be sure.

human genders have evolved that way for a reasone(the ones that had these traits of gender separation are the ones that survived, so there is something superior about it). such a film displaying disorders in any good should be banned as such.
So films helping those with such 'disorders', and helping to bring about greater public understanding of such 'disorders' should be banned?

I think perhaps it's rated R because it's a young boy convinced he's a girl. That's a bit inappropriate for children. I would probably not let my kids watch it if I had kids, because they may get confused. And I don't like the premise, which is that it's perfectly okay and normal for a child to be disconnected from reality in such a way. I think the boy has a psychological problem of sorts. He should undergo therapy, which is what I think people like that need rather than to go mutilate themselves. I voted it should be R, but perhaps that's a bit much. PG-13 would be perfect.

Such ignorance of GID, transsexuality and gender reassignment surgery - or as you so feebly refer to it as "mutilating" themselves - all rolled up into one. Unfortunately, this sort of ignorance is not uncommon. *sigh*

It's also interesting to see that you believe children would be "confused" by watching a film about a boy who acts like a girl and expresses a wish to be one. Interesting in the sense that it probably has more to do with your own discomfort with the subject, displayed in your authoritarian, and spiteful, comments about being "disconnected from reality" and "self-mutilation," rather than with a genuine concern about confusion, which itself could be easily addressed and explained to any child "confused" (although I know several children who saw the film - recall that in Europe it was not as harshly judged as in the infamously puritanical US - and none were confused in the least; they just had questions and wished to understand more about the situation). No, what betrays your probable ultimate motive is the comment about fearing that people get the idea that being like the boy in the film is "perfectly okay," a sentiment you obviously do not share and do not wish that other people do either, for a reason I could credibly speculate in, but will not, as it is best left apparent in its unspoken state.

He should undergo therapy, which is what I think people like that need rather than to go mutilate themselves.
Doesn't work.

From filmratings.com:

"Ma Vie En Rose"

Rated R for brief strong language.

The mother did say the f-word quiet a few times, and that word is an above-R taboo if it's used enough.

If I recall correctly, the mother used the French "merde" once or twice, which means more "crap" than "fuck." In its original French, I recall no wordings that would warrant an R-rating.

Such ignorance of GID, transsexuality and gender reassignment surgery - or as you so feebly refer to it as "mutilating" themselves - all rolled up into one. Unfortunately, this sort of ignorance is not uncommon. *sigh*

It's also interesting to see that you believe children would be "confused" by watching a film about a boy who acts like a girl and expresses a wish to be one. Interesting in the sense that it probably has more to do with your own discomfort with the subject, displayed in your authoritarian, and spiteful, comments about being "disconnected from reality" and "self-mutilation," rather than with a genuine concern about confusion, which itself could be easily addressed and explained to any child "confused" (although I know several children who saw the film - recall that in Europe it was not as harshly judged as in the infamously puritanical US - and none were confused in the least; they just had questions and wished to understand more about the situation). No, what betrays your probable ultimate motive is the comment about fearing that people get the idea that being like the boy in the film is "perfectly okay," a sentiment you obviously do not share and do not wish that other people do either, for a reason I could credibly speculate in, but will not, as it is best left apparent in its unspoken state.

My goodness. I'm not an autoritatian or spiteful, and I haven't any motive. I think those people should have the right to do what they please, but I'll never advocate it. I'm sorry, but if your "gender identity" is different from your gender, there's a serious problem. They can go get surgery, but that does not make them a different sex, it makes them people with mutilated genitals that maybe look like something other than what they were born.

A young child seeing a movie like that would be under the wrong impression, because the movie doesn't explain to them that the boy has a problem (a disease, if you will) and needs some help.

And your last statement. I don't care what people think about the issue. That's just how I feel about it. And I wish you would elaborate on the reason, because it's not so clear to me.

Doesn't work.

Really? Is that from personal experience?

My goodness. I'm not an autoritatian or spiteful, and I haven't any motive. I think those people should have the right to do what they please, but I'll never advocate it. I'm sorry, but if your "gender identity" is different from your gender, there's a serious problem. They can go get surgery, but that does not make them a different sex, it makes them people with mutilated genitals that maybe look like something other than what they were born.

Ah, there it is again - this ignorant misrepresentation of what gender reassignment surgery entails and the quite remarkable results that it has in actually curing gender dysphoria and making the lives of those afflicted better.

A young child seeing a movie like that would be under the wrong impression, because the movie doesn't explain to them that the boy has a problem (a disease, if you will) and needs some help.

So, all the scenes with the child going to therapy do not show that the child is unusual and needs help? Have you even seen this film? Because in reading that paragraph, I doubt you have.

And your last statement. I don't care what people think about the issue. That's just how I feel about it. And I wish you would elaborate on the reason, because it's not so clear to me.

Oh, but it is clear to anyone who can read between the lines: You fear, without any sufficiently sound cause, other than what can be gleamed from your discomfort with the subject, that this film would "make" the children who view it like Ludovic and cause them to develop GID - a most preposterous supposition that you call "confusion" and ironically attempt to confuse with thinking something is "okay." From thence comes the conclusion that the R-rating is good, becuse it would "shield" them from this.

Ah, there it is again - this ignorant misrepresentation of what gender reassignment surgery entails and the quite remarkable results that it has in actually curing gender dysphoria and making the lives of those afflicted better.

I don't see how it cures anything. I see it as indulging their delusions.

So, all the scenes with the child going to therapy do not show that the child is unusual and needs help? Have you even seen this film? Because in reading that paragraph, I doubt you have.
I went by the synopsis, and I read some reviews. I'm not going to travel to a huge metropolitan area and pay money for some French film that I don't really care about. I assumed from what I read that the premise was that boy didn't have a disorder and his behavior was okay and normal and just needed to have an operation.

Oh, but it is clear to anyone who can read between the lines: You fear, without any sufficiently sound cause, other than what can be gleamed from your discomfort with the subject, that this film would "make" the children who view it like Ludovic and cause them to develop GID - a most preposterous supposition that you call "confusion" and ironically attempt to confuse with thinking something is "okay." From thence comes the conclusion that the R-rating is good, becuse it would "shield" them from this.

Well, that's completely untrue. I never thought a boy would go into the theater all normal and come out the little pink cowboy. I just wouldn't take my young child to see a film with the premise I stated above.


Replies in bold.

I don't see how it cures anything. I see it as indulging their delusions.

Wow, you truly are this ignorant about gender dysphoria and transsexuality!

I went by the synopsis, and I read some reviews. I'm not going to travel to a huge metropolitan area and pay money for some French film that I don't really care about. I assumed from what I read that the premise was that boy didn't have a disorder and his behavior was okay and normal and just needed to have an operation.

Which in itself again displays your ignorance about GID, the medical soundness of gender reassignment surgery, the fact that children do not get operations, and that this film never mentions them.

Well, that's completely untrue. I never thought a boy would go into the theater all normal and come out the little pink cowboy. I just wouldn't take my young child to see a film with the premise I stated above.

As I mentioned, that it would shield them from learning that this is okay and that children who are in this situation are in need of support. I should think children would be in need of learning that bigotry is an ugly thing, but if you wish to shield your children from that message, I shall pity them.

Replies in bold.

Do not do that again. It forces me to cut and paste what you have written - something I will not bother to do again - as it becomes a part of my quote, and is not transferred when I quote you.

Thanks, Fass. I didn't see the point in engaging this fellow, as I would most likely become quite cross, which I don't particularly want to do right now. *sighs* and he hasn't even bloody seen the damn thing...!

Thanks, Fass. I didn't see the point in engaging this fellow, as I would most likely become quite cross, which I don't particularly want to do right now. *sighs* and he hasn't even bloody seen the damn thing...!

Bigotry doesn't tend to be informed.

Wow, you truly are this ignorant about gender dysphoria and transsexuality!



Which in itself again displays your ignorance about GID, the medical soundness of gender reassignment surgery, the fact that children do not get operations, and that this film never mentions them.



As I mentioned, that it would shield them from learning that this is okay and that children who are in this situation are in need of support. I should think children would be in need of learning that bigotry is an ugly thing, but if you wish to shield your children from that message, I shall pity them.



Do not do that again. It forces me to cut and paste what you have written - something I will not bother to do again - as it becomes a part of my quote, and is not transferred when I quote you.

You are not refuting my comments about that surgery; you just keep saying I'm ignorant. And I didn't think someone would do that to a child. I assumed it'd happen when he got older. And I agree they need fucking support! I didn't say "support"; I said "help", but I assumed "help" and "support" were synonymous. I don't think they should be shunned or anything, but they are technically sick.

I am a female (by birth, though that doesn't need to be stated, because all females are!), and I'm not a bigot in the least. I just don't like the surgery, and the fact that our culture thinks it's fine. They see it as disease and cure. I agree with the disease part, but how the hell is that surgery the cure?

Edit: To go even further, this reveals a problem with psychology, the fact people have to get surgery for such a problem. Perhaps (and I am not a scientist per se) they are too fixated on the concept of mind to analyze the behavior itself and try to find causes and such.

You really just can't help discussing films you know absolutely nothing about, can you?

You really just can't help discussing films you know absolutely nothing about, can you?

I picked up on the tone. It portrays behavioral disorders in a positive light. And if I got the premise wrong, then, shit, I got the premise wrong. That doesn't make me a bigot or spiteful or authoritarian. It makes me someone who saw something in her culture that she didn't like, and then she saw this thread, and she misunderstood the film's view. Though I don't think I did.

Without having seen the movie myself and just going on the opinions of those who have and a breif blurb, I must conclude it seem unwarrented.

A young child seeing a movie like that would be under the wrong impression, because the movie doesn't explain to them that the boy has a problem (a disease, if you will) and needs some help.



Yes, the girl has a problem, a disease (a birth anomaly, if you will) called gender dysphoria, in which, en untero, the brain developes into one gender whereas the body developes into the incorrect sex.
A very useful page:
http://transsexual.org/What.html

Yes, the girl has a problem, a disease (a birth anomaly, if you will) called gender dysphoria, in which, en untero, the brain developes into one gender whereas the body developes into the incorrect sex.
A very useful page:
http://transsexual.org/What.html
Or could it be that the brain develops into the wrong gender and the body into the correct one? I think correct terminology would be that they develop differently.

Anyway, death to all government ratings!!!!!!!
I wouldn’t see it, but I don’t want to stop someone else from seeing it.
By the way, since it’s R, a kid can see it if their parents accompany them, for anyone confused.

Really? Is that from personal experience?
Nope, but from years of experience of psychiatrists, doctors, and transgendered people. It has been tried on thousands of people for many years, and in the vast, vast majority has been ineffective. The accepted 'treatment' is sexual reassignment, as all others have been ruled out as being a waste of time, whereas SRS hasn't.

Any film that goes into deep arguments about human sexuality is unsuitable for young children who may be affected by it. I wouldn't agree with an 18 rating, or even a 15 or 12. I wouldn't give it a U (or Universal) rating though - maybe a PG (Parental Guidance). Let the parents decide.

[edit] That said, enough swear words and blatant lewdness would warrant a higher rating.

Any film that goes into deep arguments about human sexuality is unsuitable for young children who may be affected by it. I wouldn't agree with an 18 rating, or even a 15 or 12. I wouldn't give it a U (or Universal) rating though - maybe a PG (Parental Guidance). Let the parents decide.
It's a film about the human sexuality of a young child.

It's a film about the human sexuality of a young child.

Yes, I have read the thread.

From filmratings.com:

"Ma Vie En Rose"

Rated R for brief strong language.

The mother did say the f-word quiet a few times, and that word is an above-R taboo if it's used enough.
Brief strong language? That'd get a 12 over here.

Yes, I have read the thread.
So why should a film that deals with pre-pubescent sexuality be forbidden for young viewers to watch?

The reason it's rated 'R' is because the people that compose the MPAA all need to be taken out back and beaten with sticks.

The reason it's rated 'R' is because the people that compose the MPAA all need to be taken out back and beaten with sticks.
Now if you made that into a film, toddlers would definitely be allowed to go see it...

So why should a film that deals with pre-pubescent sexuality be forbidden for young viewers to watch?

Because they might go ahead and try it?

PG means "Parental Guidance". How many parents are going to let their eight year old child watch a film that deals with pre-pubescent sexuality?

Because they might go ahead and try it?

PG means "Parental Guidance". How many parents are going to let their eight year old child watch a film that deals with pre-pubescent sexuality?
I have no idea. Isn't that a matter between parents and their children?

I have no idea. Isn't that a matter between parents and their children?
That’s what PG means. I don’t know what they do in Canada, but PG implies that the parent gets to decide if it’s suitable for their child.

How gracious of the government. :rolleyes:

Then why is it rated 'R'?

Then why is it rated 'R'?
Moonshine said it should be PG. I thought you were arguing with him because you thought he said it should be R or didn’t understand what PG means.

I think it should be widely accessible as a family-themed film. If that means PG then so be it... but 'R'? That's ridiculous, just as ridiculous as the neighbourhood parents in the film-! Kinda ironic, that way.

Although I havent seen it, I do get the impression that it was rated improperly. However, it doesnt bother me much because I preffer that they err on the side of caution. Also, in the case of this movie, it is a drama that most children would find terribly boring and I doubt anyone under 17 would actually even be interested in watching it. I dont imagine many kids choosing this movie as the one they want to rent or go see in the theater, so if any harm is done by giving it an R rating it is minimal. So, they cant rent it or go watch it without their parents permission, big deal.

What bothers me more is how movies where hundreds of people are murdered on screen manage to get a pg rating (Star Wars is a perfect example).