The dreaded 12A and PG-13 ratings are heaped with scorn for the perceived damage they’ve done to horror and action films. But haven’t family films taken a hit, too?
Listening to the Kermode and Mayo film programme on Radio 5 last week, I was struck by an email from a listener that was read out during the top ten box office countdown. This email was in response to the general critical thumping that Johnny English Reborn, the UK’s number one movie, had taken. And the correspondent had a great point.
Whether you like Johnny English Reborn or not, this was an increasingly unusual film. A PG-rated movie, that’s been targeted with a full family audience in mind. As the email went on to say, the film was a rare beast. The writer of the mail explained that he and his wife had two children, aged nine and six, and that it’s very difficult – outside of DreamWorks and Pixar animated fare – to find a film that they can all enjoy together. And whilst Johnny English Reborn was no classic, it fitted that criteria.
I didn’t like Johnny English Reborn at all, although I appreciate that not everyone feels the same way. But I do agree with the fundamental point being made.
It’s often said that PG-13 in the US and 12A in the UK has killed off action and horror movies, or certainly knocked the edges off them. I wonder if it’s the other way round, though. I wonder if PG-13 and 12A have become a target for film companies to aim for, knowing that they’ll straddle the broadest possible demographic with such a rating. But, as a consequence, they neglect to make a broad family movie.
Take a look at this summer’s blockbusters. Transformers: Dark Of The Moon was marketed to a broad audience, and duly got its 12A/PG-13. But even the earliest shots in the film feature Michael Bay’s camera leering at the lingerie-clad backside of model-turned-sort-of-actress Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. That tone then continued throughout the film. Now, to be clear: I’m no prude, but that’s not really a family movie, is it?
It's not alone, either. X-Men: First Class had a seduction moment and an F-bomb. Thor was really quite sinister at times. Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2 certainly earned its 12A. And the list goes on.
Again, I’ve no problem with these. Heck, I enjoyed most of them. But where’s the outright family live action movie gone? Is that a dying art, now? It looks like the closest we’re going to get is the sort-of-animated-but-not-really The Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn, and I commend Steven Spielberg and his team for putting out an exciting, enjoyable PG-rated movie with broad appeal.
Because, if you’re looking for anything else live action to take a family to, you might be in trouble. Particularly if your anklebiters are under ten.
In part, you’d have to say that this is down to the success of animated movies, which have made this part of the audience their own. And, as I’ve banged on about many times on this site, the quality of said movies has been strong in recent years.
Sadly, I do fear that animation/live action hybrids have done a bit of damage. It’s almost as if the trade off is that the real people are for the grown-ups, and the animated ones for the younger viewers. But do films such as The Smurfs, Hop and the Alvin And The Chipmunks movies really entertain that well? Some would say yes, I’d argue that it’s pretty much all some segments of the audience are given to pick over.
I’d also argue that it doesn’t have to be like this. Where, then, is this generation’s The Goonies? Where’s this generation’s Batteries Not Included, The Princess Bride, Labyrinth and Back To The Future? Or even a broad family comedy, such as Home Alone? There are sporadic examples of these, but less confidence, seemingly, in the Hollywood machine to back such a project.
That’s a pity. It does beg the question as to when did live action movies begin to marginalize the family audience to the extent they do now? Do parents have little choice but to either watch something at least partially-animated, else have to explain something to their children they don’t necessarily think they’re ready for? Because increasingly, that’s the conundrum.
That’s why I do give credit to Johnny English Reborn, because at least it bothers. At least it has a go at giving a family an afternoon out, while not excluding either the older or younger members of the audience. I dearly wish it was a better film, but I do hope that its success, and potentially the success of Tintin, leads Hollywood and beyond to realise that sometimes, PG – rather than 12A and PG-13 – isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
That said, if A Good Day To Die Hard turns out as a PG, I think I'm giving up.
Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here. And be our Facebook chum here.