Should R-rated movies be allowed to be shown in high schools?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

X-rated movies don't exist anymore. Why are so many people ignorant of the rating system?

[Beet]

Well I grew up in the NC-17 era and even I've probably heard "X-rated" far more often than "NC-17 rated'. Because X sounds better than NC-17... I guess it's become a part of the cultural lexicon.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well I grew up in the NC-17 era and even I've probably heard "X-rated" far more often than "NC-17 rated'. Because X sounds better than NC-17... I guess it's become a part of the cultural lexicon.

X-"rated" movies though are just pornos using that as an advertising gimmick. There is no official X-rating, and there never really was one (pre-NC-17 X was really just a way of signifying that it wasn't rated because the content was too hard for an R. The MPAA never trademarked it.) I could make a five minute video of cars parking around my apartment's parking lot and call it X if I wanted to. Similarily, no one would call Kids or Requiem for a Dream X-rated movies, the term is really just slang to refer to porn. And worth noting that even Midnight Cowboy is now rated R, and really would have no trouble getting an R if it was released today. In fact I believe the only non-porn film ever labeled X that does NOT have an R today and has an NC-17 is 1900.

[AkSaber]

Yes, so long as parental permission is given.

but none should be required for any student over the age of 17.

Those two thoughts together are the appropriate guidance.

Same here.

[Erc]

I'm not biased against any particular media, but a general purpose Hollywood movie simply takes too long to be viewed in a single sitting and allow for constructive use of it in a class, even with the inane 90 minute periods used under block scheduling these days in a lot of high schools.  Excerpts perhaps, but not an entire movie.

There could, of course, be classes where the object of study is the movies themselves--I had a one-semester film study course when I was in high school, for example.  The teacher wasn't technically supposed to show R-rated films, but he did anyway.  Though you should have seen the look on the substitute teacher's face that one day when a scene with breasts came up...

[Storebought]

As a general rule, no.  I find it difficult to believe that most Hollywood movies R-rated or not would be relevant to the curriculum.  Other than movies relevant to the curriculum I can't see why they'd be shown.  Of the three movies mentioned: The Matrix, Saving Private Ryan and Boiler Room, the only one I could see as being relevant would be Saving Private Ryan if you had a lazy-assed athletic coach as a history teacher.

Boiler Room was in Economics.

Why the sh*t would a teacher show Boiler Room in an econ class??

I agree completely with Emsworth and Ernest-- what educational purpose do Hollywood movies serve, if not crude indoctrination?

[MODU]

By their definition, no, unless the students are over the age of 17.  They can be shown if they are pre-screened by the school to ensure they are relevant to the curriculum and parents are informed in advance, just to give them a chance to voice their objection and/or request that their child to be excused from the class and assigned an equivalent alternative for the period(s) in question.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not biased against any particular media, but a general purpose Hollywood movie simply takes too long to be viewed in a single sitting and allow for constructive use of it in a class, even with the inane 90 minute periods used under block scheduling these days in a lot of high schools.  Excerpts perhaps, but not an entire movie.

There could, of course, be classes where the object of study is the movies themselves--I had a one-semester film study course when I was in high school, for example.  The teacher wasn't technically supposed to show R-rated films, but he did anyway.  Though you should have seen the look on the substitute teacher's face that one day when a scene with breasts came up...

Shessh, I can't imagine a school around here bothering with such a course.  OTOH, in order to count towards the 24 units required for a diploma in South Carolina, even an elective has to have a State approved curriculum.  So even if a high school wanted to offer such a course as an elective  (it certainly wouldn't meet the requirements for an English course of which 4 units are required), they'd have to go through a bunch of bureaucracy to do so.

South Carolina has its problems, but rigor in the academic standards applied to its high schools is not one of them.  (Meeting the standards is a problem for some schools, but the standards themselves are exemplary.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As a general rule, no.  I find it difficult to believe that most Hollywood movies R-rated or not would be relevant to the curriculum.  Other than movies relevant to the curriculum I can't see why they'd be shown.  Of the three movies mentioned: The Matrix, Saving Private Ryan and Boiler Room, the only one I could see as being relevant would be Saving Private Ryan if you had a lazy-assed athletic coach as a history teacher.

Boiler Room was in Economics.

Why the sh*t would a teacher show Boiler Room in an econ class??

Because the teacher was lazy? It is somewhat economics related granted, albeit not very educational...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BTW the origin of a few of these words are as follows

Fornicate under Consent of the King - because one used to have to get permission to have a child from the king.

Wrong.

[Colin]

BTW the origin of a few of these words are as follows

Fornicate under Consent of the King - because one used to have to get permission to have a child from the king.

Wrong.

Actually all of those are wrong. F**k comes from Anglo-Saxon and German to be precise. In Middle English its definition was to pierce or to strike. Over time it came to mean, euphemistically, to "pierce" a vagina, or basically to have sex. It then lost its non-sexual connotation and became the modern swear.

sh**t actually comes from the Old Norse and the Old English and was used for a long time to refer to feces. However once French/Latin words became more proper, after the Norman invasion, sh**t, over time, evolved into a more foul word for excriment while Latin root words became socially acceptable.

Mother f**ker is a term that only dates back to 1918 and is nothing more than what it appears, basically insulting someone for committing incest.

You can find these all on Wikipedia if you look them up.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Movie ratings are lame.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They are, but they're better the Hays Code, so kind of a necessary evil.

I've thought up a reform of the rating system:

G & PG - basically the same as now.
PG-13 - This basically would cover only "lite" PG-13s, like those teen comedies with it (Legally Blonde and the like). Same as it is now in who can go in.
PG-13+ - This implies a "harder" PG-13, like those movies with lots of violence (Bourne movies, Aeon Flux, Live Free or Die Hard), PG-13 horror movies (The Ring, Dark Water) or some of the more crude comedies (Dude, Where's My Car?). I'd also add "soft" R movies like The Matrix and the type of movie with no real explicit sex or violence but still gets an R just because it uses "f**k" six times in this category too. Treated the way R movies are now (supposedly), you need a parent to go in if you're under 13.

"BUT WAIT! Doesn't this restrict access further? That's out of character for you BRTD?"

Well yes, it does. But it's also at least more fair than the current system which lumps the "soft" R movies in what follows next, thus restricting access for those 13-17, which isn't really fair since the main justification you hear for those movies being rated R is "OK, maybe it's alright for a 15 year old, but an 11 year old?" type deal. Besides, most parents haven't had a problem with their kids in that age bracket watching those "soft" Rs from what I've seen anyway, so it's even more efficient from the parents' perspective.

R - This would be movies a step above the "soft R" movies listed before. The restrictions are the same as PG-13+ though. Movies like Harold & Kumar, the American Pie series, and the first Die Hard movies would be in this category.

R+ - These are the absolute "hardest" Rs, plus NC-17s. Saw series, most of Tarantino's movies, Bully (I still have no clue how that movie pulled off an R, I've seen movies originally labeled NC-17 that look like PG in comparison, including Clark's earlier Kids. Yet more evidence of the idiocy of the MPAA.) all fall under here. Restrictions the same as the current R. NO NC-17 rating, as that serves as nothing more than de facto censorship. Also if the parents don't have a problem with their 16 year old watching the movie, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Not perfect (no rating system ever will be), but more fair than the current system.

[Nym90]

It depends on the movie.

Overall, I'd say with parental consent, yes, or if the child is 17 or above they can consent on their own.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Of course they should.