Movie Review	Movie Reviews Archive

It has been almost 20 years since exbeauty queen and orange juice flack Anita Bryant instigated her campaign to "Save Our Children" from the ruinous clutches of homosexual recruiters. Bryant became a joke in her time, but her exploitation of the entrenched fear of children being corrupted by homosexuality was highly successful. Not only did she hit her immediate target-- a repeal of the Dade County, Florida, gay rights bill-- but hers was the opening campaign of the religious and conservative right's full-scale attack on gay rights. Today, the extreme rhetoric of Bryant's campaign plays well only intermittently-- most recently in the successful effort to remove the Rainbow Curriculum from New York City public schools in 1994. But the enormous discomfort that most heterosexuals feel about homosexuality and children suffuses our culture, as proved by a recent "Taking the Children" column in the Sunday New York Times arts section.

View our poll archive

"Taking the Children" is one of many columns, appearing in newspapers and magazines, that evaluate the suitability of popular movies for children. They usually feature a brief precis, an enumeration of the film's depiction of sex, nudity, violence, and profanity, and a suggestion of the film's appropriateness for varying age groups. The major criterion of suitability is usually the prevalence of violence, sex, and bad language.

Viewers beware!

But larger, more nuanced social issues are never addressed. For instance, you would never find: "The film portrays women as being simply housewives and as such is inappropriate for children who do not understand that such a role is, to a large degree, culturally determined and forced upon women who lack of other economic opportunities (Home Alone 3)." Nor would you find: "Although the film takes place in San Francisco, it is devoid of any depictions of lesbians and gay men, thus giving children who have never been there the implausible and unrealistic idea that gay people do not exist" (George of the Jungle). This never occurs because most heterosexuals and "family newspapers" believe that homosexuals and children should have as little to do with one another as possible.

This point was brought home in last December 28th's Times, which included an evaluation of the suitability of Ma Vie en Rose [My Life in Pink], the critically-praised Belgian film about Ludovic, a young boy who wants to be a girl when he grows up and to marry-- literally-- the boy next door. After a brief plot description, the reviewer notes that Ludovic is spanked and slapped by both parents; granted, such violence might be disturbing to some children. The film passes the sex test, since it contains a suggestion of erotic activity, but no nudity. Families are also warned that the film is filled with "many crude American and French idioms."

When the reviewer gets down to the "how old" question, Ma Vie en Rose is not recommended for the "Under-13" crowd. These kinder "may recognize the issues, but few will understand the nuances." As for the "Ages 13 and Up" set, while "not at first attracted to the story of a small boy, [they] may eventually find it absorbing and charming, as the film explores notions of integrity and self- respect." Well, Ma Vie en Rose is really about more then "self-respect," but let's leave well enough alone. The shocker of the column, however, comes in the form of an almost never-used addendum, a "Footnote," that states, "Gender identity is a volatile issue, of course, and while the film remains nonjudgmental, it raises difficult questions about homosexuality, transsexualism, and the tolerance thereof."

First of all, the film is not particularly nonjudgmental. It sympathetically portrays Ludovic as being harassed by fearful, homophobic, intolerant neighbors and bullies. And one has to wonder what the "difficult questions" about tolerance are, especially for children watching the film. Is tolerance of homosexuality inappropriate for "Ages 13 and Up"? Is tolerance hard to understand for those "Under 13"?

In the same column, Tomorrow Never Dies-- the new James Bond film with the usual tits-and-ass bimbo content-- is graded as "Ages 9-12: There is probably no harm," and "Ages 13 and Up: This is the target audience." And Home Alone 3, with its horrific, cartoonish violence, is A-OK for the "Ages 3-8" crowd, because "the rough stuff is comic enough not to disturb anyone." Apparently "Taking the Children" worries more about kids coming up on the wrong side of "difficult questions about tolerance" than about seeing women being treated like pieces of meat, or depicting violence as fun child's play.

Author Profile:  Michael Bronski
	Michael Bronski is the author of Culture Clash: The Making of Gay Sensibility and The Pleasure Principle: Sex, Backlash, and the Struggle for Gay Freedom. He writes frequently on sex, books, movies, and culture, and lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
	Email:	mabronski@aol.com