I receive the most interesting e-mails:

I saw an advertisement in the newspaper for a movie. The movie had
a rating along with it including some point-by-point warnings. One that caught my eye was a warning about innuendo.

I'm sure they mention this to help a parent decide if he or she should take a child to the movie. Innuendo, really, is problematic only if a kid gets the joke; otherwise, it blows past him. So, it seems as though you'd decide whether to take your kid to the movie based on whether your kid does or doesn't understand innuendo-based jokes. Since it's a PG movie, you'd probably hope that he doesn't.

So, my feeling is that smart children are filtered out of the screening. Someone at work argued that you don't have to be smart to understand innuendo. I guess that could be true, based on the nature and level of complexity of the joke.

Do you have an opinion on this one? Does innuendo require intelligence, or just worldly knowledge, or both in order to comprehend?

The only other reason I can think of to tell parents about it in the rating is in case they're too uncomfortable to sit through a movie with masked adult humor.

I don't know...perhaps I'm being too vague here..


My initial response was that it would have been interesting to have been in on the censorship panel's discussion about considering innuendo in ratings.

Because "innuendo" is defined as being a subtle rather than a direct implication, I suppose I would argue that one must be fairly intelligent to "get" such subtlety. Perhaps the basis of argument, then, should be that age is not an accurate indicator of intelligence, and that, therefore, a fairly young child of high intelligence could "get it."

Another question that comes to mind is whether this panel regards all innuendo as being sexual in nature, and, of course, it isn't. But do all their citations of innuendo worthy of concern for this particular purpose arise over sexual innuendo alone? Probably. Are there other forms of innuendo about which we should have concerns regarding their impact on children?

Something I've always thought odd -- and Disney is perhaps the worst offender -- is that movies where kids call other kids "buttface" or their parents "doofus" get G ratings. I've always felt those offenses had greater negative influence on kids than most lightweight sexual innuendo.

Thoughts?

A good Freudian like Bruno Bettelheim would tell you that ALL fairy tales are about repressed sexuality, so forget about letting kids read Snow White, or Jack and the Beanstalk, or....

See PM for my definition of innuendo.

Why can't we all see your definition of innuendo?

I would agree with you, Saranita, that there has to be some intelligence to get the subtlety. Yet, I do think some people tend to be more literal than others, and I am like that. So, I'd hate to think that it's all intelligence.

I also agree, Saranita, about the buttface and doofus type comments. I think that name calling is a very bad influence on kids.

In some ways, reporting that a movie contains innuendo is a good thing for parents. Several films nowadays contain jokes on two (or more) levels. Children will laugh at some jokes whereas adults will laugh at others intended for them. Obviously, it's intended that the 'adult' humour goes over the heads of the kids, although some worldly-wise kids will still 'get' the jokes. Or they think they do...

Anyway, to be told by the censor that a film contains innuendo means it will be at least possible to sit through the film with your kids with some chance of being amused yourself.

The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show and Cecil and Beany were so good at that. I loved those cartoons as a kid, and then when I grew up, I discovered so much good stuff between the lines. I don't think much of it was sexual, but there was at least one sexual reference made by the inspector in a Dudley Do-Right of the Mounties episode, but I can't remember what it was. I only remember my mouth dropping open when I heard it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: saranita,

Beany and Cecil - a cartoon? Well, yeah, but they were a puppet show before that! You're right, of course, about that show and Rocky/Bullwinkle. Chock full of innuendo, and terrible, horrible, delicious PUNS!!! I loved those shows!

Beany and Cecil were a puppet show???? You sure you aren't thinking of Kookla, Fran and Ollie, Asa?

http://www.tvofyourlife.com/beanyandcecil.htm
And there you have it! Since you lived in an area that didn't get the original puppet show, you couldn't have known. Besides, I'll bet you aren't old enough to have remembered.

Besides the characters mentioned in the link above, there were several others, including Joe Fido, a spoof of Joe Friday, (Jack Webb of "Dragnet" fame), whose office was in "hindquarters," not headquarters, and "Tear Along, the Dotted Lion" ( ) Creator Bob Clampett was a punster, and I love puns, soooo.....

Archaic Asa

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Asa Lovejoy>,

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
Besides, I'll bet you aren't old enough to have remembered.

1.) Love the link!

2.) How much you wanna bet?

quote:

Originally posted by saranita:


2.) How much you wanna bet?

I assume you to be in your early to mid fifites; you'd need to have been extremely precocious to have remembered a show that aired when you were a neonate - or slightly younger. BTW, if one can be precocious, what happens if one is postcocious?

And let's not forget "George of the Jungle"!

One of my favorite bits was when goodole dummole George had a coconut dropped on his noggin:

George: Ow! Who did that?
The Perfesser (or some such, I forget): It must have been those ruffians up in the palm tree.
G (looking up): Say, are you guys really from Ruffia?

D

quote:

I assume you to be in your early to mid fifites

I am!

quote:

you'd need to have been extremely precocious

I was!

quote:

if one can be precocious, what happens if one is postcocious?

I don't know. I...am merely precious.

George was the first "swinger" in cartoons.

quote:

quote:

if one can be precocious, what happens if one is postcocious?

I don't know. I...am merely precious.

AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!