Today I learned

[james_davis_nicoll]

that in the UK, the film version of Watership Down was rated a children's movie when it was first released. Interesting.

Comments

[badgerbag]

Many people in the US saw it as kids and were traumatized. Fascist evil bunnies! etc!

[zeborah]

I saw it only a couple of years ago and was pretty traumatised. The... I don't know that it's a mood mismatch between book and movie, because the book's pretty dark by the nature of what it's talking about, and yet. In the book it's dark in a way that you can take according to where you are in life, I think? whereas the movie just puts it out there complete with psychedelic horror (kind of like the tunnel scene from the older Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie, come to think of it).

[kraig]

I'd agree with this. I re-read and re-watch every few years, and the movie gets me in a way that's different from the book. Maybe it's more a sign of the limitations of my own imagination, but yeah, you're not the only one.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

In the U.S., it was (mis-)marketed in a way to make it easily mistakable for a children's movie. Especially by parents who had not previously encountered any adult-targeted animation. I saw it on initial release, and heard some of the traumatized kiddies first-hand.

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

The first time I saw it was when I had chickenpox in second grade. My father went out and bought some videos that I could watch while I was stuck home by myself, and Watership Down was one of them. It freaked me out, not least because Given that our TV still had knob dials and no remote, I had no way of changing the volume without getting up and tottering across the room, by which point it'd be too late.

Later on, when I was in high school, a bunch of my friends were over at my house one day and we were looking for a movie to watch, and one of them, a girl who'd never been to my house before, noticed Watership Down on the shelf and freaked out. She kept referring to it as the "bloody bunny movie," and saying it gave her nightmares as a child. Which naturally meant that everyone else wanted to see it. She tried to watch it but had to leave the room half an hour in.

[eub.livejournal.com]

D: D:

The book was marketed to children, like 9 - 12, though? It certainly had rabbit death (the nastiest thing for me was the references to myxomatosis) but it wasn't appallingly gruesome like your movie experience.

Changing the age target in making the movie seems bound to create problems! And now I wonder what some other examples have been.

[david wilford (from livejournal.com)]

A U.S. newspaper ad for Watership Down from 1979 had review blurbs from both Playboy and Family Circle magazines in it, which certainly supports the marketing muddle. It was an adult movie IMO, and was rated PG in the U.S. FYI, there was no PG-13 rating at that time for films.

[murasaki-1966.livejournal.com]

We were tougher in those days.

[freshninja.livejournal.com]

It was shown on weekends in the morning or afternoon, the traditional cartoon times, in Germany.

Holy fuck, man.

[julesjones]

Well, it's a film of a children's book...

Given some of the things in Doctor Who at the time, I'm not surprised Watership Down got rated as U. According to the note on Wikipedia, even when it was finally uprated to PG (which is still a rating for children, just a warning it may not be suitable for younger children to watch without an adult), the thing that would have lost it the U under today's guidelines was the mild expletive.

That's not entirely disproportionate. I can't remember whether the film included the line "U embleer Frith!" - but when I read the book as a ten year old, I understood very well what that meant in Lapine, and it was as shocking as Adams doubtless intended it to be. That one of the rabbits was so far gone as to say that made what was happening to them far more horrifying.

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

Actually this was right around the time that Doctor Who's producer got fired because people (well, Mary Whitehouse) complained about how violent the show had gotten ("tea time brutality for tots"). Which is why the show suddenly goes from things like The Talons of Weng-Chiang to episodes written by Douglas Adams.

See Phil Sandifer's excellent article on the subject:

http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/pop-between-realities-home-in-time-for-tea-20-mary-whitehouse/

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

Which is why the show suddenly goes from things like The Talons of Weng-Chiang to episodes written by Douglas Adams.

Talons was considered too grimdark by many dedicated Who fans and your choice of Adams as a supposed contrast is bizarre because his most famous work begins with the casual genocide of almost the entire human species.

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

Yes, but Adams made the destruction of the human race into an event of Pythonesque silliness, which is the same approach he brought to Doctor Who as writer and script editor. There's some horrific stuff going down in The Pirate Planet, but what everyone remembers is that it's one of the funniest episodes in all of Who.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

Adams made the destruction of the human race into an event of Pythonesque silliness, which is the same approach he brought to Doctor Who as writer and script editor.

So you're saying that, to you, style is more important than substance? And you have a personal preference for grimdark family entertainment over the light-hearted or comedic*? That's fair enough, for you, but Doctor Who is reasonably popular as it is.

There's some horrific stuff going down in The Pirate Planet, but what everyone remembers is that it's one of the funniest episodes in all of Who.

Also, I think you might have mixed up the serial titles? Possibly you meant City of Death, although I don't know anyone who thinks of it as a barrel of laughs the way you describe either.

* I separate light-hearted from comedic because pointed satire, such as Adams and Python were capable of producing, is generally not "silliness".

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

So you're saying that, to you, style is more important than substance?

No, I'm saying that when you assess the tone of a story, you look at the tone of the story and not the content. The Life of Brian, H2G2 and Blackadder are all light comedies no matter how many bloodbaths the stories involve because the bloodbaths are treated as a source of humor and not horror. Arthur Dent spends all of one line grieving the destruction of the Earth before we get on with the jokes -- that's not grimdark.

And you have a personal preference for grimdark family entertainment over the light-hearted or comedic*?

I made no such claim.

That's fair enough, for you, but Doctor Who is reasonably popular as it is.

There is no unitary "Doctor Who". The series has changed constantly. I'm making a historical point that one such change occurred in 1978 when the BBC received high profile complaints about the series becoming too grimdark for children, and shifted the tone in a lighter direction.

Also, I think you might have mixed up the serial titles? Possibly you meant City of Death, although I don't know anyone who thinks of it as a barrel of laughs the way you describe either.

No, I mean The Pirate Planet, the story about a planet-turned-space ship that goes around gobbling up other worlds regardless of whether they're inhabited or not. Prior to the Time War, this was the story with the highest death count in all of Doctor Who. But you don't even remember that part in favor of the comedy.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

Life of Brian, H2G2 and Blackadder are all light comedies no matter how many bloodbaths the stories involve because the bloodbaths are treated as a source of humor and not horror

I guess they don't have graveyard humour where you come from then?

Arthur Dent spends all of one line grieving the destruction of the Earth before we get on with the jokes -- that's not grimdark.

Yes? Was there a point you were intending to make beyond the obvious?

I made no such claim.

OK. You didn't claim you like or dislike grimdark even though you seem to think it's preferable to other styles despite their substance... so it's not a claimed liking but merely a regularly expressed preference on your part.

I'm making a historical point that one such change occurred in 1978 when the BBC received high profile complaints about the series becoming too grimdark for children, and shifted the tone in a lighter direction.

What point were you making about that supposed history (which was actually Doctor Who returning to its more usual form after veering to an extreme)?

Prior to the Time War, this was the story with the highest death count in all of Doctor Who.

I honestly don't know how anyone would count that but I expect the fanboys have a league table somewhere for people who think comparing fictional genocides by body count is a useful or interesting thing to do.

But you don't even remember that part in favor of the comedy.

Don't I? o_O Bearing in mind that I already actively disclaimed this in my previous comment, and pointed out that it's not a common point of view amongst my acquaintance, there doesn't seem to be much use in saying it again even though it's still true.

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

OK. You didn't claim you like or dislike grimdark even though you seem to think it's preferable to other styles despite their substance... so it's not a claimed liking but merely a regularly expressed preference on your part.

I never said anything remotely like that. I never expressed a preference for one mode of Who over another. You are reading words that I did not write.

What point were you making about that supposed history (which was actually Doctor Who returning to its more usual form after veering to an extreme)?

Julesjones said that, given the things Doctor Who was getting away with at the time, it wasn't surprising Watership Down received a U. I'm pointing out that Watership Down came out the same year that Doctor Who stopped being able to get away with stuff like that.

I honestly don't know how anyone would count that but I expect the fanboys have a league table somewhere for people who think comparing fictional genocides by body count is a useful or interesting thing to do.

There are very few Doctor Who episodes in which whole planets are wiped out, let alone the dozens of planets that are destroyed as a background detail in The Pirate Planet.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Prior to the Time War, this was the story with the highest death count in all of Doctor Who.

Really? Didn't the Master destroy something like a third of the entire visible universe in Logopolis?

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

the thing that would have lost it the U under today's guidelines was the mild expletive.

And as with your excellent example of Doctor Who, 1978 was the year Grange Hill began on children's telly and mild expletives abounded, much to the horror of self-appointed watchdogs and tabloid sensationalists.

"Flipping heck, Tucker!"

ETA: And, of course, the children's programme TISWAS mercilessly mocked the song "Bright Eyes" on telly and with a record release.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

I know you're referring to the film but I note in passing that the novel of Watership Down was on the syllabus for 11 year olds at the time and my brother studied it, as were Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies (although my teacher substituted The Inheritors instead because she thought a general genocide was more engaging for her all-female students than boys bullying each other...).

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

The kids who studied Lord of the Flies in school seem to be in two categories: the ones who were just repelled and the ones who were nodding along the whole time, thinking "Somebody recognizes how it would be." I was in the second camp.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

You have my sympathy for being in the second camp. It's one of those syllabus books where pertinent commentary from a good teacher can make a significant difference to student readers.

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

My class was dragged through Lord of the Flies when I was about thirteen. The extra two years may have given some of us the sophistication to be both repelled and understanding that it would be like that. Because, well, have you met boys that age?

[cyphomandra.livejournal.com]

I watched it at my (UK) school's after school film club when I was eight, after reading the book - it was a fairly recent film release. I remember the film being sad and the visual style changes being a bit unnerving, but I don't think I was traumatized. One of the chapter epigraphs in the book - a bit of blank verse about unpleasant things happening behind the picturesque exterior - unnerved me a lot more as a child and I stil don't like it now. (It's Auden's The Witnesses, for the curious).

[tekalynn.livejournal.com]

When the green field comes off like a lid
Revealing what was much better hid:
Unpleasant.
And look, behind you without a sound
The woods have come up and are standing round
In deadly crescent.

The bolt is sliding in its groove,
Outside the window is the black remov-
ers' van.
And now with sudden swift emergence
Come the woman in dark glasses and humpbacked surgeons
And the scissors man.

Part of the quote is elided in Watership Down, but those are the two stanzas. I always wanted to know more about the woman in dark glasses, she sounded so cool.

[cyphomandra.livejournal.com]

Yes, very word of that is still disturbing. And I can remember most of it word for word - I picked up a lot of odd bits and pieces from the chapter epigraphs, and it was strange but somehow reassuring stumbling across them later when I did bits of Classics and English Literature.

(I might have liked the Auden better if I hadn't all the Watership Dowj connotations - I like his As I Walked Out One Evening very much, and it's a similar sort of disturbance)

[magedragonfire.livejournal.com]

I get an image of Pullman's Mrs Coulter, although I don't recall her ever having dark glasses.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

I never saw that movie, but at the time I knew a lot of older kids who loved it, and the book, because of the heavy themes.

[the_rck]

I was eleven when the movie came out, and I had read the book, so I wanted to see it. I knew what I was getting, however. I do wonder, though, what the friends who went with me thought... I don't recall anything at all about that.

When I acquired the movie on VHS as an adult, the part I found most disturbing was the gassing of the old warren.

[tekalynn.livejournal.com]

That was (and is) one of my favorite sections of the book, for sheer narration and POV voice.

[martinl-00.livejournal.com]

I read the book and saw chunks of the movie as a kid around 10. I only have hazy memories of most of it, but Bigwig is still near the top of my personal ultimate Badass list.

"My Chief Rabbit has told me to defend this run and until he says otherwise I shall stay here"

Still gives me the 'effin chills, and I haven't read that book in 30 years.

[tzaddi-93.livejournal.com]

I saw it as a child. It gave me nightmares for about a week.

[ravenskyewalker.livejournal.com]

Ahh. Yes, well, I saw that when it came out and I was about 10. My dad had loved the book (which I wouldn't really call a children's book, despite it being about anthropomorphized rabbits; libraries vary on whether they classify it as adult or kid's, and the bookstore where I work classifies it as adult). The violence was tough going for a sensitive kid, but I really liked the story and music, requested the soundtrack (and another recording, an edited narration of the story), and became completely addicted for a while to "Bright Eyes." Also, I thought Bigwig was cool. I should see it again sometime, and try to find my old abovementioned cassettes.

[tekalynn.livejournal.com]

I read the book when I was seven, and loved it. I saw the movie when it came out, about age ten, and vastly preferred the book. I think I would have much more appreciation for the movie now, and also wonder how the hell they got away with it.

[dharawal.livejournal.com]

I went and saw Watership Down 26 times at the movies, more than I have ever seen any other movie, I was 14, and I loved it to pieces and still do, I have gone through so many copies of WD on vhs, and in book form.

I think children of today are far too wussy.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

YA fiction aimed at older kids and young teens is, if anything, more apocalyptically grimdark today than it was back then.

[dharawal.livejournal.com]

This is true, so why the fuss, so perhaps it's the parents being the "won't somebody think of the children" rather than the kids 8-)

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

I'd say they're a bit more dystopic, but the constant post-W.W. III setting refrain in 70s YA made for its own special grimdarkness.

And, it's hard to beat say, Williamson for sheer utter cynical grimness. Even in the "happy" ending to the Tripod trilogy, he had things going right back the way they were.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

They showed it to us in elementary school.

Oh, but then a few years later they also showed us the cartoon version of Animal Farm. Which they then explained. Which worked surprisingly well for a bunch of 7 year olds (once we got over the trauma of horse death, etc.)