The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

en ---- ---- 4 -- PORT PERRY STAR -- Tues. October 30, 1984 editorial comments ran 71) aL [4 bY ONY ( -- ~ 3 HALLOWEEN RC A 7 4 . SW 4. Li an" Nf (3 | S - chatterbox by John B. McClelland GOING TO A MOVIE Since I haven't been to a movie in months, I may - be treading on dangerous ground here, trying to write a column about the movies. I can't say that I've ever been a really keen movie goer. There are some ple who start having withdrawal pains if they don't see at least two flicks each week. But I'm fascinated by the on-going debate these days about whether there is too much graphic violence on the screen. How much is too much? That's the million dollar question. A review in the weekend paper about the newly released film "Body Double' says there is a scene where a womar is drilled to death. That doesn't sound like the kind of thing I'd fork out five bucks to see. Yet, checking the rating for "Body Double" I notice that it carries an R or restricted rating, courtesy of the On- tario Censor Board. Yet, unlike many other films, this one does not have the accompanying warning of "brutal violence." So, am I to presume that the drilling scene does not exceed the normal bounds of good taste? Now, "The Terminator" with Arnold What's-His- Name (the guy with all the muscle) does have the war- ning "brutal violence." And so does "Scarface' with Al Pacino. Likewise, a film called "Terror in the Aisles." How much more "brutal" is the violence in these films than the drilling scene in "Body Double?" I'm also confused by the little warning captions from the Censor Board about the kind of language a film may contain. Some of the captions say "coarse language.' Others say simply "swearing.' Asking myself what the heck does "coarse language" mean, I wonder if it is just a few gosh darns thrown in here and there. As for swearing, does this mean the occasional damn or hell? There is even a film listed with a warning caption stating "explicit" scenes. And the review I read about "Body Double' says it contains one of the most explicit sex scenes of any commercial movie. Yet, there is no warning from the Censor Board about this. As a potential movie goer, I'm confused. The reviews are telling me one thing about a film, the Cen- sor Board is telling me something else A lot of the films today contain the Censor Board warning of "frightening scenes.' Is this to mean there isn't too much - brutal violence, but just enough to give some a good scare? Heck, I saw "Ghostbusters" back in July and it gave me a fright or two. Yet, the theatre was filled with children, including my son. Children seem to have been forgotten by the modern movie makers. Scanning the list of dozens of films now showing in theatres in and around Toronto, there is not one with an F or family rating. Whatever happened to Walt Disney Studios when you need them? And have you noticed that the good old-fashioned Western seems to have gone the way of the Dodo Bird? When was the last time a duster came to the movie house? Is there not a new Randolph Scott, or a Gary Cooper or a John Wayne just waiting in the wings to blaze across the screen and thrill film fans everywhere? Apparently not. Even Clint Eastwood has turned in his poncho for a pair of handcuffs and a .357 magnum. But getting back to violence in films. Anybody in my age bracket will have fond pre-teen memories of at- tending the Saturday matinees at the local theatre. Every small town in Canada had a theatre and for 15 cents on Saturday afternoons, a kid could see a double feature. Westerns were big back then, likewise pirate flicks, or those with Victor Mature as the fearless gladiator. There was no shortage of violence in those films. A kid could go to the double feature on any Saturday and watch the U.S. Calvary wipe out half the Indian population, or see any number of Roman citizens fed to the lions. Of course, there was never a drop of blood or guts. Even John Wayne with two arrows in his back didn't shed any blood. And Vic Mature could battle all after- noon in the Roman Forum slaying his opponents with sword and spear with not a hint of the red stuff. But ww when a guy gets shot on film, the direc- tor shows us half the brain splattering against the wall, in slow motion. You don't see drops of blood, but huge buckets. As I said before, I haven't seen any of the so-called "'brutal violence' films making the rounds of the movies houses these days. But are they that much different from the anesthetized violence of films from a genera- tion ago? The most gut-churning scene I have ever viewed on film turned up on my television screen about a month ago on the CBC French language station in Toronto. I don't even know the name of the film, but it depicted the slaughter of French women and children at the hands of the Nazi SS during World War 2. The im- pact was horrific, numbing, far more frightening than anything I could ever imagine would be set on film. One sequence showed an SS trooper torching a woman with a flame thrower while her children looked on. It left me feeling sick to my stomach. Was it too graphic? Was this integral to the film? I don't know for sure. But the remainder of the film plot centered around the revenge the women's husband took out on the band of SS soldiers. I guess the director had to show the scene to give the viewer a sense of how the husband felt. Maybe the director of 'Body Double" felt he , had to depict a woman being drilled to death as integral to his film. Who can judge? You, me, the Censor Board? - "Herbie and the Lovesick Volkswagen?' Where are ---------- a -- Hallowe'en The drawing by Port Perry Star cartoonist Carl Plat- ten, which appears on this page this week, really does not need any further elaboration. The message is simple and to the point. Hallowe'en is a time for children, but it is also a time when parents must stress and pay particular attention to safety. Every year at Hallowe'en, the media carry message after message about safety, and every year, somewhere, there are problems that could have been prevented. We are sure that parents have heard all the warn- ings a hundred times, but a few Hallowe'en tips are worth repeating. If a youngster is wearing a mask, make sure the eye holes are large enough to allow proper vision. Many safe- ty experts suggest that masks not be used at all. Make- up and paint on the face can create the desired effect and is much safer. : Costumes should be brightly coloured and some reflective tape on the front, back and sides is an excellent way to help insure that a youngster can be seen. Very young children should not be allowed to go trick or treating door-to-door without supervision from a parent or another adult. And of course on Hallowe'en night, there is the add- ed responsibility on the part of motorists to drive with extra care no matter what road they are one. It goes without saying, even in small communities like Port Perry these days, that parents must take a close look at all the goodies the kids bring home in the treat bag before they are consumed. Hallowe'en has always had a special kind of magic for children. It is a time for children to go out and have alittle fun. In some communities in this country, parents have decided that it is just not worth the risk to have their youngsters go door-to-door for trick or treats. Obviously, they have their reasons for this decision, but surely with some careful attention to safety and supervision, children should be able to enjoy the age- old traditions of Hallowe'en. Think about safety this Wednesday evening, and let the youngsters enjoy the magic of it all. Science and Man Ghoulish tinkering or major breakthrough in the ad- vancement of medical science? In southern California, surgeons have successfully transplanted the heart of a baboon into a 16 day old in- fant girl; identified only as "Baby Fae.' Groups concerned with the welfare of animals, especially animals used for medical and scientific research, have condemned the operation, calling it unethical and nothing more than ghoulish tinkering. The surgeon who led the medical team defended his actions, saying in effect that animals must be used in medicine to advance the cause of the human condi- tion, to save lives and to relieve human suffering. While no reasonable individual wants to see animals subjected to cruelty and suffering in experiments for the advancement of science and medicine, one must not forget that the use of animals by the human species takes on many different forms. Certainly, it is something of a shock to the senses to imagine the heart of a baboon beating inside an in- fant girl, but is this really any different from using any animal pancreas to help make insulin? Cross species transplants may prove to be un- workable. Indeed, the doctor who performed the surgery on the infant girl last week said he has no idea what the prognosis is at this time, and he admitted that an experi- ment in which a lamb's heart was placed in a goat lasted 165 days before the goat died. Medical science not only has an obligation to con- duct radical experimentation in an effort to improve human life, there is immense pressure from society for the medical and scientific communities to find cures for diseases, including severe heart and other organ defects similar to the kind suffered by the infant girl in Califor- nia. The use of vital animal organs in humans may not prove to be bei.c..cial to mankind, but then again .... If there is an ethical or moral problem involved here, it is not that animals are being used in research or that the heart of a baboon is implanted in an infant. It is the fact that while science is making all kinds of advancements for the betterment of mankind, the world is making absolutely no headway in relieving the monstrous human suffering in many areas of the planet caused by food shortages and war. The ethical problem is that for every day that one child lives with a baboon's heart, several thousand cnildren in Ethiopia will die simply from lack of food and clean drinking water. Gs SA A ARO ees RSW RS