Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker’s Rush Hour has generated some controversy.
Fans noticed a disclaimer on the film stating that some of the depictions, language, and humour were outdated and possibly offensive. Now, the disclaimer has been in place for at least a year, but many viewers have only recently noticed it.
Naturally, the development has become a source of contention, primarily because of the culture war raging online. Some corners of the fanbase believe that these types of content disclaimers originate from a weak mind hellbent on spreading the ‘woke agenda’ that continues to cause havoc on pop culture.
Others argue that content disclaimers of this nature are merely adapting to the times. If culture has decided to move on from certain jokes and depictions of minorities, content disclaimers are the least streaming platforms can do to keep up with audience tastes and preferences.
I don’t entirely disagree. You have three factors to consider. First, content disclaimers are nothing new. Every fairly mature film you watch starts by displaying warnings about the potentially controversial scenes it may contain (sex, nudity, violence, suicide, etc.).
Networks include these disclaimers to avoid lawsuits. They don’t want viewers to think that they agree with or endorse the messages in their content. Also, they don’t want you to hold them liable if someone suffers harm, because they acted on the information in the content.
For instance, if your eight-year-old child cuts their arm off while playing with chainsaws because they watched Texas Chainsaw Massacre yesterday, you can’t sue the studio. They will point you to the disclaimer telling parents that their film is not suitable for children under 18.
Simply put, studios and streamers don’t care about your morals or ethics. They added that disclaimer to Rush Hour for legal protections. Second, these recent content disclaimers are the best possible outcome.
You may not remember that, a few years ago, various individuals and organizations launched campaigns designed to compel entities like Disney to make Dumbo, The Jungle Book and every other film with outdated racial stereotypes, inaccessible.
Those opposed to that movement argued that even the most racially insensitive films from a bygone era had a lesson to teach modern audiences. More importantly, it was insulting to modern viewers to suggest that they would automatically adopt racist and Nazi sensibilities simply because they watched films from history that promoted those mindsets.
For a time, it looked like studios and streaming platforms would surrender to the woke mob by pruning anything that ran counter to modern Western sensibilities. But despite threats of boycotts, that has not happened.
Instead, studios and streamers have settled for content disclaimers, which is the next best thing. Viewers can choose to watch or avoid content with offensive themes. This brings us to the third and most important consideration.
We have mentioned before that an R-rating does not forbid children from consuming a particular piece of content. It merely encourages adults to accompany them. The problem with preventing your children from watching content with sensitive themes is that they will still watch it elsewhere.
If you apply parental controls on their devices at home, they will consume that content at school or in their neighbourhood. You can’t prevent them from accessing a screen at a friend’s home.
Why allow them to encounter that ‘dangerous’ content outside when they can watch it in your presence? That way, you can have important conversations about the sensitive topics the content raised.
You can warn or educate your child accordingly. This is the vital role content disclaimers play. Excluding the obvious exceptions (you are not going to show a 4-year-old Deadpool), don’t run away from controversial content.
mbjjnr8@gmail.com