Would you take a 10-year old to see the movie 'Dunkirk'

[RandySF]

I know it's fashionable these days to shield a young child from violence and teach there there is onlt good in the world, but I feel like I should warn my son there is a lot of bad as well. 'Dunkirk', I think has the potential to teach both at once. How do you feel about taking a kid to a WWII movie?

[Javaman]

1. if the movie only depicts 1/100th of what actually happened at Dunkirk

I would see it first then decide about bringing kids.

Dunkirk was a miracle for sure but much of it was a slaughterhouse.

[redwitch]

2. I think it depends on the child.

Dunkirk is truly an amazing story of breathtaking courage. Not a bad thing at all for a child to know about I think. I want to go see it too.

[OnDoutside]

15. I agree, my son has just turned 11 and I'm not sure he would be ready yet. Looks great though.

[Arkansas Granny]

3. Probably not. The rating on this movie is PG-13 due to the war scenes, including bodies washing up

on shore and lots of blood and injuries. I didn't allow my kids to watch shows like that when they were that age.

If you have doubts you could go see the movie first and then decide whether it was something your son should watch at that age. You know him better than we do.

[anneboleyn]

44. PG-13 means parents should EVALUATE the film for their children under 13. It is a mild rating for a

serious war film. PG is rarely used these days, and it is even looser.

A PG-13 war movie is not going to be anything like Private Ryan or Stalingrad or Downfall or Apocalypse Now, etc. I think a parent accompanying a ten year old to the film is a great way to learn about the realities of war and WWII in particular as we lose more and more members of that generation.

[Arkansas Granny]

46. Which is why I suggested that the OP see the film first and then decide.

Some 10 year olds might be ok with it, others not.

[geomon666]

4. It's PG-13

So, maybe. I guess it would depend on the maturity level of the child.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. I agree with redwitch: it depends on the child.

If the child is mature for his years and super interested in history, then by all means, go.

It looks terrific!

[eleny]

6. I watch a lot of war movies

Mostly on TCM because contemporary films are so graphic that I can't deal with the intensity. Older films deal more with relationships than sudden blood and gore onscreen. You know your own son best. So you got good advice to see it first before deciding.

Lots of original footage here plus previews of the film.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_videos&search_query=Dunkirk&search_sort=relevance&search_category=0&page=

[Chasstev365]

7. NO! It's supposed to be great, but as violent or more than Saving Private Ryan!

[Sancho]

8. No....10 is probably too young for most kids...

There would be better choices.

[irisblue]

9. What Javaman & Redwitch said

My dad ran a drive in then a movie theater while I was under 15. I saw movies that were too intense for a kid, even in the pre CGI-realistic 60s&70s.
Go see it first then decide.

[geek tragedy]

10. this one looks really, really emotionally intense

not sure if that's better or worse than scenes of blood and guts flying everywhere

[WhiskeyGrinder]

11. If this is the first time you're telling your son that there's "bad" in this world, I can think of

at least a dozen better options that don't involve an action movie, the primary purpose of which is to entertain through intense realistic violence.

[Ilsa]

12. I thought Saving Private Ryan was too graphic.

It made me physically ill (in my brain) for several days. I felt traumatized, like the director wanted, I guess.

I think I would see Dunkirk first before taking a 10 year old, no matter how "mature" their behavior and thought processes are. The fact is, a person's brain isn't fully developed until they are in their early-to-mid twenties, last I was taught. You may not want to put that trauma on a developing brain if the story is really graphic.

But, you are the parent, and I would respect your decision.

[Iggo]

28. I like this suggestion. See it yourself first. Then ask yourself if this specific 10-yr-old is ready

[anneboleyn]

45. Private Ryan had an R rating. Of course it was graphic. This film is PG-13 (as new Star Wars films)

[Lurks Often]

13. It depends on the 10 year old and the movie

"Dunkirk" is rated PG-13, so the violence is unlikely to be very graphic, unlike, for example, "Saving Private Ryan".

Personally I think that if a 10 year old hasn't expressed interest in seeing "Dunkirk" or a similar movie, maybe the lesson about violence and good and bad in the world at that level can wait a couple of more years.

[oasis]

14. I'd first view the "Band of Brothers" series with him while at home.

Go over how important the American effort was in winning WWII. More than likely, you can build his interest by pulling out the family album and commenting on any photos of WWII veterans you may have.

[rppper]

17. Great suggestion...

The Pacific is pretty prolific as well. History is so important. My father went with me to films like Midway and Tora Tora Tora at the time...although the level.of violence was less then. If a parent is there with the child, i don't see a problem with a historically based film.

[cwydro]

16. My parents lived those years in England.

I was raised on those stories.

Not too young. Nope.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

18. My grandfather took me to see Das Boot

It didn't turn me into a serial killer.

[cbdo2007]

19. Of course not, I don't know any 10 year olds.

It would be very VERY strange for me to take a random 10 year old to ANY movie.

[Hekate]

20. I watched a ton of WW II movies when I was a kid-- on B/W tv late at night while babysitting

Last edited Thu Jun 8, 2017, 04:32 PM - Edit history (1)

I recommend any and all of that genre from THAT time for the young. There's a clear sense of right and wrong, of courage and brotherhood, all of the things you want to expose your kid to, without the overwhelming emphasis on blood and gore. People die and are maimed, but somehow it's not the same as now. The story of Anne Frank is out there. In the modern era, there's Schindler's list.

It's a horrifying era that deserves to be remembered and told to the young, but given to them in bites they can chew. You have to talk about what you're viewing. How did Hitler rise? How did civilized Europe rend itself to pieces? Could it happen again? (Yes, repeatedly, just not in Europe) Could it happen here? (What do you think?) And so on.

Has your son read Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix? As a kid I read a slew of post-WW II books about kids in The Resistance. I imagined myself being that brave.

Dunkirk? You be the judge. There's always next year and the year after.

Grandma Hekate

[WinkyDink]

21. Which is it: "to see...'Dunkirk'"; or "a WWII movie"? Specific or general?

[taught_me_patience]

22. I would

I saw Platoon at ten. I was probably a bit too young, but I'm not scarred or anything.

[obamanut2012]

23. Absolutely

[lunatica]

24. If he's going with you he'll be fine

When I finally let my son watch Jaws after he begged me for years I made sure I was there (it was on TV). It scared him, of course, but I got him laughing about being scared by the shark's first looming appearance off the back of the boat. We watched it again to take the sting out of it.

A 10 year old is old enough for just about any amount of violence in a movie. You can reason with a 10 year old and he/she can express how they feel.

This is a great opportunity to start teaching him about WWII. Kids nowadays mostly never know about it. And he understands the blood and gore is 'fake'.

[B2G]

25. Yes

It's violent, but it's not gratuitous.

It's never to early to teach a child that war it hell.

[jeffreyi]

26. At some point

Memory of the Camps.
And, just watched Price of Empire on amazon, documentary, very good, non American centric, lots of perspective.

[Iggo]

27. Not a fucking chance. (n/t)

[Rollo]

29. I remember sitting on my dad's lap when I was around 4yo watching Victory at Sea on the TV...

I turned out well enough. Although I don't think I absorbed much of what was shown. All I remember were black shadowy scenes with lots of explosions and what we called "screaming mimies", LOL.

Those were the good moments, actually.

To this day I very much enjoy docs and movies about WWII, esp those with real footage.

[demosincebirth]

30. I think we shield kids too much about real

Life except sex and sexual violence disguised as entertainment on the big screen.

[demosincebirth]

42. Your view point.

[demosincebirth]

53. Breastfeeding? Good one!

[sammythecat]

31. I was a little kid in the 50's/60's

There was a movie theater that had matinee's every Sat. afternoon just for us kids. The movies were all cheap sci/fi and horror with lots of screaming and cheap special effects. The stories were all super simple. Dunkirk, I'm sure, is made for an older audience, with realistic special effects and sophisticated characterization and story. I'd think a 10 yr.old, most anyway, would get far more out of it and enjoy it far more when he's a few years older. If it was me, I'd pass on this one for right now and make a note to see it with him in a few years when he might find it truly engrossing. This movie wasn't made with small children in mind.

[politicat]

32. Depends on the kid.

I have four niblings, who are almost 16, 14, and two who are 10. The elder two, not a problem now, and I would have taken the 14 year old at 10, but not the 16 year old at 10. The 14 year old is strong on history, and has been pretty cynical since she was a toddler. She and I have been (fantasy and real) war-gaming by text/email/online session since she was about 7, she loves dystopia fiction, she's a budding engineer with a mechanical streak, and she's my battle buddy when the zombies come. She also has a THING for stunts (this is what happens when you raise a child on Mythbusters) and is well aware that all stunts are manufactured, so she can go into quite realistic films and be fascinated with the how. (She lives near where a lot of the MCU films are shot, so this is a thing in her direct reality.) She's not insensitive, but she's extremely practical and tactical, and handles distress by externalizing it, examining it from all sides, and figuring out what's a better strategy for next time she comes across a similar thing.

My 16 nephew was, and remains, a far more innocent, gullible soul. He's equally clever, equally good with math and engineering, but even now, he's not great at separating fiction from reality, and he's not nearly as in touch with his emotions. When he sees something that distresses him, he internalizes it. At almost 16, he can deal with the harder side of war, but he still does better with fantasy/digital violence because dragons or aliens give him the emotional distance to work through the larger perspective without putting himself into the distress. At 10, he was not emotionally prepared.

I wouldn't take my 10 year old nephew, but mostly because he is on spectrum (well, we all are) and doesn't deal well with loud noises or the length of time. He'd be able to engage in the material of the rescue, but it would be overwhelming for him. My 10 year old niece would be okay, but bored. Her entry point to history is material culture and art/music, so she'd love the stills of the costumes, the prop technology, and the period music, but she has no interest in the tactics or logistics that underpin a story like Dunkirk.

[anneboleyn]

48. At 16, in two years he could be drafted. This is why I think seeing PG-13 war films teaches very

valuable lessons about the reality of war and the dangers of rah-rah jingoism.

[politicat]

50. I know. And now, we could do so.

But six years ago, it wasn't reasonable at all. We were talking about 10 year olds, not 16 year olds.

Both of his parents are former volunteer military. He knows that's an option/possibility, and he spent his first few years with one parent more absent than present. (The other parent was on linguistics duty.) But there are a lot of 18 year olds who are not ready for military service, including a very large percentage of those who were drafted. Including a member of our family who returned deeply damaged.

[Tracer]

33. Many years ago when I was 10...

... a 12-year-old boy up the street had reels and reels of 16mm documentaries about WWII. His father must have obtained them.

The two of us spent an entire hot summer watching the films in his basement.

It didn't disturb me so much as made me -- at a young age -- very, very aware of the murderous things that people are capable of. I've had an interest in the history of that war ever since.

However, I must say that war films these days are much more visually graphic than those old black & white films and documentaries ever were. So that's something to think about.

But you know your boy better than any of us, so make up your own mind based on your knowledge.

[Quixote1818]

35. I remember seeing The Shining when I was like 8 years old

and it didn't impact me at all. I actually am more impacted by war and violence in movies now then when I was a kid. But some kids may react differently.

[dembotoz]

37. dunno about the kid but i wanna see it...i saw the longest day when i was 9

and i turned out ok....depending who you ask.....

[berni_mccoy]

40. No. Not even if I thought they could handle it

Kids that age need to be kids and not concerned that their world could be torn asunder at the behest of others. The need of a childhood and the innocence of that time is real.

[Bad Thoughts]

41. My son is 10, and I will take him to see Dunkirk

Of course, you should evaluate whether your son is ready and prepare him for what he is about to see. That said, I think it is important that our kids learn about events like Dunkirk and D-Day, as well as the Holocaust, American slavery, etc.

My son is 10, about to turn 11 in a few weeks. He has a deep interest in war, particularly in WWII. At first I discouraged this interest. Three years ago, my son and I delved seriously into board games. Something that caught his eye was Tide of Iron, a WWII-themed board game that simulated the battles of northern France in 1944. Reluctantly, I bought it for him. We set up the first scenario. I looked at my pieces--little army men in plastic bases--and thought I had to do the thing I always saw in movies and video games: charge them in and fire. Which I did. At which point my son called for "opportunity fire." We rolled the dice. My men were gone--instantly. We paused in shock. Our little guys were vulnerable. They were never going to "respawn" or "power up." We've played more wargames since then, getting into more complex system, and I have found the realism to be a better alternative to the violence portrayed in fantasy and science fiction.

Exploring these topics (branching out from board games) has allowed us to talk about history in general. D-Day wasn't simply guts and glory. It was the culmination of over a decade of struggle over depression. Moreover, it was a profound expression of civic pride that only a democracy can unlock. Dunkirk was, of course, the culmination of the British experience, but the same values could be scene in the efforts to rescue British soldiers, where ordinary people acted to save their own.

There may be scenes that are too intense for my son. He knows to tell me when something is too much, and he has never shied from doing do. I'll be prepared to walk out of the theater at a moment's notice. However, I think it will be good for him to see the movie.

[anneboleyn]

47. I think a movie about violence in context vs Darth Vader slaughtering 50 rebel troops

is a hell of a lot better in terms of learning about the real world and the REAL CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLENCE ANd WAR. This film is rated PG-13, not R, your son in ten in modern culture so he sees a lot already, and the director is excellent. WWII is real history. I love the Star Wars films, for example, but it seems that parents don't care that Vader or Kylo mows down dozens of enemy fighters. Yet a movie with well-constructed characters about a real war that isn't an R rating is out of bounds for some people? (Not you OP).

I understand that ten may be too young, but I grew up watching films that showed realistic violence in context (my favorite is Watership Down, which shows animated bunnies being killed realistically by predators and other bunnies but that film changed my life and made me a better human being with more empathy for the world and its creatures. Parents nowadays want the film given an R rating but allow their kids to play video games in which hundreds of blank-faced enemies are slaughtered).

It seems to me that learning about a real war, the real suffering caused by bad leaders, and the real violence of war (without an overwhelming level of realism as in an R movie) is an incredibly valuable lesson in this world. A great film can show this in a way that a history class or documentary never can. We have young men and women entering the military at the age of 18. Lessons like this are very valuable before a young man or woman actually decides (or is forced) to march off to war.

[bluedigger]

49. I saw Patton at that age when it came out.

Didn't scare me at all, but when I saw The Exorcist a few years later...

Big difference between a historical drama and a horror movie.

[oneshooter]

51. Be sure to explain to him what Dunkirk was about.

The schools teach the entire WW2 in 4 days anymore.

[UT_democrat]

52. I grew up in Dunkirk

Dunkirk, NY.

I say let em see it.