Badlands - apparently this was an 18 certificate back in the day

Part 2 (or perhaps 3) of the films I got as Christmas presents from my folks, this is Badlands.  The DVD I have has a very simple front cover - matching the simplicity of the film's premise.  Based on a true story, Sissy Spacek plays Holly, a girl in her later teenage years who is swept off her feet by the dashing Kit (played by Martin Sheen).  Kit is 25, a loner and stranger, mysterious and interesting.  When Kit defends Holly from her father with terminal intensity she looks on uncaringly and becomes uncontrollably swept up in his aura.  They immediately take off together across the great western American plains.  There they embark on a life of self-imposed hermitry, making their own shelter, finding their own food, enjoying their freedom and killing anyone stupid enough to come looking for them.

This was Sissy Spacek's first proper film role and for those of us used to seeing Martin Sheen as the West Wing's sage-like US president he looks almost impossibly young here as Kit.  They both give good performances, hinting at the successes each would enjoy as they grew up.  The film is very well shot, with vistas of the great US plains looking both inviting for the freedom they offer while at the same time terrifying in their isolation.  It's a very grim film, presenting a view of the world that has a shallow regard for people - disturbing of course but not far from a view that many in acceptable society espouse.  It's a "shoot 'em all and let god sort 'em out" mentality taken to an extreme. 

Badlands is definitely a 'good film'.  It has two very interesting characters, some nice cinematography and a bit of senseless violence.  Certainly worth a watch.  Something that interested me about my DVD copy of the film is that it has an 18 rating on the box.  It turns out that when Badlands was originally released it was rated as an 18.  This seems a little high.  The level of violence in the film is minimal at best, and with very little bloody or gore shown in the aftermath of the small number of killings that take place it seems positively tame by modern standards.

Even now the film retains a 15 certificate, but after looking at the BBFC website I can understand the reasoning behind it.  They argue that the main character is portrayed as a sexy archetype, a man of virtue.  The fact that a character like that would engage in the cold-blooded murder of a small number of people means that it gets the same rating as a film like Expendables 2 - in which 100s are slaughtered by stupid action film caricatures.  I.e. context is important.  It's the same basic reason why Stoker gets an 18 certificate despite showing minimal blood and containing very few killings.  It's the conflation of sex and violence in the film that gives it the rating.  Again - context.

Next on the Christmas DVD merry-go-round I'm going to start on my new collection of post-war London movies.