Question: Why was this movie rated G? It does contain some violence and a murder scene and some content that's inappropriate for children.
Chosen answer: You are correct that "Oliver" does have some material that might be intense for young children - including a murder, some minor violence, issues of adoption, child abuse, kidnapping, and even some sexual content (but only by innuendo). Drinking alcohol is also involved, and some of the characters with whom we are meant to sympathize are, in fact, thieves. But intense content does not necessarily preclude a movie from obtaining a "G" rating. There have been several G-rated movies which have content, including killing, that could be frightening for children, including "Bambi," "The Lion King," "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," and "The Wizard of Oz," to name a few. In "Oliver," most of the violence is alluded to, and the murder of Nancy is committed out of sight (only Sykes' hand is visible, and Nancy's screams are heard), though it is frightening and realistic. Violence can be permitted in G-rated films, as long as it is "minimal." Sexual innuendo is permitted, in small doses, as long as lewd acts aren't shown. Intense content is also permitted. Drug use is not permitted, but I suppose the tavern scenes are cartoonish enough as to not warrant a more harsh rating. The bottom line is that ratings are determined by the MPAA - Motion Picture Association of America, and that association is given wide latitude and discretion. Apparently, the "mature" content of "Oliver!" was not viewed as rising to a level which the MPAA felt would warrant a more stringent rating.
Question: Fagin and the gang want Oliver back out of fear that he might tell about them. But there are some things I don't understand. 1. How long Oliver had been with Brownlow is unknown (Bill says it had been three days since he saw him during the "Who Will Buy" song), but since no police had arrived at the hideout during that time, surely they'd think Oliver hadn't said anything by now. 2. And even if they did think the above, why would they still think Oliver might say something later on? (01:34:50 - 01:37:00)
Chosen answer: They're probably concerned because he's a child. He might unintentionally say something without meaning to, or after some time has passed and more is learned about Oliver's past life at Fagin's hideout, it's conceivable he might be questioned more intensely. A child would likely give more information under pressure.
Answer: If you mean the scene where he is teaching Oliver how to be a pickpocket, then yes, Fagin knew. He is role-playing the part of a "victim," showing Oliver what it is like to steal an item from someone's pocket without it being noticed. He is employing some criminal "positive reinforcement."
raywest ★