This Film Will Never Be Rated

If you get a chance or have Netflix, check out "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." It's a documentary that examines the MPAA's method and madness in terms of giving ratings to films. Most interesting in this examination are the following points (the cliff's notes if you will, for those not inclined to sit through the movie):

1) Sex always draws a worse rating than violence

2) Homosexual and "aberrational" sex are more likely to receive NC-17's (keep in mind that studios stop marketing and spending ad money on NC-17 flicks, basically condeming them to a slow video death or cult ramp-up), for the same or lesser act than a straight sex film

a) Masturbation scene from American Pie v. masturbation scene from But I'm a Cheerleader
b) Anal sex scenes in American Psycho v. anal sex scene in Boys Don't Cry

3) The members of the ratings committee are kept secret, but the members of the appeals board for directors that don't like the rating they receive include several heads of theaters, as well as....get this.....two clergymen.

4) The MPAA claims that all of its raters have kids between 3 and 17. In fact, most of them are 17 or older, the majority in their 20s.

5) The rating system is vague, arbitrary and established nowhere in law, yet their members consistently have an incredible amount of influence over the way movies get released and their content.
Don't believe me that it's vague? Check this out:
http://www.mpaa.org/flmrat_ratings.asp

I specifically like the line, "NC-17 does not necessarily mean obscene or pornographic; in the oft-accepted or legal meaning of those words. The Board does not and cannot mark films with those words. These are legal terms for courts to decide. The reasons for the application of an NC-17 rating can be excessive violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children."

Now would you want major studio heads, clergymen and average parents telling you that violence, killing, raping, assault against women...these things can usually stay PG-13 if they're done right, and R if they aren't. You can watch a 16 year old boy masturbate half naked on top of an apple pie at an R level, but a girl masturbating on top of her pajamas, with her finger, nothing showing (But I'm a Cheerleader), earns an NC-17.

Consider this: Excessive violence, dismemberment and degradation of women is totally cool for an R rating (Sin City), but a story of three young people finding their way in the world and exploring their sexuality with each other (the Dreamers) gets an NC-17. Exactly what are we trying to show our society, and especially our youngest generation is ok here? Would we rather have more high schoolers trying blow jobs and sex, looking for ways to enjoy themselves and discover themselves in the process because they saw some explicit sexuality in a movie. Or would we rather they load up some guns, thinking about how many people they might be able to kill in their high school, and then have hundreds, maybe thousands of movies vividly depicting various ways to accomplish such a feat?

The same guy (Jack Valenti, who, scary enough, came from politics) ran the MPAA from its inception in the 40s to 2005. How good can a censorship board be if the guy running it is that antiquated? In Basic Instinct, you can see Sharon Stone as she uncrosses and recrosses her legs, clearly seeing pubic hair. In this scene, she does this as an act of distraction, clearly exploiting her own sexuality. It's one of the calling card scenes of the movie. This movie was rated R.

The Cooler with Maria Bello and William H. Macy had to cut a scene to avoid an NC-17 rating...the scene was late in the film when the two stars have finally brought their relationship and care for each other...they're in bed, and as Macy goes down on her, you can see some of her pubic hair.

So blatant exhibitionism, and what in fact amounts to an extreme objectification of women should be seen by people...but pubic hair in an act of physical and emotional connection...now you've just gone too far.

I could go on and on with this, but start looking at whether or not you can see the difference between a PG-13 and an R. Then see if you can pinpoint why one movie is worse than another. Ask yourself why a bit of pubic hair during a lovemaking scene might grab an NC where a masked man stabbing in the breast and then using the knife to pull out the breast implant (Scary Movie) only earns you an R.

We're setting people up to accept violence, usually without realizing the consequences, and becoming numb to it. In Bonds movies, he can kill 20 guys in a scene, and as long as there is no blood, they can keep it PG-13. Kids don't watch that and ever get shown the true nature of death, or the gore that will inevitably accompany it. Violence is glorified, readily available and accepted. It is also often downplayed in terms of actual outcome of violence.

Sex though...sex is bad. Our society and culture has placed such a ridiculous taboo on the exposure and use of the human body that we hide it, obscure the wonders of it, and push sexuality behind closed doors. A disappointing majority of the American population refuses to acknowledge and accept people with differing views and feelings on sexuality, but find it acceptable that we march guns, tanks and all the violence that follows into Iraq in order to "spread freedom."

Gimme a break.

When I was watching this movie, I thought of Eyes Wide Shut and the orgy scenes in that. I had overlooked what this movie pointed out...there had been characters digitally placed into the orgy scenes to cover the actual sex. The following is a clip I pulled from the Wikipedia article on the movie that can be found here:

(it's an amazing movie if you haven't seen it...Despite rumors that Kubrick didn't like it, I found it eerie, suspenseful and shot with some pretty spectacular camera techniques.)

"American censorship controversy

Citing contractual obligations to deliver an R rating, Warner Bros. digitally altered the orgy scene for the American release of Eyes Wide Shut, blocking out images of graphic sexuality by inserting additional figures into the scene to obscure the view, thus avoiding an adults-only NC-17 rating that might have limited distribution of the film, as some large American theaters and video store operators have a policy that disallows films with that rating. This alteration of Kubrick's vision antagonized many cinephiles, as they argued that Kubrick had never been shy about ratings: A Clockwork Orange had an X-rating.

The version released in Europe and Australia was completely unchanged (theatrical and DVD release) with ratings mostly for people of 16 (Europe, in Germany) and 18+ (Australia) years of age. In New Zealand and in Europe, the uncensored version has been shown on public television without controversy. In Australia, it was broadcast on public television (on Network Ten) with the alterations in the American version for people of 15 years of age and older, blurring out, and cutting the images of explicit sexuality."

Anyone wanna go see a movie with me?