Giles

^ Temple of Doom though was one of the films that initiated the MPAA to rethink it's ratings - Spielberg has always pushed the ratings board, notably the face ripping in 'Poltergeist' and the heart rip from 'Temple' - the MPAA initially gave 'Raiders' an R-rating over the shot of Belloq's head exploding, it was eventually given a PG rating with the post production adding of the fire over the offending splatter effect.

Jay G.

The AVClub article proper does mention Gremlins and Temple of Doom for being the impetus for the PG-13 rating, but not Poltergeist.

Poltergiest is mentioned in this list of "The Top 10 Most Inappropriate PG Movies":
http://www.spike.com/blog/top-10-most/96357

Some specific articles on how the PG-13 rating was created, with the Time articel from 1984:
http://www.seattlepi.com/movies/1875...3rating24.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...6639-2,00.html

This is mentioned in the trivia section of IMDB, but I can't find any other evidence for this. Interestingly, IMDB has a similar story in the triva section for Temple of Doom"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...6639-2,00.html
This article from 1981 mentions some mild controversy that stemmed from rating Raiders PG, but there's no mention of it having been re-rated:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0wQ...=0CGAQ6AEwCDgK
(Kiplinger's Personal Finance - Dec 1981 - Vol. 35, No. 12)

Searching the film ratings database only shows one rating ever for Raiders: PG. This is in contrast to movies like Blue Valentine, Casino, and Clerks, where it notes the initial rating was overturned on appeals, and Boys Don't Cry and Evil Dead 2, where the film was re-edited and resubmitted:
http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatings_Cara/#/ratings/

So the database appears to be comprehensive, so if it doesn't list Raiders as having an R rating originally, it probably didn't.

Luther Heggs

The notion that "Raiders" was ever considered for an "R" rating comes directly from Steven Spielberg. On the DVD extra "The Light and Magic of Indiana Jones," he discusses Belloq's end:

Incidentally, speaking as a parent of school age children, I don't give two fucks about MPAA ratings. I just try to steer my kids away from shitty movies as much as possible.

Jay G.

What time into the documentary does he say that?

Edit: 3:47 minutes into the 12 minute documentary.

Solid Snake

lol...that was quick.

Jay G.

OK, so now I'm wondering why the initial R rating for Raiders isn't showing up on the MPAA CARA site. It seems like the site is pretty comprehensive about listing initial ratings. For example, it lists Poltergeist (1982) as originally having an R, with it changed to PG on appeal. Raiders was released in 1981, one year before, so it seems like the records for that time period are there on the site.

Was Spielberg misremembering the chain of events? Was the sheet of flame added preemptively before submission to avoid an R, and Spielberg is mistaking an "we'll get an R if we don't edit this" decision as a "we got an R and have to edit this" one? Or maybe he misunderstood the editing discussion way back when it happened?

Or is the rating site wrong in not listing the initial R rating for Raiders? Or was Raiders privy to special attention by the MPAA, where the initial R rating wasn't ever formally confirmed, and the edited version was submitted for the formal "initial" rating?

Here's a Variety review of the film from 1981. It makes note of the violence:
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117794297/

No note on the film having actually been re-rated, although I don't know if this would've been something Variety would've known about back then. Their review for Poltergeist does not make mention of the re-rating, but is extremely brief.

Also interesting is the trivia I found on how superimposed flames were also used to obscure a scene in Temple of Doom. I suppose this could've been someone confusing the two films, or it could be simply that Spielberg used the same trick on both films.

Giles

but even in it's current PG state the scene is simply horrific to watch, the guy has three blasts of volcanic fire fly into his body, he's screaming as his entire body is starting to burn. People seem to trash this movie just as much as IV, but IV doesn't have this amount of extreme gore, which I think it might have needed - the ant devouring scene seemed to hint at II's over the top moments but simply could not match it.

in regard's to CARA's database, I was just adding some titles that I know had ratings problems, Total Recall, Eddie Murphy's Raw, Eyes Wide Shut, Friday the 13th Part 2, Saw II through VII, Last House on the Left (2008) they make no mention that the films had to be edited to receive their R ratings.

Boba Fett

I always thought the MPAA story with Raiders was Spielberg had a consultant who said the exploding head, as it was originally intended would have gained an "R" rating.

I know Scorsese has used past MPAA experiences and possibly a consultant to exploit the MPAA, especially during the filming of Casino. If I remember correctly he said he made the vice scene more gruesome than he ever intended (he filmed the guy's eye popping out) so when he offered to cut it back to it's final state, the MPAA thought it was a compromise.

SterlingBen

The MPAA is useless, let the studios rate their own films.

Giles

Scorsese even had to cut 'Taxi Driver' to get it's R-rating. The offing of Joe Pesci's character in 'Goodfellas' was trimmed for it's R-rating, the scene even in it's R-rated form happens so fast, it's a blink and you'll miss it moment - that's because it was alot longer. The stabbing scene in Godfather III had to get trimmed as well to secure it's R. Even though it seems that the MPAA seems lax on violence there's the occasional moment that they feel oversteps what is acceptable or unacceptable to persons under 17. CARA's website doesn't even mention that the whole 'The Wild Bunch' debacle, where the studio released the longer cut, had to submit that version for a rating and the board in turn gave the film an 'X' rating for violence - they successfully appealed.

Solid Snake

I almost want to say that you're right.

What the MPAA needs is actual people who know films and competently compare films in understanding what can cross certain lines for those that it may be inappropriate for on basis of age.

How they choose those people...would be very interesting. I'd like to say filmmakers that are "beyond" being bought or favored out. The problem in that is that...well....A LOT of filmmakers are busy as shit.

Giles

Solid: have you (or any of y'all) seen This Film is Not Yet Rated - it's an excellent primer on how the MPAA is very hypocritical and over critical - the CARA board likes to say it's screeners are a board comprised of 'parent's' who make their decisions based on what they feel is acceptable and unacceptable to under 17 year olds - well, the movie dispels this myth and pretty much negates the MPAA's policies as well as concluding that they hold a tighter grip on theatrical distribution/exhibition than it probably should.

Solid Snake

No I haven't, but when it was coming out it got my interest.

You wanna give us a the gist of it though?

Giles

essentially the film board are parents, but their kids are over the age of 17, so they are making decisions based on preconceived ideas and antiquated parental guidelines. The films are rated on a scale of severity of many issues: language, violence, drug use, sex: so really it's film censorship on the grand scale - the MPAA deny it, but it's quite blatant. Violence is more accepted, whereas sex is not - no surprise there. There is more of preconceived animosity from the MPAA toward indie studios/directors than the Hollywood studios. The documentary goes further into more detailed stories from varying directors but ultimately the film is enlightening, informative and maddening how much power the MPAA wields over the film industry in America.

Solid Snake

cool. Again..it's on my list of things to see at some point. That's the part that pisses me off the most. It's people who really shouldn't be looking at these things. They'll think of it on personal/subjective basis.

LosingMyMind

Jay G.

This seems like a likely explanation. In the previously quoted documentary, it sounds like Spielberg is saying that Raiders was formally issued an R rating though, hence the confusion.


Yeah, I'm trying to figure out if the CARA database has gaps in it, since it does list initial ratings for quite a number of films, or if films that it was "common knowledge" originally had stronger ratings were never actually formally issued that rating, and that any edits were made pre-emptively.

For example, CARA lists Robocop, Verhoven's first US film, as originally being rated X. It then stands to reason that the studio may have reviewed a cut of Total Recall and made edits before formally submitting it to the MPAA.

Likewise, Saw was originally rated NC-17, which allowed for an "unrated cut" edition on DVD, which sold very well. The sequels may have followed a similar model of shooting and editing a more graphic version for eventually DVD release, without ever formally submitting the more graphic version for a rating.

For Eyes Wide Shut, from what I've read it sounds a lot like Warner may have preemptively changed Kubrick's Final Cut because they were fearful of getting an NC-17 with the initial cut. I think there was a bit of a time crunch for that film in terms of meeting the release date, so they may not have wanted to "waste time" with re-edits and re-submittals to the MPAA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyes_Wi...classification


That said, I found info that the movie Hancock was initially rated R, despite the CARA database not mentioning this.

This New York Times article mentions that two different cuts of Hancock were given R ratings before a final cut was issued a PG-13:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/mo...al/04ciep.html

The IMDB also lists the US rating as "USA:PG-13 (edited for re-rating) (certificate #43295) / USA:R (original rating)"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448157/parentalguide

The inclusion of the certificate number seems to indicate that this info may have been at least partially taken from the credits of the film. Anyone care to double-check that?

So it's also possible that the CARA database isn't complete in regards to re-ratings.


The certificate number listed for Hancock in interesting, as these numbers are a carry over from the Hays Code, and it's not immediately apparent to me whether the number is unique to a particular edit of a film, or just to a particular film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...proval_numbers
http://stason.org/TULARC/movies/curr...dits-mean.html
http://www.pictureshowman.com/articl...censorship.cfm

List of MPAA certificate numbers:
http://members.chello.nl/~a.degreef/Filmnummers.html

Dr. DVD

I have to say that a lot of current releases seem to be pushing the violence level and still maintain a PG-13. I found the violence levels in Taken, Salt, and even some of Unknown to be something worthy of an R. I guess nudity and an extra F-bomb is what it will take nowadays.

Giles

yet if you see the 'R' (unrated) cut of Salt - it's so minute but bloodier than the PG-13 cut, the stangulation is also extended. Even though Saw 3D's most explicit gore was cut to 'R' standards, even the R cut of the film was really pushing the boundary and cusp of R/NC-17

anomynous

Sex = bad


Violence = ok

Groucho

For proof of this, look no further than YouTube. Videos with nudity are not allowed, but there's no shortage of clips featuring gore.

Dr. DVD

While I don't know if animated movies count, I think the recent Wonder Woman movie was the most violent cartoon I've seen next to Heavy Metal.

Travis McClain

If by "counts" you mean, is pertinent to this discussion, yes. MPAA rated it PG-13 for "violence throughout and some suggestive material."

Julie Walker

I've mellowed out over the years on the MPAA situation. Since it's not nearly as bad as it used to be, and with unrated versions more widely available, it's almost pointless to complain. Especially when so much is allowed through R ratings now, that the mere frames or fleeting seconds added to the unrated version in terms of explicit material doesn't really make much of a difference in impact.

Also depending on the film, sometimes the rated version is better than the unrated version. I think both Drag Me To Hell and American Pie are much better in their rated version than unrated. Since both films have one key scene that is far more effective in the rated version over the unrated. The other changes to both films are so minor, that you'd hardly notice them when viewing, yet the key scenes do stand out and are more lackluster in their unrated form in my opinion.

Speaking of American Pie. That's a great reason to mention one of many reasons I didn't like This Film Is Not Yet Rated. To begin, they show the unrated version of the 'pie' scene which is completely different than the R version of the scene. Yet it still says "R" on the screen and completely ignore the fact that the film was NC-17 before some cuts were made which I felt was misleading.

Also their conspiracy theory that the MPAA is homophobic doesn't make sense. Since many of the films they're comparing (Boy's Don't Cry and American Pie for example) both received NC-17's before some cuts were made. So the MPAA is basically strict on explicitness and tone, not whether it's gay or straight in my opinion. Since tons of heterosexual sex scenes/films have gotten NC-17's before being cut to an R. But if the film admitted that, then their conspiracy theory wouldn't hold up. So I found that misleading since the clips are shown as "NC-17" for gay and "R" for straight, despite the fact both films were cut to an R.

Furthermore, the director of American Psycho complains that the MPAA let the violence go in the film and yet demanded cuts to the orgy scene. Well the reason they could care less about the violence in the film is it was very tame and mostly offscreen stuff. So the orgy scene was the most graphic scene in the film, so it's no surprise it ran into some issues. If she had filmed the violent scenes even 1% as graphic as in the book, then they would've demanded some cuts to them. Pretty simply to understand.

And last of all, when they claim other countries rating systems are superior to the MPAA. They completely overlook the fact that such as with the BBFC, once the censors demand a cut. It must be cut, and their are no alternatives, even if it's rated the highest adults only rating possible. They can still demand cuts, and that's it, their is no option to release it without a rating. Meanwhile at least with the MPAA, their is always the option for unrated releases on home video especially. So while the system is not perfect, it's still better than dealing with a super power censor that dictates what is and is not allowed, and their are no alternatives once their decision is made.

That's just one of many issues I had with this documentary and was so disappointed by it. A good documentary on ratings issues could be made, but this was not it unfortunately.

Travis McClain

There is a sense that these "unrated/extended" cuts have rather diluted the entire thing. When you buy a DVD advertising "content too hot for theaters" and then discover that it's a matter of literal seconds of a lingering shot, or a line of dialog no more obviously offensive than anything else in the film, you begin to feel that the "unrated/extended" banner is just a cheap marketing ploy. It's worth noting, though, that often those lingering couple of seconds or that one line of dialog are all that the MPAA feel take things "too far." To my mind, this is really the most compelling argument against the arbitrary ratings system: when we can see for ourselves what was apparently "too much" for us to see in a theater and we can't understand what the big deal really was.

"Better" is subjective. I personally think that too many comedies push the envelop out of laziness or because they're more interested in getting a rise out of people than in making us actually think. There's something to be said for those old time comedies that had to be clever in order to be funny. Still, what we're ultimately discussing is about artistic intent. If a screenwriter thought that a particular line was important; if an actor made a specific choice about how he read that line, or if an actress made a choice about how she responded to it; if a cinematographer felt that the camera should stay focused on something; if an editor juxtaposed something seemingly innocuous with something sexual for the sake of arousing us or confusing us...those are all little things that contribute to the artistic statement of the film.

Oh, I think there's something to it. I think for a lot of Americans--especially those middle-aged or older, and particularly conservative ones--the mere mention of the term, "gay" immediately conjures images of sexual debauchery. Say the word, "straight" and they think, "respectability." I can't, of course, prove this, or that the MPAA members foster this mentality but I'm pretty sure I'm right. I just streamed An Education, rated PG-13, about a 16 year old girl who has an affair with an older man. She exposes her breasts to him--though not to us, and we never see them have sex. Had she been a he, or had he been a she, I suspect the filmmakers would have had a harder time securing a PG-13 rating.

Gays are fine in movies as long as they're comic relief or tragic. If they're meant to be taken seriously without admonishing society at large, though, they make a lot of people very uncomfortable.