Julie Walker

It does since they wind up making viewers assume that film never had any ratings problems, while others films did. Also when they use that film to 'prove' how the MPAA is lenient on straight sex vs gay sex, while ignoring that both films shown did run into ratings problems. That also is severely misleading and invalidates the claims they're making.

How can you trust misleading information?

And of those three scenes, the threesome scene was the most explicit of them all. Also read carefully how she mentions the chainsaw/ax scene and 'that was fine'. It sounds like she is saying “I was thinking we'd run into problems with these two scenes, but those were fine...”. Or maybe in trying to figure out what scenes were the problem, she asks “Is it this scene?”, “No” ,”How about this?”, “No”, “This?”, “Yes”, on the threesome scene.

And if you've watched the film, it's not hard to see why one scene caused issues over the others. There really wasn't anything to cut from either of the two violent scenes besides maybe cutting them out entirely leaving the film with practically no violent scenes. If those two violent scenes went further than they did, then I can see them running into problems. But in their current form, I don't see it at all.


Well it's a complex topic that not everyone will agree on, and just lead to an endless debate. So showing some restraint instead of writing a novel in each reply. I'll just refrain from going there since it takes up to much time and energy to write and it won't really do much good in this case. Since I've said what I had to say and it will just run around in circles from here.

If you can't see what the issue is in regards to how they ignore American Pie's rating issues while using that film to 'prove' their claims. Then there is no way you will be convinced otherwise of the issues with the film and how it presents the information. So we've both said what we had to say, so why run on with it?

Jay G.

It's not misleading. In the side-by-side split-screen comparison, they're comparing a straight sex scene from the R rated cut of American Pie, to the same sex act (and same level of explicitness) in an NC-17 movie, where the main difference is that the sex act is gay. They're saying "this is in an R rated movie (and it is), while this gay scene was rated NC-17".

In other words, that comparison is not about what isn't allowed in straight sex scenes (such as in American Psycho), but how straight sex scenes can get away with more than a gay sex scene can.

Again, the question isn't "is it the most explicit?" but "is it too explicit for an R rated move?" You seem to be operating under the assumption that American Psycho somehow had to have been rated NC-17 on the first cut, like it was destined for one or something, when the whole point is that the first cut of the film was appropriate for an R rated film.

Some meaning was lost in the transcription. In the documentary, it's clear that she meant "that was fine" in the same way as "I thought was going to be a problem" that she said earlier. She meant that she expected the MPAA to have issues with those particular scenes, which they did.

Again, why did anything have to be cut from the film?

My point is, if you don't want to comment about a film, one that you didn't pay full attention to (apparently instead reading a book in a movie theater(?)), then don't comment on it. Your passive-aggressive "I think it sucks, but I don't want to comment on it" statements are just hypocritical.

Or maybe, if I don't see the issue, or at least don't think that particular issue overshadows the whole film, then maybe it actually isn't an issue. Your viewpoint isn't the only valid one.

brayzie

I don't have a problem with ratings for movies. But what's the point of this when parents take children into R-Rated movies anyways? If you have to say, "Rated-R, but it's a really, really BAD 'R'.

I'm surprised that Saw, and Hostel weren't NC-17. It seems like how much clout you have, and not on the actual content. If you're really powerful you can just have them create a brand new rating for your movie.

Giles

I think all the Saw films had problems with the MPAA, hence why all the films and Hostel I & II were released 'unrated' on DVD. I thought the latest (and last) installment of 'Saw' really pushed the R-rating, the death of the skinheads in the car trap was by far the goriest thing I've seen skirch the line between R and NC-17, incidently the scene is a tad gorier on the unrated video version. Even though I can stomach alot of gore, I thought the violence with the combination of utter nihilism in 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning' really was a major turn off and was just an exercise in how graphic a film can be just for violence sake - there was no point, you left the theatre in a bad mood.

Julie Walker

It's to easy to say the films contain the 'same' sex acts/scenes and the only difference is the orientation of the characters. Yet you and the documentary are leaving out a very important aspect. Tone and context.

I don't know if the exact scene in Boys Don't Cry ran into MPAA problems or not. However, the sex scene in that film is far more intense than the very tame brief scene shown in American Pie. So it's obvious why that scene in "Pie" didn't run into issues, yet other material in that film did. Meanwhile BDC also had some ratings troubles from what I recall, but I don't know exactly what was cut at at all(most info seems to indicate the rape scene suffered some cuts, but maybe other material did as well?). So it's a bit unfair to compare two films originally rated NC-17 and cut to an R as if the MPAA was playing favors and left one film off the hook while attacking the other. The sex scene in BDC is still far more intense and explicit than the scene in 'Pie', so again the two scenes despite having the 'same sexual positions/act' are not presented in the same manner tone wise.

That's like saying every time someone is shot or stabbed in a film is the 'same' in every film. But some scenes are more explicit/intense than others. it's all in the tone and context of how it's presented and what they were aiming for in that particular film.

A similar case can be used for when they compare the masturbation scenes in But I'm A Cheerleader with American Beauty. Two completely different films, with different tones. It's to easy to say it's an anti-female pleasure or anti-gay issue in regards to the MPAA being harsh on 'Cheerleader' and not on 'Beauty.' Yet thinking about it, the real issue is a teens vs adult issue in this case. The MPAA is pretty strict on teens and sexuality in films. Hence why as tame as American Pie really is, it still ran into troubles originally. And that's why as tame as that masturbation scene in 'Cheerleader' is, it also ran into issues. Meanwhile the scene in 'Beauty' is very brief and you don't really see anything, and it also features an adult so they had less issues with it.

I did point out some issues with the film, and as I said it's a complicated thing that could easily be made into a novel if having to discuss every single aspect of the film and all that's wrong with it. It's tough to narrow it down to just cliff notes, so I kept it limited to a couple select films, but did expand a little bit in this reply by discussing the Boys Don't Cry vs American Pie, But I'm A Cheerleader vs American Beauty comparison.

The other big issue with the documentary is how it omits discussing any films that did run into ratings issues for violence/gore, and only concentrates on the sex/nudity issue. If they wanted to tackle the violence issue. A couple films of many that could've been mentioned were True Romance and especially Natural Born Killers which were highly controversial at the time of release. Both originally NC-17 for violence, not sex or nudity and cut down to an R rating.

So since it was such a one sided film only dwelling on the issues with sex and nudity. It was pretty boring to sit through 90 minutes of repetitive complaining basically and no real solutions or interesting information were offered.

When violence was briefly mentioned, they wind up showing some footage from Columbine, and it appears they are saying movie violence is responsible for psychos going on a rampage. Since a barrage of opinions are mentioned in this section, including how we're basically weaned on fantasy violence and don't know the consequences of violence, which leads to violence in reality since they then jump into the Columbine footage. If that conclusion was not intended, they certainly did an awful job of presenting it.

True, however it's good to have a difference of opinion, especially since most people seem to praise This Film Is Not Yet Rated and take it as gospel instead of thinking about what's left out, and how it presents the information and whether it is flawed or successful in making it's point. I think it's heavily flawed and have stated my reasons why.

This documentary should've won me over and been right up my alley as I'm interested in this topic. Yet it unfortunately had the complete opposite reaction for myself, and I did pay attention to the film in theaters and was not reading a book, thank you very much.

Rypro 525

actually for NBK, one of the shots cut out for violence was a shot of Mickey raping someone (with nudity involved)

Jay G.

Do you mean the tone of the scene, or of the entire film? And how is the context of the scenes they compared different?

Boys Don't Cry is the very first film discussed in the documentary, and they interview the director, who mentions the oral sex scene being a problem for the MPAA, specifically Brandon wiping his mouth afterwards. You seem to remember very little about the documentary you're criticizing.

What do you mean by "intense"? Did it go on longer? How was it more explicit?

That's why I made it clear that it wasn't only just the same sex act, but the same level of explicitness. The main difference between the scenes, as shown in the comparison, is the orientation of the people involved.

Are you suggesting there was no sexualization of teens in American Beauty? This is a film who's most iconic image is of a naked Mena Suvari (playing a teenager) lying in a bed of rose petals, barely covered by them. Then there's the bathtub sequence with her as well. Not to mention a teenage Thora Birch exposing her breasts. Obviously the MPAA is okay with teenage women being sexualized, as long as they're sexualized by men.

You don't see anything at all in Cheerleader either, the girl's fully clothed, and her hand doesn't even disappear under them.

I was specifically responding to this quote

It seems like even though you admitted you were wrong about that particular part of the film, you could let even that part of the film slide without objecting to vague "issues" about it, but then immediately claim you're not going to comment on it, even though saying "[it] has so many issues I don't know where to begin" counts as a comment.

If you truly didn't want to comment further on that part of the film, then you shouldn't have commented on it any further than saying you were wrong about your initial claim.

Well, when you consider the fact the documentary points out, the 4 times as many films are rate NC-17 for sex as opposed to violence, it makes sense that a documentary about the rating system would focus far more on sex.

It's not just 90 minutes on sex though. Seemingly half the film is also about trying to find the identities of the people on the ratings board, which the documentary suggests is the only judgement panel in the world that is kept secret. Beyond that, they also touch on the use of language in films (specifically in Gunner Palace), and how that's rated, especially in comparison to violence (or even sex). They also go into a little bit about how the movie industry has strong ties to the military, and so doesn't often criticize it (although in my opinion this is a little off-topic), as well as how the MPAA acts as a figurehead and lobbyist for the movie industry that pushes their agenda, instead of being altruistically "for the people," and how that conflicts with the ratings. It goes into the consolidation of media companies, and how that's given the MPAA even more control over the culture, acting as a de facto censorship board, since their ratings can make or break a film's success. They go into how the studios that fund the MPAA have more access to it, and possibly get favorable ratings compared to indies.

So, while I may not agree with every point the film makes, it's discussing far more than just sex.

You're misremembering this sequence. Nobody says that "we're basically weaned on fantasy violence" or that 'we' "don't know the consequences of violence," before the Columbine footage is shown.

It's not surprising that you may be misremembering, since this is the area of the documentary that you got wrong earlier too.

I apologzie, I got confused when you wrote this:
I somehow read that as "I had a novel in my hands at the end."

Jay G.

More news on the profanity front: The King's Speech gets re-rated PG-13 after dropped 3 out of 5 f-bombs:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/updat...ut-of-t,52425/
Deadline article:
http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/mpaa...o-swear-words/

Solid Snake

I'm confused...fuck is said more than 5 times. How...does that work out?

Julie Walker

Pay careful attention to what's being discussed. First Darren Aronofsky is talking about how in his opinion. Graphic violent films should be PG-13 so basically anyone under 17 can see what violence is really like and the consequences of it. Meanwhile fake bloodless violence and any violence that doesn't show the real consequences of it and makes it 'fun' or whatever should be R rated and only for adults who can process that it's unrealistic.
Then we hear from Kevin Smith ranting, and it's a pretty sensationalized montage. I'll just leave it at that. Then finally we hear from Dr. Theresa Webb who discusses that violence sells, especially to Hollywood's target demographic(teens), which is 'not coincidental, is most at risk for violence in American society', then cue Columbine footage.

So this barrage of information is thrown at us all in a couple minutes, and it's a lot to process, and it is insinuating that, that is why we are a violent society. We just don't know the consequences of violence and think it's 'fun' and 'cool' from all the rousing bloodless shoot em up action scenes that exist such as in the James Bond clip, shooting many villains in a row with no blood spilled at all. Therefore that must result in some people becoming violent in real life(Columbine).

That might not have been the intended message of this segment and their may not have been a point to this section other than to string along various opinions, but with how it is presented with what the interviewees are saying, the clips shown, and then jumping into the Columbine footage to really hammer it home. It certainly appears that way to myself.

Here is that section of the film for those that want to see it for themselves. American Psycho starts at about 5 minutes in which was discussed earlier, then with Darren and company at about 8 minutes to the end.
Clip contains nudity and violence. So it's NSFW and all that jazz. But if anyone wants to know what we are talking about. It's worth having a look for yourself and make up your own mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuhHTzwCKqI

Apology accepted and to speak in plain English. I'd write so much to answer the questions and discuss the issue, that it'd result in a novel in the end. I just don't have the time to go there, and it's nearly impossible to chop it down into very simple sound bites and make any sense at all. Just replying to one issue resulted in a few paragraphs and took awhile to write. This discussion will just go on and on, and it's time for others to jump in and give their opinions on This Film Is Not Yet Rated if they want to. I've done my best to explain my opinion and issues with a few select areas and it's up to everyone else to make up their own minds.

Jay G.

Keep in mind that two of the clips that play over this sequence are Die Another Day (PG-13) and Saving Private Ryan (R), as the compare/contrast. Saving Private Ryan has been shown on network TV uncut, and after it's airing in 2004, had this to say in response to the complaints:

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-23A1.html

Another example would be The Passion of the Christ, which was extremely violent. However, instead of condemning it, many Christian institutions encouraged families to see it, some even organizing buses and such for viewings. The reasoning was that the violence wasn't exploitative, but showing the real-world consequences of Christ's crucifixion.

Aronofsky's comment is off-the-cuff, and comes at the tail-end of him discussing the disparity between rating sex and violence, but there is a kernel in there: violence with real consequences is sobering, while violence without consequences is fantasy.

To be clear to anyone who hasn't watched it, Kevin Smith says that, if he set up a rating system, the most objectionable act in a movie would be rape. The documentary then shows a montage of "women in peril" scenes. I think all the scenes are from R-rated movies though, so I'm not exactly sure of the point of this montage.

Dr. Webb is citing a studio she co-authored about the top 100 films from 1994 (accounted for 89% of the domestic box office from that year). You can read the study here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...v006p00120.pdf

It's mainly concerned with the depiction of violence and its consequences, and the dichotomy between movie violence and its real-world consequences.

Of course, the study also considers the possibility that the audience is too savvy to be confused:
However, Dr Webb was also a co-author on this study from 2007 about violence in PG-13 movies:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/0...87317020070608
Note that the documentary provides footage from PG-13 films over Dr. Webb's interview, so the point seems mainly focused on the one the later study suggests: That more and more violence is seeping into PG-13 films (which was created because of violence in two prominent PG films), and that this violence could potentially be damaging to minors.

Another study about the rising levels of violence (but not sex) in PG-13 movies, this once from last year:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/boos...-more-sex.html

The Columbine footage is then followed by the former ratings board chairman Richard Heffner saying that there have been numerous studies linking media violence with real-life behavior (around 1:01 into the film). This article from American Academy of Pediatrics cites many of those studies:
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...ics;108/5/1222
So there's always a discussion to be made about the difference between correlation and causation, but there appears to be a strong correlation according to a number of reputable studies. It could just be that violently unbalanced teens are drawn to violent films, but I don't think anyone is arguing that kids should have unfettered access to all levels of violence depicted in films. So it shouldn't be surprising that the documentary points out an area that the MPAA is failing to "protect" kids from, and it's unsurprisingly in a genre of films that the film industry makes a lot of money from teens in.

To me, that sequence wasn't suggesting that "we" as a society can't handle violence in movies, or even "we" as adults can't handle it. In fact, the distinction is made pretty strongly by Aranofsky and Webb between what adults and teens can handle. The point isn't that there's too much violence in movies, but there's too much violence in movies that are supposedly rated for all audiences, with parental guidance. This is in contrast to sex, which is often pushed to a rating where minors can't see it at all, even with parental supervision.

The film is available for streaming from Netflix, as well as on DVD. I've cited the relevant times for the full film in my post. I don't support encouraging copyright infringement, even for a documentary that's as informative and socially relevant as this one.

paradicelost

I don't if this is true or not but supposedly at that time(and a few years after) G rated films would only play in the morning and early afternoon timeslots(at least on certain days). That is rumored to be the reason why "Transformers:the movie" added the shit and goddamnit so they would get a PG rating, so they could play all day and night.
Again I don't know the validity of that but thats just what I read about Transformers.

PopcornTreeCt

I was thinking the same thing. Quite a bit more than 5 times.

Solid Snake

I'm still wondering. WONDERING!

Giles

I was listening to the director's commentary for The Kids Are All Right and that film also had problems with the MPAA - and not over the sex scenes, but the gay video that Josh Hutcherson's character and his friend are watching - they had to trim here and there to make it more acceptable in 'R' form.

Jay G.

This article mentions 15 uses of the word, so maybe the initial reporting was the result of a typo?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=83965

This "Parental Review" thinks there's at least 17 utterances of the swear in the original cut:
http://www.screenit.com/movies/2010/..._speech.html#p

And the IMDB mentions that the swear is used "about 11 times":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/parentalguide

I'm guessing that all but 2 utterances of the word have been muted to get a PG-13, since it's typically only 1 usage allowed in PG-13 films.

riley_dude

So you get an R for saying Fuck 5 times but can see someone blown up or shot to death and you get a PG-13 or R?

Jay G.

As long as that person's death isn't particularly graphic (i.e. no blood), then yes.

Travis McClain

Apparently, that's part of the MPAA's "core mission," from their About page on MPAA.org:

Matthew Chmiel

I was trying to Google it to no avail, but there was an interview with Joan Graves a few months ago during the heat of the MPAA controversy with the Weinsteins trying to successfully get an R rating for Blue Valentine and unsuccessfully get a PG-13 rating for The King's Speech where she publicly admitted they failed when honoring Gunner Palace and The Hip Hop Project with PG-13 ratings. It pretty much alluded to the fact that exceptions like those two would never happen again.

Giles

the MPAA's guidelines for language are quite frankly bogus and ridiculous, 'The King's Speech' and even 'Billy Elliot' should have been PG-13, why or how the extreme language for 'Gunner Palace' is in someone more acceptable is a head scratcher. I think the MPAA thinks teenagers live in bubbles and have never heard an expletive before - oh come on... the UK's BBFC film board are more grounded in reality than the MPAA in my opinion.

bluetoast

What about smoking....weren't they trying to make that an instant R at some point?

Giles

don't forget to add 'cruelity to animals' or horses doing their own stunts: big no-no's in the BBFC's mind.

headbutting is automatic '15' rating too. 'Star Wars: Attack of the Clones' had to be trimmed not to receive that rating in the UK

so... essentially completely disregard my overall impression that the BBFC isn't as anal or offendable as the MPAA.

Giles

not sure abou the nunchuku

The BBFC still cuts films (most recent example 'A Serbian Film') but outright banning is largely a thing of the past.

but unlike the US, films can't go out unrated in the UK, they have to have an official rating. The luxury of the States is that a film will or can be restored for home video. Some smaller indie studio's don't even bother going down the rating's path, because there is a fee involved in submitting a film for a rating - and if they know a film might encounters problems, they just don't bother (i.e, 'Shortbus') and advertise a 'no one under 17 admitted' in news print/advertising. Yes it's essentially a NC-17 rated but film, but why give the MPAA or the director the grief.

Rockmjd23

Grotesque is the most recent example that I'm aware of.