Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

How Did THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED Get An NC-17?!

Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...

This sounds awesome. Kirby Dick is one of the most consistently engaging and interesting documentarians working right now, as anyone who saw TWIST OF FAITH this year can attest. Today, I got the following in my inbox:

NEW YORK, NY, December 7, 2005 – IFC, the first and largest network dedicated to independent film, announced today that the IFC Original Documentary, “This Film Is Not Yet Rated,” from Academy Award-nominated director Kirby Dick and producer Eddie Schmidt, will premiere at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and air on IFC in Fall 2006. The documentary, a breakthrough investigation into the MPAA film ratings system and its profound effect on American culture, is executive produced by IFC’s Alison Palmer Bourke and Evan Shapiro.

On November 30, the ratings board, an anonymous group whose mandate is to classify films for the MPAA from the perspective of “the average American parent,” screened this documentary and gave it an NC-17 rating for “some graphic sexual content.” An NC-17 rating generally limits a film’s avenues of exhibition: many theater chains will not show it, media outlets will not run its advertisements and video store chains will not stock it.

IFC, however, will present the film uncensored and uninterrupted. Alison Palmer Bourke, IFC’s VP of Documentaries and Features states: “Kirby’s film is a natural for IFC. Our 'tv, uncut.' mandate is to give filmmakers a platform for free expression, and we let our viewers decide for themselves what is appropriate and of interest to them."

Kirby Dick agrees, “It is important that this film be seen by as many people as possible, as it deals with an insidious form of censorship resulting from a ratings process that has been kept secret for more than 30 years.”

The documentary asks whether Hollywood movies and independent films are rated equally for comparable content; whether sexual content in gay-themed movies is given harsher ratings penalties than their heterosexual counterparts; whether it makes sense that extreme violence is given an R rating while sexuality is banished to the cutting room floor; whether Hollywood studios receive detailed directions as to how to change an NC-17 film into an R, while independent film producers are left guessing; and finally, whether keeping the raters and the rating process secret leaves the MPAA entirely unaccountable for its decisions.

The MPAA has established itself as the lobbying arm of the American motion picture, home video and television industries in the US since its inception in 1922. On its board of directors are the Chairmen and Presidents of the seven major producers and distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States - Sony, WB, Paramount, MGM, Fox, Disney and Universal. When Jack Valenti became president of the MPAA in 1966, he created a rating system to replace the old Hays code, first adopted in 1930. Valenti’s voluntary rating system, modified only slightly over the years, has become an icon in American culture, with its letter ratings of G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 (formerly X) used to classify films according to age-based appropriateness.

Until today’s announcement, the subject matter of “This Film Is Not Yet Rated” was kept under wraps by the filmmakers during more than a year of research into the MPAA’s rating practices. Director Kirby Dick (“Twist of Faith,” “Derrida”) interviews filmmakers, critics, attorneys, authors and educators. Ultimately, Dick tries to uncover Hollywood's best kept secret -- the identities of the ratings board members themselves.

Filmmakers who speak candidly in “This Film Is Not Yet Rated” include John Waters (“A Dirty Shame”), Kevin Smith (“Clerks”), Matt Stone (“South Park”), Kimberly Peirce (“Boys Don’t Cry”), Atom Egoyan (“Where the Truth Lies”), Darren Aronofsky (“Requiem for a Dream”), Mary Harron (“American Psycho”), actress Maria Bello (“The Cooler”) and distributor Bingham Ray (co-founder, October Films and former President, United Artists).

When Jack Valenti stepped down in September 2004, Dan Glickman succeeded him as president and CEO. However, Valenti continued to supervise the ratings process until September 2005, when the MPAA announced that it would be splitting its leadership duties between Los Angeles-based president and COO, Bob Pisano, and Glickman, who has been appointed the Washington DC-based CEO and chairman and now oversees the ratings system.

One of the things I’ve noticed is that the ratings board is one of the most reviled and misunderstood things about Hollywood, and the idea of this filmmaker taking on this subject is exciting. I’m not going to be at Sundance this year, but for anyone who is, pleasepleaseplease send us a report about this one. Thanks.

"Moriarty" out.





Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 7, 2005, 10:49 p.m. CST

    The MPAA sucks

    by Langfhir

    That is all

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 10:50 p.m. CST

    first?

    by Led Gopher

    Maybe, maybe not. TITS!

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 10:51 p.m. CST

    last

    by D'Jesus

    wait, I'm not last?

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Ahhh...how ironic...or appropriate...or bad luck...whatever the

    by Lenny Nero

    I'll tell you what, though, this will play for at least 2.5 months in good ol' hometown Berkeley, home of the liberal mushmouth.

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 10:58 p.m. CST

    THIS FILM IS NOT RATED should be banned immediately

    by seppukudkurosawa

    that's my lot. Good luck Mr. Dick with the film though. Having just said your name aloud (Mr. Dick), I have to say it sounds kind of lurid. What if any impressionable young children are reading this right now, and then they read your name. It could be a terrible influence on them, I can just imagine them repeating your name in public-school playgrounds for fun...I think your name should also be banned.

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 11 p.m. CST

    THANK GOD FOR THIS MOVIE

    by Veraxus

    It details everything I've been preaching from my soapbox for YEARS. The fact that it got an NC-17 is only a shining example the corruption inherent in the movie industry. Fuck the MPAA, if I have to drive 40 miles to the Arclight if I have to (or whatever art-friendly theatre happens to be playing).

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 11:02 p.m. CST

    Slightly off topic, but this is what I call news!!!

    by Vim Fuego

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005560798,00.html On a more serious note I find it interesting how censorship has changed over the years. I remember when something like "Starsky & Hutch" was considered only suitable after the watershed & now it's on in the afternoon in the UK.

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 11:14 p.m. CST

    Saw Jack Valenti on the Daily Show this week.

    by ironburl

    He said that kids can find offensive material very easily nowadays. He said that they can just "gallop" on to the internet. Jon Stewart pointed out the matter of the Generation gap. We all know kids under 14 are filthy mouthed monsters now... Just read this talkback in a few hours.

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 11:21 p.m. CST

    The name is Dick...KIRBY Dick...

    by themikejonas

    ...and his "Chain Camera" is still the best teen movie of the past several years.

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Kids under 14 are filthy mouthed monsters no matter what you do.

    by Lenny Nero

    Ever lived in the South where you can't watch TV under a lot of parents' rules?

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 11:24 p.m. CST

    Maybe Because...

    by FNORDcinco1

    The creators name is Dick...

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 11:26 p.m. CST

    censorship?

    by HillaryLovesMe

    "Censorship" only makes sense in regards to government. No movie theater chain or video store is legally obligated (AFAIK) to heed MPAA's decisions, so it is NOT, repeat NOT "censorship." Let's get that clear, folks.

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 11:54 p.m. CST

    In Australia, we have a real man's "R" rating.

    by Shan

    In Australia, "R" means no-one admitted to a cinema/not for rental to anyone undet 18 full stop. Mind you, it kicks in at a higher threshold than an American R. You could argue that the American R is silly because if the people under age are seeing the film anyway, what difference does it make if someone else are there with them or not. On the other hand, you could argue that if underage people are going to see these things anyway, the American system is better because at least parents can be aware and have a degree of choice over whether they think (and not only the rating board) over what their kids see. Mind you, when a film gets rated R in Australia (NC-17 + 1) equivalent, it usually doesn't create any fuss (except Baise Moi and The Anatomy of Hell as far as I can remember) ...

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 11:56 p.m. CST

    Jesus Mother Fuckin' CHRIST, This Movie Will ROCK MY BALLS R

    by buster00

    Saw Old Uncle Jack on the "Daily Show" this week too, Ironburl...the quote was "riding up to the Internet," which Stewart then mocked with the galloping motion...and whaddya mean "kids under 14 are filthy mouthed monsters" NOW!?!? Ever seen _Stand By Me_? You'd better believe my language had MELLOWED in my old fuckin' age. You've gotta be shittin' me.

  • Dec. 7, 2005, 11:59 p.m. CST

    The worst thing about the ratings system is that the art suffers

    by jrbarker

    Filmmakers will change their vision just to make sure something gets a PG-13 instead of an R.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 12:23 a.m. CST

    What's this got to do with man on man oral sex?

    by rivercb

    nothing! that's what.... Indie movie, you've let us all down a bit tonight

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 12:35 a.m. CST

    My beef...

    by BendersShinyAss

    ...having had to deal with censorship issues in films, I must say - who the fuck do they think they are? Now, having a commity watch films and then put an advisement on the film (be it very graphic violence of sexual stuff.... or just bad language) fine, sure.... sit around watch the film and then put an advisement. But lets take Pulp Fiction. This film was rated R. In Australia that mean no one under 18 can see it. I now have that film on DVD and my 6 year old nephew watched it with me. The kid has an interest in film making - like his uncle :) Anyway the point is, A commity that watches a film and then tells the 'free world' they can not watch this film unless they fit some 'requirements'. Well. Y'know. Thats bullshit. I see Matt Stone is in this thing. Obviously he'll have a few things to say about South park and the shit it had to go through. A fil mwhich clearly has a lot to say about Censorship and the absurd nature of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm against censorship. There are some films which should be banned. But not for their graphic nature so much as the lack of integrity of the film maker who brought it all together. Bad boy Bubby springs to mind. Some films are just aweful. my opinion of course.

  • then NC-17 just shouldn't exit.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 12:58 a.m. CST

    "Pirates Of the Carribean 2" will be rated "ARRRRGGGHHHH!"

    by Uncapie

    Me hearties!

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 1:17 a.m. CST

    I don't know about others, but I'm sure as hell not goin

    by Lenny Nero

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 1:39 a.m. CST

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! FUCK THE MPAA UP THIER STUPID ASSES!!!

    by DOGSOUP

    I don't know about you guys but here in Portland, we get IFC on a-level-up-from-basic cable! More people watch cable then go to the movies these days ASSHOLES! Seriously, anybody with IFC has to have friends over for this one. I'm already planning a party around it...We can make it an underground sensation! Nobody can Ignore the movie if it ends up as news itself!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 2:07 a.m. CST

    ironburl

    by Poacher

    He actually said "ride on up" to the internet...slight difference, I know, I'm an asshole stickler. Still funny though.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 2:48 a.m. CST

    I no longer bother with so-called arthouse movies

    by Thirteen 13

    The arthouse movie crowd are at best arrogant as hell. I always show up overdressed because I'm not wearing flip flops, a goatee, and a dumbass t-shirt proclaiming the words "Free Mumia Abu-Jamal". The ticket prices are identical as most stadium seat houses. A large popcorn costs the same but is only the size of a medium drink glass at McDonalds. Of course I'm the only one that buys a coca cola, because I'm not sophisticated enough to pay 5 bucks for a 9 ounce glass of Chinese herbal tea. The seats are way too cramped and uncomfortable. The screen on my T.V. set is bigger than the arthouse moviescreen. On the way out, I have to overhear dumbass onversations about art, or how the art suffers because of so and so...blah blah blah while evryone of course is chainsmoking and stinking up the front of the place. Oh yeah, and on the way to my car I have to hold my breath because all the arthouse groupies are driving away in their cars plastered with greenpeace/save the earth bumper stickers, yet they are driving shitty clunkers with tailpipes that are belching out more fossil fuel fumes and greenhouse gases than a 1930's steel mill. Then reaching the my car I ponder the movie and how much it sucked, yet it is called art because it got an NC-17 rating or because it pissed of some lone preacher somewhere in Kentucky.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 3:48 a.m. CST

    Thirteen 13, that's exactly why I like art house movies.

    by Lenny Nero

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....feels like Northern California to me.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 5:58 a.m. CST

    Uh, Shan...

    by Monkey Butler

    We have MA though... which would be exactly the same as the America R, just for 15 year olds. And although our rating system may make more sense and less restrictive (only the top two ratings, MA and R, prohibit under 15s and under 18s respectively from seeing films) our OFLC (Office of Film and Literature Classification) is just as fucked as the MPAA. Remember 9 Songs? Mysterious Skin? Irreversible? The OFLC can be forced by any retarded religious organisation to review the classification of a film. One Christian group called Mysterious Skin a "how-to guide for paedophiles", and they hadn't even seen the films. No shit. So while our system may be better than the Yanks', don't think for a second that we've got it any better than they do. And you know, if edits are made to a film to get a lower rating in the US, those edits carry over to Australia too.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 6:09 a.m. CST

    Does that mean that you actually pay attention to those "age rat

    by SalvatoreGravano

    I doubt I could recall any "age rating" of any movie I've seen. What's the cause - do they actually check the age of ticket buyers at US cinemas?

  • WHAT THE FUCK?

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 6:34 a.m. CST

    So Mass Murder, State-Sanctioned Torture, Endless War, and Rampa

    by ZombieSolutions

    welcome to the Imperial "Christian" Amerika -- the empire of hypocrisy and ignorance. i figure we have about 10 more years tops before the whole thing goes up in flames. have a nice day!

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 6:40 a.m. CST

    Ratings

    by kuryakin

    Here in the Uk we have a fairly simple and I think, sensible, system based on age. There doesn't seem to be that same stigma attached to a movie that is for adults that you guys in the US have. We have U(Universal, suitable for anyone); PG(Parental Guidance, basically meaning some kids might not get the film or be freaked out so parents of kids under eight really should be supervising); 12A(similar to PG in that you could get in if you were under 12 but only with an adult. The new Harry Potter film for example, maybe too much for kiddies but left up to the parents to decide); 15(need to be 15) and 18(need to be 18. Most films for grown ups are 15 certificate but there are plenty that are 18. The difference between them is usually if there is a lot of sex, a lot of violence, a lot of swearing, then it's generally regarded to be unsuitable for people of school age. However as I said, there's very little stigma attached to having an 18 certificate film (as there was with the old X certificate) and I've never heard of a cinema refusing to show a film due to the rating. Of the films mentioned in Monkey Butler's post above - both Irreversible and 9 Songs were classed 18 but Mysterious Skin was a 15, which I think is about right for all of them.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 6:42 a.m. CST

    Incidentally -what does NC stand for?

    by kuryakin

    Can someone explain the difference between R and NC-17 for me?

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 6:43 a.m. CST

    Lenny Nero.... why the hell not?

    by BendersShinyAss

    The kid loves movies. I take a trip down memory road on all my old favourite with the kid. And what he has now that we didn't have then - DVD extra's - the little dude has a real interest in film making. And I just so happen to be a film maker. So I show him what goes into making a film first hand, and I allow him to watch some from my collection. It's not like I'm scaring the kid with 'Aliens' or 'Elm Street'. I waiting at least til he's 8 or 9. But he's keen on the conventions of filmmaking. and Pulp Fiction is one of the most grounded and respectable films I know of. So I watched it with him and talked him through it. So what are you gunna do about it?

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 6:59 a.m. CST

    I was with you, BendersShinyAss....

    by Citizen Arcane

    ...until you drew the line at Aliens and Elm Street. Male rape and drug use is a little more adult than cartoonish aliens and slashers. But I agree with your point. Every few years you hear about some kid who killed their classmates in the manner they saw in a movie but those kids would have gone nuts either way. I really don't think that movies ever drove children to psychosis. The shrill soccer moms and MPAA octogenarians need to chill the fuck out. "Censorship" isn't exactly the right word because te gov't isn't involved but it's still a repressive system.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 7:15 a.m. CST

    I blame Paul Keating Monkey Butler.

    by Shan

    I remember he made some speech about there not being a rating between M and R and that's how we got the MA rating. I also blame him for introducing university fees in 1989. I was just saying what we call "R" and the US calls "R" don't really bear much resemblance to each other. The Office of Film and Literature Classification used to be cool - I once rang them up to ask why "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" was banned in Australia. They said they'd get back to me. They rang me back the same day and said that my call had prompted some discussion in the office. They had looked up the file and said it was refused classification because of the "juxtaposition of sexual and violent acts in the one film". Same events in two different films, OK (possibly). The one film - no.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 8 a.m. CST

    Theatres are supposed to enforce both R and NC17 (nobody under 1

    by minderbinder

    Kind of a bummer for this film, but since it's going straight to TV, is it that big a deal? I'm surprised they bothered to get it rated at all.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 8:12 a.m. CST

    NC-17 stands for...

    by Slim_Goodbody

    No Children (under) 17. Good night, and good luck.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 8:29 a.m. CST

    up in the nort we're a lil more lenient...

    by havocSchultz

    not really an NC-17 up here either in canada... we have R and 18A - and then below that is a 15 rating (like pg-13 - but a little more lenient) and of course PG and G - now i always get the R and 18A confused but basically - one is that anyone under 18 - has to be accompanied by and adult - the other one - is no one under 18 allowed - no exceptions - but we have a few movies that are rated that - and it makes it nice - sin city - kill bill - freddy vs. jason - etc - did not allow anybody under 18 - no exceptions - id at the door - and it was great - but nothing actually NC-17 - those would just be lumped with the other rating and no one under 18 would be allowed there either... oh well... take care... and remember - i can put my arm back on - you can't - so play safe... and wreak it well... havoc out...

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 8:41 a.m. CST

    NC-17 really means...

    by delsol

    No Children 17 AND under. That means you have to be 18 to get into one with that rating. No exceptions. I'm amazed by how little Americans know about their own movie rating system that's been around for decades. And, as pointed out earlier by one poster, it isn't true censorship since th4e MPAA is not a governmental body and nothing, except economics, prevents a theater owner from doing whatever it pleases. By the way that the American public views such films as porn, they've created de facto censorship.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 8:55 a.m. CST

    The only thing wrong with the rating system

    by godoffireinhell

    is that an NC-17 means commercial suicide. The ratings themselves and the work of the MPAA is perfectly OK. It's the fact that theater chains refuse to play NC-17 films and that an NC-17 is put on the same level as hardcore porn that's hurting creativity and freedom of expression.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 9:01 a.m. CST

    I wish there were more higher rated movies

    by Mr_Sleep001

    I think there have probably been about 5 films this year that have got an 18 rating here in the UK and even then I'd have trouble naming them all. When can I see a movie that speaks to me rather than all the 12 year olds in the world?

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 9:15 a.m. CST

    The American rating system...

    by dr_buggerlugs

    ...has always seemed fine to me - I assume with an R rating, it means that an under 17 has to be admitted with an adult right? That seems like a responsible enough idea - though I prefer the simple British system which simply has age ratings on public performances, sale and rental (12A, 15, 18) If anything, the real tragedy is the stigma that the NC17 rating has got...just because a film has adult themes or content, whether it's sex or violence (from what it seems, it's usually always sex...for some reason, movie violence always gets the R or PG13 treatment) doesn't mean the theatre owners need to be effectively threatened into not it; I always thought an adult should be able to make the choice of watching that film, not have that option taken from them because of a few people like Valenti. Personally I'm surprised no filmmakers or actors have spoken out against the stigma of the NC17 or in fact, no studios have tried to quash the idea that not all films are made with kids in mind and that adults should have the choice of watching films that might be unsuitable for a younger audience.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 9:19 a.m. CST

    The funny thing about NC-17 rated movies...

    by fiester

    ...is you always end up shaking your head trying to figure out what all the fuss was about.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 9:22 a.m. CST

    Actually let me correct myself there...

    by dr_buggerlugs

    ...I actually shouldn't be surprised the studios havent't spoken out in favour of NC17 should I? Maybe I was being far too optimistic.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 9:29 a.m. CST

    The reason why they accept violence but not sexual content

    by performingmonkey

    Sexual content is usually about people having a little bit of fun for themselves, which is a big no-no, right? They don't want you to see people having fun or getting any in movies because it might cause an uprising against the government (the people might realize that their shitty lives are literally being dictated by the government!). They can show a lot of violence because it isn't fun (most of the time) and they don't actually care if people emulate the violence. I am 100% CONVINCED that the American government accept the amount of violence and gun crime that happens in America because it helps to keep the white middle in their place, if you see what I mean. Middle America is happy knowing that they are safe from the BIG BAD of the inner cities (and foreign countries, I might add) and so they're easy to manipulate, which is why their vote is the only vote that matters. 9/11 gave more proof of how the govt is in control. Suddenly middle America is under attack from terrorists (or so they are made to think), and they're thinking 'OK George, do whatever you want, bomb here, invade there, just don't let those filthy Arab terrorist slime near me and my family!!'. And if you follow it all leads back to the MPAA.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 9:31 a.m. CST

    WHINER: THE MOVIE! I wonder if they cover the fact that the X-ra

    by Negative Man

    Does it cover that the MPAA NEVER had a rating for adult material until NC17? The X rating was not trademarked by the MPAA, but used as a rating that indicated a film was unsuitable for minors because the film was extremely violent or had explicit sex acts suited for adults only. Who created the X rating? The porn industry. They created it in response to G, PG, and R rating scale. Other porn companies went as far as XXX, so you know it had to be good! Plus, the MPAA is a non-governmental, INDUSTRY created and run body. It was put together in 1920

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Recent article in UK Guardian wanted *stricter* ratings...

    by tucson

    ...so asshole parents who are too damned cheap to hire a babysitter couldn't drag their ill-mannered, too young, or just up-way-too-late-after-their-bedtime spawn to the theater to disrupt everyone who'd paid good money to see a movie. Works for me!

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 9:47 a.m. CST

    The dilemma with censorship

    by tile_mcgillus

    How do you regulate what is offensive? Is there a culturally accepted idea of what is offensive? Look at how langauge is regulated. Certain words are considered offensive. The seven dirty words you can't say on television by George Carlin (Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker and Tits) They only describe body parts and typs of intercourse and one act of incest. Are these words truly offensive? If you watched the Comedians of Comedy last week they you saw Patton Oswald take on the word "dick". You can say dick if your insulting someone but not in reference to a penis. So connatation is offensive. Or the fact that you can say "fuck" only once in a PG-13 film. So frequency is offensive. This level of absurdity is indeniable. Supposedly censorship is to protect children but I believe government regulated parenting is an overstep of our society. Shouldn't the parents be responsible for what their children are exposed to. It is common knowledge you don't take a child to a porno because the content is known. Also you can look at the finicial burden censorship places on the artform. If a movie receives an NC-17 rating most theatres wont carry it and thew majority of large retailers won't even consider it.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 9:47 a.m. CST

    I thought Eyes Wide Shut got an 'R'??

    by dr_buggerlugs

    Didn't Kubrick expect the NC17 so he digitally added in other charcters to stand and cover up the more explicit parts of the orgy sequence for the US release?

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 9:51 a.m. CST

    dr_buggerlugs, Eyes had an NC17 rating at the AMC I saw it at in

    by Negative Man

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 10:06 a.m. CST

    "the ratings board is one of the most reviled and misunderstood

    by ComputerGuy68

    oh I thought the most reviled thing was the product being shat out of Hollywood.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 10:16 a.m. CST

    funny story about a PG film...

    by ComputerGuy68

    back in 1980, went to go see Empire Strikes Back. Missed the 4pm show so I had to wait around for the 7pm show. Get to the booth, and because it was a PG film, AFTER 7pm and I was alone and under 13 they would not let me in! So in Canada the rating system changed depending on what time it was! Thus began my hatred of movie theaters.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 10:29 a.m. CST

    ComputerGuy68, I too have a hatred of movie theaters

    by JAGUART

    I've wondered where this started and I think it goes back to the time I went to see Star Wars (1977), and an usher killed my dad.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 10:31 a.m. CST

    RE: The dilemma with censorship + Requiem for a Penguin

    by Negative Man

    Most films are not made as art, but as commercial entertainment. Though, the makers scream it's 'art' as soon as the censor monster pops up. I cannot fathom Galaxy Quest being considered art. It

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 10:33 a.m. CST

    An example... The Merchant of Venice... R

    by Veraxus

    Just to drive home how corrupt the MPAA actually is (some of you don't realize how bad it really is) - The Merchant of Venice, a fantastic and perfectly innocent film based on the same-named Shakespere play, was given an R rating by the MPAA. Why? They didn't like the nudity in some of the 18th century frescos seen in the some of the houses backgrounds. The movie was shot entirely on location and those are all actual priceless period frescos. In contrast, the CMPDA (Canadian MPAA) gave the same film a PG... and they have much the same kind of ratings scale. Also, there are now LAWS restricting the advertisement and sale of any rated R or NC-17 movies... so an R dosn't just mean you will be missing a younger audience... it means you legally can't even let people know your movie exists (unless it's on so late at night your audience has already hit the sack). That's just one example of how the government is trying to do parent's jobs for them. Before long we will have banned just about everything "to save the children." What ever happened to parents being involved with their children and actually explaining why things are the way they are? Instead, we just shelter the little buggers so they grow up to be oversensitive narrow-minded social ban-everything activists. When movies classical Shakespere gets an R, and a movie with puppets having sex gets an NC-17... puppets *without genitals* (PA-LEASE, who hasn't banged two barbies together and giggled cynically) it's quite clear that the system is irreparably fucked.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 10:40 a.m. CST

    The system is primitive and archaic....

    by Engelhast

    But I don

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 10:47 a.m. CST

    The MPAA is so hypo"christ"ical it's pathetic. It's no

    by R.C. the "Wise"

    Maybe I was special or something. I must have had the only parents that actually "taught" and used their own parental discretion. I think I was 11 when I saw my first "R" film in a theatre. (I've seen many at home before but they were either edited versions on TV or they were comedies that had filthy language...but certainly not language/metaphors that I didn't hear on a weekly basis in the Real World.) I believe it was BACKDRAFT. At that time I really loved the idea of becoming a Firefighter, so cautiously my mom agreed to take to the movie. I'm sure most have seen the film, it's terrific. As far as viewing went, being raised to respect my parents without being to sheltered from the rest of the world, I acutally listened when my mother told me to cover my eyes. Now certain images were sporatic so she couldn't censor me from all of it but she did a great job. ..............My point is that ratings today would be acceptable to inform the public of the content involved and who should be restricted to view it with/without consent IF such a thing was regularly inforced. For fucks sake, who are they protecting. Many parents today are fucking morons. I saw Constantine on it's opening Friday night, the 11pm showing and in the middle of the film to my and many other's horror were shocked to hear a 6 year old girl complaining to use the restroom. WHO THE FUCK BRINGS THERE KID TO A RATED "R" FILM WITH THOSE THEMES AT AN 11 FUCKIN PM SHOWING! You can't protect those people MPAA. Besides, most people today are desensitized due largely to the news. Quit budding in our entertainment choices. ....but I digress.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 10:56 a.m. CST

    JAGUART, ushers, oh I remember them...

    by ComputerGuy68

    folks with flashlights that tried to make the movie going experience somewhat bearable. They are extinct now I believe, gone like drive-ins, original stories and manners. These days films come to video so quickly, (hit for flop), the MPAA is irrelevant. They may affect the B.O. but home video sales, PPV, on-demand are more important and are not hindered by the MPAA. I sure as hell wouldn

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Stupid parents...

    by Engelhast

    I had a similar experience as you did with Constantine. We went to see the Exorsist when it was re-released a couple years ago and this couple had brought their kids that could not have been any older than six. What the hell is wrong with people? I am not saying parents should ever be stopped from letting their kids see whatever they want them to see but I really wondered what those kids were going to be like when they grow up.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Butt rapeing Vs. Slimey Aliens

    by BendersShinyAss

    Thats a good point. And now that I think about it, I do believe I was out of the room when that section happened. Still, I don't think it'll give the little tike Nightmares. Well, at least not the way the Aliens scared the piss outta me when I was 7.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 11:16 a.m. CST

    how about this for nc-17?

    by Darth Pestilence

    AAAAAAAH!!!! MY BALLS ITCH!!!!

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Fan-Boy, it's called CYA...

    by ComputerGuy68

    sucks though. Get some scars, tats and a beard ;) Two years ago I got ID'd at a beer store, (and yes they are called "The Beer Store" in Ontario) drinking age is 19. I'm in my thirties, so I know where you are coming from...

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 11:33 a.m. CST

    He said ride UP to the internet

    by jackinitraw

    Jack Valenti beats underage hookers with bullwhips in his basement. What do you think THAT would be rated.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 11:41 a.m. CST

    The MPAA is a very good thing...

    by Blacket-Man

    MPAA does not sponsor censorship, it promotes capitalism. Parents want to have some kind of idea what a movie will expose there children to. And they need some sort of consistency in the ratings. Is it kind of weird? Sure, but it works. Let

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 11:52 a.m. CST

    So It's Okay For Teenagers To Watch Men Brutally Butcher Eac

    by ZombieSolutions

    wow. which would you rather have your teenage children do? go on a bloodthirsty rampage or get laid? at the risk of being "sinful" i have to go with the latter. the modern depictions of over-the-top blood-curdling violence -- which carries no consequences and is most often portrayed as being "cool" -- is far FAR more detrimental to young minds than depicitons of sex. of course, hardcore pornography is bad for young people to see, but i'd argue that the grandiose depictions of violence has a far more detrimental effect.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Phoney__Bone

    by Veraxus

    The problem is (scroll up and read my talkback) that 1) There is NO consistency in the rating system 2) The government has intervened by restricting advertisement based on ratings, giving the MPAA more power than it should have 3) It's often not so much about content as politics (see the above movie getting an NC-17) and 4) the MPAA is accountable to NOBODY. Instead of the current rating system I'd be all for a shorthand descriptive content label (M for mild, E for extreme, preceding S for sexual content, N for nudity, V for violence, B for blood and gore, L for language, etc). Add to that, noone under 16 would be able to see ANYTHING without an adult. 16-18 would not be able to see any movies (without an adult) that have the E descriptor included. Simple, and it takes the ambiguity out of the equation (the same ambiguity the MPAA uses to "punish" some movies and "reward" others by giving improperly high or low ratings). As I've stated, parents should be more involved in their kid's activities - the current system is broken, corrupt, and unfair.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Three more examples of rating injustice...

    by Veraxus

    [1] When Harry Met Sally - This was a very sweet and intelligent movie and yet was rated R because of 3 instances of the word "fuck", used tastefully and in a non-gratuitous, contextually appropriate way. This use of language justifies a jump from PG to PG-13, but definately not an R. Movies like this were the reason the PG-13 rating was created... not PG, but not quite R either. You can't seriously say that When Harry Met Sally is on the same level as Scream or Friday the 13th. It's ridiculous. [2] Whale Rider recieved a PG-13 despite being a very sweet, touching, and innocent movie containing no objectable material whatsoever, and even deals with socially relevent children's issues (rejection, imagination, ambition, living up to and surpassing the expectations of your parents). I don't think this film even warranted a PG, let alone a G. This was a marvelous movie for families and children alike and giving it higher than a G is criminal. [3] Despite how you feel about The Village, the original submission to the MPAA was given an R rating. Not necessarily because of content, but because the MPAA likes to punish movies with because of tone alone. Shyamalan removed a single 1-second sound effect from the forest chase at the end and the film was returned with a PG13. Feel free to add any other films you feel have been improperly rated.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 12:27 p.m. CST

    I still wonder why the Matrix films were rated R...

    by ComputerGuy68

    violent yes, but in a cartoon sort of way. Not like say Sin City, which WAS for adults...

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Sexuality vs. Violence

    by bralli

    I always find it interesting how in our supposed secular culture, we still allow those sexually repressed Christian "values" to continue to permeate every aspect of our daily lives. Any "true" Christian would be much more concerned with the violence than the sexuality. If you read the Bible, Jesus was more or less a pacifist who preached love and forgiveness. I would think that Jesus would be against the glorification of violence more than a Janet Jackson nip-slip.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 12:36 p.m. CST

    ZombieSolutions

    by Sir Loin

    Geez, man. Just about every one of your rants is a complaint about Christians. Obviously you know the identities of the MPAA board, and they must in fact be Christian. Y'know what? MERRY CHRISTMAS anyway.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 12:43 p.m. CST

    "it is important that as many people see this movie as possible"

    by devil0509

    I guess some people have a funny idea about what's important. Somehow, an expose of the inner workings of the movie rating system doesn't strike me as vital viewing for all free people. Just another example of the narrow view of hollywood insiders - it's probably important to them, therefore I guess it should be important to the rest of us. Does it affect the life of the average person, at all, what machinations earn a movie PG-13 vs R, or whether big studies get more inside info on how to get their flick the rating they want? Nope, not in any vital way, at least. I think what is really needed is an expose about the shocking lack of quality female nudity in R rated flicks. Seriously, what's up with that? Someone needs to find out what's going on, and fix the situation, NOW.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 12:54 p.m. CST

    At Least It Beats The Hayes Code

    by skoobyx

    This film looks seriously cool. Its a good idea too. It reminds me of my friend who wanted to do a show about Nielson families figuring it would get the highest ratings ever.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 1:07 p.m. CST

    Just a quick question to dwell on: How sexually repressed are Ch

    by Negative Man

    Seriously. I'm just not sure where the connection is. It seems to me many other religions are, if not more so, just as sexually repressed when compared to Christians. Even on the cultural level many other countries are stricter about what can and connot be shown on screen, let alone done in the bedroom. And those that are more lax don't seem better off simply because. Not attacking anybody, just really curious. I've never been outraged over the censorship of entertainment in all my 35 years. And when something has been censored and I disagree (even with my own work), it always seemed it was for the benefit of pulling in more money. Remember, I'm just talking about the entertainment industry. Now we have the ability to get the censored or uncensored versions of movies on DVD or on cable. Heck, they do all kinds of stuff on cable. Are people just upset because it's not shown on public television or what? Just looking for a coherent, non-ranting argument to support what the big problem is with the MPAA and or the precieved Christian Rule of entertainment.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 2:10 p.m. CST

    Christian "control" of media

    by bralli

    I wasn't necessarily saying that Christians control everything. I just find it interesting how even us "secular" people (Arrested Develpment reference) still seem to have the same sexual hangups that when you think about it were really set down by the church. (Didn't mean to say Christians specifically, because you are right, many other religions are even more shy about sexuality.)

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 2:13 p.m. CST

    The rule is..

    by UES

    The actual MPAA rule is something like this: anything a Teenager actually does himself (have sex, use cursewords, smoke, drink, use drugs, act crudely, get naked) he is FORBIDDEN to see and gets a R or NC-17. Anything he would never do himself (bloody violence, war violence, crazy kung-fu, etc.) is APPROVED for the PG-13.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 2:47 p.m. CST

    if you want to piss off the mpaa and proud-crowd zealots

    by ectocriminal

    skip this arrogant shit and go see brokeback mountain, kiss kiss bang bang, or rent mysterious skin. if you want them to stay happy go pick yourself up a smoking hot copy of fantastic four or go see chronicles of narnia.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 3:15 p.m. CST

    Anything he would never do himself (bloody violence

    by TonyWilson

    WHAT. THE. FUCK. How spectacularly stupid are these people?

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 3:32 p.m. CST

    Meatbiscuit

    by Engelhast

    A text book closet case.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 3:47 p.m. CST

    So what exactly is wrong with the ratings board? What huh?

    by Johnno

    All I see is... if you're already 18 years old... then you can see whatever the hell you want!!!! it's to keep teh ids in line because many parents have some standard of how they want to raise their kids. Once the kid becomes an adult they can make decisions for themselves! Yes I would like a world where children are protected from explicit sexual scenes and extreme violence! This whole Ohhhh MPAA are a bunch of faschists is bullshit. The problem is not their ratings... it's really that theatre chains will not play many films with high ratings... why? FOR PROFITS!!!! Why do you think studios try and get the ratings down?! It means more people will see it! Unfortunataley depending on your content, say it's a gay masochistic violent sex orgy or a crazy religious man with a chainsaw raping his mutilated victims corpses, then obviously it eliminates the audience of children, and therefore the parents who'd go to see it... but that's too freakin bad... maybe you'd also consider that such content will not appeal to many people's tastes in the first place.... not all of us go to films to see zombies, mass murders, gore, titties or gorey titties. SURPRISE! This doco sounds bogus and nothing but a "Waaah waaah!" The only time you may have a valid complaint is when it concerns a film being 'BANNED' or if there are other grounds such as initial bias, like possibly in teh case of this doco, otherwise ratings are a non-issue. If the creators really cared about leaving their art intact, they could fight against the movie studio, and there are always opportunities for directors cuts. When WB was trying to get the Wachowskis to bring down the matrix's rating to a PG 13 for more profitability by cutting down violent content such as kicks to people's heads, the Wachowskis didn't bow down... they stuck with it and included in the trailers as many kicks to the head as possible. Maybe that rule is stupid... but y'know what? I was over 18, so it didn't freaking matter! once kids go over 18 they'll watch it too! Maybe even heavily edited on TBS. Some ccreators have no choice but to bow down to studio pressure... but that's tjust the way it goes... Whatever... g'night...

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Is it true

    by Engelhast

    That in the UK you can't show a man being kicked when he is down on screen? It is something I heard and thought it was kind of weird and wondered if it was true.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Great marketing ploy by the producers and IFC

    by Diskatopia

    How many folks would be talking about this film if it DIDN'T get an NC-17? So they left in something, some shot(s) which they knew would get the rating they really wanted. Methinks they've learned something from studying Miramax's old ways.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 5:21 p.m. CST

    What the fuck is that Rambo doll?

    by Groggy

    Who would buy that piece of shit from Sideshow? I hope whoever did that sculpt has a good excuse and I hope for his/her ass that Sly doesn't find out. How did it ever get past quality control?

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 5:40 p.m. CST

    meatbiscuit

    by ectocriminal

    niether brokeback mountain, nor kiss kiss bang bang, nor mysterious skin is about 'gay love' per se, but they are great thought-provoking projects, not mainstream stories, and they do include realistic portrayals of homosexuals and child molesters (see also 'the woodsman'). these films do not generally do well comercially due to their content and the mpaa relies on that to deter people from making similar films. and sure, these films can make the stomach turn, but that is the whole point, to be open minded, to let your stomach turn and still accept what's on the screen for what it is. i'll bet you'd squirm through a gory scene in a miike film and take a badge of honor for it, but squirm through a gay love scene and suddenly you must be gay? does watching gory scenes in horror flicks make one a serial killer? meat, i dunno if you actually like movies or post on here out of loneliness, but you've got to either seriously re-evaluate your integrity or turn in your fucking talkback password because that last post was lame and ignorant, and yes, closed-minded.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Had a chance to meet Kirby Dick....

    by Doom II

    Nice guy. He was screening a film in Tucson and hung around for a Q and A and bullshitted with those in attendance. I look forward to this movie just based on his talents behind the camera with his previous efforts. Oh yeah....FUCK the MPAA.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 6:07 p.m. CST

    I like the NC-17 rating, but who uses it?

    by Doom II

    Filmmakers usually just release movies as "UNRATED" to avoid the NC-17. I saw Bad Lietenant in a Phoenix art house theater years ago and it was my first NC-17 movie. I loved it. It stepped just over the R rated line, but didn't go over the top. The "edited" Bad Lieutenant censors out Harvey Keitel's masterbation scene completely. It also tones down the rape of the nun. Both of those scenes help build up anger and shock and by removing them, the movie becomes much less effective.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Ectocriminal

    by Zauriel

    You're telling me that there's NEVER been a movie that you chose not to see because the subject matter didn't appeal to you? Being open-minded is about accepting that certain things happen and are entitled to happen, not that you have to either agree with it or subject yourself to it. But this is not about open- or closed-mindedness, it's about taste. I like Ang Lee, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Heath Ledger, but I won't be seeing Brokeback Mountain. Just like I haven't seen half the other "love endures" types of movies, straight or gay. Do I have anything against homosexuals? As a straight guy I find the concept disgusting (and tell me there aren't gays out there that cringe watching heterosexual love scenes, because I've witnessed it firsthand), but that in and of itself doesn't make them worse than anybody else. I know and work with plenty of gay people, one in particular that's just been DYING to see Brokeback Mountain, but knows I won't and the reasons why I won't, and is perfectly fine and understanding with it. Why can't you be? Now granted, Meatbiscuit there is not exactly the most tactful poster, and it doesn't speak well of him, but then again neither are the sheep like Engelhast who immediately jump out of the woodwork to finger-point and label anyone who isn't wanting to see a movie with predominantly gay themes a closeted homo. At least you steered away from that route.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 8:46 p.m. CST

    The ratings system is nonsense

    by MondoGundark

    It's just another way for lax parents to recind responsibility for raising their kids, and for overzealous parents an opportunity for them to raise YOUR kids for you. You slovenly, godless, mildly retarded anti-Christian nutsacks! Don't forget that Mr. Spielberg campaigned to get Saving Priv. Ryan an R rating, not the original NC-17. Now, if any movie ever deserved the NC-17, it was that movie, simply due to it's realism. Doesn't mean that kids shouldn't have seen it, just not without context.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 8:46 p.m. CST

    zauriel

    by ectocriminal

    i don't think anyone who doesn't want to watch a film due to its content is a person of lesser integrity than someone who will sit through anything in order to be able to appreciate the parts that they like, i'm just saying posters like meatbiscuit making ill-natured gay jokes as part of their posts against the content of said films need to be checked at the door. also, the topic here is the old nc-17 and the board of censorship, who rely on guys like meatbiscuit to be loud and over the top with their opinions so other people will be less likely to see films with racy content and thereby making filmmakers less likely to attempt those types of films. your beef with my post is dead-on and legit, and i was kind of pissed at meat so i made a faulty point, one that was inherently hypocritical. my mistake and i own it, but i can't just sit here silently while ignorant people post talk like that on a talkback analyzing the downfalls of cinema censorship.

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 10:20 p.m. CST

    whoa

    by rabban

    if the ifc channel would do this with every film...they would fast become the best channel...ever!

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 10:58 p.m. CST

    I Don't Think MPAA Censorship Is A "Christian" Thing...

    by buster00

    And I can't believe I'M saying this...but it seems to me Jesus would be quite ANTI-censorship. Based on what I've read about him, I would think he'd see censorship as a sort of hypocrisy...which REALLY pissed him off. Remember, it's never been Jesus who wanted to hurt you...just a few choice members of his fan club who got WAY out of hand. Either way, I'd bet that not even half of the MPAA Ratings Board consider themselves "Christian."

  • Dec. 8, 2005, 11:09 p.m. CST

    buster00

    by seppukudkurosawa

    What do Christians have to do with Jesus?

  • "Conspiracy Theory" with Julia Roberts and Mel Gibson was rated "R" and they only had a couple of swears, none the F-bomb, no nudity and the violence wasn't all that violent. Probably not even a PG-13 film with an 'R' rating. So..............why shouldn't 6-year-olds watch Pulp Fiction? Well, because it is child abuse. It actively does harm to a child, much like watching 'Passion of the Christ' is. Here are some reasons: How about depictions of rape and torture? How about use of hard drugs? How about cold-blooded murder and hiding evidence of crimes from police? How about inappropriate language? How about racial slurs? Most six year olds aren't yet sexual beings so seeing or explaining rape to them can be oversexualization and ask any head doctor that you care to ask (including non-Christians) and they can tell you how that affects children. It CAN cause some later problems with healthy attitudes about sexuality with widely different results to different children..................Drug use, when viewed with a responsible parent or guardian might turn out to be a possitive but this is a pretty hard few scenes and I doubt I will be convinced this is the best educational tool available. Finally, kids of that age mirror and mimic speech and behavior so when they hear "You ate her pussy?" or "Freeze Motherfucker" or call somebody a "nigger" and there is a good chance they might repeat it. Want to lose a six-year-old friends at school or get them in trouble? Have them repeat "bad motherfucker" a few times or have them say, "You stuck your tounge in the holy of holies?" a lot. See how cool their teachers and students and students parents find that when it gets repeated in other houses. You are doing the kid no favors socially...........And the defense that he is interested in film is absurd. He is also probably interested in eating an all-sugar diet, staying up to 2 a.m. on a school night and lighting the drapes on fire because it looks cool but you don't let him do those things do you? (I think you probably do actually, but you shouldn't) Six-year-old kids aren't real great at making the best decisions for themselves so they need a little help and guideance and limits to help them function well in society. The fact you think this is all just peachy blows my mind. Please sterlaize yourself immediately.

  • Dec. 9, 2005, 5:32 a.m. CST

    Pulp Fiction

    by kuryakin

    Yeah if I had a kid I doubt I would let them see it until they were quite a bit older. They'd probably be bored by it and talk all the way through anyhow. Still I think the main problem with movies and censorship these days is a lack of parental responsibility in not supervising what kids are watching. Interestingly films often get re-rated when coming to DVD in the Uk and they have on the box a little table with icons (for sex, violence, language and drugs) with descriptions beside. eg Sin City might have "Violence: Frequent, bloody" etc so parents who are picking these things up to rent KNOW what they are getting for little Jimmy. Or at least should. I cannot get over the amount of complaints from parents who bought their kids games like GTA and Manhunt (also certificated although in the case of the games industry, voluntarily)and then complained to newspapers about their content. I mean the games got an 18 certificate clearly emblazoned on it, it's called fucking MANHUNT and the game description is very clear. How much more of a clue do you need that it isn't for kids??? So yeah, I wouldn't let my kid watch Pulp Fiction but if BendersShinyAss is sitting with his kid and talking through everything that happens; if he's watching TV shows and DVDs before allowing his son to watch them; and is checking up on the content of movies before taking him to the cinema then he's doing his job properly. And most importantly of all, if he's raising a kid that doesn't talk through movies then he's a goddamn saint.

  • Dec. 9, 2005, 7:02 a.m. CST

    "I'm amazed by how little Americans know about their own mov

    by minderbinder

    You'd be less amazed if you knew that NC-17 is practically never used. Movies are generally edited (or appealed) down to R or released unrated.

  • Dec. 9, 2005, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Minderbinder

    by Papa Lazaru

    You

  • Dec. 9, 2005, 8:30 a.m. CST

    Speaking of Passion of Christ

    by FlickChick

    The fact that that film got an R rating proves how Christianity driven the MPAA is.

  • Dec. 9, 2005, 12:21 p.m. CST

    On Passion of the Christ...

    by Veraxus

    It had to be edited down to an R rating and there were spartan cuts to make the rating. The whipping scene in particular - where a closeup of Jesus' hands was substituted instead of whipping footage. I, for one, would love to see what the movie looked like uncut... but an uncut Passion would be seen as quite unchristian and expoitative, so I doubt Gibseon will ever let that happen. So yeah, you dumfucks who insist that Passion is somehow an example that the MPAA is Christianity driven are either ill-informed or stupid. Which is it?

  • Dec. 9, 2005, 1:18 p.m. CST

    Actually, NC-17 *isn't* "formerly X."

    by darthferris

    It was meant to be an *alternative* to the X rating, so that films could deal with adult subject matter without being stigmatized, but, unfortunately, it quickly became stigmatized anyways.

  • Dec. 9, 2005, 1:20 p.m. CST

    scrivener

    by ectocriminal

    the closeup of jesus' hands going slack then shaking and regaining their grip on the post is more potent than five more minutes of whipping and flailing. i think that was a directorial decision and a good one. also, you should read your posts before throwing them up---'an uncut passion would be exploitative', so therefor wouldn't a pro-christian mpaa want it to be tasteful and non-exploitative? just wondering.

  • Dec. 9, 2005, 2:51 p.m. CST

    ectocriminal

    by Veraxus

    I am well aware what I'm talking about, but you should take your own advice... a rated R passions (regardless of content) is one thing... an "Unrated Uncut The Passion of Christ" would be quite another (think about it, why are movies released as "Unrated" on DVD anyway). Had all that content made into the R cut, it wouldn't matter since an Uncut rerelease is understood as being more graphic and gratuitous for exactly the reason of being exploitative (this is one of the contributing factors when it comes to DVD rerelease double-dipping). As for whether alternate shots CAN be more powerful... yes they can, but it's not just as simple as "the things you don't see can be more effective than the things you do." This is true sometimes, and most definately not always. You have to know when to go all out and when to hold back, it's a balancing act - and all too often filmakers lean too far to either extreme (never show enough, always show too much). It's a matter of delivering enough "threat" that the audience never knows what to expect and when. As far as politics in concerned, I find it frustratingly stupid when one political philosophy tries to pin our culture of censorship on their competing philosophy. On both extremes (right and left) you have people who are vehemently pro-censorship... just for different reasons. One side might cite moral decay and the other might cite "protect our children." Two means to the same end... but I think that the current problem is far more complex and multifaceted than you are all making it out to be ("stupid christians", "stupid liberals")... it's a matter of a few anonymous people pushering their own PERSONAL agendas (whatever those may be) without being accountable to anyone.

  • Dec. 9, 2005, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Engelhast

    by Stubb-a-dubb

    I heard that last night when listening to the Evil Dead commentary. Just wondering if that was where you got it as well.

  • Dec. 9, 2005, 4:27 p.m. CST

    scriv, i have no personal agenda here...

    by ectocriminal

    ...but there exists no uncut passion and there does exist a watered-down version of passion that gibson re-released last easter (i think). this was also gibson's decision as a director to make it more palatable for the kids and old folks. i think the reason for no uncut passion was also a directorial decision. obviously censors have standards for what they deem offensive, and i fully agree with you that they are more multi-faceted than just the simple terms we've all managed to lump them into during this talkback. i also think that the decisions of artists themselves are sometimes mistaken for mpaa censorship. and i never accused anyone of being stupid, but i did say something like 'read your posts before you post them' and that was a bit harsh...i apologize but stand by my opinions.

  • Which brings me to a seperate arguement. What is going to motivate me when I can download something at DVD quality anyway to actually buy the product? PACKAGING. Those big ugly Ratings signs printed onto everything certainly disrupt aesthetic design of DVD's. What is my answer? I've stopped my casual buy of DVD's and now only buy film's a really want from Region 1.

  • And the reason why someone might not like that experience is because the people are better dressed, better educated, make more money and have better jobs. People who can catch a tram or walk home after the movie because they live in a desirable inner urban hub.

  • Dec. 9, 2005, 8:47 p.m. CST

    There IS a difference between sexual content and violent content

    by Daredevil

    No matter how graphic or disgusting the violence shown is, it's always fake. I've never watched a movie where someone got shot, their head blew up, a monster jumped out of their stomach, or a limb was severed in which the act was actually occurring. With sexual content, you basically have real naked people doing whatever right there on the screen. The minute they start showing real people getting real fingers chopped off, I'll call for NC-17. The first time they make a movie where they really shoot a guy in the chest, I'll call it XXX rated.

  • Dec. 9, 2005, 9:55 p.m. CST

    And all you railing about how these are "Christians" running the

    by Daredevil

    I am a Christian, my parents are Christians too. But you know what? They took me to R rated movies and rented R rated movies when I was a kid. They were discerning, though. They looked at what the movie was about and figured out whether it was appropriate for me to watch. I got to see the first two Indiana Jones movies and The Thing by the time I was 7 because there was only swearing, violence, and gross alien and heart-ripping special effects in them. All things they knew I could handle and didn't mind me being exposed to. (Because really, language aside there is no difference between the violence in The Thing and Return of the Jedi: people die, there are disgusting aliens...big deal.) The only place my parents really drew a line was with sexual content and nudity, which they generally kept me away from, but then most movies with sex in them didn't appeal to a little kid. (Not usually enough gunfighting and spaceship flying in a romance movie for a 6 year old.) But they let me see the Tarzan with Bo Derek completely naked. And some kids get in trouble by their parents if they ever start being noisy in a theater, so it's not the fact that parents drag their kids at your R rated movie that's the problem, its that they allow their kids to whine and talk without getting a thump on the head. As far as ratings go, I think the ratings system is flawed, but not because I think it is censorship in any way (Look up the word censorship. Ratings and warning labels it isn't). I just think, as others have said, they are way too flexible in what is labeled one things or another, and logic seems to be thrown out the window. The one time f-word use is completely inane. That's one way you can tell the MPAA isn't run by Christians, because no Christian would say, "yeah, saying it once is alright, we'll let it slide. But not twice!" My preferrence is just a complete restructuring in which each category: language, violence, and sex each get a number rating between 1 and 5, or something. Each number is clearly defined as to content. One F-word doesn't mean a 4 for language, it means a 5. So a movie rated L5,V5,S2 might be your average action movie. L5,V1,S5 might be what porn would get. L1,V1,S1 would be the most boring G rated movie ever. There would be a cut off where children without an adult wouldn't be allowed in, like the R rating, because no matter how much the parent is actually parenting, unless they are keeping their kids under lock and key, it's possible for a 15 year old to get to a movie theater without their parents' knowledge. But there wouldn't be an NC-17 equivalent, because I say if the parent wants to allow their kid to see something that would currently get an NC-17, I say that's their perogative, not the theater's.

  • Dec. 10, 2005, 12:42 a.m. CST

    MrCere

    by BendersShinyAss

    "why shouldn't 6-year-olds watch Pulp Fiction? Well, because it is child abuse. It actively does harm to a child, much like watching 'Passion of the Christ' is." *********** Well actually, thats just a matter of opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the kids around me can watch what ever the hell they like, so long as they have my approval. I covered a little 2 year olds eyes when ET gets a flashlight in his face, because I was terrified she'd have nightmares. The 6 year old I was dying to see his reaction. But we're talking about Pulp Fiction, right? It's hardly Child abuse to show a kid a Tarrantino film. Thats a pretty funny statement if I say so myself. ********** "Here are some reasons: How about depictions of rape and torture? How about use of hard drugs? How about cold-blooded murder and hiding evidence of crimes from police? How about inappropriate language? How about racial slurs?" ********** How about myself growing up surrounded by the real thing. I'd much rather the kid get a glimpse of reality from a fun watchin movie, than from a hard kick in the face of things in front of your own eyes. Besides, we're talking education on film making. The kid knows what a camera crew is, and he knows it's an illusion, as I teach the kid magic tricks too - giving him the magicians code of tell no one. He's a padawan, and I can parant him just fine without an American with his humble view on 'life' giving me advise. Thank you very much ************ Most six year olds aren't yet sexual beings so seeing or explaining rape to them can be oversexualization and ask any head doctor that you care to ask (including non-Christians) and they can tell you how that affects children. It CAN cause some later problems with healthy attitudes about sexuality with widely different results to different children ********** Thats very true, my friend. Very True. But. Rape is a very real fear i have happening to any of my children. Let em see what they could be in for behind closed doors. Scare them. It might have helped me out one time*************

  • Dec. 10, 2005, 12:44 a.m. CST

    Daredevil

    by BendersShinyAss

    These people are 'simulating' sex, just as they are 'simulating' Violence. Unless your talking porn, then thats not what i thought we were talking about.

  • Dec. 10, 2005, 7:08 p.m. CST

    BendersShinyAss

    by Daredevil

    Even if it's only 90% real sex they're having, that's 90% more real than the violence is. We're not talking the puppets from Team America here (which I could see rating R for the language, but the humping puppets really only warranted a PG-13.) The "simulated sex" involves real people, completely naked, doing everything but sticking their body parts inside each other. And for all the viewer knows, they could actually be having sex. And not being puppets, they usually have husbands or wives and are essentially committing adultery with this other actor for a paycheck. Is that really any different than what a prostitute or stripper does? I'm not a prude who thinks sex is dirty. I just feel sex is something that should just be between the two people doing it and shouldn't be in full view for anyone who pays to watch it. Or at least if it is, it should be rated higher than pretend blood and guts.

  • Dec. 10, 2005, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Daredevil

    by Veraxus

    So what you're saying is that if the sex was totally CG, you'd be okay with it?

  • Dec. 11, 2005, 1:17 a.m. CST

    How Did THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED Get An NC-17?! The same way.

    by empyreal0

    XXX got an 'R' rating. Don't groan, you only wish you'd thought of it first.

  • Dec. 11, 2005, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Violence Vs. Sex ratings disparities.

    by Hexus

    People often have sex, it's not illegal, and very common. Violence, on the other hand, is not as common an event as sex, and is banned by law in most civilized places. The right wing types hate both violence and sex in movies (In real life is another issue...) But they are more afraid of the sex content because sex is far more likely to happen (In thier minds) than violence as a result of film influence. A constant diet of violence and sex (In younger children, and anyone who hasn't developed a complete sense of identity yet.) CAN somewhat influence behavioral tendancies, (A small amount, mind you.) but you end up with a similar situation to what you'd get with hokery like hypnosis, that it: People will not behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't, just because of a suggestion or an appealing image. Violent people are violent. Non-violent people are hard pressed to be violent. Just about damn near everybody is sexual, (Even Christian folks.) and are likely to derive pleasure and positive influence from watching sex. THAT is why the religios folks in the MPAA rate more harshly on sex than violence. It's more likely to have an effect, (In thier minds) and part of thier belief system has rigid (No pun intended) restrictions on when and how sex takes place. Deep down, they KNOW watching violence doesn't create violence, so they pay lip service (Again, no pun.) to anti violence, and harp relentlessly on anti sex, because it's something that is FAR more common a event. (Which in my opinion is a good thing.) All the rest of it iss politics and maintenance of constituency, which, as a Libertarian Whackjob, I find hilarious.

  • Dec. 11, 2005, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Oh! One more thing...

    by Hexus

    Typos suck. I found two in my last post... See if you can find more!!! Words spelled wrong: 10 points Grammatical Errors: 20 points

  • Dec. 12, 2005, 2:41 a.m. CST

    How about if we put actors in fake naked body suits and THEN hav

    by Lenny Nero

    With that violence-vs.-sex logic and this new addition, we could have hardcore penetration, but since it's now fake in the body suits, it won't get XXX ratings.