Posted on 06/23/2009 12:24:29 AM PDT by cakid1
I don’t want to sound like a Prude – because I’m not.
And I’ll admit that I haven't even seen the "The Proposal."
(It’s rated PG-13 – and doing great. It was number one at the box office this weekend)
But, some wonder if a PG-13 rating is what it used to be.
Is PG-13 - what used to be considered R?
I know ... I know – some of you are saying:
“Hey - get over it.. It’s just a movie...”
But, consider the following from USA Today:
(Excerpt) Read more at community.cbs47.tv ...
They keep pushing the envelope.
We aren't stopping them.
The first widely distributed PG-13 movie was Red Dawn.
Well in the 80’s movies that were PG-13 had curse words and showed topless scenes...PG-13 was created to have something between kiddie PG movies and Adult R movies.
Maybe it’s just me but seeing two people bump into each other with towels is almost PG compared to some things kids see on TV and Internet. I won’t go see this movie because I generally avoid Romantic Comedy Movies ...But I do like Betty White...
Why so defensive? "Prude" is a nothing term. A labelling word. People on the morally lax side of things use it to insult people who disagree with them, in the same way that anyone who dares to criticise gays is labelled "homophobic", or anyone who has any kind of negative comment on the state of Black society is termed "racist".
There is a sexual reference or two, and a shower scene with some partial nudity -- okay, apparent full nudity, cloaked with bits and pieces and towels, etc. However, there is none of the full frontal nudity or exposure of Miss Bullock's mammary glands that would be typical of a "R"-rated movie, and there is no actual sexual intercourse or overtly sexual activity, other than a thong dance by a local Chippendale, which other than the exposure was actually fairly mild, typical of what you'd run into in a small town. I've seen a similar routine at a birthday party, ordered up for the bachelor honoree by his girlfriend, of all people, performed by a stripper dressed (initially) as a cop. This was in a group of adults; the hostess had seen to it that kids weren't present for the ecdysiast's routine.
So call The Proposal PG-18. That sounds about right.
Away We Go has worse language and more sexual references.
Year One features a ton of Jack Black crudities: language, coprophagy, copulation (around the hunter-gatherers' campfire, ironically, not in Sodom), circumcision jokes, and discussions better understood in a seminar-level course on deviant sexuality. Et cetera ad nauseam.
Go see Pixar’s “Up.”
Totally clean, no envelope to push.
It’s the cleverest movie I’ve seen in ages, and I generally don’t even like animated features.
Arty types always will. “Pushing the envelope” is what makes them artists.
I recall when the uproar when the movie “rollerball” came out to a “mild” certificate. So many column inches devoted to its shock, its bloodshed, its horrid violence. I watched it the other day and it seems incredibly tame. Such is the way the world has worsened.
I don't believe arty types aren't the problem here. I think we're seeing vast corporations with political agendas hiding behind the arty excuse, in order to steadily change the morality of our culture towards depravity. In any of these movies, even though they make a big stink about the sex, the depravity is actually in the way the characters accept horrific issues as normal, and then divert attention with edgy sex scenes.
Unlike being a racist, there’s nothing wrong with being a prude (I’m one).
Hey - get over it.. It’s just a movie...
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Lets agree that vast megacorporations GIVE arty types the licence and the means to indulge their temperament.
I’m not so sure about the political agenda. I think the only agenda megacorporations have is making more and more money. Face it. Sex sells.
Agreed.
It depends on the definition of the term. There’s nothing wrong with being “racist” if being “racist” is confronting the race industry gurus with some objective common sense.
In other words, I don’t accept their interpretation of what a “racist” is. And I don’t accept the liberal interpretation of what “homophobic” is either. Therefore I dont care if they call me either. If a freeper was to say I was “racist” I’d be more worried!
Yes it is, and in that sense, it doesn’t matter much.
What does matter is what it represents. There are guidelines as to how movies are rated, so that we, the general public, can work out beforehand if its the kind of thing we want to watch, or let our children watch. The contention is that the boundaries of what is acceptable is slowly changing, as evidenced that this film would have gotten a much stricter rating ten years ago, and certainly twenty years ago. Creeping depravity - a bit like the story of the frog in the boiling pot.
As a writer and a bit of an arty type myself, I think there’s something else. This “pushing the envelope” is often an excuse for lazy writing. Nudity, Graphic violence, extreme swearing and so on - are all designed to shock the audience. To make them “sit up and pay attention” to a particular scene. And it works too. The problem is that it also hardens the audience, so that for the next film even more sex, violence and profanity is needed to achieve the same effect.
No only is ‘up’ clean, but it shows life lessons important to children in subtle ways that I think are very unusual and good.
A young boy and girl meet, fall in love, get married, age, and one dies all in the first few minutes and it teaches the strength of love and devotion
Jonathan! Jomathan!
At the time, “Red Dawn” was the most violent movie ever produced. Still my favorite; watched it last week.
My daughters took me to see it for Father’s Day. The nudity was unnecessary to the story line. I think it probably was more to show off an aging star’s still pretty good body than anything else. Up until now, she was my favorite actress, but has been bumped to number 3 behind Rachel Welch in any movie, and Gwynneth Paltrow’s character in Iron Man.
My favorite is when movie makers and actors claim, “This movie isn’t for children,” about an R-rated movie that really pushes that envelope. Really? If it’s not for children, then why not put an NC-17 rating on it? Oh, that’s right. That would limit your advertising and money and the money is the most important thing. After all, that’s why the PG-13 was created (so Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom wouldn’t get an R rating). And, yes, I agree. They keep ratcheting the ratings lower.
Years ago, there was a documentary on one of the pay stations (HBO or Showtime, I think) about the movie ratings system and even that documentary pointed out that within a few years, everything the critics warned would happen actually did happen. The movie industry lies and they are not concerned about the well-being of children or anyone else.
So what's the problem?
I thought remade Rollerball was trimmed from R to PG (or PG13). Some people (like those at Ain’t It Cool News) were privy to the uncut workprint, not the theatrical version.
Hollyweird also adds some words (like F-bombs) to movies to get a PG-13 over a PG rating (or maybe it takes a few sh**s to get PG-13, F-bombs may result in R, depending on context).
And they will add some damns and hells to avoid a G.
But the ratings didn’t always mean what they do today.
Planet of the Apes was rated G in its original release (when the ratings actually meant something), it has several “damns”, nudity, and violence.
Don’t you actually see Rene Russo’s goodies in The Thomas Crown Affair? And let’s face it, that was needed because Pierce Brosnan is no Steve McQueen.
The ratings are nonsense that mean what ever the ratings board wants them to mean. It is supposed to be a rough guide, but really all it does is serve to censor based on what a few people think. Nothing makes them good judges of anything. They may have served a purpose in the past, but now any parent doing their due diligence can find out what is in a movie online before they take their kids to a movie.
The remade “Rollerball” should have been rated XXXX ... ‘cause it sucked so much.
The MPAA rated one film something like PG-13 in the last 2 years because of “God content” (it had a religious message and they thought that should be something for older audiences).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1646069/posts
Movie Picture Assoc of America rates movie “Facing the Giants” PG due to religious themes.
Scripps Howard News Service ^ | June 7, 2006 | Terry Mattingly
The Christian moviemakers behind a low-budget film called “Facing the Giants” were stunned when the MPAA pinned a PG rating on their gentle movie about a burned-out, depressed football coach whose life _ on and off the field _ takes a miraculous turn for the better.
“What the MPAA said is that the movie contained strong ‘thematic elements’ that might disturb some parents,” said Kris Fuhr, vice president for marketing at Provident Films, which is owned by Sony Pictures. Provident plans to open the film next fall in 380 theaters nationwide with the help of Samuel Goldwyn Films, which has worked with indie movies like “The Squid and the Whale.”
Which “thematic elements” earned this squeaky-clean movie its PG?
“Facing the Giants” is too evangelistic.
The MPAA, noted Fuhr, tends to offer cryptic explanations for its ratings. In this case, she was told that it “decided that the movie was heavily laden with messages from one religion and that this might offend people from other religions. It’s important that they used the word ‘proselytizing’ when they talked about giving this movie a PG. ...
‘R’ rating urged for movie smoking
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 03/13/2002 | Ray Delgado
If anti-smoking activists get their way, even the most wholesome Disney movie, where a curious teenager takes a puff on a cigarette, would get slapped with an “R” rating.
A new report co-written by a University of California at San Francisco professor of medicine recommends that a movie that depicts smoking or other tobacco use be given an “R” rating from the Motion Picture Association of America as a means of combating evidence that smoking in movies leads to teenagers who smoke.
Meanwhile they see no corelation between on screen sex scenes, shaking up, etc and a declining morality in America.
How would rating the violent "Red Dawn" as a PG-13 reduce its box office? If anything, the new rating made it more accessible than the "R" rating it previously would have received?
My friends and I were 15 when the film hit the theaters. We wouldn't have been allowed to see it if it was rated R. (Well, not really. Nobody carded for R-rated films back then.)
My friends and I were 21 or so when we saw it. I don’t recall it being so hideously violent ... In fact, I’m not at all clear on why it wasn’t rated PG. We saw the PG-13 rating as a slap to a film that really rated PG.
Its the best.
It backfired on reducing audience size.
The MPAA ratings board has two religious leaders rating films. They have a one Protestant and one Catholic religious leaders on the board. Jack Valenti felt that they were to be on the board.
The problem is where does it all end? Whereas thirty years back a single expletive on tv was enough to get everyone talking, and letters of complaint flooding into the station, now you need a litany of cusswords to raise an eyebrow. Whereas thirty years back a glimpse of bare thigh was considered riske, now full frontal nudity is unremarkable. Thirty years from now depicting gang-rapes of nuns will probably be passe.
Now you might say, “Well, swearing and sex and violence are perfectly common activities in real life, so is not the entertainment industry just “showing it like it is”. And thats not a bad argument, except that it underestimates the ability of media to influence the audience. Modern cinema (and TV) are enormously powerful methods of communicating ideas and concepts and activities. In other words, you have to ask are the media reflecting reality, or are they creating it? Actually they are probably doing both. And that’s ok too, except that some of what they are pushing I don’t believe is a very good thing, either for individuals or society as a whole.
I don’t know the film in that detail. Maybe it was cut a bit to get a lower rating. The irony of course, is that its actually a film designed to decry increasing violence in sports, and the increasing control of corporate interests.
There’s different people at different times.
I think there’s a documentary about the board called This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated.
You also have to ask, are those who are so outraged doing so because it reflects reality or because it reflects what they think reality should be?
Whereas thirty years back a glimpse of bare thigh was considered riske, now full frontal nudity is unremarkable.
Go to any art museum and you will see paintings showing full frontal nudes. View the works of Michelangelo. When did Christians become the artistic equivalent of the Taliban? Need I bring up the 'Spirit of Justice' statue? If you want to say the left has an agenda, so does the right.
I know where they are located
Good point! However, are those making "envelope-pushing" films not just doing the same? Is a lot of what they suggest mere wish-fulfillment? From what I've seen most of them dont have as firm a grip on reality as 90% of their audiences. Go to any art museum and you will see paintings showing full frontal nudes. View the works of Michelangelo. When did Christians become the artistic equivalent of the Taliban?
Christians? When did religion come into this discussion? I haven't commented on these topics from a religious view. Are you supposing that "kind of person who complains about these kinds of things" = Christian?
Need I bring up the 'Spirit of Justice' statue? If you want to say the left has an agenda, so does the right.
Of course they do. And there's nothing wrong with that. The left is propogating their viewpoint and the right is pushing theirs. Healthy discussion is good for democracy. I don't mind media types pressing a political or moral agenda. My problem is what that agenda is.
Years ago I went to an art museum in - Scotland I think it was. It was one of these places that divides up its collection into genres and eras - you know, one section for Dutch seventeenth century landscapes, one for impressionists, and so on. I went through the old masters with the nude nymphs and the naked angels floating in the air, and they were terrific. I didnt feel offended at all the flesh at all, partly because it was very well done, but mostly because it was a celebration of the Human form. Then I went into the modern art section - and there was a piece which had been made as a mural of pieces cut out from pornographic magazines (deliberately so, I should add). There was a lot of naked flesh on show there too. But, apart from the fact that it was badly made, the whole impression created was one of disparaging the Human form, making out that the body was a mere commodity, and an imperfect one at that. It was "doing people down". The contrast, to me, was remarkable.
Now I cant draw or paint and I have not studied modern art. But I tell you straight, theres something decidedly unhealthy about that kind of artistic attitude.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.