Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:40 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck" 
Author Message
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
There's no question in my mind that both ends of the political spectrum are very well aware of the power of film to shape the viewer's perception. In fact, I'd have to say that only a fool would deny that that power exists. The key question revolves around who controls that power, and what should be done to temper that control.


Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:43 am
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
AkiraKaneda wrote:
Does any of us, regardless of religious or moral beliefs, really think we are a better society for the amount of swearing we can do?
Yes.

The operative word there is "can". If you are a creator of art or entertainment, or even just an average workaday shmoe, freedom can be measured by what you're able to say or do without running afoul of a self-styled authority over what expressions are okay and what ones are not. Make no mistake--even if the MPAA's guidelines are ostensibly voluntary, they are censorship.

That's not to say that we should wield images and words like blunt instruments without regard for our situation, but it does mean that the decision must come from ourselves.

Quote:
Forget moral -- our culture is simply less civil than it used to be. It wouldn't hurt for our entertainment to be a little more civil as well. Just a thought from an under-40 fuddy duddy. :D

In some ways, I agree, and in some ways, I don't. Media saturation has gone up. Entertainment and "infotainment" go along with that, and they thrive on conflict. The narrative we're being sold is far more crass and oppositional than is necessarily reflected in reality.

That said, we seem to be slowly chipping away at certain forms of intolerance. I generally don't prefer to see ideas in our media that reinforce oppression based on race, sex, orientation, etc.


Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:58 am
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
Btw, in regards to filmmakers who deliberately insert "risque" material into their films in order to bump up the rating, I trust we all remember the infamous "penis breath" line in "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial," designed to avoid the dreaded "G" rating, as well as the heart-ripping sequence in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," which secured a ticket sales-enhancing "PG13" for Spielberg's sequel to the "PG" rated "Raiders of the Lost Ark."


Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:02 am
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was rated PG. At the time, there was no PG-13, though the movie did play a role in the subsequent institution of the PG-13.


Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:26 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1230
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
MisterG wrote:
Btw, in regards to filmmakers who deliberately insert "risque" material into their films in order to bump up the rating, I trust we all remember the infamous "penis breath" line in "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial," designed to avoid the dreaded "G" rating, as well as the heart-ripping sequence in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," which secured a ticket sales-enhancing "PG13" for Spielberg's sequel to the "PG" rated "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Don't forget the gremlin exploding in the microwave in "Gremlins," which was the other strong contributor to the creation of the PG-13 rating. ;)

I also once heard that George Lucas ended up adding the charred corpses of Owen and Beru to "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope" to avoid getting a G rating. And in "Lost Ark," Steven Spielberg added the flames that consume Belloq prior to when he explodes to avoid an R rating. :shock:


Last edited by H.I. McDonough on Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:33 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3119
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
H.I. McDonough wrote:
MisterG wrote:
Btw, in regards to filmmakers who deliberately insert "risque" material into their films in order to bump up the rating, I trust we all remember the infamous "penis breath" line in "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial," designed to avoid the dreaded "G" rating, as well as the heart-ripping sequence in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," which secured a ticket sales-enhancing "PG13" for Spielberg's sequel to the "PG" rated "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Don't forget the gremlin exploding in the microwave in "Gremlins," which was the other strong contributor to the creation of the PG-13 rating. ;)

I also once heard that George Lucas ended up adding the charred corpses of Owen and Beru to "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope" to avoid getting a G rating. And Steven Spielberg added the flames that consume Belloq prior to when he explodes to avoid an R rating. :shock:


During it's theatrical release, STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE was rated G. When the Director's Cut (which added nothing substantial ratings-wise) was submitted to the MPAA, it got a PG for "language." (I think there's a "damn" in there somewhere.) Consistency is a wonderful thing.


Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:14 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
Raf wrote:
Quote:
Of course, America is a martial culture like many empires before it, so I guess it stands to reason that they would expose their youth to violence at the earliest age possible. They need to desensitize them so that they're more prepared to accept the idea of volunteering for military service and defending democracy


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I'm sorry, your brilliant counterargument has eluded my grasp. Please enlighten me.


Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:25 pm
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
You can't deny there's a little something-something to Ragnarok's theory. It isn't necessarily that there's an overarching conspiracy. It's simply that the owners of the most resources tend to manipulate our narrative (obviously, it is within the spread of their influence to do so) such that our ideas serve their interests. It's systemic. Authorities don't need to bully you into complying if they can convince you that it's a good idea to do it voluntarily.

A country that's as young and full of piss 'n' vinegar as ours needs to make violence okay, for various reasons. One of them is being able to stomach our own history. Another is being able to compartmentalize a thing like war as being a different kind of violence than getting mugged on the way to 7-11. I'm sure there are many others.

Of course, sex is an easy means of control and pacification. Sexual imagery has the power to titillate one second and shame the next, provided there is a sufficient ideological framework already in place that says that sex is bad, forbidden, and naughty.


Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:51 pm
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:40 pm
Posts: 892
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
AkiraKaneda wrote:
I'm a Christian pastor who's posted here a few times (and read James for a long time), and I'm quite conservative overall, so I'd like to weigh in on this.

There are people who don't like anything they don't like in a movie. Could be violence, sex, profanity...doesn't really matter. Sometimes it's all three. Occasionally I'll hear about it. It annoys me. If you go to a movie that's PG-13, expect that there's going to be some material in it that offends you. If you don't like it, don't go. The current rating system tells you what will offend you. If you can't pay attention to it, that's your fault. And if you take your young kids to a movie beyond a PG without checking on Common Sense or Kids-In-Mind, then shame on you. All in all, I don't see that taking offense at what someone else does in their film does anybody any good when that content is easily able to be discerned through a variety of sources before ever leaving for the theater.


Right on the money. Take some personal responsibility people!

Quote:
If this documentary is something every school-age child should see, then going all auteur and stating that it "compromises the vision" is just BS. If you think it might save lives, then is dropping a couple of swear words really that important? Because as we all know, even the most profane movies get themselves shown in neutered form on television. If it really mattered to Hollywood, they wouldn't allow that to happen. They let it happen because they aren't in it for the art; they are in it for the money.


See this is where you're wrong. This is a documentary, which means that the kids are not reading from scripts and talking how they really talk in real life (I'm assuming this since I haven't seen the movie yet, and I highly doubt that a movie about bullying would have swearing talking heads). There was more swearing in a middle school hallway than there was in Pulp Fiction. Don't believe me? Have some kids (not you...kids clean their mouths around adults) take a tape recorder and listen.

My point is that if you want this movie to have any sort of effect is that they have to believe it's real. Bleeping it out or fogging it up does two things: it jerks the viewer out of the moment, and makes it laughably obvious that the movie is neutered. There's no better way to get a kid to stop taking a movie seriously than to preach. And quite honestly, kids will be able to guess what is being said, which defeats the purpose entirely.

Quote:
Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves if we believe movies merely reflect society or shape society. If they shape society, then perhaps we should reconsider the language we put out there in our entertainment. Does any of us, regardless of religious or moral beliefs, really think we are a better society for the amount of swearing we can do? Forget moral -- our culture is simply less civil than it used to be. It wouldn't hurt for our entertainment to be a little more civil as well. Just a thought from an under-40 fuddy duddy. :D


You have a point there. But which is better? Hearing a kid swear or letting them have the chance to see a movie that may save lives? And if you can give me a compelling reason why swear words are really that bad, I'd love to hear them. Quite frankly, they're just words like and or the. They are "bad" words because we label them as "bad" words. If we stop caring about how "bad" they are, kids won't use them as much (it's the old "teenage rebellion"). And like it or not, profanity does have a use. It adds emphasis to a statement.

_________________
My movie review site:

Mighty Mike's Raging Reviews

http://mightymikesragingreviews.blogspot.com/


Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:30 pm
Profile WWW
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1230
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
All phone numbers that use the '555' prefix also jerk me out of the moment. :ugeek:


Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:33 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1667
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
I think now is a decent time to trot out my proposal for a revised and better ratings system. It may not be perfect, but it is most definitely better.

G: Suitable for General Audiences. This is exactly what it means. This is not a kids' rating; the film is suitable for a general audience so far as content goes. Films that would fall under this rating include The Artist, Hugo, Moneyball, The King's Speech, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, Avatar, Up, Slumdog Millionaire, Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen, and Lord Of The Rings.

PG: Parental Guidance Suggested. Again, exactly what it means. Parental guidance is suggested with younger children with the content of films given this rating. Films that would fall under this rating include Mystic River, Traffic, Fargo, Schindler's List, Unforgiven, The Silence of the Lambs, and Born on the Fourth of July.

R15: Recommended for patrons 15 and older. Just what it means again. Films in this category would have stronger content than those in the previous two, and would be geared to (but not restricted to) those 15 and older. Films that would fall under this rating include Saving Private Ryan, Goodfellas, Platoon, Raging Bull, Pulp Fiction, Gangs Of New York, Inglourious Basterds, The Hangover Part II, Bad Boys II, and Borat.

A: Adults Only. Films that are intended for adults only, obviously. Films that would fall under this rating would include The Passion of the Christ, Hostel, the Saw sequels, 9 Songs, Antichrist, and Crash.

Not perfect, obviously, But it's better. I think that having fewer ratings, laying out what they mean, and sticking to them wipes out a lot of the grey areas.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:26 pm
Profile
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
I don't think a new rating system is the solution. Given time, the categories will drift and we'll be in the same jam all over again.

I think it's time to dissolve the rating system altogether. Information about new titles is no longer scarce. It's extremely easy for parents to be informed about the content of movies. If a need arises, independent organizations can develop their own systems and market themselves on the web--in fact, some have already. There is simply no longer a need for a centralized authority that has direct ties to the movie industry, except where the industry itself is concerned. The ratings, as they are now, only serve to manipulate what gets released and where.


Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:33 pm
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
I remember a few years ago, there was talk of the R rating getting split into two ratings, SR(soft R) and HR(Hard R), the former would be for films that had foul language, mild violence, and some sexuality/nudity, the latter would be for films with extremely gratuitous violence and/or sexuality like the Saw and Hostel films. Presumably younger kids would be allowed to see SR films without having to be accompanied by a parent, and HR would recquire identification.


Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:34 pm
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
I think now is a decent time to trot out my proposal for a revised and better ratings system. It may not be perfect, but it is most definitely better.

G: Suitable for General Audiences. This is exactly what it means. This is not a kids' rating; the film is suitable for a general audience so far as content goes. Films that would fall under this rating include The Artist, Hugo, Moneyball, The King's Speech, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, Avatar, Up, Slumdog Millionaire, Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen, and Lord Of The Rings.

PG: Parental Guidance Suggested. Again, exactly what it means. Parental guidance is suggested with younger children with the content of films given this rating. Films that would fall under this rating include Mystic River, Traffic, Fargo, Schindler's List, Unforgiven, The Silence of the Lambs, and Born on the Fourth of July.

R15: Recommended for patrons 15 and older. Just what it means again. Films in this category would have stronger content than those in the previous two, and would be geared to (but not restricted to) those 15 and older. Films that would fall under this rating include Saving Private Ryan, Goodfellas, Platoon, Raging Bull, Pulp Fiction, Gangs Of New York, Inglourious Basterds, The Hangover Part II, Bad Boys II, and Borat.

A: Adults Only. Films that are intended for adults only, obviously. Films that would fall under this rating would include The Passion of the Christ, Hostel, the Saw sequels, 9 Songs, Antichrist, and Crash.

Not perfect, obviously, But it's better. I think that having fewer ratings, laying out what they mean, and sticking to them wipes out a lot of the grey areas.

PG for Silence Of The Lambs? :shock: I'm all for a more relaxed rating system, but Lambs is one film that I would definitely want to restrict kids from seeing, that film is WAAAYYYY TOO graphic for most parents to even THINK about letting their kids see it, it should definitely be included in the same category as Hostel and Saw, Lambs might have a an A-list cast, but the content is very similar, (Schindler's List I MIGHT give a pass on if it's being used as part of a history class in school, my junior high class watched The Patriot as part of a history lesson) most kids aren't going to "get" a film like Lambs anyways, you ask kids what movies are their favorites, I highly doubt a film about a serial killer is going to be very high on the list. Also how is Lambs more appropriate for kids then Raging Bull or Schindler's List more appropriate then Saving Private Ryan? :? That dosen't make any sense.

I would propose a system more like the ESRB for movies.


Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:40 pm
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2108
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
I've always hated the NC-17 rating because it takes the power away from the parents. I believe it should be up to parents whether their children should be allowed to see a movie or not but the NC-17 rating means no children under 17 even with parents. Very few movies actually receive the NC-17 rating but that's not the point. It's the idea that the MPAA is overriding parents that I don't like.


Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:58 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1667
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
Vexer wrote:
PG for Silence Of The Lambs? :shock: I'm all for a more relaxed rating system, but Lambs is one film that I would definitely want to restrict kids from seeing, that film is WAAAYYYY TOO graphic for most parents to even THINK about letting their kids see it, it should definitely be included in the same category as Hostel and Saw


Keep in mind my meaning behind the PG: Parental Guidance Suggested. That's exactly what it means; parents should use their discretion with those films. It's not a kids' rating.

As a side thought, Silence is nowhere near on the level of Hostel or Saw; it's a much less violent and gory film, and many of the most disturbing elements of the story are implied, not explicitly shown.

Now, to answer your other question: My reasoning behind an R for Saving Private Ryan is pretty simple. It's a well-made film, but very graphically violent. Extremely violent; much more violent than Silence. Raging Bull, on the other hand, is one that I would be inclined to go one way or the other, but what would tip me toward the R is the fact that Jake LaMotta abuses his wife in the film.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:34 am
Profile
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
When discussing issues of censorship, it always helps to first understand the subtle but important distinction between 'naked' and 'nude' :)

It is rather strange that violence is given less restriction than sex in movies but it also explains a great deal. We are collectively violent people, to extreamly varying degrees.

This also explains why I had the shit kicked out of me before I ever got laid :/

I personally don't oppose the basic idea behind censorship, since there is a time and a place for certain content at a given age. However we shouldn't kid ourselves that the two big opposing agendas here are both out for one-upmanship. Until THAT changes, the problem will never be solved.

H.I. McDonough wrote:
I also once heard that George Lucas ended up adding the charred corpses of Owen and Beru to "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope" to avoid getting a G rating. And in "Lost Ark," Steven Spielberg added the flames that consume Belloq prior to when he explodes to avoid an R rating. :shock:


The original trilogy has always been U certified in the UK (Universal, suitable for all) even with the corpses, and the many other instances of violence that seem to have been given a free pass.


Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:04 pm
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:46 pm
Posts: 67
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
I think now is a decent time to trot out my proposal for a revised and better ratings system. It may not be perfect, but it is most definitely better.

G: Suitable for General Audiences. This is exactly what it means. This is not a kids' rating; the film is suitable for a general audience so far as content goes. Films that would fall under this rating include The Artist, Hugo, Moneyball, The King's Speech, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, Avatar, Up, Slumdog Millionaire, Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen, and Lord Of The Rings.


I don't really care about this subject that much but come on, Slumdog Millionaire as "Suitable for General Audiences?" Kids are intentionally blinded by oil so that they can make better beggars. A girl is forced to live with an abusive guy because she has no other options. A mother is killed in a slum riot. And isn't the brother shot to death in cold blood? Among other things. Don't get me wrong, Slumdog is a great movie but it definitely requires parental guidance.


Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:15 am
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:54 pm
Posts: 7
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
Jim wrote a well-reasoned and thoughtful article, but now more than ever aren't ratings irrelevant because I don't know any theaters that enforce them anyway. In my local AMC local theaterplex there is sometimes not even a ticket-taker, let alone someone monitoring who is going into what theater. I remember in my tweens (I am 47) having to sneak into an R rated movie at a twin theater with an usher nearby and that was a little risky, but back then I would've killed for the freedom of today's multiplexes.


Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:14 pm
Profile
Post Re: March 16, 2012: "The PG-13 Fuck"
Ragnarok73 wrote:
Of course, America is a martial culture like many empires before it, so I guess it stands to reason that they would expose their youth to violence at the earliest age possible. They need to desensitize them so that they're more prepared to accept the idea of volunteering for military service and defending democracy


"Shoot bitch, democracy's at stake!"


Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:24 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr