Rated R nudity vs. Rated R nudity / Mis-ratings

[bankholdup]

Ok, I am writing a 5 paragraph essay on a "controversial" topic, or something that can cause alot of discussion. I chose MPAA's rating system, and one topic I chose for a paragraph is how the MPAA should save the R rating for movies that actually deserve it.

Here is what I am looking for:

1) A movie that is rated R for nudity (and possibly other stuff) that deserves that R rating for nudity.
2) A movie that is rated R for nudity (and most of the stuff for #1) that DOESN'T deserve the R for nudity.

I would prefer that they are similar movies in subject matter.


Example (for language): Big Lebowski should be rated R (over 250 'f' words), while Rushmore shouldn't (less than 10 'f' words), it should be PG-13.

Example (for language/sexuality): Chasing Amy should be rated R (over 100 'f' words), while When Harry Met Sally... shouldn't (less than 10 or 15), it should be PG-13.


For another paragraph, I need films that are rated R that totally shouldn't be, and I mean really shouldn't be. I listed Amadeus: Director's Cut, rated R for brief nudity, which is too brief for words (heck, I didn't even notice, but apparently there is a breast shot; I noticed a man's butt though). I then gave it my own rating of PG.

You have your mission, now act fast cause it's due tomorrow.
Thanks a bunch.

[Scarface98.9]

Movie(s) that got an R for nudity that deserved it:

Wild Things
Basic Instinct
Eyes Wide Shut

Movie(s) that got an R for nudity that didn't deserve it:

Amadeus: Director's Cut

Movies that didn't deserve the R rating at all:

Amadeus: Director's Cut
Rushmore
Raising Victor Vargas

[rushmore beauty]

Deserved R for Nudity: Eyes Wide Shut
Not-Deserved R for Nudity: CQ...it's also got like 4 f-bombs

[Cyclonus]

Everyone Says I Love You -- Rated R for one use of the word "motherfucker." I've always maintained that it was rated as such because of the bad publicity Woody Allen was getting at the time. Otherwise...it really should have been PG-13. In fact, I recently saw another PG-13 movie with that word (I think it was About a Boy).

The Decameron -- Rated R, for strong sexuality (justified), and for language (unjustified). Why? There's only a few "shits," which wouldn't even stretch the PG-13 rating. Even if the ratings board had some sort of agenda against the film...it still has some graphic sex, and in fact was orginally rated X (re-rated in 1991).

[Basco]

Movie That Got an R rating for nudity and deserved it:

Mallrats (you know why)
Do The Right Thing (so much profanity, and Rosie Perez's breasts briefly)


Movie That Got An R for Nudity and Didn't Deserve it:

Lost in Translation

[bankholdup]

Thanks for the help. I wrote this before I checked for replies, so here is what I have for my first draft (I'll probably add your guys' information into the next draft). Please let me know what ya think.



The topic I chose to put up for discussion and debate is the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)'s rating system. What they feel their "job" is is to inform parents of the content in films, so they can know what kind of films their child is about to see. They are responsible for placing the ratings such as PG-13 and R on movies. I have gathered thoughts on why I feel the MPAA should be eliminated or at least less strict than it is.

First off, the MPAA sets suggested boundaries for who should see the films. They act as a parent to children, trying to steer them clear of what they consider "too much." But who are they to judge what is "too much"? The content limit for children should be judged only by parents and the children themselves, not an unnecessary association. The MPAA is a form of censorship. It isn't direct, but it certainly limits art and entertainment to the public, which is why I think it should be eliminated.

However, if it was absolutely necessary to have a rating system, I don't think it should be as strict as it is. There should be a revised system, which would exclude ratings like 'R' or 'NC-17.' At the end of the preview, there should be a list of possibly objectional material in the film, such as exactly how graphic the nudity is, or how many curses are said in the film. That way the parents get a better idea of exactly how objectional the film may be. Also, I think that teenagers from 13-16 should be allowed to see an 'R' movie in the theatre without being accompanied by an adult. I also don't think it should take less than 5 'f' words to gain an 'R' rating. I think that most teens from 13-16 say or do objectional things, but what the MPAA implies is that they shouldn't watch a movie about them without parental supervision, which is absurd. If there had to be a rating system, here is what should be done: 13 and up can see the revised 'R' rated films without a guardian, while 12 and under can see anything below.

Another reason that I think the MPAA should be eliminated is that they tend to mis-rate and mis-classify films. If they can't rate films properly, then they shouldn't do it at all. The problem with mis-rating films is that those under 17 can be missing out on really good films that are hardly objectional. For example, the Director's Cut of Amadeus is Rated 'R', for brief nudity, which is a female breast and a male's butt, which has a total screen time of under 5 seconds. It should be Rated 'PG'. Teens can be missing out on great movies, but they wouldn't know it, thanks to the absurd 'R' rating. Another thing is they also tend to classify films under the same rating as other films that are much worse in content. For example, The Big Lebowski and Rushmore are both late-90s comedies that received 'R' ratings for language. According to Screenit.com, The Big Lebowski contains
no less than 250 uses of the 'f' word, while Rushmore uses only 8. The MPAA is implying that these films are on the same level of bad content. While I think The Big Lebowski should be Rated 'R' for excessive use of the 'f' word, Rushmore should be Rated 'PG-13', since it is limited. The MPAA should save the 'R' rating for films that actually need it. Again, this leads to some under 17 not being able to see a great film such as Rushmore, and being limited to what exactly they can watch just because it was misrated.

All in all, I think the MPAA should either be eliminated entirely, put more thought into how they rate movies, or be less strict. If they put more thought into their ratings, then I think teenagers could be open to a whole new world of films. They should be eliminated because it is a useless association
that has no right judging what children shouldn't view. But if it was absolutely necessary to have a rating system, then it should be less strict, and not insist on teens having to drag their parents to the movies because the movie they want to see has 3 'f' words, an explosion, and brief nudity.

[therealjohng]

Originally posted by Basco
Movie That Got An R for Nudity and Didn't Deserve it:

Lost in Translation



This I still don't get. There's not even a single swear word in the movie.

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by bankholdup

The topic I chose to put up for discussion and debate is the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)'s rating system.
This is more of an essay quibble rather than a movie one, but if I've learned anything from all my years in english classes, it's that teachers never like it when you mention, in the first person view, what it is your discussing, and to open it with something that'll attract readers. Maybe your teacher wants this, I don't really know, but it's just something to keep note of

[Cyclonus]

Originally posted by therealjohng
This I still don't get. There's not even a single swear word in the movie.

Lost in Translation was rated R for that one brief scene in the strip club. Other than that...I don't recall anything that could be considered remotely objectionable.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by therealjohng
This I still don't get. There's not even a single swear word in the movie.


There aren't any swear words, but there is nudity.

[paul]

I do agree about Lost in Translation. You didn't even see a long shot of nudity. It was pretty quick. After you see the pair of breasts, you just see their ass in a thong, and you see the in PG-13 and even PG movies! :confused:

[Slim]

Originally posted by paul
I do agree about Lost in Translation. You didn't even see a long shot of nudity. It was pretty quick. After you see the pair of breasts, you just see their ass in a thong, and you see the in PG-13 and even PG movies! :confused:

It was rated PG here in Canada.

[therealjohng]

Originally posted by bigred760
There aren't any swear words, but there is nudity.


That was some pretty brief nudity.

[Jim H]

Eh, it's not REALLY the MPAA's fault, not totally anyways. Blame theatres for enforcing a stupid code.

However, I am glad Hollywood has a rating system. If it didn't, it is very possible the government could have stepped in with something in that regards.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by therealjohng
That was some pretty brief nudity.

It was a little more than brief; (POSSIBLE SPOILER) they were in a strip club with at least two strippers.

Besides, sometimes, sometimes "brief" nudity is all it takes.

[Haddonfield]

I heard a while back that now a days all it takes is one F word and you get an R. but I could be wrong.

[therealjohng]

Originally posted by Haddonfield
I heard a while back that now a days all it takes is one F word and you get an R. but I could be wrong.



I think its two. I've seen PG-13 movies with at least one "F" word.

[kirkman316]

There are cases where the "F" word is spoken a few times and the film will still get a PG-13 rating. It's all in the context of the "F" word (No Mother"F"er allowed).

Also, in terms of nudity, it doesn't take much nudity at all to get an R rating. However, I just watched The Company by Robert Altman. There were a few prolonged images of female nudity, and that film still slipped through with a PG-13 rating.

The way it should be is, if the nudity is done in a sexual nature, then it should receive an R rating. If there are just people walking around without a top on, then a PG-13 rating should definitely be considered.

[zeppelin]

Didn't deserve an R rating:
Amadeus- Director's Cut (5 seconds of breasts added to an originally PG-rated movie brings the rating up to R???)
Lost in Translation (I don't remember there being a single swear word, and there's no violence whatsoever, but it's rated R for, again, 5 seconds of breasts)
About Schmidt (see what I said for LiT, except now there's even less than 5 seconds)

Did deserve an R rating:
Eyes Wide Shut
Basic Instinct
Boogie Nights
A Clockwork Orange
Blue Velvet
Breaking the Waves
...to name a few

[kirkman316]

Originally posted by zeppelin
Lost in Translation (I don't remember there being a single swear word, and there's no violence whatsoever, but it's rated R for, again, 5 seconds of breasts)


I completely agree with you on this one. I remember seeing this film in the theater and being convinced it was PG-13. Then I looked at the poster as I was leaving the theater and saw it's R rating at the bottom. I was floored. There is no way this film should have been rated R.

Open Range was another movie that should not have been rated R. Sure, there are a few scenes of violence, but there is no language and absolutely no nudity. There was more violence in Jurassic Park and Lord of the Rings than in this film. WTF?

[Basco]

I never thought about Open Range. The gunfight is very violent, but there's no blood. I mean, the LOTR movies are more violent, what with the swords and the decapitation and all.

Lost In Translation: R for brief nudity, and the song playing that exclaims twice "Sucking on my titties." Comeon, 10 year old say sucking on my tities! Come to think of it, I think only 10 year olds still say 'tities'...

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Basco
I never thought about Open Range. The gunfight is very violent, but there's no blood. I mean, the LOTR movies are more violent, what with the swords and the decapitation and all.

Lost In Translation: R for brief nudity, and the song playing that exclaims twice "Sucking on my titties." Comeon, 10 year old say sucking on my tities! Come to think of it, I think only 10 year olds still say 'tities'...

Open Range was another movie that should not have been rated R. Sure, there are a few scenes of violence, but there is no language and absolutely no nudity. There was more violence in Jurassic Park and Lord of the Rings than in this film. WTF?

There's blood, just not a lot of it. Don't compare it to LOTR - LOTR should have been R too, based on violence. If you go by context, I guess not though. Open Range has WAY more violence then Jurassic Park - I question if you have even seen it.

[Basco]

Oops, I meant to put not a lot blood. My bad.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Basco
Oops, I meant to put not a lot blood. My bad.

I should mention I can see where you're coming from. Based on the standards of LOTR, it should be PG-13. I just think the LOTR really SHOULD NOT be PG-13, based on what amounts of violence I've seen make a movie R. The MPAA seems to SOMETIMES rate a movie in a lower catagory if its violence isn't "as bad" in context, but othertimes they don't. They're also obviously influenced by large studios, which is why Titanic and Whale Rider have the same rating.

[kirkman316]

Originally posted by Jim H
Titanic and Whale Rider have the same rating.

Aside from the obvious "politics" involved in not giving a shit about the independent studios, why in the hell was Whale Rider rated PG-13? What was in this film on a contextual level that warranted this?

[Jim H]

Originally posted by kirkman316
Aside from the obvious "politics" involved in not giving a shit about the independent studios, why in the hell was Whale Rider rated PG-13? What was in this film on a contextual level that warranted this?

A bong seen in the background. :rolleyes:



Ebert has been ripping up the MPAA over this for a long time.

[wilykily]

Originally posted by kirkman316
There are cases where the "F" word is spoken a few times and the film will still get a PG-13 rating. It's all in the context of the "F" word (No Mother"F"er allowed).




Yup Kirkman's right, in as good as it gets there's three f words and that's pg-13. the mpaa will allow the f word in pg-13 movies (not to an extent) if you use it like "I hate this fucking job" as opposed to "she fucked all the guys" when the f word is used to describe the act of fucking then you can't use it. That's why you can't say motherfucker in a pg-13

[Cyclonus]

Originally posted by wilykily
Yup Kirkman's right, in as good as it gets there's three f words and that's pg-13. the mpaa will allow the f word in pg-13 movies (not to an extent) if you use it like "I hate this fucking job" as opposed to "she fucked all the guys" when the f word is used to describe the act of fucking then you can't use it. That's why you can't say motherfucker in a pg-13

Still, the fact is that Everyone Says I Love You was given an R-rating on a mere technicality. Same for Whale Rider (the more I hear about that bong the dumber it sounds).

[HeavyK]

IMHO movies shouldn't even be rated R for language unless it like 100+ "F" words in the film (Scarface & Pulp Fiction) or really sexually explicit language (like in Clerks and JASBSB).

[Zeirash]

I saw American Splendor over the weekend and after seeing it thought in no way could have earned that R rating.

I believe here in Canada it got a PG-13. Most American R movies are PG-13 in Canada I believe.

[waffleking]

I just bought "The Legend of 1900" on DVD a few days ago. (Great movie btw) I never realized it was rated R.

It has a few fucks at the beginning but overall I felt it was a very family oriented film.

edit: Oh yeah, and "fuck jazz."

[HHH123007]

Despite the brief(very) nudity by Kate Hudson and swearing, I'm still very against the R-Rating slapped on Almost Famous....and I think I'm not alone in saying that.

[dillhead005]

Originally posted by therealjohng
This I still don't get. There's not even a single swear word in the movie.

(LOST IN TRANSLATION)

Theres one quick "strip club" scene in which the song thats playing says "suck on my titiies" and their is a few quick flashes of the strippers breasts. It was uneeded and should have easilly gotten PG-13. And i dont see why Sofia Coppola kept that scene anyways.

[Annie Hall]

Titanic was PG-13. There is a prolonged scene of fairly "graphic" nudity, there's a mild mild sex scene, and lots of death, violence...etc.

And yet Lost in Translation gets an 'R'. :rolleyes:

[movieguy1021]

Originally posted by zeppelin
Didn't deserve an R rating:

About Schmidt (see what I said for LiT, except now there's even less than 5 seconds)


There were about a half dozen f words, I believe, hence the R rating "some language and brief nudity".

What the MPAA should do is prevent kids from seeing films they shouldn't be allowed to. Hell, any 5 year old can go into Bad Santa with a parent. The MPAA should change the ratings so that the lesser Rs, or the Rs that not many teens would want to see that aren't so bad, would get a lower rating, while stuff like Bad Santa would still be open to teenagers.

While it's not a huge teen fanbase, I saw Lost in Translation (I'm 15) with a friend, and we both loved it. I can't believe a movie like that would get an R while Titantic was PG-13. I agree that all independent movies are graded tougher, such as:

Lost in Translation
Whale Rider
Northfork (one VERY brief, non-explicit sex scene)
American Splendor
Waiting for Guffman (2 f words used sexually, but they're quoting from Raging Bull!)

and many others.

Why not put movies like LiT and such as PG-13s, because they're not that explicit, and most teenagers don't want to see them! If we hear "suck on my titties", will we become freakish sex perverts, or moreso than we already are? If we hear someone say "fuck" sexually instead of an adjective, will it warp us for life?

Down with censorship, aka the MPAA