General discussion

I watched This Film Is Not Rated,

a documentary about the MPAA's secretive and peculiar ratings board. Independent producers have a hard time, while the studios don't,. But they asserted, with good reason, in my experience, that in Europe films are censored for violence, while in America they are censored for sex. The only thing they wanted to censor in American Psycho was the sex. Axe murders Chainsaw murder, murders by any means you want were fine, but have 3 people in bed together and you've got to cut the scene very short and tone down the nudity and remove the sex from behind.

A clearer demonstration of this is The Dreamers which is about the 1968 Paris Student uprising, as seen through the eyes of three people, "A young American studying in Paris in 1968 strikes up a friendship with a French brother and sister. Set against the background of the '68 Paris student riots." (IFDb). The only violence is on the television, but the three become involved in a menage a trois, with both incest and bi-sexual male sex depicted by the actors reasonably discretely filmed. In Europe it excited no comment, in the United States it was rated NC17 which is the kiss of death for commercial release. Bertolucci declined to re-cut it.

It was a common experience for American students travelling in Europe in the late 60's to experiment with sexual roles they would have been too frightened to enact back in the USSA (the United States of Sexual Approbrium). It was a common experience for all the Youth Hostellers of virtually all countries in Europe and of kids in American dorms too.

It was the spirit of the time, and crops up in the 70's film about Harvard A Small Circle of Friends, though far more clumsily.

The point here being that the United States is far more comfortable on some level with violence than it is with sex, and that we are surrounded by graphic depictions of it everywhere with out a second thought.

There is an old Lenny Bruce routine about this from the 50's which pointed out this strange disjunction, and whatever else he may have been, he was an early practicioner of "observational humour'. Finding fun in the peculiarities of American society and its sometimes odd rules.

Better three in a bed than anyone dead.

Rob

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: I watched This Film Is Not Rated,
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: I watched This Film Is Not Rated,
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Either displays selfishness and disrespect.

Neither is, IMO, an acceptable entertainment or art form.

- Collapse -
I don't believe that.

One is consensual and most of the people that die or are hurt in a mass shooting don't agree to it.

I heard that, in movies in the US, it isn't acceptable to stroke a breast but it's okay to cut it off. Which one is more selfish and disrespectable?

Diana

- Collapse -
You do remember the distinction between fact and fiction,

right? The Dreamers isn't a prescription for relationships or conduct, though it is a commentary on behaviour. However, movies like Die Hard, and all the other shootem ups do tend to be prescriptive, or seen as prescriptive, by suggesting that problems can be solved by various forms of violence. Also fictional, but far more troubling, and also far more disturbing to mental equilibrium. I think that the fact that you can produce Saving Private Ryan with no ratings trouble, but that certain simulated sexual material is considered so offensive that it automatically mandates NC-17. In my son's presence, while my son and his mother watched Saving Private Ryan, I left the room twice. Once when one of the squad dies of exsanguination after being shot in the abdomen by a machine gun, and then when the machine gunner on the second floor gets knifed by the German while waiting for Upham to return with the ammunition. I've worked as an EMT, and I have no problems with blood, gore, and death, I do have problems with its depiction in movies, however.

Brain Studies have indicated that a diet of violent movies and violent video games produces measurable and long lasting, even permanent changes in the brain, and a desensitization of the individual in the hours following the watching or playing of violence on a screen. These long term changes are not found even in addicted viewers of pornographic material.

And nobody ever got killed in a porn movie, though movies centred on violence sometimes have sex scenes in them for some reason.

Certainly it has been claimed in court that a diet of movie violence and video game violence has led to young people acting it out in real life, and there is at least some psychiatric opinion which accepts that premise.

Rob

- Collapse -
You may be describing part of today's problem

with violence as kids grow up thinking differently than you and I. You'd walk out of the room and they'd be eager for more? Then we wonder why they have no problem pulling a trigger with another human standing in front of them. Too bad the NRA brought this up and too many probably think anything they say is malarkey.

- Collapse -
three in a bed would be a two dog night?

so about 40 degrees?

- Collapse -
(NT) Sounds about right to me. ;-D Rob
- Collapse -
(NT) Alternatively, Roger, What kind of pervert are you? ;-D Rob

CNET Forums