The MPAA

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The MPAA

#101 Post by knives » Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:47 pm

PG-13 didn't exist at the time and in fact it was one of the first films treated under the then new rating system so it's more a case of bungled politics than anything else.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The MPAA

#102 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:21 pm

One of the amusing things about those 42nd Street Forever compilations is the way that half of the trailers are for 1970s films that would likely get an R rating nowadays but appear to have been rated PG at the time! Such as the jaw-dropping Combat Cops.

Thomas Dukenfield
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: The MPAA

#103 Post by Thomas Dukenfield » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:22 am

colinr0380 wrote:One of the amusing things about those 42nd Street Forever compilations is the way that half of the trailers are for 1970s films that would likely get an R rating nowadays but appear to have been rated PG at the time! Such as the jaw-dropping Combat Cops.
The most egregious example of this that I can think of is Darktown Strutters, a blaxploitation musical that was rated PG at the time but might not even be able to get released with an R today (although not because of sex and violence). If I listed some of the more racially insensitive gags in the movie, I'd probably be banned from the Criterion Forum for life and sent to bed with no dessert.

William Girdler, director of Combat Cops/Zebra Killer also directed Grizzly, which was rated PG and has a scene where the bear lops off a tykes arm (on top of a couple other dismemberments).

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: The MPAA

#104 Post by Roger Ryan » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:40 pm

Yes, you have to keep in mind that when the MPAA ratings first appeared in the late 60s, it was still assumed that the majority of feature films were suitable for general audiences. This is why something like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was rated "G". Today, the clubbing deaths alone would earn the film a "PG" or "PG-13" rating, but that level of violence had been fairly common in mainstream films for years prior to the rating system being introduced, films that were considered acceptable for "general audiences" (which is what the "G" rating still represents even though we now perceive it as designating a kiddie film).

Into the 70s, the ratings tended to be more loosely applied and there was less concern with how a rating might help or hinder box office. These days, it's practically a game to "earn" a particular rating for box office appeal. Family films may have subtle innuendo inserted into them to avoid a "G" rating which might give the impression that the film is aimed at toddlers. Horror films will often try to go to the edge of what's acceptable for a PG-13 rating so a teenage audience won't be restricted from seeing them. You can see the machinations going on in THE SOCIAL NETWORK. In the opening scene, Rooney Mara's character uses the "f" word, but the audio drops out; this is because the word is used in a pivotal scene later in the film and the MPAA wouldn't allow the word to be used twice without bestowing an "R" rating, something the studio would have been strongly against. The compromise was to obscure the first usage.

As to those Hammer horror films, those things played relatively uncut on Saturday afternoon TV during the early 70s (which is where I first saw them). The violence in them was simply not perceived as real violence and the films themselves were often seen as appealing to younger children. That these films would receive a theatrical "G" rating doesn't surprise me too much.


User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: The MPAA

#106 Post by Michael Kerpan » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:35 pm

Isn't a G rating now considered to be the kiss of death for all films (except those aimed at infants)?

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: The MPAA

#107 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:57 am

Rio did reasonably well, well enough for a sequel.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The MPAA

#108 Post by domino harvey » Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:45 am

This is a good thread bump because I saw the best MPAA rating explanation yet the other day. The PG rating for the Remains of the Day was for
Themes
Not adult themes, even, just themes.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: The MPAA

#109 Post by tenia » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:21 am

Oh my god, this movie has themes, it can't be G !

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: The MPAA

#110 Post by MichaelB » Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:12 am

The BBFC was clearly unfazed by the "themes", as they gave it a U certificate (exact equivalent of G).

A Room with a View, by contrast, got a PG - I suspect all the full-frontal male nudity (albeit obviously unsexualised) triggered that decision!

Incidentally, what rating did that film get in the US? I can't believe the MPAA would have blithely let that scene through, given their well-known hang-ups about certain body parts.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: The MPAA

#111 Post by Roger Ryan » Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:15 am

MichaelB wrote: ...Incidentally, what rating did that film get in the US? I can't believe the MPAA would have blithely let that scene through, given their well-known hang-ups about certain body parts....
IMDb (I know, I know) reports that the film was unrated for it's release in the U.S. and a quick image search shows that the U.S. one-sheet does not have a rating logo. I have a feeling there was concern that the MPAA would bestow an "R" rating simply for the visible male genitalia, so the film was distributed in the states without a rating.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: The MPAA

#112 Post by MichaelB » Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:18 am

Roger Ryan wrote: I have a feeling there was concern that the MPAA would bestow an "R" rating simply for the visible male genitalia, so the film was distributed in the states without a rating.
That's pretty much what I'd have assumed. Which is utterly ludicrous from a European perspective, but there you go.

At least they had that option - technically, we do in the UK too, but in practice releasing films that haven't been BBFC-approved involves extra bureaucracy and the film usually ends up with an automatic adults-only rating regardless of content.

(Hilariously, this happened with an early-1990s Ozu retrospective involving a handful of British premieres - everything that had already been BBFC-passed got a U, everything that hadn't got an 18!)

User avatar
Emak-Bakia
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:48 am

Re: The MPAA

#113 Post by Emak-Bakia » Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:21 am

Oh, how I yearn for those halcyon days when a David Lynch film and a movie about the rowdy lifestyle of a rock and roll group could earn a G rating.

User avatar
jindianajonz
Jindiana Jonz Abrams
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: The MPAA

#114 Post by jindianajonz » Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:09 am

Thankfully David Lynch doesn't have themes!

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The MPAA

#115 Post by domino harvey » Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:53 am

Roger Ryan wrote:
MichaelB wrote: ...Incidentally, what rating did that film get in the US? I can't believe the MPAA would have blithely let that scene through, given their well-known hang-ups about certain body parts....
IMDb (I know, I know) reports that the film was unrated for it's release in the U.S. and a quick image search shows that the U.S. one-sheet does not have a rating logo. I have a feeling there was concern that the MPAA would bestow an "R" rating simply for the visible male genitalia, so the film was distributed in the states without a rating.
Looks like its actually been awarded a PG-13, which sounds about right. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly similarly had frontal male nudity and received the same rating

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: The MPAA

#116 Post by MichaelB » Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:20 pm

But why a PG-13 and not a plain PG? Surely this is exactly the kind of issue that should be down to parental guidance in the most literal sense of the term?

(I went with my own parents, as it happened, and the entire audience roared with laughter pretty much throughout the scene in question - as was no doubt intended. Which is why I can't get my head around the notion that some prissy prude thinks that it's somehow inappropriate for children - not least because kids would probably find it funnier still.)

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The MPAA

#117 Post by domino harvey » Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:32 pm

Post creation of the PG-13 rating, brief non-sexual nudity is an almost automatic PG-13 if not R. I can't think of any PG films after the implementation of the PG-13 that had nudity, though I'm sure there are some. I'd still wager none of those exceptions had penises in 'em though! In fact I can only think of two other PG-13 films with frontal male nudity, Whatever Works (and there it's just artsy nude photos) and the Simpsons Movie

User avatar
Jean-Luc Garbo
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
Contact:

Re: The MPAA

#118 Post by Jean-Luc Garbo » Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:26 pm

domino harvey wrote:This is a good thread bump because I saw the best MPAA rating explanation yet the other day. The PG rating for the Remains of the Day was for
Themes
Not adult themes, even, just themes.
They probably saw James Fox in the credits and thought, "Good lord, he was in Performance." Just to be safe.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: The MPAA

#119 Post by MichaelB » Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:37 pm

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:
domino harvey wrote:This is a good thread bump because I saw the best MPAA rating explanation yet the other day. The PG rating for the Remains of the Day was for
Themes
Not adult themes, even, just themes.
They probably saw James Fox in the credits and thought, "Good lord, he was in Performance." Just to be safe.
And don't forget what Anthony Hopkins won an Oscar for not that much earlier!

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: The MPAA

#120 Post by captveg » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:34 am

Michael Kerpan wrote:
Isn't a G rating now considered to be the kiss of death for all films (except those aimed at infants)?
All significant difference between G and PG ended sometime in the early-2000s (per the article). They are now both equally considered the safe family rating, and only the most subtle and innocuous differences are between them for total arbitrary reasons, which basically boil down to "will my three year old possibly get scared even for a brief moment?"
Last edited by captveg on Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: The MPAA

#121 Post by MichaelB » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:31 am

Oh, I dunno - ParaNorman got a PG on both sides of the Atlantic, and that seems spot on to me - it's clearly too strong for a G (or British U), but there's nothing in it that would demand a more age-restrictive rating.

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: The MPAA

#122 Post by captveg » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:45 am

Right, but ParaNorman's deserved PG becomes meaningless when a film like Frozen gets a PG for doing nothing worthy of that rating. Parents then see Frozen and follow that PG is harmless and nothing to have guidance about. Then they complain that when a film does have a valid PG rating that it was too much for their kid because they expect their PG ratings to have nothing more troublesome than "themes". So now they think ParaNorman should be kicked out of PG into PG-13, or some new PG-8 (I've literally seen this suggested). Because, PG-8 will SURELY be the rating that never gets films misappropriated to it....

If you look at that arricle's comments you see such a parent who was "shocked" by the violence in the first Narnia film. Reality is that it is a perfectly acceptable PG film: notable bloodless action violence which a parent should be educated - or, say, guided - about before bringing their kid willy-nilly. But she's seen so many PG films with nothing troublesome in them she is approaching PG as G should be approached and thus thinking the first Narnia film should be PG-13, which is ludicrous.

If Disney submitted Pinocchio to the MPAA today it would be REQUIRED to be PG-13 because it depicts minors smoking cigars and drinking alcohol. Even without that content it would get a PG for having "scary images" and "peril". Heaven forbid a child have to face any element of drama in their stories.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: The MPAA

#123 Post by tenia » Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:34 pm

There should be a PG-5, PG-8, PG-10, PG-13, etc etc... :-"
Or parents could actually check out the content of the movie and if it's appropriate or not instead of trying to blindly follow a rating which seems to have been biased for a long time now (I mean, come on, Little Miss Sunshine gets the same rating than Saw 3 ?).

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

722 Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!

#124 Post by domino harvey » Thu May 15, 2014 5:25 pm

Is [Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!] Criterion's first NC-17?

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 722 Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!

#125 Post by swo17 » Thu May 15, 2014 5:27 pm

There was at least Trilogy of Life before.

Post Reply