May 10th, 2007

Previous Entry Next Entry
03:25 am - on MPAA ratings...

(43 comments | Leave a comment)

on MPAA ratings... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile

Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at


[User Picture]From: ouchfest Date: May 10th, 2007 - 11:50 pm (Link)
My favorite movie sex scene is in Enemy at the Gates (WWII Russian sniper versus German sniper). It was full of gritty realism to the point of hilarity. Rated R, no naughty bits that I remember, but there was also lots of violence.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: May 11th, 2007 - 02:47 am (Link)
never saw it.
From: ludimagist Date: May 16th, 2007 - 04:48 am (Link)
Good movie.

Interestingly enough it represents only one chapter out of the book itself.
[User Picture]From: dgr Date: May 14th, 2007 - 07:41 pm (Link)
I totally agree about Enemy at the Gates. I told someone that at a party once, and you would not believe the awkward silence that ensued. You could just see the "OMG, this guy is a psycho" crawling around in peoples' heads. No naughty bits, very little skin. Very little noise. Mostly facial expressions and subtle movements. A clothed sex scene performed well is much more evocative than a silicone starlet sprayed with water and shot under glowing light. Though it doesn't really contribute to this discussion, because I'm fairly sure the R rating came from people getting shot in the head.

In the case of Two Girls and a Guy, the sex scene was clothed, but it was still erotic in a way that many sex scenes featuring nudity are not. In that sense, a more restrictive rating was justified. (Though I agree that this case shouldn't cross the boundary into an NC-17 rating.) I don't think the MPAA should base ratings based on formula; the difference between seeing someone unclothed and seeing them in a micro-bikini is not relevant, except inasmuch as culture has already been conditioned to see them as vastly different.

My only complaint about the MPAA rating system is how corruptible it is. I think a jury of randomly selected peers (as many as is practical, perhaps 500?) would be better than a fixed jury. The only criterion which should affect the rating is, "How suitable is this movie for children?"

There will be less consistency in how things are rated, but I believe that is actually a good thing. It decreases the chance that a particular bias will influence the rating.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: May 15th, 2007 - 03:34 pm (Link)
don't diss on good lighting, yo. Just sayin' is all.

And yes, a scene being clothed can certainly be more erotic, but how do you connotate erotic into a rating? That's why I recommended pay movie network Content Advisory System. I think a clear, objective rating of "Strong Sexual Content" separate from a rating of "Nudity" goes a lot farther than a nebulous rating of "R"

I'm not sure that a floating large jury system will really help the cause of the MPAA (or at least what they feel their cause is). But I think it might be a good idea as well for a differing opinion.

• Go to Top