The MPAA

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: The MPAA

#151 Post by Big Ben » Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:05 pm

MichaelB wrote:
Big Ben wrote:While I don't like every aspect of the BBFC I think it's a vastly superior rating system and attempts to place all content into context. Tarkovky's Mirror, a film with nudity has a "U" rating the lowest they can possibly give.
Non-sexualised nudity has never been a particularly big deal in Britain. Even in the 1950s, nudist camp "documentaries" were passed as being suitable for children even though, to quote David McGillivray's wonderful Doing Rude Things, "there cannot have been one sane adult in the country who seriously believed these films were being made for the sun worshipper".
This is one of my primary motivations for thinking it's a vastly superior system. Both and nudity and sexual content are taken into context.

I do feel however that the removal of frames pertaining to things like tripping horses in decades old films don't need to be removed simply because it almost feels like an attempt to hide an abhorrent practice. It's not acceptable in my mind (even living where I do) by any means but attempting to erase evidence of past wrongdoing rubs me the wrong way. I'd love to hear other opinions about this though.

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

Re: The MPAA

#152 Post by MichaelB » Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:10 pm

Unsimulated animal cruelty is a matter of criminal law - the 1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act - so the BBFC's hands are tied.

User avatar
Never Cursed
Such is life on board the Redoutable
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am

Re: The MPAA

#153 Post by Never Cursed » Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:18 pm

Rewatching Apocalypse Now and The Tree Of Wooden Clogs in short succession got me thinking about this very thing. Does that law apply without exceptions? I know incidental killing of animals is not allowed (like the killing of the snake in Marketa Lazarova,) but would a documentary be bound by the same restrictions? Would the death of the water buffalo in Apocalypse Now, which was a ritual slaughter done by members of a native tribe, also warrant censorship?

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

Re: The MPAA

#154 Post by MichaelB » Tue Aug 15, 2017 3:24 pm

The Animals Act explicitly allows two exemptions: cruelty faked for the camera (provided this can be demonstrated on request), and cruelty that would have happened regardless of the cameras' presence. The latter exemption was specifically designed to protect serious documentaries exposing animal cruelty.

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

Re: The MPAA

#155 Post by swo17 » Tue Aug 15, 2017 3:30 pm

And also "clean kills"?

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

Re: The MPAA

#156 Post by MichaelB » Tue Aug 15, 2017 3:34 pm

Not covered by the legislation, so the BBFC now interprets them as being OK as they don't (allegedly) involve "physical infliction of pain or the cruel goading of an animal to fury".

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

Re: Untitled Roald Dahl Adaptation (Wes Anderson, 202?)

#157 Post by swo17 » Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:04 am

I miss the good ol' days when you could watch a real live monkey get asphyxiated in the G-rated Andromeda Strain. (That film would of course now be rated PG, because it also has people smoking)

beamish14
Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 3:07 pm

Re: Untitled Roald Dahl Adaptation (Wes Anderson, 202?)

#158 Post by beamish14 » Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:20 am

domino harvey wrote:
Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:36 pm
Rated PG for smoking, my word
The “G” rating has essentially been retired for reasons that I don’t understand. It was a huge deal when Disney’s The Black Cauldron got a PG in 1985, but it seems like the most innocuous, family-friendly fare gets PGs today

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

Re: Untitled Roald Dahl Adaptation (Wes Anderson, 202?)

#159 Post by swo17 » Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:27 am

beamish14 wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:20 am
The “G” rating has essentially been retired for reasons that I don’t understand.
Is the thought that a G-film would be perceived as being only for children, which would be as much of a box-office killer as an adults-only NC-17 rating?

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

Re: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (Wes Anderson, 2023)

#160 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Sep 17, 2023 7:39 am

2001: A Space Odyssey is somehow still G

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (Wes Anderson, 2023)

#161 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Sep 17, 2023 9:16 am

That Raiders of the Lost Ark is to this day PG is baffling considering faces melt off, heads blow apart, people are impaled on spikes or minced by propellers in great sprays of blood. It’s more violent than the R rated cut of Live Free or Die Hard, let alone what they had to cut that movie down to to get a PG-13.

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

Re: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (Wes Anderson, 2023)

#162 Post by domino harvey » Sun Sep 17, 2023 11:06 am

I think it’s odder in the opposite direction: Baby Doll and Psycho were passed by the Code but received R ratings on rerelease

beamish14
Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 3:07 pm

Re: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (Wes Anderson, 2023)

#163 Post by beamish14 » Sun Sep 17, 2023 12:42 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2023 9:16 am
That Raiders of the Lost Ark is to this day PG is baffling considering faces melt off, heads blow apart, people are impaled on spikes or minced by propellers in great sprays of blood. It’s more violent than the R rated cut of Live Free or Die Hard, let alone what they had to cut that movie down to to get a PG-13.

If Paramount were to have it rated again, I’m sure it would be bumped to a PG-13 (a rating that, much like NC-17, had a very detrimental effect on American films IMO). Films can keep the ratings they were initially given upon submission to the MPAA.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

The MPAA

#164 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Sep 17, 2023 3:11 pm

domino harvey wrote:I think it’s odder in the opposite direction: Baby Doll and Psycho were passed by the Code but received R ratings on rerelease
I remember being in high school and unable to rent Psycho from Blockbuster due to their policy of not renting R movies to kids under 18. This despite my protestations that it was a 40-year-old black and white movie and had been rated PG by the Ontario ratings body, as a quick trip to a movie store to look at the DVD cover would tell you. Nope, didn’t budge the teller a bit.

User avatar
Furstemberg
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:31 pm

Re: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (Wes Anderson, 2023)

#165 Post by Furstemberg » Sun Sep 17, 2023 4:09 pm

My favorite is Wings (1927), which is PG-13 for war violence. Just perfect. It’s now the oldest title to carry that rating, possibly any rating. Correct me if I’m wrong. And I think Baby Doll is still the oldest R, a rating it has carried since 1968. Psycho’s R is from 1984 (in ’68 it got an M) and I’ve long believed that just was a bid by Universal to bring the movie’s reputation up to date with its sequels and the booming horror and videocassette rental markets.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (Wes Anderson, 2023)

#166 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Sep 17, 2023 7:33 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2023 9:16 am
That Raiders of the Lost Ark is to this day PG is baffling considering faces melt off, heads blow apart, people are impaled on spikes or minced by propellers in great sprays of blood. It’s more violent than the R rated cut of Live Free or Die Hard, let alone what they had to cut that movie down to to get a PG-13.
I’ll never forget my first day as a staff on the residential kids unit some 15 years ago, and one of the staff I was shadowing let a kid pick the VHS of Raiders of the Lost Ark that was mixed in with all the Disney movies. I was anxious to tell anyone to do anything but had to pull the staff aside to ask them if they’d seen it. None of them had and all it took was the face melting detail to get them to change it. Not the best film to show traumatized youth at bedtime.

I also got to take home the VHS of Labyrinth once the supervisor saw it again in adult years and realized the heavy sexual overtones

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

Re: The MPAA

#167 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Sep 17, 2023 10:25 pm

Once Upon a Time in the West is still rated PG-13, I believe because the studio re-released it in theaters in 1984 and when it was resubmitted to the MPAA it got the then-new rating

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The MPAA

#168 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:00 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2023 9:16 am
That Raiders of the Lost Ark is to this day PG is baffling considering faces melt off, heads blow apart, people are impaled on spikes or minced by propellers in great sprays of blood. It’s more violent than the R rated cut of Live Free or Die Hard, let alone what they had to cut that movie down to to get a PG-13.
I’ll never forget my first day as a staff on the residential kids unit some 15 years ago, and one of the staff I was shadowing let a kid pick the VHS of Raiders of the Lost Ark that was mixed in with all the Disney movies. I was anxious to tell anyone to do anything but had to pull the staff aside to ask them if they’d seen it. None of them had and all it took was the face melting detail to get them to change it. Not the best film to show traumatized youth at bedtime.

I also got to take home the VHS of Labyrinth once the supervisor saw it again in adult years and realized the heavy sexual overtones
We were shown both it and Last Crusade in one of the final classes of grade 6 by a teacher who I’m pretty sure didn’t actually remember what was in them.

That said, the fact they left out Temple of Doom suggests they at least remembered that film’s reputation for not being kid friendly.

I remember all my friends preferring Last Crusade despite my protestations that you got to see a guy’s face melt off, clearly making Raiders the best thing ever. They also preferred Jaws the Revenge to the original, so they were idiots.

Peg of the PreCodes
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (Wes Anderson, 2023)

#169 Post by Peg of the PreCodes » Mon Sep 18, 2023 11:33 am

Mr Sausage wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2023 9:16 am
That Raiders of the Lost Ark is to this day PG is baffling considering faces melt off, heads blow apart, people are impaled on spikes or minced by propellers in great sprays of blood. It’s more violent than the R rated cut of Live Free or Die Hard, let alone what they had to cut that movie down to to get a PG-13.
The PG-13 rating came about in part because of reactions to RotLA and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. These and other movies showed that there was a big gap between PG and R, especially when applied to violence, rather than nudity or sexuality.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: The MPAA

#170 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Sep 18, 2023 11:56 am

For whatever reason, the community I grew up in was much more lax about this type of thing because gory horror films or graphic serial killer movies were not a problem, much less any of the Indiana Jones movies - I think everyone I knew was very familiar with the face melting, impaling (right through the crotch too!), monkey brains, eyeball soup, etc. well before middle school. I think it helped that quite a few had premium cable channels and there didn't seem to be a whole lot of parental oversight about what they watched. From memory, all of that stuff I mentioned played as pure entertainment for us - I think the Indiana Jones gore seemed cartoonish enough that we laughed at it - but it wasn't like we were numb to violence because I remember someone putting on Platoon and we could barely get through it.

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

Re: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (Wes Anderson, 2023)

#171 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Mon Sep 18, 2023 12:38 pm

Furstemberg wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2023 4:09 pm
My favorite is Wings (1927), which is PG-13 for war violence. Just perfect. It’s now the oldest title to carry that rating, possibly any rating. Correct me if I’m wrong.
The Brownlow/Coppola restoration of Gance's Napoleon has a G rating. I can't find anything earlier than that—I thought The Gold Rush would've been rated for its 1972 reissue, but apparently it wasn't, even though City Lights, Modern Times, The Great Dictator, and Limelight all were. The Circus also got a G for its 1969 re-release.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Untitled Roald Dahl Adaptation (Wes Anderson, 202?)

#172 Post by Monterey Jack » Mon Sep 25, 2023 10:17 pm

beamish14 wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:20 am

The “G” rating has essentially been retired for reasons that I don’t understand. It was a huge deal when Disney’s The Black Cauldron got a PG in 1985, but it seems like the most innocuous, family-friendly fare gets PGs today
G-rated Disney movies from the 90s seemed far more hardcore than PG ones today. I mean, The Hunchback Of Notre Dame was rated G. A movie that has this character in it:

Image

Image

Meanwhile utterly innocuous fare aimed at the literal five-and-under crowd like Paw Patrol gets slapped with a PG these days. For WHAT?!

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

Re: Untitled Roald Dahl Adaptation (Wes Anderson, 202?)

#173 Post by captveg » Thu Oct 12, 2023 4:50 pm

Monterey Jack wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2023 10:17 pm
Meanwhile utterly innocuous fare aimed at the literal five-and-under crowd like Paw Patrol gets slapped with a PG these days. For WHAT?!
For mild action/peril, good sir. Can't let anyone see a movie with mild action/peril without sufficient warning.

I see the problem as two-fold:

1. Studio marketing not wanting the "for babies" stigma. Once animated films like Shrek got PG ratings for some crass humor but families treated it like any other G-rated animated film at the box office it was inevitable for this to happen. Since then pretty much every animated film that used to get a G gets a PG for at least "thematic elements" because studios don't want the G rating, unless a film series has grandfathered in G-ratings (see: Toy Story 3 and 4 being G despite just as many "thematic elements" and "action/peril" as 99% of these types of films). (I remember reading a great article detailing all this when the first Wreck-It Ralph was released and got a PG rating). This also pushes films that used to be PG into PG-13, making the volume of films with that rating much higher than is reasonable. Very rarely do you see live action films meant for non-family audiences get G or PG anymore. For example, a movie like The Current War had some themes of capital punishment as well as a moment of war violence, but it's all implied and offscreen with some sound effects. It's rating: "PG-13 for some violent content and thematic elements." This would have been a more than acceptable PG film in the mid-80s, but now the perception of PG is "for under 13 ONLY", meaning films that are primarily for the 10+ crowd that can be seen by younger audiences but are really not meant for them want the PG-13 at a minimum so that adults don't think "this isn't meant for me." Compound that with all the tentpole action/adventure films that are marketed towards families, including kids of 7+, but wanting PG-13's so those kids think it's "cool" and "adult" - (Should all the MCU films be PG-13? Surely a movie like Captain Marvel is PG material) - and you have a bloated PG-13 slate of films with huge gulfs between where they border PG and R.

2. G rating don't have content descriptions. When content descriptions were introduced in 1990 they exempted the G rating, making the assumption that those films didn't require content descriptions since they in principle had no offensive content. Well, if that's the guideline then once you start having descriptions of "thematic elements," "rude humor," and "mild" anything then by definition you have to bump it to a PG, even though it's near impossible for a narrative film to have no conflict whatsoever. Every Disney animated feature since Snow White could have those terms applied. It's simply a dumb standard that has made two entire ratings (G and PG) become in any practical way synonymous and nearly pointless.

Post Reply