Censorship In Movies: Sex vs Violence
1:28 PM
•
Art,
Censorship,
FIlm,
MPAA,
Nudity,
Sex,
Video,
Violence,
YouTube
•
0
finders
Originally written 8/25/08.
Film has become a main staple of entertainment throughout the world, and as a result, it is one of the most popular forms of art out there today. However, due to its mainstream appeal to millions of people all over the world of all different ages, it has also become one of the most censored forms of art out there. In the United States, the majority of films are given a rating by the Motion Picture Association of America. It’s these ratings that inform audiences, especially if they have children, what kind of content they expect to see in each movie. But ever since the existence of these ratings, there have been some concerns over the association’s decisions on rating films with sexual content and nudity more harshly than films with violence. Because of this, many films featuring sexual content based around intimacy and love often get slapped with a higher rating and thus limiting their audience for something the association perceives as more taboo than violence. Is it fair? Should films with sexual content be censored more harshly than films with violence? I don’t think it’s fair at all. Sex is a natural behavior among humans while violence associates itself with evil that should be farther away from mainstream, children especially, as much as possible. Yet, much of our American society seems to have grown up with the very opposite view.
The Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA for short as it’s normally called, was founded in 1922 as an organization to bring regulations to films as to what kind of material films could present to what they considered appropriate for mainstream audiences. In 1968, they implemented the following rating system: Rated G, Rated M, Rated R, and Rated X. In 1970, Rated M got replaced with Rated GP, replacing the “mature audiences” with a more appropriate “parental guidance suggested” and then again in 1972 with the now PG rating. Soon, movies were having disputes whether or not they should accept a PG rating or an R rating for having material that wasn’t quite R but a bit much for PG. It wasn’t until disturbing material in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom that the PG-13 rating was born to fill in the gap between PG and R. But there was also an issue of the X rating. Many people associated the Rated X to pornography, and thus, films that obtained this rating were losing an audience. So in 1990, the NC-17 rating was introduced, hoping to further distance these “explicit” films from straight-out pornography in the audience’s mind. Still, a curse has grown with the NC-17 label. Many major studios won’t release films with a NC-17 rating, nor will many major movie theatre chains showcase them, nor can they be advertised on television, nor will many retail outlets sell them (Walmart and Blockbuster come to mind). Not to mention that they are not very marketable and have a very limited audience range. And that all grows worse if a film choses not get a rating at all. They’re not big money makers and the NC-17 rating or Unrated makes it appear a bit to “risque” for mainstream audiences. But are they?
There have been many debates of films who have received the NC-17 who do not feel justified to deserve such a harsh rating. Many of these films have one thing in common: “explicit” sex scenes. Rarely does a film get an NC-17 rating for violence. As the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated finds out, “nearly four times as many films received an NC-17 for sex as opposed to violence.” The problem lies in that many of these violent films where people get shot, blown up, killed, raped, etc. almost all end up getting a PG-13 or R rating while even the slightest depiction of realistic sex can earn a film the NC-17 rating. In fact, some films, such as But I’m a Cheerleader, received the NC-17 rating even though there was absolutely no nudity involved whatsoever. It has been often speculated that the homosexual content of the film is what sparked the decision. In fact, it has been speculated that many films have received the NC-17 rating because of acts of homosexuality, even if they engage in the same acts as straight people do; add in a pair of the same sex and it ends up scaring the MPAA rating board. Discrimination? Possibly.
The issues that get many of these films their NC-17 ratings, or even any rating higher than what they should deserve, are often sexual acts of human nature. Sex is part of any human being; it’s a natural act that the majority of us will experience in our lifetimes in order to continue to procreate. To see an act of sex, based on intimacy and love, on screen is nothing to be ashamed of. Sure, it might not be something we should show kids until they rightfully understand the whole concept of it, but it’s not something they should censor from many of us who actually do understand it. The NC-17 rating does that. It prevents many films from being marketed and shown to a greater audience. It loses an audience and makes it harder for anyone to find. It also gives the audience the whole notion that it’s worse than an R-rated film. Many of the R-rated films out there are filled with terrifying and horrific violent images, even sex-related violence, and many other crude material that many would see as worse than what is often presented in an NC-17 movie. The first NC-17 I've ever seen, an excellent one at that, was The Dreamers. If you ignore all the nudity and sexual content, you have a film that the MPAA would probably give a PG-13 rating to; there’s a bit of violence in terms of protesting and a bit of language, but the fact that these young adults are sitting around naked and having sex because they love each other, it gets the NC-17 rating. It should be rated R. Compare that to many R and PG-13 rated films out there that depict people killing others and promoting hatred and even films that have sexual content, but in the forms of violence (rape) or even the degradation of women and men as treating them as sex objects that are often seen in teen comedies. These are the films that mainstream America gets to see and are influenced on and yet intimate love, that most of us will or have experienced, has to have greater censorship? Why is that?
I’ve developed some theories on my own. Violence, at least in its extreme form, is something most of us Americans will not experience in our lifetimes. Much of us will never experience the tragedy of a war, or kill a human being (or a hundred), or decapitate a zombie with a chainsaw. It’s something very much out of our reach and not personal with us. It’s almost like watching a fantasy; most of us know it won’t ever happen, or at least, don’t want it to ever happen. Sex, on the other-hand, is an experience most of will, have, or want to go through in our lifetime. It’s more private with most of us. It’s a close intimate bond that we personally share with a significant other. It happens in solitude and much of us don’t share that experience with others. It’s almost unnerving for many to watch a sex scene, especially one that is so strong in it’s depiction that we can relate to it and picture ourselves in the scene itself, in a public place. Add to the fact that sex in general has always been given a more taboo appearance in American culture. It doesn’t help that for some reason, the rating board of the MPAA seems to be the pinnacle of the “many” that have these generalizations. And when the powers at be keeps supporting these generalizations, the nation will continue to follow and become greatly influenced that if the ratings are of any indication, that it’s less prohibited to kill people than to have sex. It could change how we behave as a nation. But as the saying goes, “make love not war.”
Even with its problems, I’m still glad that the rating system was invented. I definitely want to know what kind of material is going to be presented in a film, especially if I were a parent. But he MPAA is too light with violence and far to heavy with sex and nudity, to the point where films with strong sexuality will get the dreaded NC-17 rating which gives them so much in terms of obstacles of reaching a wider audience when other films depicting violence are easily gaining their audience. It’s a not a fair game, but I guess it’s all about personal taste and a matter of each and everyone’s views of the world as well. What the MPAA deems not appropriate may be appropriate for many, and vice versa. The best thing a consumer can do when going out to watch a movie, don’t go solely based on the rating letter alone. Read why it was given the rating it was given. There are useful sites out there such as Kids-In-Mind and Screen It! that give detailed depictions of why most films were given the rating it was given. Don’t be scared of the NC-17 rating because it’s NC-17. Read why, and if you’re okay with it the content, and it sounds like a well-made film, go out and watch it.
Go watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It's a really great documentary that explores much of what was written here.
The Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA for short as it’s normally called, was founded in 1922 as an organization to bring regulations to films as to what kind of material films could present to what they considered appropriate for mainstream audiences. In 1968, they implemented the following rating system: Rated G, Rated M, Rated R, and Rated X. In 1970, Rated M got replaced with Rated GP, replacing the “mature audiences” with a more appropriate “parental guidance suggested” and then again in 1972 with the now PG rating. Soon, movies were having disputes whether or not they should accept a PG rating or an R rating for having material that wasn’t quite R but a bit much for PG. It wasn’t until disturbing material in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom that the PG-13 rating was born to fill in the gap between PG and R. But there was also an issue of the X rating. Many people associated the Rated X to pornography, and thus, films that obtained this rating were losing an audience. So in 1990, the NC-17 rating was introduced, hoping to further distance these “explicit” films from straight-out pornography in the audience’s mind. Still, a curse has grown with the NC-17 label. Many major studios won’t release films with a NC-17 rating, nor will many major movie theatre chains showcase them, nor can they be advertised on television, nor will many retail outlets sell them (Walmart and Blockbuster come to mind). Not to mention that they are not very marketable and have a very limited audience range. And that all grows worse if a film choses not get a rating at all. They’re not big money makers and the NC-17 rating or Unrated makes it appear a bit to “risque” for mainstream audiences. But are they?
There have been many debates of films who have received the NC-17 who do not feel justified to deserve such a harsh rating. Many of these films have one thing in common: “explicit” sex scenes. Rarely does a film get an NC-17 rating for violence. As the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated finds out, “nearly four times as many films received an NC-17 for sex as opposed to violence.” The problem lies in that many of these violent films where people get shot, blown up, killed, raped, etc. almost all end up getting a PG-13 or R rating while even the slightest depiction of realistic sex can earn a film the NC-17 rating. In fact, some films, such as But I’m a Cheerleader, received the NC-17 rating even though there was absolutely no nudity involved whatsoever. It has been often speculated that the homosexual content of the film is what sparked the decision. In fact, it has been speculated that many films have received the NC-17 rating because of acts of homosexuality, even if they engage in the same acts as straight people do; add in a pair of the same sex and it ends up scaring the MPAA rating board. Discrimination? Possibly.
The issues that get many of these films their NC-17 ratings, or even any rating higher than what they should deserve, are often sexual acts of human nature. Sex is part of any human being; it’s a natural act that the majority of us will experience in our lifetimes in order to continue to procreate. To see an act of sex, based on intimacy and love, on screen is nothing to be ashamed of. Sure, it might not be something we should show kids until they rightfully understand the whole concept of it, but it’s not something they should censor from many of us who actually do understand it. The NC-17 rating does that. It prevents many films from being marketed and shown to a greater audience. It loses an audience and makes it harder for anyone to find. It also gives the audience the whole notion that it’s worse than an R-rated film. Many of the R-rated films out there are filled with terrifying and horrific violent images, even sex-related violence, and many other crude material that many would see as worse than what is often presented in an NC-17 movie. The first NC-17 I've ever seen, an excellent one at that, was The Dreamers. If you ignore all the nudity and sexual content, you have a film that the MPAA would probably give a PG-13 rating to; there’s a bit of violence in terms of protesting and a bit of language, but the fact that these young adults are sitting around naked and having sex because they love each other, it gets the NC-17 rating. It should be rated R. Compare that to many R and PG-13 rated films out there that depict people killing others and promoting hatred and even films that have sexual content, but in the forms of violence (rape) or even the degradation of women and men as treating them as sex objects that are often seen in teen comedies. These are the films that mainstream America gets to see and are influenced on and yet intimate love, that most of us will or have experienced, has to have greater censorship? Why is that?
I’ve developed some theories on my own. Violence, at least in its extreme form, is something most of us Americans will not experience in our lifetimes. Much of us will never experience the tragedy of a war, or kill a human being (or a hundred), or decapitate a zombie with a chainsaw. It’s something very much out of our reach and not personal with us. It’s almost like watching a fantasy; most of us know it won’t ever happen, or at least, don’t want it to ever happen. Sex, on the other-hand, is an experience most of will, have, or want to go through in our lifetime. It’s more private with most of us. It’s a close intimate bond that we personally share with a significant other. It happens in solitude and much of us don’t share that experience with others. It’s almost unnerving for many to watch a sex scene, especially one that is so strong in it’s depiction that we can relate to it and picture ourselves in the scene itself, in a public place. Add to the fact that sex in general has always been given a more taboo appearance in American culture. It doesn’t help that for some reason, the rating board of the MPAA seems to be the pinnacle of the “many” that have these generalizations. And when the powers at be keeps supporting these generalizations, the nation will continue to follow and become greatly influenced that if the ratings are of any indication, that it’s less prohibited to kill people than to have sex. It could change how we behave as a nation. But as the saying goes, “make love not war.”
Even with its problems, I’m still glad that the rating system was invented. I definitely want to know what kind of material is going to be presented in a film, especially if I were a parent. But he MPAA is too light with violence and far to heavy with sex and nudity, to the point where films with strong sexuality will get the dreaded NC-17 rating which gives them so much in terms of obstacles of reaching a wider audience when other films depicting violence are easily gaining their audience. It’s a not a fair game, but I guess it’s all about personal taste and a matter of each and everyone’s views of the world as well. What the MPAA deems not appropriate may be appropriate for many, and vice versa. The best thing a consumer can do when going out to watch a movie, don’t go solely based on the rating letter alone. Read why it was given the rating it was given. There are useful sites out there such as Kids-In-Mind and Screen It! that give detailed depictions of why most films were given the rating it was given. Don’t be scared of the NC-17 rating because it’s NC-17. Read why, and if you’re okay with it the content, and it sounds like a well-made film, go out and watch it.
Go watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It's a really great documentary that explores much of what was written here.
✘ Brian
(0) Comments