Red Light District: Safe Sex
Originally uploaded by chrismaverick.
beststephi and I were at a party the other day and I got into a discussion with people about MPAA ratings. What do they mean? Where do they come from?
I was surprised to find out how little people knew about the movie ratings. Most people seemed to think there were specific guidelines of how a movie recieved a certain rating, which I suppose is not that unreasonable an expectation, but is also completely false.
Much like the FCC’s guidelines, which I also hate, the MPAA guidelines are entirely arbitrary and pretty much vary from one case to the next. They are based on a “reasonable person” principal, however the obvious problem is that what one person think is reasonable is completely different than what another person thinks.
I guess most people don’t realize that a movie rating says the rational right under it. If you look next to the PG-13 or R or whatever, it will say why the film got the rating it did. My favorite of all time is Two Girls and a Guy which was “Rated NC-17 for a scene of explicit sexuality.” I love that movie. I’ve seen it a dozen times at least. I must note that it has no nudity. It has no drug use. No one gets violently shot on screen. What it does have is a single scene where Heather Graham and Robert Downey Jr. have a quickee against the wall in his darkly lit bedroom. No naughty bits are exposed. It all just pantomimed thrusting, kissing and licking. They’re not even in their underwear at the time. It’s an unzip the pants and hike up the skirt moment In all seriousness, I have seen much more graphic sex on daytime soap operas. What it does have, that the soaps don’t, is fuck noises. Not gentle loving moans and gasps. No, it angry grunts and dirty talk. You know… kinda like real sex. In fact, I’d argue it may be one of the most realistic sex scenes ever filmed. Or maybe I should say not filmed, because you never actually see much of anything. But it was given an NC-17 because Graham and Downey know how to act. Or at least, they know what good fucking sounds like.
I’ve found that a lot of ratings systems follow arbitrary systems like this. Flickr recently implemented a self rating system for photos that are uploaded. We are instructed to mark our photos as “Safe,” “Moderate,” or “Restricted.” However, there’s no real guidelines of what constitutes what, other than to state that Safe is safe, Restricted is stuff “you wouldn’t want your mom to see.” and moderate is for stuff inbetween. But what do you do if your mom is cool. My mom is very cool, and in fact reads my blog and looks at all of my pictures on flickr, and I’m pretty sure she’s seen naked people before then in any case. So does that mean I can just mark everything Safe?
What about the picture I included on this post. Is it ok? Is it worksafe? Obviously its sexual. But it specifically and intentionally doesn’t show any naughty bits at all. In fact, when I took this shot, I took care to not make it at all obvious where hands were or what was going on. I think the imagination takes it a lot farther. So what should the rating be on it? What about in the MPAA system? Do you think its worksafe yourself? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Last week, Steph and I watched a great documentary called This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It explores the MPAA and filmratings, albeit from a biased, very pro-filmmaker, anti-MPAA point-of-view, but its quite good. But it poses an interesting question. How useful are the ratings anyway. If they’re more or less arbitrary, and no one understands what they mean, then are they actually useful to anyone? Does anyone reading this actually pay attention to film-ratings? Do you use them to decide what to view for yourself? What about for your children? Do you read the little blurbs about why a film is rated how it is?
I’m sure I had other thoughts on this as well, but I’m actually starting to get tired, so i’m going to sleep. But I’d love to know people’s feelings on this.
Sometimes I can’t tell if you really don’t understand why people would object to certain things, or if you’re just trying to push buttons.
While I do understand your frustration at the arbitrary ratings, I do think there’s a reason a film with sex – particularly sex portrayed as sex (“good acting” as you called it) rather than as artistic and “making love” is given a higher rating.
“restricted” is nudity, violence, obviously sexual – the expressions on the faces and the positions of the bodies in your picture made me glance at it and immediately scroll down so no one would walk into this room and be embarrassed. If I have that reaction, and I’m pretty liberal when it comes to nudity and sexuality, that says pretty clearly “restricted.” “Moderate” to me says less graphic but not totally clean. Doing shots, maybe. That one’s tricky because I don’t know if these tags are to protect you from your boss stumbling on your photos, or protect a kid from your photos. Assuming it’s the latter, then moderate is not safe for under 11 where restricted is not safe for under 14, perhaps.
Safe is puppies, kittens, not swearing, all shirts on, only alcohol is wine and only in wine glasses.
Want to know something funny? My flickr account is rated safe.
yeah, I would expect so. You don’t have nudity that is unhidden. As I said below,‘s theories on what the ratings mean, while probably very similar to what a parent might assume, are actually WAY more conservative than what the Flickr staff assumes.
I’ve totally got bare ass showing. Won’t somebody think of the children?
nah, I honestly don’t think the children will be any more traumatized by your bare ass than by your uncovered face…
I will fucking murder you to death.
why? because my ass is less offensive than yours?
My ass is glorious, son. I’m going to murder you to spare the women of the world your pustulent presence out of the kindness of my heart.
are you kidding? Women love my ass. It’s a perfect circle. Scientists calibrate their instruments off of it.
well, to be fair, yes I am pushing buttons. And yes I do understand that some people have different things that they object to than I might, but that’s exactly my point.
To start with your definitions of the Flickr terms, your assumption seems very conservative. A fine way for you to feel, but won’t accurately match up with the fickr community at large. It’s not defined whether the terms are to protect workplaces or kids. You’d rate that picture Restricted but, its rated Safe. On Flickr that is probably correct. A picture with blatant female toplessness, then that would make moderate. A blatant penis would make restricted. If safe were relegated to puppies, kittins, etc, Flickr would be a VERY different place than it currently is.
Of course many people would make the assumptions that you made and be offended by my pic, or perhaps even ones even more tame. That’s the flaw in the system. I find it really interesting that you refer to wine in your descriptions. That’s a value judgement of your own that I don’t think most people consider at all.
MPAA ratings are worse because they are auspiciously from the same source, but in practice are very inconsistent. The MPAA kind of rates things based on how they “feel” or how they think people feel. A kiss can occur in a G rated movie, a homosexual kiss can not. Sex is treated VERY inconsistently. Homosexual sex is entirely demonized, and in fact, sex between hetero couples who aren’t white is judged more harshly than that of caucassian couples. It leads to a very confusing world where Two Girls and a Guy (which seriously, is a lot tamer visually than anything you might see on daytime TV or Gray’s Anatomy) is judged NC-17, while the movie Wild Things with MUCH more explicit sex (inlcuding a drunken threeway), nudity, and violence got an R. Another favorite of mine 100 Girls is a movie about sex. It’s light on the nudity, but has some, and has sex scenes. It scored a PG-13. As did all 5 American Pie movies, despite nudity, sex, and masturbation with pastries, underaged drinking, ingestation of bodily fluids and drug use while But I’m a Cheerleader was given an NC-17 because of a girl masturbating OVER her clothes. (That scene was later re-editted and that allowed the film to get an R, but the movie is still much tamer than any of the American Pie movies… you know, except for the fact that all the characters are *gasp* GAY)
The TV ratings system is a little better, since they have more published guidelines of how something becomes TV-Y, TV-14 or TV-MA, and there are more ratings to choose from, but its still not great. I’m much more fond of the Content Advisory System that the cable movie networks adopted in 1994. It doesn’t have a simple rating since those don’t make sense. Instead there’s a full list of terms, and any movie is identified with which things it contains:
So a movie like American Pie will be listed as “AL, N, AC.” Whereas Two Girls and a Guy would be “SSC” (it doesn’t even really have foul language in it) and But I’m a Cheerleader would get an “AL, AC” The drawback to this being of course that you have read more than one or two letters. Sometimes as many as 10 letters! Instead, the films are simply given an R, and parents are meant to blindy trust that, even though most don’t realize how incredibly inconsistent it really is.
If I were in charge of the U.S., and had unlimited time and energy, I would replace the MPAA with the Content Advisory System you describe above for movies. I agree that it’s a much better, more objective ratings system. Of course, a lot of people would want to know about the genders involved in the nudity and sex, but I personally don’t care.
But before doing this, I would fix the jury system in this country. I think that’s a MUCH more pressing issue.
Oh, and use that for Flickr also. Then, each person could choose their own safety levels based on these points.
well, you do choose your own safety level. They just reserve the right to review and override you (and have for many people).
But the ratings are very vague because they didn’t want to make artistic judgements. I think if they were more specific like the CAS (nudity, blood, sex, whatever) it would have worked better though.
actually, the MPAA isn’t run by the government. There’s no laws governing it whatsoever. It’s a common misconception that it is. The hollywood film industry runs the board itself, and many decisions that it makes are clearly financially motivated. I didn’t get into it above, but its commonly believed that hollywood films (American Pie) are given more leeway than the independents (But I’m a Cheerleader) for that reason. I know you saw the movie and know this, but I thought I’d mention it for anyone else reading the comments.
I’m actually against the government regulating the film industry at all. (or the literature industry or any other media) It’s clearly a violation of free speech to do so. The CAS I might be ok with, because its more a statement of fact. There are no opinions. Either there is nudity in something or there isn’t. I’d likent it FDA info on the side of food.
what’s wrong with the jury system? I mean, what specifically do you want to fix when you rule the world?
Yeah, the ratings might be conservative, but like (I think) I said, I’m looking at this as a “safe for kids” thing, not as a “safe for work.”
looking at which? Movie ratings, your ratings or flickr ratings?
In my younger days, when I still attended the Catholic Church, I would always check the Pittsburgh Catholic to see which films were rated Morally Offensive, and make a point to see those…
See, I actually have no problem with the Catholic Church doing that at all. And I think its a fine thing that they do. If you subscribe to all of the Catholic Dogma and morality, then having them give you a guideline is a fine thing. They’re more or less consistent with their own stated values. Passion of the Christ, good… Last Temptation of Christ bad. But, the Catholic Church isn’t looked at as a legal body governing content objectively by the general populace. It’s looked at as a moral body judging content subjectively. To that end, I’d put reading that list up on the same pedestal as checking Ebert or Mr. Cranky.
To whom is this Mr Cranky you speak of? That seems interesting…
And I agree with you. The Catholic Church has a right to set its own rules and guidelines for memebers. And then as an individual you can decide whether or not to be a memeber [I have chosen not to].
The ratings dont really effect me as an adult–although I agree that Id like it to be more stringent as far as violence go, as opposed to sexuality. And I wish there wasnt the stigmata of the NC-17 rating, as there should be a rating for adult films that arent stigmitized to where major print publications wont take ad’s for them…
you don’t know Mr. Cranky? You’d love him. He’s the best movie critic ever. He starts with the premise that all movies suck, but some are less sucky than others.
Also, watch “This Film is Not Yet Rated.” It’s very good, and the violence should be worse than sex and the fact that NC-17 pretty much kills a movie’s distribution.
But what’s worse, to me is the inconsistency. Sure an adult film could be good. Hell, there’s good porno. But some things get NC-17 ratings for truly baffling reasons. “Two Girls and a Guy” being my prime example. I honestly think that with only minor editting it should be a film that could play on broadcast television during primetime.
I did see “This Film…” a while ago. I thought some of it was interesting, but I lost interest when the film was focusing on the “stalking” of the members. And there are inconsistancies-especially when major studio releases will have more leway than an independent studio. The major studios are basically keeping the board in buisness, so they have a better chance of getting a few extra thrusts [or more likely slo mo shots of disembodied heads] than an indy studio would.
Have you seen “Shortbus” yet? There was an indy film that incorporated some hardcore sex scenes [both hetro and homosexual sex] into its story in an effective manner. Not that its a great film, but it is a good example of how you can have an adult film that incorporates sex scenes that further along the story insead of being the story. And it was released as an indy film, so the rating board never got near it…
no, I haven’t… do you own it?
No I dont but it is available on netflix.
I never use netflix. But since its on DVD, I’m sure I’ll just buy it sooner or later.
Im curious why you dont use Netflix? Why would you spend $20 on a DVD you may or may not like? I tend to buy things that I want/enjoy but I rarely buy something that I haven’t seen before. Do you have something against Netflix in general or are more into owning things than borrowing?
For what its worth, when it comes to books, Im always buying. Even though I have a library card I seldome use it, as Id much rather own the text…
Nah, its not netflix in specific I have a problem with. I just like owning rather than renting. It started out years ago, when I realized that it was easier to just buy a video tape than rent it since inevitably I’d return it late and stack up late fees.
This is of course, not a problem for netflix, but over time I found that I really like having a library of movies. I don’t like having to plan my movie watching around what has come up in my netflix queue. I much prefer to just buy a ton of movies and watch them when I get in the mood to. For instance, I bought “This Film…” a couple weeks before I got around to watching it, whereas the movie “Crank” I bought months before I got around to watching it.
I definetly get the appeal of a personal library. In fact when Ive been looking at houses out in the South Hills I keep visualizing ‘well, heres where I can put the library, etc’. Although sometimes it can get a little overwhelming just the vast amount of stuff you can accumulate [for me its the thousands of comic books, hundreds of japanese wrestling tapes, hundres of books etc] and I keep thinking is it worth keeping this stuff [and sometimes being tied down to it] or should I just purge it all, just keeping the stuff I really want?
Plus the things with DVD’s–I see enough films in the theatre, plus whatever’s on the cable and such, that Id much rather just keep those films that I know I want to see over again, rather than just buy something on a whim that I might just watch once and then file away…
understandable. They certainly get unweildy at some points. But we all have our addictions. That is mine.
I hear you on the personal library space. I just put up a new bookshelf and still have piles of books blocking other books.
I keep a lot of my less accessed things in storage in the basement. It’s a non ideal solution, but what is one to do?
very nice picture. Rawr! It should be rated mandatory viewing 🙂
Thank you. 🙂
I’ve been intending to watch “This Film is Not Yet Rated” for a while now, but it has yet to appear on Blockbuster online, which amuses me at the same time it annoys me.
it isn’t and it won’t be. Funny thing about Blockbuster is that they are basically slaves to the MPAA. They won’t carry NC-17 rated films. Initially the film was turned over to the MPAA and the MPAA rated it NC-17 “for some graphic sexual content.” (there are clips of other movies when they are discussing why movies get rated NC-17). Of course, its probably more likely that they gave it an NC-17 out of spite because a large part of the documentary is not only saying how stupid the MPAA is, but stalking its members. He appealed the rating and lost, was told it could be reedited and rerated, so instead he editted in footage about being given the NC-17 rating and losing the appeal, surrendered his rating and released it unrated. As such, it doesn’t fit Blockbuster’s corporate standards and practices and will never be offered there. I’ve heard that it is available in some random Blockbuster stores that don’t care as much as corporate does, but the website is run by corporate, so it won’t be there.
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.
never saw it.
Good movie.
Interestingly enough it represents only one chapter out of the book itself.
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.
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.
Saving us from Cigarettes too!
Evidently, the MPAA was already concerned about and took into consideration underage smoking in movies, but now apparently they’re going to issue ratings based upon adult smoking too. Wow, I’m so glad these people I don’t know, didn’t approve and couldn’t care less about are making all these decisions for me, my children and my grandchildren! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18601051/
Re: Saving us from Cigarettes too!
well, that’s one of the things I don’t like about them. I was hoping more parents would comment. I wonder how many people simply trust the MPAA ratings as to what’s appropriate for their children.
Re: Saving us from Cigarettes too!
Well, I’d comment, but since I don’t think Zoë is likely to actually sit through a whole movie regardless of it’s content it’s not really relevant to me.
I’d probably be more inclined to go by what’s in the little description of what merited whatever rating rather than the rating itself. Not being a nutjob Puritan I think children are probably more affected by, for example, horror movies than a bit of dirty language.
Picking a couple of movies I’ve seen recently at random, I’d probably let a younger child watch “Punch Drunk Love” (rated R) than “Dark Water” (rated PG-13).
Browsing through IMDB randomly, I think I’d be happier to trust, for example, French movie ratings than what MPAA comes up with (where Punch Drunk Love gets a “suitable for all audiences” rating and Dark Water a “not suitable for audiences under 12” which is in theory a less restrictive rating than PG-13, but I’m not exactly going to quibble over whether 12 or 13 is the best age to start seeing “disturbing images” without getting nightmares)
Re: Saving us from Cigarettes too!
I’m amazed that Punch Drunk Love rated an R. Just looked at them myself, and it seems that every other country, except the Philippines realized how ridiculous that was. I hate people.