Why is the Movie Ratings Board Stricter on Sex Than on Violence?
Critics of American movie ratings long have puzzled over the system that gives an R (under age 17 not admitted without parent or guardian) to a movie in which a woman is carved up by a chain saw and an NC-17 to one that shows a woman being sexually pleasured.
Why is the Movie Ratings Board Stricter on Sex Than on Violence?
Carrie Rickey, Film Critic
UPDATE: 40 minutes after I posted this, the Motion Picture Association overturned Blue Valentine's NC-17 designation and re-rated it R.
Critics of American movie ratings long have puzzled over the system that gives an R (under age 17 not admitted without parent or guardian) to a movie in which a woman is carved up by a chain saw and an NC-17 to one that shows a woman being sexually pleasured.
From such ratings by the Motion Picture Association of America, one might conclude that sexual violence against women is OK for American teenagers to see, but that they must be 18 to see consensual, loving sex.
The most recent example of this peculiar standard is the MPAA's NC-17 rating of Blue Valentine, Derek Cianfrance's heartbreaking portrait of a foundering marriage starring Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, which shows a discreet scene (in medium-longshot) of Gosling pleasuring Williams while both are clothed.
As Steven Zeitchik notes in his excellent piece in the L.A. Times, what makes Valentine's rating even more baffling is that the recent (and comparably discreet) girl-on-girl scene of Mila Kunis pleasuring Natalie Portman in Black Swan received an R rating from the MPAA. One explanation for this disparity is that the MPAA, an industry group financed by and representing the major studios, tends to be more flexible with studio films (Black Swan is a Fox release) than it is with independent productions (Blue Valentine is distributed by The Weinstein Company).
Ralph Waldo Emerson warned that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Still, is foolish to hope that the board protecting American children from unsuitable content would be more consistent in its ratings? Your thoughts? Examples of the MPAA's most egregious ratings?
Carrie- I blame the Puritans. This country was founded by a people who were uptight about sex but had no problem with violence, and I think this mindset prevails today, as evidenced by the ongoing foolishness of the MPAA ratings board. And it seems too entrenched for things to change. Anyway, that's my theory.— Pash- I had read somewhere, and it kind of makes sense, that violence is more tolorated than sex because the brain knows that the violence isn't real, that the blood is fake, that the woman didn't really get her arm sliced off, it's all effects and movie magic but, when you see a boob it's a real boob attached to a real human being and it can't be faked. Something about that makes the mind recoil a bit.— timprov
Comment removed.- If that's true, timprov, and I'm no neurologist, still why does unclothed boobage generally get rated R but clothed passion often rated NC-17?— carrierickey
- carrierickey, it was just an interesting theory, I really don't think the board has any clue why it rates things one way yet rates something else another way. Great documentary about it called "This film is not yet rated." Very interesting look at the whole process.— timprov
- Yes, Kirby Dick's "This Film is Not Yet Rated" teases out the seeming inconsistency of the ratings board while being a darned funny film.— carrierickey
- Why? Because the foundation of this country is rooted in "conservative" sexual repression and glorified horrific violence. We tore apart the country, from east to west, in a 150-year torrent of invasive bloodshed, all the while making sure our women and their wily temptations were trussed up and untouchable. Because it's the american way.— CiceroSpuriousDeodatus
- Actually, talk to virtually anyone from Europe (well, ok not the British...they're our repressed forefathers) and they laugh about this very thing.— CupOrBust
- I AGREE, this has been VERY FRUSTRATING for me as well!— FairmountFrank
- re the Kirby Dick doc, didn't it make clear that the MPAA ratings board is made up mostly by parents, rating films for other parents? BTW, the X and NC-17 ratings never made sense to me because those films clearly aren't for children and why should any reasonably adult person have to be protected from them? Just asking.— Pash
- Cicero, you are definitely right about the violence part. Physical violence, and the words and actions that, unfortunately, lead to violence are too pervasive in this country.— 76erfn
- because we're a violent, militaristic culture that's uptight about sex. A deficit caused by fighting two wars and cutting taxes for the rich. And all we hear about is gay marriage, don't ask,don't tell. Millions of babies born to folks who can't raise them because we can't talk honestly about birth control.— retzlaff
- When I worked at CBS/FOX Video, I had several experiences (this goes back to the 1990s) working with the MPAA ratings board. Based on these, my possibly non-useful conclusion is that the board is a hard-working, overtaxed body that often makes decisions when fatigued and annoyed by the works they're viewing. They need to rate so many items that they make their decisions fairly quickly and prefer not to discuss and revote on projects. Then they move on. I needed to persuade them to revisit and revise what we considered an overly harsh and restrictive ratings on films we were releasing. I found that if you could just get their attention and get them to slow down, they were an extremely intelligent and responsive group that cared a lot about film and what they were doing. I really don't think they (at least then) demonstrated any kind of overall philosophy. They see a lot of annoying, offensive junk, you know?— ccjroberts
you all should see the movie This Movie Not Yet Rated. It will raise your eyebrows.— selophane43- This is a column in a newspaper?
You have to be kidding... Hasn't this question been asked for the past 20 years?
Get a life.— Marvin James
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- American Women Film Journalists
- Anne Thompson on Film
- Dave Kehr on Film
- David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson
- David Edelstein's The Projectionist
- Dennis Cozzallo on Film
- Edward Copeland on Film
- Flickgrrl posts 2/07 through 5/08
- Glenn Kenny's Some Came Running
- Green Cine Daily
