Mike's Musings: The MPAA's Biggest Blunders
Anyone who knows me is well aware of my utter disdain for the MPAA, especially when it comes to their Ratings Board. It's riddled with hypocrisy, corruption and has far too much influence on our culture for an organization that is so obviously broken. So in "dis"-honor of their unbelievable decision to give "Dunkirk" a PG-13, I've decided to compile a list of their most egregious offenses.
This isn't meant to be a comprehensive list. The MPAA has made far too many blunders for such a list to exist. But here are a few examples of their most outrageous decisions. I'll also explain what I think it should be rated and why.
"Sin City." Rated R, should be NC-17.
"Sin City" is totally bad ass and a great movie, but it's also hyper-violent. The violence is as plentiful as it is brutal, with blood and gore flowing everywhere. The fact that almost every character is a criminal, misanthrope or brooding antihero adds to the film's intensity. But when you have a cannibalistic serial killer and a scene where a man's genitals get ripped off by someone's bare hands, that's not something a kid should see. No matter how many parents/guardians they have.
"Ravenous" Rated R, should be NC-17
There are few horror movies set long ago. Which is strange, considering how a lack of technology could be utilized to increase the terror. "Ravenous" is one of those few movies, and it's awash in blood and gore. Not surprising, since the central idea uses themes of vampirism and cannibalism. The film's black comedy offsets the tension, but it's still totally inappropriate for anyone under seventeen.
"Boyhood." Rated R, should be PG-13.
"Boyhood" is an American classic. There is nothing else like it, and there likely won't ever be again. It's a time capsule for the ages; years, centuries from now, historians will be able to view this excellent movie about a boy growing up and understand how people lived around the turn of the millennium. For a movie about a boy growing up, it's befuddling that it's rated R. Especially considering how tame it is. It's rated R for some profanity and a scene with underage drinking and some pot use. Yawn. The benefits of exposing teens to good filmmaking and a film that allows them to identify with their common fears and insecurities more than outweighs the little objectionable material there actually is in "Boyhood."
"Mrs. Henderson Presents." Rated R, should be PG-13
Why was this movie rated R? A delightful and charming story about an old widow who keeps up the spirits of Britain during wartime? A film that encourages girls to be proud of their bodies and celebrate the differences that make them unique? Because it features nudity. Never mind that it's never in a sexual context. Never mind that it's portrayed as something to be proud of. Never mind that there's literally nothing else offensive about it. Never mind that girls are constantly hounded by the media telling them that they aren't worth anything unless they look like Beyoncé. This is inexplicable.
"The Kite Runner." Rated PG-13, should be R
This is a great movie, but it is not for kids. I have two issues with the scene that should have earned it a hard R instead of a PG-13, but only one of them is actually the MPAA's fault. Or, considering their habit of helping the big studio movies (which they claim not to do), maybe it is. The scene is where a child is raped by another. No kid needs to or should see that. The MPAA's decision is indefensible. What makes it doubly outrageous is that the scene is chaotically edited to obscure what is going on. Such a decision is ugly on a filmmaking level and incredibly dishonest. This sort of thing, unfortunately, happens, and by not actually dealing with it is offensive to those who have endured such pain.
There are others, to be sure, like the fact that "A Few Good Men" was rated R for non-existent profanity (actually, no movie should be rated R strictly for profanity). But these are some of the most egregious. If you have any movies where you think the MPAA got it wrong, post them in the comments.
This isn't meant to be a comprehensive list. The MPAA has made far too many blunders for such a list to exist. But here are a few examples of their most outrageous decisions. I'll also explain what I think it should be rated and why.
"Sin City." Rated R, should be NC-17.
"Sin City" is totally bad ass and a great movie, but it's also hyper-violent. The violence is as plentiful as it is brutal, with blood and gore flowing everywhere. The fact that almost every character is a criminal, misanthrope or brooding antihero adds to the film's intensity. But when you have a cannibalistic serial killer and a scene where a man's genitals get ripped off by someone's bare hands, that's not something a kid should see. No matter how many parents/guardians they have.
"Ravenous" Rated R, should be NC-17
There are few horror movies set long ago. Which is strange, considering how a lack of technology could be utilized to increase the terror. "Ravenous" is one of those few movies, and it's awash in blood and gore. Not surprising, since the central idea uses themes of vampirism and cannibalism. The film's black comedy offsets the tension, but it's still totally inappropriate for anyone under seventeen.
"Boyhood." Rated R, should be PG-13.
"Boyhood" is an American classic. There is nothing else like it, and there likely won't ever be again. It's a time capsule for the ages; years, centuries from now, historians will be able to view this excellent movie about a boy growing up and understand how people lived around the turn of the millennium. For a movie about a boy growing up, it's befuddling that it's rated R. Especially considering how tame it is. It's rated R for some profanity and a scene with underage drinking and some pot use. Yawn. The benefits of exposing teens to good filmmaking and a film that allows them to identify with their common fears and insecurities more than outweighs the little objectionable material there actually is in "Boyhood."
"Mrs. Henderson Presents." Rated R, should be PG-13
Why was this movie rated R? A delightful and charming story about an old widow who keeps up the spirits of Britain during wartime? A film that encourages girls to be proud of their bodies and celebrate the differences that make them unique? Because it features nudity. Never mind that it's never in a sexual context. Never mind that it's portrayed as something to be proud of. Never mind that there's literally nothing else offensive about it. Never mind that girls are constantly hounded by the media telling them that they aren't worth anything unless they look like Beyoncé. This is inexplicable.
"The Kite Runner." Rated PG-13, should be R
This is a great movie, but it is not for kids. I have two issues with the scene that should have earned it a hard R instead of a PG-13, but only one of them is actually the MPAA's fault. Or, considering their habit of helping the big studio movies (which they claim not to do), maybe it is. The scene is where a child is raped by another. No kid needs to or should see that. The MPAA's decision is indefensible. What makes it doubly outrageous is that the scene is chaotically edited to obscure what is going on. Such a decision is ugly on a filmmaking level and incredibly dishonest. This sort of thing, unfortunately, happens, and by not actually dealing with it is offensive to those who have endured such pain.
There are others, to be sure, like the fact that "A Few Good Men" was rated R for non-existent profanity (actually, no movie should be rated R strictly for profanity). But these are some of the most egregious. If you have any movies where you think the MPAA got it wrong, post them in the comments.
Comments
Post a Comment