Jenny and I caught John Waters' latest, A Dirty Shame, last month via Netflix. It carried an NC-17 rating, which evidently fit the story of a group of sex addicts in the Harford Road neighborhood of Baltimore, as they searched for a brand new sex act. Never mind that the movie itself was fairly innocuous, and probably won itself the taboo rating due to one brief episode of dreaded full-frontal male nudity. Yes, the horrific spectacle of the penis caused this otherwise average comedy (funny mainly due to Tracy Ullman as the lead, but defintely not Waters' finest work) to be branded with an NC-17.
Why bring this up now? When I see the trailers for a horror-gore splatterfest like Hostel, I wonder what's going on. A movie that features the male genitals for a few seconds gets the NC-17, but one that graphically depicts humans torturing other humans with power tools gets an R rating? Have the puritans who run this country's ratings boards really lost their way so badly? It's confusing to me - extreme gory torture, OK as long as you kiddies have an adult with you; naked middle-aged couple in a John Waters film, forget it children, that will warp your minds, and we at the MPAA know that better than your parents.
That is simply fucked up.
5 comments:
I think the MPAA and the ESRB serve a purpose by letting ignorant parents who don't have the time or inclination to learn what their children are viewing blame someone else when they find their child exhibiting questionable behavior.
Seriously, though, I do find it interesting that I can walk into a book store (esp of the comic-book variety) and pick up a book featuring gruesome acts of violence that have NO RATING AT ALL! Kinda wierd when hollywood is doing more (comic)book-to-film adaptation these days. You think someone would have picked up on this loophole. But I guess that's just a testament to the literacy of our great nation.
I think the MPAA and the ESRB serve a purpose by letting ignorant parents who don't have the time or inclination to learn what their children are viewing blame someone else when they find their child exhibiting questionable behavior.
Seriously, though, I do find it interesting that I can walk into a book store (esp of the comic-book variety) and pick up a book featuring gruesome acts of violence that have NO RATING AT ALL! Kinda wierd when hollywood is doing more (comic)book-to-film adaptation these days. You think someone would have picked up on this loophole. But I guess that's just a testament to the literacy of our great nation.
hmmmm, it seems "edit your comment" means repost if you aren't a blogger user. Thank you UI.
Comic books used to have a code, which is antiquated, and yet, surprisingly still in use. However, unlike the MPAA and ESRB, stores are not penalised for selling comics to children that bear the mark of the comic code.
Books that are catalogued as adult comics, as those from the Vertigo line or many independent comics artists, can carry penalties via community action, but you are right in that comics are much more loosely policed as a medium. As are books.
Video games and comics both suffer from a certain perception that they are "kids media", when, in fact, they have served as more adult entertainment for a longer period of time prior to becoming pegged as such. For comics history, think about The Yellow Kid or The Katzenjammer Kids or early political cartoons--decidedly not kiddie material. Video games got dumped more quickly in the "For kids" category, but until recently, there were a lot of adult hobbiests and creators. Like faery tales, which started life as morality tales and myths, video games and comics were eventually relegated to the status of "childs entertainment" in mainstream eyes.
But I digress....
This is not the first time I've contemplated the misappropriation of terms to serve an agenda. I don't know if it's a chicken or egg sort of deal, but it seems as if this sort of categorisation not only enforces certain political viewpoints but allows them to gain political capital.
A) This produce within the lesser educated classes (and generally across the board) people who have very little idea on what passes for healthy or acceptable sexual behaviour. What little they see is sensationalised. Narrow parameters of sex are established, all others are suppressed. This means that many tensions or outlets for release or the expression of emotions have been turned to other paths. See my next point.
B) In the meantime, a cocktail of socially acceptable violence is being fed to them. Sometimes people enact this out. Sometimes they join the military. (Who has a vested interest in keeping our military all big and strong? Or at least, big?)
BTW, I don't think censorship is a good idea....I think a wider exposure to a variety of ideas is better, because it enables one to make choices with more complete knowledge.
Oh, here's another case of misplaced "morality"--let's give it up for Larry H. Miller.
Post a Comment