Unrated/NC-17/Graphic Films

i've seen the trailer for 'a dirty shame' in the theaters now ("art house") more than once now....the first time i saw it...i thought to myself what is this garbage...and who in the hell is johnny knoxville?.....it completely went over my head that it was directed john waters......the second time i noticed that.........will i see it?....yes....why because i'm hoping that perhaps, just perhaps john has returned to making films like 'pink flamingoes' (i know i'm weird)......if anything i'm hoping it's better than the last two films i saw by him, in a theater, 'cecil b. demented' and 'pecker'......anyways here's hoping......

dirty_shame.jpg




red.JPG
 
John Water's latest film is rated NC-17.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fineline/a_dirty_shame/

It's actually a parody of about how hypocritical our puritanical society is about sex and sex in the media.

It looks pretty funny... And I am wondering if he got the NC-17 strictly as a joke to stay in line with the film's theme?

Also...

Speaking of ratings...

"Aliens vs. Predator" is rated... get this... PG-13.

That is just an insult to fans like myself who grew up with the hardcore, in-your-face violecne and terror of those two movie series.

Oh, well. I knew the "teeny bopper" crowd would someday ruin either the Alien or the Preadator series... And now, they've managed to do it all at once :mad:
 
Yeaaa! All I could think about was the music
Then as a teen I was like, wait Penny has an abortion? Johnny is accused of stealing?
I never knew that part of the story
:lol:
 
nc-17....unrated films...um.....i've seen a couple of films that i remember as being rated nc-17...the first was 'ultimo tango a parigi' (last tango in paris)...which featured sex and butter.....and by the same director, 30 years later, 'the dreamers'...featuring among other things incest, full frontal male and female nudity, the loss of virginity along with the blood and the other fluids associated with that act.......


unrated films....'romance x' featuring penetration, erections, fellatio and scenes of childbirth......(what made this film kind of interesting was that i saw it in a "mainstream" theater in a mall on a sunday afternoon)....'a ma soeur' (fat girl)...full frontal female nudity....graphic murder, urination and rape....by the way both of these films were directed the same woman....'dans ma peau' (in my skin)....a film about self-mutalation and self-cannabilism...written and directed by a woman.....'irr
 
Add me to that list because I think this is an excellent discussion and one that I think NEEDS to be had on FF and the Movie Board every single year because FF's primary users ARE teens as well as those slightly older and younger.

I'm about to get up on my personal soapbox for a moment and preach/rant, so at least you're all being warned if you care to read on
lol.gif


But seriously...

1) I do think parent's AREN'T as involved with their kids and what they're doing (not just what they're watching, playing or listening too) these days, no matter what anybody says.

It's sad, but it's true.

And I'm not soley pinning this on the parents because I know how hard it is to have to have two incomes to barely survive (month to month) the way this economy and the world we live in has gotten.

However, even with all those hardships, parent's have got to take the time, that is MAKE THE TIME, to get involved in what their kids are into at the moment... And if their kids aren't willing to include them, well, use THEIR RIGHT AS A PARENT to find out by any means possible.

This might surprise many of you that I would condone such methods considering my parents gave me carte blanche privacy when I was growing up... BUT, again, that is because they TRUSTED me and knew I wasn't planning to go on a shooting ramapage at my high school or something.

The times we live in and the access to just... Well, EVERYTHING (mail order weapons; how to make home made boms off the internet; etc.)... HAS changed from when I and others my age were growing up... And we're talking only 30 years ago, folks. I'm not in my 60s if you're wondering (I'm also not a parent, but I feel very strongly about what's going on).

Therefore, I strongly believe that as a parent, you have the right to "snoop" or "spy" on your kids and do whatever you have to do make sure they are safe from what's going on out there... Or more importantly, from themselves.

I think what really cemeted my own personal view on this was the Collumbine High School massacre. I am astounded that to this day Eric Harris and Dynal Kleebold's parents didn't know thet were building bombs and stockpiling weapons IN ERICS HOUSE for Pete's sake. In the family garage if all reports are accurate.

To me, that is just pure negligance and I do wish the parents of the boys -- as nasty as this sounds -- Were charged with manslaughter and or gross negligence for NOT knowing that their kids were arming themselves and planning something of that magnitude IN the family garage of all places. That is just a clear sign, in my book, that parent's just aren't that involved and what bothers me MORE than just that aspect alone is...

Do parents even CARE to be involved?

I ask this because, while unpleasant to think about, I think all of us have known parents of friends, or might even have (had) parents who just did NOT care about the lives of their children... Which is just sad and is only compounded by what I said about them being forced to concentrate on putting food on the table with the bad economy.

2) There IS evidence that young kids (6,7, pre-teen) who are continually exposed to violence (real or fictional), or violent images (video games or movies) DO develop more violent tendancies than other children who aren't.

Everyone hates to admit that the studies that DO show a correlation between violence and the media and violence in (young) children actually ARE proving what they set out to do... Because, obstebsibly, what this is saying (or putting the onus of responsiblity on) are those who not only produce the entertainment, but moreso, the PARENTS of the children who apparently aren't doing their job and are instead letting TV, movies, music and video games "raise" their kids instead of them.

As a perfect example of this -- Which I've used countless times in similar discussions we've had on this board in fact -- I had a friend of mine who had a 10 year old son whom she allowed to watch extremely violent movies when she was not home.

Well, every week she'd get a call from the principal's office complaining that her son had either gotten into a fight, assaulted another child or was just disruptive in a violent manner to other kids on the playground. Gees. I wonder why, huh?

And while you can argue maybe it was just this kids disposition to be negative and not behave... The fact is you DON"T just let a 10 year old watch films like "Rambo" and movies with Steven Segal in them because that is ALL those kinds of films are about: Violence. Ergo, her son was "tought" that violence was an acceptable solution to his problems or an acceptable way to deal with things that were bothering him -- Basically, what someone said above about it warping a child's cognitive reasoning abilities.

Consequently, he eventually outgrew the phase...

BUT, my own mother even warned his mother that what she was doing -- Basically, letting the TV and VCR be his after-school supervision -- Wasn't "cutting it" as they say and his behavior was a direct result of that... Which I firmly believe because as I stated earlier, I too was allowed to watch whatever I wanted after school before my parents got home which included violent movies and cartoons... Yet I was an "A" student and NEVER got into a single fight in my entire grammar or high school career. Maybe I'm the rare execption, but that's evidence enough for me from my own perspective to lend credence to these studies that DO prove a link between violent shows/movies and violent behavior in younger kids... Regardless if they are considered "politically correct" or not.

3) The ratings system (for movies, video games and even music) just doesn't do what it tries to set out to do because ironically, is to geared toward the PARENTS to let THEM know what the game/movie/lyrics contains... Yet WHO actually buys and plays/watches/listens to these things: Yup, you guessed it. The KIDS do (and they don't even heed the warnings; In fact, the more bad stuff a rating has in it the MORE the kids want it; it's human nature).

Talk about closing the barn door after the horses have fled the barn.

In addition, the very rating systems themselves jsut aren't very well structured (as we discussed with movies above) and often times, the big producers of these things (games, music, movies) can find "loopholes" to get around them -- Like our PG-13 discussion.

*sigh*

Anyway...

Like I said, I'm not a parent, and I know there ARE good kids out there... But I really feel that this country is in trouble because a vast majority of kids DO have a warped sense of values when asked about certain issues.

For instance, my father is a teacher at a predominately "inner city" (aka poor and Black) school and he observes his students behaviors and attitudes everyday in like they truly believe that they have the right to kill someone just because they "dis" (disrespect) them in front of their friend -- Something that usually would just cause most kids to not associate with those whom offended them. Not these days. And this goes for students of ALL races by the way. That's what he finds disturbing most of all.

Another example is that some students feel cheating is perfectly acceptable as long as you don't get caught.

Hello?

Silly me, but I thought cheating -- even just the intent to cheat -- Was considered bad? Well, it was when I was growing up... But I guess not now.

This is the reality of the world we are living in and with what's going on with the President's behavior (or lackthereof depending on your POV), Enron, Martha Stewart, etc, these images/icons/examples only re-inforce it in these kids minds that they can do whatever they want as long as it benefits THEM and as long as none THEY know gets hurt (it doesn't matter if they rob a bank, just as long as THEIR fellow bank robbers don't get hurt; it doesn't matter how many innocent people are killed).

It is truly a scary world out there and to bring this back to our original discussion... Movies and other entertainment DO have a responsilbity to their primary audience(s) -- the coveted teen demographic -- As well as the parents of those teens, and in fact, most important of all ARE the parents and how they fit into all of this.
 
:lol: I think thats how I was too when I first saw Dirty dancing when I was wee little, the music really caught my interest and then watching it as a teen I was like "Ooo I like the lovestory"
 
I don't think I watched rated R films till I was about 12 or 13

before that I was only allowed to watch up to pg-13
I think the dirtiest movie I watched as a kid was Dirty Dancing. And at that age I was oblivious to the sex and abortion story. I just loved the music and dancing.
 
I do think whether or not kids should watch movies with violence and/or sex depends in some part on the individual parent/kid/family involved.

To a certain extent, I guess I think it's never okay for really young children to be watching graphic violence or sex, if only because they are to young to understand what they're seeing, and it could warp some of their cognitive understanding to be overexposed to stuff like that.

But it does depend on the kid. Everyone matures diffently and has different cognitive development. Some kids may be able to watch violence at a younger age (say 7 or 8) and have the logic/thought process to understand that it is not real. They can deal with seeing it. Other kids are not read at that age. (And frankly, some adults aren't mature enough to watch graphic violence or sex).

So I guess I don't know what I think. I do know that I watched some R rated movies with my parents when I was younger and I was not adversely affected by it. To be honest, I don't even remember much about them, which shows how little they left an impression on me. But my parents were always pretty open about stuff like that.

And I do think the ratings system in the US is a joke. You can get away with an awful lot of violence in a PG-13 movie but very little sex. It's a warped standard that just reinforces puritanical ideas about sex being bad or dirty or something we need to cover our eyes from. But it's okay to see someone get shot.

Gah, I'm rambling.
smile.gif
 
PRE-NC-17 CINEMA SCREENS IN LOS ANGELES
(2004-08-04) filmthreat.com

The American Cinematheque at the Egyptian Theatre presents FOR ADULTS ONLY: PRE-NC-17 CINEMA IN AMERICA, a weekend (September 10 - 12, 2004), of movies that were rated X upon original release. The series kicks off with a new 35mm print of Bernardo Bertolucci's LAST TANGO IN PARIS (1972, MGM/UA), presented in memory of the film's star Marlon Brando. Other films include Russ Meyer's BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (1970, 20th Century Fox/Criterion), a pop-culture sexfest about a girl band, written by Roger Ebert!; Ralph Bakshi's animated FRITZ THE CAT (1972, MGM/UA), based on R. Crumb's 60's counter-culture comics; Stanley Kubrick's A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971, Warners); New York hustler drama MIDNIGHT COWBOY (1969, MGM/UA) starring Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman; Haskall Wexler's MEDIUM COOL (1969, Paramount), a look at the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention riots; PERFORMANCE (1970, Warner Bros.) starring a very young Mick Jagger; and Ken Russell's blasphemous THE DEVILS (1971, Warner Bros.). Writer, critic and author of the book The Ratings Game, Stephen Farber will appear for discussion after the screening of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

for more information click here


as it says above......no children allowed.....

red.JPG
 
honestly i watched R rated films when i was 10..i dunno if that is too young.but i don't think kids should watch R,NC-17,or unrated films that involve graphic sex scenes,rape,violence,nudity,and alot of graphic language.
 
Guys please if you like to continue discussing Ewan's movie make a thread for it -- and keep the graphic descriptions to a minimum.

Thanks.
 
Hey, what the hell, I saw Trainspotting at 18 and though it wasn't even that clear, yeah... bulgy eyes. :eek: :lol:
 
NC-17 and Unrated movies are a gift. There's nothing I love more than watching a good NC-17 film (I can't wait to catch "The Dreamers"), but it has to be one so good that earns its be NC-17.

But I agree that parents should play a role in discussing and explaining certain things to their youngsters.

My personal experience was different and not because my parents didn't want or didn't care to explain to me certain things, it was because I liked to find out for myself. I've always been mature and old fashioned so I could watch whatever and it didn't have *ANY* side effects because I knew it was fantasy and because I knew it was art.

I've always had a tv (with cable, HBO, Showtime, etc) and a VCR/DVD in my room and my mom and my dad trusted me because they know me so well. But that was me.

I would *never* want kids watching films like "Wide Sargasso Sea" (an adaptation of a book by the same name) or "Interview with the Vampire". "Wide Sargasso Sea" is a beautifu, painful movie but the sex scenes are porn.

But I don't trust most kids with sex/violence, 'unrated' movies anymore than I trust them to take out the garbage without being told. I agree with everyone here that parents should know what their kids are watching and they should discuss and talk to them immediately. These are dangerous times. Hehe.

What I'm saying is that although maturity and age don't have to be linked, they usually are. Films that are not rated PG or lower carry themes you need to understand to appreciate.
 
It depends on a lot of factors, but mainly, is the child ready for the violence and/or sex and will they understand it in terms of the context of both the story AND that it's not real -- in all aspects since it is a film?

My parents let me watch extremely violent movies like "Forte Apache, The Brox" when I was growing up as well as Disney classics like "Bambi" and whatnot.

However, if it was an adult (R) rated film, they always saw it with me AND we would discuss what we had just seen in terms of any questions I might have (remember, I'm talking being about six, seven years old so I had no idea what sex was or what it really meant to kill someone) and my parents did their best to explain things in realistic terms that didn't sugar coat things BUT that also emphasized the difference between fantasy and reality... Which I think was the deciding factor on why they trusted me to see adult films when I got slightly older and they weren't around (like when I would get home from school and watch movies on HBO and things).

So, basically, in my own personal experience it was the fact that my parents were INVOLVED in helping distinguish between fantasy and reality, as well as discussing the things we would watch together which built up trust in me (and vice versa) that I could watch anything I wanted, and if I had any questions we could talk about it together to undo any confusion I might have.

The other side to the equation is that I, as an individual, even at six or seven, was READY to see some of the things I saw in adult movies with the understanding that none of it was real which also played a big factor in my parents trusting me to watch whatever I wanted because they knew I wasn't going to go out and imitate the things I saw (violence OR sex as I became a teenager).

I think this individual aspect is another major factor that parents need to decide for themselves because as much as everyone hates to jump onto the "movies and video games make kids more violent" argument... The fact is it CAN make some younger kids violent if that is all they are exposed to -- Or rather, allowed to be exposed to UNSUPERVISED which agian, I think is the key.

As for the debate of why it is "okay" in our culture to let younger viewers see (fictionalized) acts of brutality, yet our culture comes all unglued whenever a frank or realistic discussion or portraly of sex or sexuality comes up?

As Shrrshrr said, it IS because of the puritanical roots this country has that our forefathers brought over here when they founded America, right or wrong.

Also, the rating system we have for music, movies and video games is a joke and often just their as "lip service" to appease those who say that we aren't doing enough -- as parents and a society -- To help curb violence and raise our children "right" -- Whatever that means...

For instance, a movie can be completely R-Rated because it has two F-Words and ONLY because of that. The same is true for a PG-13 movie, only it can have just one F-Word.

So, for example, you could make a movie that has tons and tons of bloody killings, and only one F-word... And it'll still be a PG-13 which is what movie studios want so they can get not just the older teens (over 18) who would go see this violent movie, but the YOUNGER teens as well.

And guess what? Most parent's DON'T care in that as long as it ISN'T an R-Rated movie -- for whatever reason -- They'll just let their younger kids go and assume it is "safe" because it isn't an R. It's ridiculous...

And it really shows that a lot of parents AREN'T that involved in what their kids are watching or playing (video games) whether people want to admit it or not.

Anyway, there's my take on the whole issue.

There are a lot of issues that factor into it... But the most important, I think, is the involvement of parents to actually *gasp* raise their kids (in discussing things their kids see in films and helping distinguish between fantasy and reality) because all the other issues of whether or not should a child see an R-rated or graphically violent or sexy film stems from this very thing and it just isn't happening these days with both mom and dad both working to make ends meet. It's a sad, sad situation.
 
Violence taking precedence over sexuality in the order of socially acceptable content is rediculous, but now a deeply entrenched belief in North American society.

The only real solution with any resonance/credibility is to raise children to deal with violence, sexuality, and any other "controversial" issues in a manner which allows them to keep it in context. Avoiding exposure to one thing or another exclusively as the method to prevent negative growth is not a real solution...
 
Are there even movies that are rated G nowadays? I can't remember the last time I saw a G rated movie. Maybe the last time I saw a G rated film was seven years old or younger.
I don't think that little kids should see movies with a lot of violence or graphic sex. IMO it would be too traumatizing.
My dad always complains that my uncle let his son see Pet Cemetary when he was under 10. I never saw the movie so I don't know if it's very violent, but my dad doesn't like how my cousin saw this movie. I remember when I was four and my older cousins were watching Freddy movies I would be terrified and have to leave the room.
I think when kids are young they shouldn't be exposed to violent films. It's impossible to avoid when they're older, but as kids they shouldn't have to witness violence. They should see movies like Mickey Mouse's Sing Along. I use to love watching those movies.
 
So, I watched Caligula last night, having watched it 20 years ago, almost to the day. I remembered a great deal about the film, including the smarmy theme music, but I was surprised by how unmoved I was when I was absolutely horrified and appalled by it when I was younger.

Which leads me to the question/debate - should younger viewers be allowed to watch graphic films?

My friend let her 16 year old son see Grosse Point Blank while she watched Chasing Amy in a nearby theater. I was shocked that she considered gratuitous, over-the-top violence a better subject for him than a fairly accurate story about the trials of romance in today's society.

She felt the honest discussion of sexual acts was too much (frankly, I thought they were fairly tame and rather funny), but it was okay for him to see people shot through with bullets over and over and over and over and over (you get the idea) again.

I'm not okay with this - I have issues with youngsters watching any gratuitous sex and violence because I strongly believe that our society is way over exposed to it right now (pun intended). I'm not puritanical, but I think there's a difference between the way Europeans portray the female body and the length to which sexuality enters their culture. They're two different issues, and it would be better if we in the US were able to see that.

When I was a kid the whole town would turn out for G-rated films. That was perfectly acceptable, and well established in the community. When was the last time you saw a G-rated film that wasn't put out by Disney and geared towards children?

So...what are your thoughts on the topic? I'll post more later...
 
Back
Top