James Riswick
Associate Editor
A lot has changed in the century of movies and the half century of television. Yesterday’s on-screen restrictions on language, violence and sex seem laughable today. There’s no more need for married couples to sleep in separate beds; however, the conservative undertones that created those restrictions are still very much alive in the 21st century. And the problem is not that organizations like the Motion Picture Association of America are developing ratings and guidelines to inform viewers – and especially parents — of what they will be watching. It is the inconsistency of these ratings and what these groups (who supposedly represent the American mainstream) find acceptable and what they do not.
Nobody promotes this argument better than “South Park†creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who have been part of an on-going battle with the MPAA since their 1997 film “Orgazmo†received the curse-of-doom NC-17 rating. It can be said that their 1999 hit “South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut†was specifically made to satirize the MPAA. Meanwhile, week after week, “South Park†continues to push the envelope of what folks find acceptable – going out of their way to say the “sh†word 162 times in one episode to prove a point about course language on TV comes to mind.
With the release of their newest film, “Team America: World Police,†Parker and Stone are once again pushing the envelope and once again they’ve gotten into it with the MPAA. This time their argument is exactly what I’m getting at: somehow the MPAA determines that foul language, nudity and sexual content are more disrupting to children and society than graphic violence.
The MPAA initially gave “Team America†an NC-17 rating because of a two-minute “sex scene†between two characters. The problem is – if you didn’t know already – all of the characters in “Team America†are anatomically incorrect marionettes. We’re talking Barbie and Ken here. Parker and Stone had to cut the scene down to about 40 seconds, but they say that is all they had to cut to receive an R rating. None of the graphic scenes of puppets exploding or having bloody holes blown into them were removed.
“There’s nothing we’re asking for that hasn’t appeared in other R-rated movies, and our characters are made of wood,†producer Scott Rubin told the Los Angeles Times.
According to the MPAA, an NC-17 rating is given for “violence or sex or aberrational behavior or drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.†Nowhere does it say there that 40 seconds of anatomically incorrect puppet sex is less “off-limits†than two minutes.
“Team America†is hardly the only instance in which sexuality (real sexuality, not comedic puppet sex) is deemed more offensive than graphic violence. With the overwhelming popularity of DVDs, “director’s cut†and “unrated†versions of films are being planned before the film even hits the theaters. This especially goes for raunchy teen flicks like the “American Pie†movies. The parts of films that are put into the unrated versions (and therefore removed from the theatrical versions) are almost always scenes of nudity or sexuality. I can’t think of the last time a film had to produce an “unrated†version, so it could add in more excessive violence.
Why is it that a guy having a scalpel thrown into his eye in “True Lies†is less objectionable that an extra shot of some breasts in “American Wedding†or “Eurotrip?†Why is Quentin Tarantino given an R rating when he produces a gory bloodbath like “Kill Bill,†and yet the “South Park†guys get an NC-17 for puppets in sexual positions? It just doesn’t make sense.
But the MPAA alone can’t be blamed for these ratings. According to its Web site, each MPAA ratings board member “estimates what most parents would consider to be that film’s appropriate rating. After group discussion, the board votes on the rating.†Basically, they estimate what Joe and Jane average American would find offensive. So, what does it say about American culture when we’re OK with graphic violence, yet find nudity completely unacceptable? Why is sex worse than seeing somebody’s head blown off? Now, I don’t want my future children seeing sex on TV or movies, but I rather them see that than be desensitized, traumatized or inspired by violence.
As for what ages children can see these films, I tend to agree with Parker and Stone about the MPAA ratings not doing the job they’re intended to do.
“We definitely told our friend who had a 14-year-old to leave him at home (for ‘Team America),’†Parker told the Web site UnderGroundOnline. “I think around 15, but again it depends. There are extremely immature 16-year-olds that shouldn’t see it, too, and there are extremely mature 14-year-olds that will probably be all right. That’s why it should be up to a parent. That’s why the NC-17 rating is kind of ridiculous, because a parent should be the one that decides and should know what their child can take.â€
The MPAA is finally posting the reasons why a film is rated the way it is and that is an excellent thing (“Team America†was uniquely rated R for “graphic, crude and sexual humor, violent images and strong language; all involving puppetsâ€). These descriptions are far more useful than the far too broad PG, PG-13, R, etc. system. Relying more heavily on the descriptions would be a much better way to go in appropriately representing the films and informing parents. Plus, it wouldn’t highlight the fact that Americans find graphic violence less offensive than foul language, sex and nudity.
10-28-2004