This movie is going to be on TCm in July and I noticed the rating will be TV 14. Is it that racy it warrants a higher rating than G or even PG 13? Are there graphic or intense sex scenes or something?? Im thinking that if a movie for 1965 gets a 14 rating it must be intense or something...I've heard it described as an adult love story, but apparently it's a good movie. Can anyone let me know?? Thanks!
"Quod Me Nutrit Me Destruit"
"What Nourishes Me Also Destroys Me"
I saw it for the first time last October and the reason TCM rated it TV 14 is b/c there is semi-nudity with Elizabeth posing for the sculptor. There are no graphic or intense sex scenes, the only thing is there are scenes with Elizabeth and Richard reclining on the floor and just kissing on the beach. Other than that, its a good movie and I can't wait to see it again on TCM.
shareAwesome! Thanks :0)
"Quod Me Nutrit Me Destruit"
"What Nourishes Me Also Destroys Me"
I think part of the rating is because of the social context - not that it merits it. However, the theme of infidelity is strong and the guy is a preacher. In fact, when I saw it there are a few lines that denigrate the clerical profession, such as insinuating their infatuation with young boys and questioning their overall honest character. It was also mentioned that Sammy Davis Jr. was going to play the boyfriend, which would have been an inter-racial relationship. That would have made this movie even more socially interesting, as it brings up many issues, that at the time would have been considered quite controversial.
shareSammy Davis was replaced by Charles Bronson because of the interracial thing, which I find funny, since a relationship was implied between Liz's character and the Black sculptor...
shareThere's nothing that would raise an eyebrow today, but when I saw it as a very young man during its first release at Radio City Music Hall, the entire audience gasped when Elizabeth was revealed posing for Charles Bronson. She was wearing litle scanty panties and had some sort of material half-covering her breasts, but it was still pretty hot stuff. What generated an even bigger rukus in the audience was a later scene when Taylor's former boyfriend shows up and attempts to come on to her, and then try to rape her. She is wearing tight pants and a tight blouse, with a wide belt. Her old beau rips off the belt, her blouse falls open, and Miss T. is revealed in a wildly overflowing bikini top. I'm telling you, the Radio City crowd went wild. Perhaps more than anything, they were surprised at how good Taylor's body looked--flat tummy! (As usual, Elizabeth's weight fluctuated a bit in "The Sandpiper." But she'd been battling that issue since "Raintree Country.")
shareShe did not have a flat tummy!
As a former/now recovering bulimic, it was one of the first things I noticed about the lovely ET: her apparent tummy. It was noticable in every other scene. But... the wardrobe departement did a very good job of not making it in focus (though, you can't fool someone with weight issues...)
Sorry, that was not the point of your post, of course, but since you specifically pointed out "She had a flat tummy" I had to respond to that. Especially since her portruding tummy was so "in my face" through the whole movie. I kept thinking: "She probably weighed more than me in this movie, and she was/is a total sex symbol". Maybe the movie got an extra point for that...
Dear Wiz...
I see her tummy too, in certain scenes. But in that scene, she is clearly slimmer than through most of the film--you can see it in her face, too. When the blouse flies open, her body looks toned and her stomach flat. Or as flat as a 34 year old mother of three could be.
Yeah, I see your point. ET always had a well toned body, and when her flaws showed, she appeared all the more human. I do love her. She had no probs playing parts where she wasn't shown at her best (Virginia Woolfe).
shareYou see a lot of exposed flesh, and the fact that the movie semi-condones adultery might also be enough to get a "14" rating. I'm not sure how these things work.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
[deleted]
Not sure the film should be viewed as pro-adultery, but it is not clearly against it, either. I also wonder how much the fact that Dick is playing a minister who engages in adultery may have been a factor. (funny he did that in Night of the Iguana, too.)
share