Yes there's frank sexual talk and full-frontal male and female nudity but this is an NC-17???? There's nothing hardcore here at all. The one sex scene shown is so obviously being faked it's almost funny. It's just basically has boring characters rambling on and on and ON about nothing. You see more explicit material on HBO or Showtime these days! This deserves an R.
shareI would rate it G, since Minnie Mouse has bigger tits
shareIt was rated 'X' in the 70s, and that's been "updated" to NC-17 without much thought. I believe what qualifies it for that is the fact that it's not just full frontal but sustained full frontal that keeps it there.
And I suspect you overestimate the amount of actual nudity on HBO. HBO does a lot of quick-cuts and suggestive pans that show far less than you'd think, and for much less time. Most of what you see on HBO is bare tits and ass, not full frontal.
Then there's also the very direct sexual theme of it, as opposed to the sexuality being incidental.
Not to suggest I think there's anything there that needs to keep older teens away. I think anyone over 15, offhand, isn't likely to be deeply perverted by it in any way, even without adult supervision.
OK--you're right about HBO. Plenty of tits and ass but nothing frontal below the waist. You're probably right about the sustained full frontal nudity and sexual themes keeping it at an NC-17. "Watchmen" had one character (Manhattan) who was nude through almost the entire movie and there was plentry of full frontal...but that was CGI and not in a sexual context.
shareYou clearly haven't seen Game of Thrones if you think there's no frontal nudity on HBO. There's more in this, but the only way this could get re-rated to "R" would be if they PAID to resubmit it to the MPAA for review.
Given the lack of interest in the film (it's a pre-MTV talking heads movie, so it's certainly slow by modern standards, though it's quite well written and done in that context) that's not gonna happen.
Yet another example of the screwed up priorities of our society. A film like this a NC-17 because of a graphic sex scene (granted it is rape) but all of those movies with graphic violence only gets a R? Nudity is bad but evisceration is ok?
Even network TV is pushing the boundaries on violence. The Following and Hannibal come to mind. It's ok to expose people to that but not nudity? Even on channels like HBO, Showtime etc. the nudity that is shown is far outweighed by the violence. I don't know about the rest of you but I'd much rather watch a nude woman frolicking about as opposed to someone being butchered. Nudity is natural and beautiful where as violence is ugly and (in some cases) unnatural.
"Show of hands. How many of you have screwed up your lives and others' with violence."
. . .
"OK, that's quite a lot. Hey, if you're a radical Muslim put your hand down."
. . .
"OK, a lot fewer. Not really very many of you at all. Now if you've screwed up your life with sex?"
. . .
"Ah...so almost everyone?"
IOW, maybe it's not about what is "natural and beautiful". Although I would be interested to know what's unnatural about violence? And, have you ever seen porn? Are you sure all sex beautiful? Or an Akira Kurosawa movie? Are you sure all violence is ugly?
-------
http://moviegique.com/
I go to the movies more than you.
NC-17 doesn't mean pornographic or explicit sex. In "Inserts" case, it got that rating because of the subject matter, as well as a lot of graphic sex talk and constant frontal nudity that would be too much, even for older teens in the 16-17 range.
shareThe MPAA's ratings standards have changed a lot over the years, but I think several scenes of frontal nudity has always been too much for an R.
share