why rated R?


the rape scene that graphic for an R

reply

So you think it should have been rated X?
There was no foul language that I recall, and the level of nudity is what can be shown in an r- rated film.

although, i do agree that it is intense.

reply

I'm pretty sure he meant rated R is too high .... M or even MA 15+ would've been enough.

reply

At that time it deserved an R rating. Now it would be pg-13.

reply

I wonder if it would really be PG-13 today. It's quite an explicit scene, though more in tone than in actual violence. I haven't seen this for a few years, so I'll have to watch it again.

reply

I take my previous post back.I just rewatched this film after 20yrs and it would get an R rating now.Very disturbing film.

reply

Yes, I thought it would still merit an R. Thanks for the reminder.

reply

Today it would get an NC-17!

reply

Quite possibly. Not only is the rape scene graphic, but very disturbing -- even more so than you'd expect for a rape scene. It reminds me of films like "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer," which got an NC-17.

reply

A 10-minute on screen rape/violent beating of a naked woman, who gets tied to a bed after having her head beaten against a post, and anally violated...would get a PG-13 rating? What world are you living in? I really hope you are not a parent.
You are ridiculous..
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

reply

The first rape alone is definitely enough to give the movie an R rating but a few other contributing factors are:


1) When Gordan rapes Kathy. Nowhere near as graphic as the first one since all you see is the rapist ripping off her clothing but still shocking when you consider that Mariel was only 14 or 15 years old and correct me if I am wrong but I think you also see a little brief nudity.

2) When Gordan is shot to death by Chris. The only graphic violence in the film and I believe at least one of Chris's shots is right in Gordan's groin.

reply

There is no nudity in Kathy's rape. You see Gordon catch her, tear her clothes (and a flash of underwear) then the scene goes dark.

reply

The only graphic violence in the film and I believe at least one of Chris's shots is right in Gordan's groin

I think the rapes qualify as graphic violence. I dont think a shotgun blast to the groin necessarilly constitutes an instant R, but Im sure it helps. I think as a whole, a movie about a rapist which shows you his technique, and includes an under-age girl getting raped as a catalyst for a shotgunning most likely gets you an R rating in 1976 or 2010.
"Pffft, my suspension of disbelief has higher standards than that"

reply

Mariel was actually still only 13 when this movie was filmed.it was obviously filmed mostly in 1975 since it came out April 2,1976 and Mariel was born November of 1961.

reply

[deleted]

I have seen countless rape scenes in movies; but that 10 minutes long, savage rape in "Lipstick" has always been one of the nastiest of all time. What makes it so horrible is how violent, and sadistic it is. He doesn't just rape her, he tortures her, and beats her head against a wooden post, then ties her face down on her bed completely naked and anally violates her. Then after it's finished he smugly insists that she wanted it. It is a very hateful, humiliating rape scene. Believe me, this film was very controversial when it was released.

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

reply