The MPAA just lists what rating they'll give it, with various notes about why. It's the filmmakers responsibility to cut it if they want a different rating.
The key word you mentioned is what the problem is: implied. Sex scenes that are implied have no problem getting an R or even a PG-13. It's when the filmmakers feel the need to directly show show the act, and in what way, that decides if it gets an R or NC-17. If her nether region is visible in some way (and I don't mean a direct porno shot) at the same time the actor's face makes contact with the skin, it isn't nudity anymore.
An example that's brought up a lot in this discussion, The Cooler, features an oral sex scene as well, where Maria Bello's crotch and pubic hair is on screen, and William H. Macy's mouth brushes past the pubes. She tried to say the problem it was due to her pubes. No, it was the fact that Macy made contact with them.
Male oral sex scenes get the same scrutiny, and a bit more actually. Generally all you need is an erect penis to get an NC-17. Any contact in a sexual context, forget it. For a male oral sex scene to be in an R, you don't see the penis AT ALL and it's obscured in some other way as well.
So, no, it's a bit more complex of an issue. The end comments have no factor at all.
................
"Fine. You want to eat? Let's see if you can eat... PIZZA!!!"
reply
share
lazarillo
10 years ago
Don't confuse America with the MPAA. Many Americans have a lot of issues with the MPAA. They're controlled by the big studios and they have all kinds of double standards: sex vs. violence, controversial scenes in indie movies vs. controversial scenes in Hollywood movies, gay sex vs. straight sex. I'm not quite sure the issue here, but I think the MPAA are generally a bunch of cretins.
I guess my issue with the MPAA is that movie ratings are for kids PERIOD. There is absolutely no reason not to give any movie for ADULTS an "R" rating (or basically what would be an 18+ rating in other countries). If adults want to watch frickin' porno movies, they can because they're adults. They don't need movies "rated" for them. Yeah, a lot of it the commercial reality where theaters don't play and media outlets don't advertise unrated or NC-17 movies, but this wouldn't happen if the MPAA would simply rate everything that is not for kids "R" period.
I don't exactly buy the "sex is good and violence is bad" argument either, but it should be an absolute no-brainer whether we should worry more about KIDS being exposed to violence or ADULTS being exposed to graphic sex. Don't 99 percent of adults HAVE graphic sex?
reply
share
MTulliver
9 years ago
Don't you think someone should have the CHOICE of whether or not they want to watch graphic sex on screen? That's why we have "porn" and why we have regular movies. The ratings aren't just for kids. They're so you know what you're getting yourself into. I, personally, don't have an issue with racy stuff, but do think there needs to be a delineation between an adult film and a regular film.
reply
share