Should have been rated NC-17
This film should have been given an NC-17 rating due to the extremne violence and the scene at the end of the movie which shows three faceless priests, all masturbating their erect penises.
The penises are coloured and may be rubber dildos/prosthetic, but they could be interpreted by some viewers to be real, and its inexplainable why such a scene would not get an NC-17 rating. If females were shown clearly masturbating their genitalia, it would result in an NC-17 rating. The film Showgirls (which was far less explicit) was given an NC-17 rating and the actual female genitalia could not be scene, and there was no clear touching of genitalia. There has never been any movie that clearly showed a woman's full genitalia (clitoris/labia, etc) being clearly masturbated, that was ever passed with an R-rating.
Most people would consider this scene pornographic, and the film should have been rated NC-17 because of it, or that scene should have been cut. The only possible explanation for it being passed with an R rating is that the priests appear almost 'non-human" and the penises do appear to be just dildos sitting on their laps, but nonetheless, the MPAA "standards" are baffling, and extremely sexist. Why can male genittalia be clearly shown, every deatail (like the penis in hall Pass) but full female genitalia (vulva/clitoris) cannot be shown in graphic detail? Why can male erect penises (even if prosthetic) be shown, but a spread-open, wet vagina not be shown in R-rated films ? Why can males be shown to be masturbating (such as in this film, even if prosthetics) but females cannot be shown clearly masturbating (fingering their vaginas, rubbing their clitoris)? Its sexist that male genitalia can be shown graphically in mainstream R-rateed movies, but an equally graphic portrayal of the female genitalia would garner an NC-17 rating, ensuring no mainstream distribution. This is a form of economic censorship and repression of the female body and female nudity/sexuality.
The extreme violence, gore, terror, depraved sexuality, nudity, masturbation, etc should have got this film an NC-17 rating. How can a movie like "Blue is the warmest Color", which was released around the same time and only had nudity and simulated sex, be given an NC-17 rating, but this film, is passed with an R-rating? An even more clear example of the sexist double-standard is that the French film "elles", which was released in 2011, was given an NC-17 rating. The movie was given the NC-17 rating beacuse it featured a brief scene where a female character rubs her vagina. You can't even see between her legs. She is just standing there, rubbing her vagina/masturbating. NO DIFFERENT THAN THE SCENE IN LORDS OF SALEM. The scene was about the same length as the scene in Lords of Salem, and BOTH MOVIES show brief masturbation. The ONLY difference is the GENDER. Lords of Salem featured males and was passed with an R-rating. Elles features a female, and was slapped with an NC-17 rating. Lords of Salem also contains way more violence/gore etc. How in the Hell can Lords of salem be granted an R rating, but Elles is given an NC-17. If onscreen masturbation is a no-no, then it should apply to BOTH genders equally. If brief masturbation can be shown, then Elles should have been passed with an r-rating too. This is undeniable proof of the sexist double-standard with how the MPAA rates nudity/sexuality between the genders and is more oppressive of female nudity/sexuality.