Censured or Censored?

MPAA film ratings are supposed to be informative and help parents decide what films to allow their children to view. However, some people, including director of the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated Kirby Dick, have argued that MPAA ratings are inconsistent and arbitrary and constitute censorship based on the personal prejudices of the MPAA's anonymous rating board. The MPAA rating board avoids naming specific objectionable content, claiming that doing so would make them a censoring body; however, others contend that severely limiting a film's viewing audience by awarding a NC-17 rating constitutes censorship as well, particularly when the board refuses to make clear to film directors what content they might cut to obtain the more desirable R rating.

Consider the sexual content and graphic violence of 300 and Requiem for a Dream and the language used in Clerks, all R rated films. Requiem for a Dream was released NR, or not rated, but ultimately bent to the will of the MPAA by cutting a 6-second shot, specifically the arial view in what is known as the ass-to-ass scene to obtain an R rating, so the film could be released in an edited version that movie rental chains would carry the film. Do these 6 seconds warrant the difference between an audience allowed to view, purchase, or rent the film with parental consent versus those completely restricted from the film, at least in the public sphere? While it contains no violence, nudity, or visible sex acts, Clerks was also originally given the NC-17 rating, but director Kevin Smith appealed and won the more desirable R rating.

Film, TV shows, video games, and music are the only art forms with censoring labels. You won't find NC-17 labels on the back of Playboy magazine, erotic literature, paintings, sculptures, photography, etc. In fact, much of classic art depicts explicit nudity, even sex and violence. (Consider the classic literary works Lolita, Lady Chatterly's Lover, Tropic of Cancer; almost all of Greek sculpture including Venus de Milo and the David, paintings by artists such as Picaso, Dali, Goya; even religious works including the Bible and the Koran.

So why is film different? To what extent are rating systems censorship and thereby unconstitutional? Could the rating system be amended to make it more constitutional? Should we have a rating system at all?

Gratuitous?: Sex and Nudity in Film

As you've been reading in your textbook, costumes, setting, visual design, cinematography and special effects should not be used for some independent artistic effect but rather each should contribute to the purpose of the film as a unified whole. This principle applies not only to production design and cinematography, but to the content of the film as well.

Nudity and and portrayals of sexual acts are one of the primary sources of controversy in film. In order to resolve such controversies, film critics often debate whether such scenes are gratuitous. The two scenes that might spark such debate in Requiem for a Dream are the sex scene between Tyrone and his girlfriend and what is usually referred to as the ass-to-ass scene near the end of the film. Controversy over the latter scene is what also led to the film's release as unrated. The director was forced to tame down the final scene for the R-rated (censored) version that was released. Consider both of these scenes and determine whether each is gratuitous. Then compare the sex and nudity in Requiem for a Dream with that in 300.

Have these directors used sex as manipulative marketing strategy, cheap titillation to draw and audience? Or are the sex scenes and nudity necessary to the plot of the film? What, if anything, is contributed to our understanding of character or theme? Or think of it conversely. What, if anything, is lost from the overarching purpose of the film as a unified whole if these scenes are cut?