Carrey film "too risqué" for US release

[JSWalsh]

The ratings system doesn't bother me because it's Hollywood being hoist on its own lack of courage. Just as with the Blacklist, it's something cowardly Hollywood does to head off criticism from those "little people" who pay for the Hollywoodies' swimming pools and lines of coke.

I would prefer no ratings system, or would prefer it be simply an unenforced advisory, but I don't really care. It's never impeded my seeing a movie, and it seems like every time I've seen an "uncensored" version of a movie on DVD that was trimmed for the theater, I've always wondered "What's the big deal?" I've never seen the unedited version of a movie that was first trimmed to get a rating and thought some travesty of art destruction had happened.

None of this stuff would be an issue in 2009 if Hollywood had some balls and stood up to the people they now attack like the easy targets they are. Without being able to bitch about the amount of genitalia they can show, what would Hollywood have to complain about? Gosh, they might actually have to make movies with interesting stories and characters.

When books like Henry Miller's got into trouble, the forces of control were fought, and today you don't have any problems with censorship of books because of IDEAS (or anything else, in the correct use of the word censorship). That's why Banned Books Week or Month is a kind of embarassing memorial--they don't have banned books anymore, and they have to resort to books that are "challenged"--people who don't want their tax money subsidizing certain books in their public school libraries. There are no banned books anymore.

Why didn't Hollywood, supposedly so cutting edge, get in on this trend back in the day? Why did they buckle, and continue to buckle? They could fight this stuff right now. They don't; for all their posing, they don't want to risk their multimillion-dollar bank accounts.

So I have zero sympathy for any moviemaker who complains about the ratings system, even a low-budget indie filmmaker. They don't have the usually suburban sheep, their usual whipping boys, to blame, they have their fellow filmmakers.

[AndyDursin]

The ratings system, as we know, is a joke. PG-13 movies can be filled with lame sex jokes but drop one F-bomb and your movies gets an R (still trying to grasp the R rating SLUMDOG MILLIONARE received).

Growing up my parents let me watch movies like ALIEN despite their R rating because they sometimes had less objectionable content than, say, the PG-13 REVENGE OF THE NERDS 2 or EUROPEAN VACATION (and they were right). These days we can cut, dice, and splice horror victims in R rated torture-porn, but actually put a sex scene in a film and you flirt with an NC-17.

Nothing new, obviously, but it's ridiculous.

[Monterey Jack]

The ratings system, as we know, is a joke. PG-13 movies can be filled with lame sex jokes but drop one F-bomb and your movies gets an R (still trying to grasp the R rating SLUMDOG MILLIONARE received).

I remember Bruce Willis' catchphrase "Yippee Kay-Yay, motherf***er!" having to get clipped off at the end by a gunshot to earn Live Free Or Die Hard a PG-13...and yet the film is still full of graphic gunplay violence?

Agreed about Slumdog Millionaire, which has some mildly objectionable material but not nearly enough to earn an R (no nudity I can remember, violence that was mostly implied, modest lauguage) considering what an uplifiting fable the film ultimately turned out to be. Even with the R rating, the film has done tremendously well, but with a PG-13, it would have grossed a great deal more.

I'm reminded of a hilarious and sadly true quote from Paul Verhoeven; "Kiss a woman's breast, it's an NC-17. Cut off a woman's breast, and it's an R."

[Eric Paddon]

I'm not a defender of graphic violence in films that "only" gets an R. But in seeing filmmakers bitch and complain about R and NC-17 distinctions of the kind being mentioned only makes me wonder more and more why they're incapable of coming up with a film that would merit only PG? And the rating system also became a joke when "G" was made synonymous with kiddie-fare only and ignored the fact that you can do a good film aimed at an adult level that in terms of its content can be a "G" (like "The Rookie"). Or conversely films aimed at the kid level automatically make sure they put one thing in that will make a difference between "G" and "PG" by putting in some gratiuitous toilet joke.

Directors have taken the posture that because they can do something they couldn't do 40 years ago, they *should* do it with as much excess as possible and to hell with making any effort to try and tell a story without resorting to such cheap gimmickry whether its violence or sex or language. And I'm never going to have any kind of respect for that kind of filmmaking.

[JSWalsh]

Directors have taken the posture that because they can do something they couldn't do 40 years ago, they *should* do it with as much excess as possible and to hell with making any effort to try and tell a story without resorting to such cheap gimmickry whether its violence or sex or language. And I'm never going to have any kind of respect for that kind of filmmaking.

That really says it all. Modern filmmakers are full of pretentious crap like Verhoven's quote above (coming from a guy who splatters the screen with blood and pretentions to meaning, it's utterly hilarious as well as being typical of the Hollywood mentality, whatever country one comes from), yet do they fight to put different political or religious or ethical positions on the screen? Nope--their outrage is in defense of garbage.

We know the classic books because of their originality, perceptions, point of view, style--all of which can be had for the price of a ream of typewriter paper and some thinking and living life. Does Hollywood rush to make movies about new ideas, new points of view, or OLD-fashioned good storytelling, traditional values like honor, heroism, love of family and country? Nope. Instead, we get Hollywood bellowing about art while they crank out utter garbage like STARSHIP TROOPERS with its obvious "satire" that isn't above the level of MAD magazine.

If you asked most filmmakers their favorite films, they'd give you CITIZEN KANE, 2001, SUNSET BOULEVARD, and films by Bergman, Renoir, Kurosawa. Somehow all of these classics managed to be made and seen by people, and Welles didn't need to show guys doing each other to make arguably THE greatest movie ever--and he didn't need chopped-off breasts or four-letter words, either.

[The Pessimist]

There really should be no law banning any type of rating. If a horror wants to be as extreme as possible, they can. If little Billie gets traumatized, it's his own fault cause no theatre actually forces anyone to go see their movies. He snuck in himself and disobeyed this adult rating. Generally theatre owners are good about this sort of thing.

Where the ratings system might come in handy is obvious as a pre-determination, but that "R" rating can become "RR" or "RRR", even XXX since those attending these movies are adults who have made a clear and honest agreement upon entrance. The free market though is the best indicator of what does or does not survive. If the people do not want torture porn, they won't go see it. But if some house is continually running it, that means someone does.

[JSWalsh]

If little Billie gets traumatized, it's his own fault cause no theatre actually forces anyone to go see their movies. He snuck in himself and disobeyed this adult rating.

But little Billie isn't responsible for himself, he's a minor.

I dislike the ratings, but if we can charge bartenders or bar owners for letting people get drunk in their establishments who then go out and drive, it comes down to the theater owner to enforce the rules he abides by.

The coarseness of our culture is a result of freedom of expression, allowing anyone to make a movie about whatever he likes. But that doesn't mean the people who make torture porn aren't hurting society for a buck. Sorry, I can't be a libertine about this kind of thing, and the movie industry can't have it both ways--if there is going to be a ratings system, the theater owners are the ones who have to enforce it when it comes to minors.

[Jedbu]

The parents have to enforce it, as well. I don't know how many classes I've subbed in where I hear kids-Kindergarten to 5th-mention watching stuff like SCARFACE or the Freddy Krueger movies and Chucky to SAW and other torture porn. They have T-shirts with the characters or sayings on them (which the schools usually have the parents bring something else for them to wear-those are verboten here) and either quote dialogue-have caught quite a few leaving the colorful metaphors in, which sends them straight to the office-or describe scenes that I would never want to watch.

What makes parents feel that this sort of film is OK to show to kids of this age? The problem is it isn't necessarily the parents showing it to them or watching it with them-many times it is an older sibling putting it on or a "sitter" or the kid is left alone with these videos available for them to watch or PPV or premium cable. And you do have those morons who feel that ANY film is OK to show to kids because it keeps the kids occupied while the "adult(s)" are busy with their lives. Added to that the underpaid staff at theaters who think it is cool to let kids into restricted movies because that is what they did when they were younger or wish they did.

Our society has become one in which no one takes responsibility for their actions, no parent is responsible for their kid or the actions of the child (IMHO should never have had kids, let alone be responsible for raising one), and when someone does something wrong, we blame society or everyone else instead of looking at the person in the mirror and realize that what happens is up to us.

This is not necessarily a permissive society, but when you have irresponsible people in a society and their population is growing, that is what you need to work on.

[JSWalsh]

The parents have to enforce it, as well.

That goes without saying. But I grow so tired of everyone but the parents who says "Not my watch." Indeed, it is not the theater owner's watch what any kid does outside of his theater, but the theater is advertising that a movie is unavailable to kids who aren't accompanied by a parent, so that one part of the kids' life is indeed the theater owner's responsibility.

[JSWalsh]

They have T-shirts with the characters or sayings on them (which the schools usually have the parents bring something else for them to wear-those are verboten here) and either quote dialogue-have caught quite a few leaving the colorful metaphors in, which sends them straight to the office-or describe scenes that I would never want to watch.

What makes parents feel that this sort of film is OK to show to kids of this age?

You say that the parents can't blame society for their kids' ills, and of course I agree--seriously, have you ever encountered anyone who didn't?

Yet who's making these products, these movies and t-shirts?

Of course it all comes down to the parents--again, that's the most noncontroversial thing one can say. But while we never let up on the parents of these kids, and shouldn't, what kind of people are making this kind of stuff, and what kinds of adults are spending the money to see these movies? Because these flicks couldn't survive on the income from underage kids sneaking in after buying tickets for a PG movie.

There should be responsibility, but it's the people who say it's all the parents' fault when it's other adults whose ticket purchases sustain these violence-porn movies. THEY are the ones who are doing the "It's society, not me" thing, since they don't see how their individual actions are impacting the society they are a part of as much as the negligent parents.

[The Pessimist]

If little Billie gets traumatized, it's his own fault cause no theatre actually forces anyone to go see their movies. He snuck in himself and disobeyed this adult rating.

But little Billie isn't responsible for himself, he's a minor.

I dislike the ratings, but if we can charge bartenders or bar owners for letting people get drunk in their establishments who then go out and drive, it comes down to the theater owner to enforce the rules he abides by.

The coarseness of our culture is a result of freedom of expression, allowing anyone to make a movie about whatever he likes. But that doesn't mean the people who make torture porn aren't hurting society for a buck. Sorry, I can't be a libertine about this kind of thing, and the movie industry can't have it both ways--if there is going to be a ratings system, the theater owners are the ones who have to enforce it when it comes to minors.

Again, the keyword here you use is "society". Torture porn exists in the first place because some adult checked the "yes" box to whether or not they wanted to view that websites material. If website porn proceeds to force it upon the public by intercepting someone' internet wavelength, then that's one thing that can be fined or receive imprisonment (though usually for repeat offenses). But the mere existence of porn doesn't give The Morality Police the right to ban actions that are overwhelmingly supported by adults in private. It is the parents job to make certain their children are not peruving internet porn. There are laws against child porn of which a well majority of the porn industry does not support. The industry may have shacky morals, but, jeez, good luck banning something adults support. So there's this child law and internet surfing intrusion measure in place, but if a child clicks "yes" to that "Are you 18 years-old?" thing, I wish you luck in prosecution.

[Eric Paddon]

The problem is not that porn of this kind isn't banned or anything like that. It's the fact that we have created a broader cultural climate in which our ability to find such filth shocking and repulsive has been desensitized through a greater "acceptance" of such things to the point where if one views filth as filth, or if one heaven forbid even believes in the promotion of abstinence rather than indulgence, that person is made the oddball outcast from society in the eyes of our cultural elites. When we live in an era where the Larry Flynts of this world get flattering biopics made about them, that's my definition of how neurotic things are now.

[The Pessimist]

Because these flicks couldn't survive on the income from underage kids sneaking in after buying tickets for a PG movie.

I highly doubt it's kids sneaking in but rather adults. Theatre owners can only take so many fines before they themselves enforce the laws on under-18 rules.

There should be responsibility, but it's the people who say it's all the parents' fault when it's other adults whose ticket purchases sustain these violence-porn movies. THEY are the ones who are doing the "It's society, not me" thing, since they don't see how their individual actions are impacting the society they are a part of as much as the negligent parents.

Well, it primarily is the parent's fault. Society is only a number of individuals. The free market dictates everything. And the responsibility rests on crappy parents with crappy morals as well as kids who consciously seek these forms of entertainment, plus adults in general obviously. But banning stuff does no good. It will only create a "black market" (I think that's the correct term, or "underground"). Saw is in its 4th or 5th installment because adults, whether it be young or old, said "I wanna see that!" What liberty really means is a toleration for a lot of stuff provided it isn't forced upon you. For the most part, the movie AND porn industry are not forcing it upon anyone. There's computer filters and whatnot designed for that very reason.

[The Pessimist]

The problem is not that porn of this kind isn't banned or anything like that. It's the fact that we have created a broader cultural climate in which our ability to find such filth shocking and repulsive has been desensitized through a greater "acceptance" of such things to the point where if one views filth as filth, or if one heaven forbid even believes in the promotion of abstinence rather than indulgence, that person is made the oddball outcast from society in the eyes of our cultural elites. When we live in an era where the Larry Flynts of this world get flattering biopics made about them, that's my definition of how neurotic things are now.

Again, that's a matter of educating people if they want it, and they've decided quite clearly that isn't what they want since they are responsible for their own actions.

[Eric Paddon]

I don't accept that premise. I believe there are more people out there who end up being pressured into assuming that was once shocking and violent and destructive is okay because the cultural elite pushes the idea that it's okay. They are ultimately the victims of an "education" of a different kind in which often parents can find themselves powerless to prevent their children from succumbing to the pressure, just as surely as parents themselves can be irresponsible in their own upbrining of their children.