by Rod Gustafson | Posted on Jan. 26, 2010 in
Dadof3&Husband; says: Jan. 31, 2010
The other big change in MPAA ratings has been the amount of sexual content and the flood of full frontal male nudity in R movies. While most movies with full female frontal nudity get an NC-17 rating now, it seems the only way to get an award in Hollywood is to show male genitals. If you were to take a movie like the reader, and reverse the 2 characters, A 30s female and a boy playing a 15 or 16 year old, and make that a 30s man and a 16 year old girl, the public would cry out how perverse it is. Instead, the movie was all over the awards nominations. This only encourages more of this type of movie. All the shows you see with IFC reviewers and such only want films where people “take chances” or are a little “edgy” when what they are pushing for is to drive sex and nudity heaver and heavier into the movies and in an incremental pace such that we don’t feel the impact until at some point we say “How did we get here?”. Put the NC-17 content back where it belongs, in NC-17 movies. Our teenagers are getting bombarded by enough “crap” on tv and advertising. We don’t need to continue eroding the societal moral norm such that Sexual content continues filtering down to PG-13, PG, etc.
I would love to go to a movie that the content in the trailer really does represent the content in the movie, not content that makes me want to leave the theater.
While I am on this topic, let me just add that I enjoyed the movie “The Blind Side”. It definitely had a female slant to it, but to finish with that stupid comment about emasculating the main character ruined the whole movie for me. Anytime I hear someone talk about it, that is the only thing I can think of and I won’t recommend it to anyone. Why do they do that? Ruin a perfectly good movie to make an emasculating comment, ridicule a man’s sexuality, or do the genital pain thing? Is it because they know the content will get through and not affect the ratings because most of the people rating the movies are women?
Rod Gustafson says: Feb. 01, 2010
Good point on “The Reader.” For all the supposed “progress” we have made with sexual equality, it’s interesting how gender roles are still very different from a Hollywood perspective.
Dadof3&Husband; says: Feb. 01, 2010
You even see it in the reviewers. When I read a review I can tell if a man or a woman did it. And the real review is definitely in between. We all have content we don’t “mind” or “notice”. An example, in the review on this website of “When in Rome” the reviewer comments a couple of times that a female character was showing cleavage. That is definitely from a female reviewer. Then she comments on the painting showing female full frontal nudity when all you really see is a scant amount of pubic hair, on a piece of art. Nowhere is there a mention of the nude male statues showing full male frontal nudity, on a piece of art.
It’s the way we are being programmed by Hollywood and somehow it needs to get back to a sensible, equal normalcy.
Commenting is restricted to members only. Please log in below or if you're not yet a member, please register.
Please remember me in the future.
Forgot password? | register
Please note: So we can maintain a website with content appropriate for all ages, we moderate all comments and will edit profanities, slanderous remarks and other inappropriate language. For these reasons, your comments will not appear immediately.
Parent Previews wants to help you keep in the loop, it's quick and easy, to subscribe via RSS.