Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
some may have heard by now that Steve Mcqueen's new film "Shame" starring Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan has received the infamous NC-17 rating.
Fox Searchlight is, rather than fighting it with an appeal like Blue Valentine did last year, wearing the rating proudly hoping it will spread awareness and interest.
NC-17 inhibits or is supposed to inhibit anyone under the age of 18 from seeing a film, guardian or no guardian.
many film-goers have strong opinions on the MPAA and its constant backwardness of minimal censorship on graphic amounts of gore and violence on film, but harshly bringing down the ban-hammer on anything with more than 10 seconds of penis.
what's your opinion? and what do you think of Fox Searchlight's strategy of wearing the rating as a badge rather than a scarlet letter?
i have no problems with NC 17 movies, i honestly don't believe that really even stops underage people from seeing that stuff. many parents don't give two shits about what their kids watch. i have 4 yr olds in my preK class telling me they are having nightmares about chucky stabbing them b/c they've watched movies like that.
my only issue is how nudity can get such a strong reaction but things like using a blowtorch on someone's eye (ala hostel) or all that nasty gore in ones like the SAW movies only gets an R.
in my opinion, nudity and sex is far more acceptable than violence. everyone has a naked body (and has sex eventually) but everyone doesn't cut people's head off or cut their guts out etc. it also kind of bothers me how its ok to see a fully naked female but as soon as there's wiener than OH MY GOD TURN YOUR EYES.
I think things can change... it's been long enough since Showgirls pretty much killed the commercial appeal of any film to be tagged with the rating since. I think the whole Blue Valentine thing really got the attention of more people for the ridiculousness of the rating more than any movie in a long time. I'd say it's worth a shot, really trying to push a somewhat major release with the rating, nowadays. Doubt it would be a big enough hit to make a difference, but it's a step in breaking a fear many film makers have, that of getting an NC 17 and end up losing money or having to chop your film to hell to comply.
Speaking for the actual ratings and what they're supposed to actually accomplish, I can remember going to see many R rated movies with my parents that I'm sure they thought after the fact I shouldn't have seen. If you want to protect your kids from something, don't bring them to the theaters. But, some movies do misadvertise, and a film ends up being dirtier or more violent than is suggested in the preview. For that, I think that yeah, some NC 17 movies I've seen I wouldn't allow anyone to bring their kid under 16 or 15 to see, but the same could be said for many R movies I've seen. This isn't a reflection of my personal morals, with that intent, of really restricting a film from minor viewing almost as much as screenings of porn, a top level, hard rating is a good thing to have.
Providing an outlet and a voice for music lovers to unite under the common theme of music for all. Join The Pondo Army to show your allegiance to musical freedom! Fighting for no censorship of the arts & music education in schools, The Pondo Army will triumph! The Pondo Army Movement
Follow me on twitter@Pondoknowsbest
I can't help but question the authenticity of certain parts of the doc, though. As an explanation of what is and isn't acceptable to the MPAA, it's quite eye opening... but the undercover crap was just so stupid.
