In Memoriam 1942 – 2013 “Roger Ebert loved movies.”

RogerEbert.com

Thumb mv5bmtg2njmzmdaxml5bml5banbnxkftztgwmdkxoty0mzi . v1 sy1000 cr0 0 676 1000 al

78/52

Testament to the power and mastery of a movie that, nearly 60 years on, still feels as modern, complex and cutting-edge as any film released…

Thumb tbrzhlne8dnplllwee9bwdgnzle

Professor Marston & the Wonder Women

A timely affirmation of feminine power—of the ways in which female wisdom and strength can charge hearts and minds, influence culture and inspire others to…

Other Reviews
Review Archives
Thumb xbepftvyieurxopaxyzgtgtkwgw

Ballad of Narayama

"The Ballad of Narayama" is a Japanese film of great beauty and elegant artifice, telling a story of startling cruelty. What a space it opens…

Other Reviews
Great Movie Archives
Other Articles
Chaz's Journal Archives
Other Articles
Blog Archives

The promotional poetry of the MPAA

frenetic.jpg

A disturbing image of frenetic violence and menace -- and some sensuality, if you're into the whole Cronenbergian "Crash" thing.

You may not have noticed one of the most exciting blurbs appearing in ads for "Mission: Impossible III." It reads: "Intense sequences of frenetic violence & menace, disturbing images & some sensuality!" (OK, I added the exclamation point.)

The reason you may not have seen this is because it appears in a little box in the lower left-hand corner of some print ads, and at the end of some TV ads and trailers, in a little box next to the code "PG-13." Yes, "frenetic violence & menace," "disturbing images" and "sensuality" -- though they sound like something a critic or a marketing department might say -- are words (superlatives?) employed by the Motion Picture Association of America (or, if you prefer, the Classification and Rating Administration, or CARA, a subdivision of the MPAA) to describe the reason for their PG-13 rating. Whew! Heady stuff, no?

Advertisement

I remember being particularly proud of the MPAA rating we received for "It's Pat: The Movie," which to my knowledge was the first and only motion picture ever given a PG-13 rating for "bizarre gender-related humor." (You can look up -- at filmratings.com.)

I've gotten hooked on the occasionally poetic film criticism of the MPAA and CARA. Guess which of the following blurbs applied to Paul Haggis's "Crash" (2005), and which to David Cronenberg's "Crash" (1996):

a) "accident gore, some graphic language and aberrant sexual content."

b) "language, sexual content and some violence."

c) "numerous explicit sex scenes."

Answers: Haggis's R-rated movie is "b." Cronenberg's R-rated "Crash" is "a"; but the NC-17 version is "c." Note that only Haggis's movie is rated for violence. The R-rated Cronenberg "Crash" has "some accident gore," but that (like the Haggis R) is only one of three considerations, the others being language and sex. In the NC-17 rating of "Crash," however, the language and gore aren't even worth mentioning because they are apparently so strongly overshadowed by the "numerous explicit sex scenes."

Sometimes you can tell that the MPAA/CARA raters just aren't into it. Other times, they dig into their censorious thesauri with gusto. Compare and contrast these R ratings:

"Chaos" (R): "violence and language."

"Hostel" (R): "brutal scenes of torture and violence, strong sexual content, language and drug use."

"Wolf Creek" (R): "strong gruesome violence, and for language." (What's the extra "for" for?)

"The Devil's Rejects" (R): "sadistic violence, strong sexual content, language and drug use."

"Bad Santa" (R): "pervasive language, strong sexual content and some violence." (Language is pervasive in "Bad Santa.")

Advertisement

"Saw" (R): "strong grisly violence and language."

"Saw II" (R): "grisly violence and gore, terror, language and drug content." (Note addition of "terror" for the sequel.)

"United 93" (R): "language, and some intense sequences of terror and violence."

"Munich" (R): "strong graphic violence, some sexual content, nudity and language."

"Silent Hill" (R): "strong horror violence and gore, disturbing images, and some language."

But back to "Mission: Impossible": CARA's approach to the previous films in this series read like early drafts until they finally got it right on the third attempt:

"Mission: Impossible" (PG-13): "some intense action violence."

"Mission: Impossible II" (PG-13): "intense sequences of violent action and some sensuality."

"Mission: Impossible III" (PG-13): "intense sequences of frenetic violence & menace, disturbing images & some sensuality."

That's right, we've gone from merely "intense" to "frenetic" and "menace" and "disturbing." You can't buy a review like that. Pure poetry...

Popular Blog Posts

The Fall of Toxic Masculinity and the Rise of Feminine Consciousness

A special edition of Thumbnails detailing the recent sexual harassment cases in the entertainment and tech industries...

"Blade Runner" vs. "Blade Runner 2049"

A Great Movie is hidden somewhere within "Blade Runner" and "Blade Runner 2049."

Man on the Outside: The Films of Willem Dafoe

A look at the career of Willem Dafoe.

Who do you read? Good Roger, or Bad Roger?

This message came to me from a reader named Peter Svensland. He and a fr...

Reveal Comments
comments powered by Disqus