"Disturbing images" -- yet another euphemism?
Last summer, you may recall there was some confusion as to what the MPAA meant when it said that certain PG-rated films had earned that rating for their "thematic elements". Now I'm starting to wonder what the MPAA means by "disturbing images".
For example, last week, while finishing my review of Stranger Than Fiction, I noticed that the MPAA had rated the film PG-13 for "some disturbing images, sexuality, brief language and nudity."
Then, while looking up some info on Richard Linklater's adaptation of Fast Food Nation, I noticed that this film was rated R for "disturbing images, strong sexuality, language and drug content."
What do these two very different films have in common, that could fall under the rather vague label of "disturbing images"?
Scenes of animal death, is my guess. Fast Food Nation revolves around the activities of a meat-packing plant -- and yes, we do see cows getting slaughtered, though for my money the footage is nowhere near as challenging as what we see in documentaries like Our Daily Bread -- whereas Stranger Than Fiction includes a scene of Will Ferrell sitting at home and watching a nature show on TV, about animal predators pursuing and devouring their prey.
The funny thing is, some of the footage in Stranger Than Fiction -- such as the clip in which a bunch of crabs gang up on a wounded bird -- is taken from the documentary Winged Migration (2002), which the MPAA rated G without any warning whatsoever.
I wonder, what other films have shown images of animals being killed, and how has the MPAA treated them? Apocalypse Now (1979) famously included a scene of a bull being slaughtered, and when the Redux version was released five years ago, the MPAA rated it R for "disturbing violent images", among other things.
On the other hand, Michael Haneke's Time of the Wolf (2003) and Caché (2005) both included scenes of animals being killed -- a horse and a chicken, respectively -- and while the MPAA rated both films R for violence, it did not use the word "disturbing".
Maybe it's only the relatively mainstream films, and the relatively mainstream audiences they attract, that "need" this warning?
Have any films had the "disturbing images" warning for something other than scenes of animal death? And if scenes of animal death is the reason for these ratings, why can't the MPAA just say that?
For example, last week, while finishing my review of Stranger Than Fiction, I noticed that the MPAA had rated the film PG-13 for "some disturbing images, sexuality, brief language and nudity."
Then, while looking up some info on Richard Linklater's adaptation of Fast Food Nation, I noticed that this film was rated R for "disturbing images, strong sexuality, language and drug content."
What do these two very different films have in common, that could fall under the rather vague label of "disturbing images"?
Scenes of animal death, is my guess. Fast Food Nation revolves around the activities of a meat-packing plant -- and yes, we do see cows getting slaughtered, though for my money the footage is nowhere near as challenging as what we see in documentaries like Our Daily Bread -- whereas Stranger Than Fiction includes a scene of Will Ferrell sitting at home and watching a nature show on TV, about animal predators pursuing and devouring their prey.
The funny thing is, some of the footage in Stranger Than Fiction -- such as the clip in which a bunch of crabs gang up on a wounded bird -- is taken from the documentary Winged Migration (2002), which the MPAA rated G without any warning whatsoever.
I wonder, what other films have shown images of animals being killed, and how has the MPAA treated them? Apocalypse Now (1979) famously included a scene of a bull being slaughtered, and when the Redux version was released five years ago, the MPAA rated it R for "disturbing violent images", among other things.
On the other hand, Michael Haneke's Time of the Wolf (2003) and Caché (2005) both included scenes of animals being killed -- a horse and a chicken, respectively -- and while the MPAA rated both films R for violence, it did not use the word "disturbing".
Maybe it's only the relatively mainstream films, and the relatively mainstream audiences they attract, that "need" this warning?
Have any films had the "disturbing images" warning for something other than scenes of animal death? And if scenes of animal death is the reason for these ratings, why can't the MPAA just say that?
posted by Peter T Chattaway at 3:05 PM
3 Comments:
hmm...so animals being killed are disturbing images but people being killed are not? Or I perhaps it is just that animal violence isn't worthy of a "real" violence rating.
Quick check shows me that Tarkovsky's _Andrei Rublev_ was not MPAA rated. I doubt the Horse scene (and a couple of other animal scenes) would fare well.
hmm...so animals being killed are disturbing images but people being killed are not?
Hmmm, now that you mention it, one of the recent "respectable snuff films" I mentioned here -- The Bridge, a documentary about people jumping to their deaths from the Golden Gate Bridge -- has been rated by the MPAA, and it received an R for "disturbing content involving suicide".
So "disturbing" would seem to apply to actual deaths that take place in front of a camera, whether human or animal, whereas the artificial deaths that are staged for typical movies would not be "disturbing" in that sense, because we know it's all make-believe.
Good point, Peter...the MPAA does not seem to have a lack of continuity to their rating system. The 2005, family movie "Duma" (released by Warner Bros.)was rated PG for "mild adventure peril." HOWEVER, there were a couple scenes in which wild animals catch and eat other wild animals...and you can see the bloody carcasses!
On their website, the MPAA claims to be "working to help parents make informed decisions about what their kids watch." I, for one, would like to see a little more information being offered so we can make those informed decisions!
Post a Comment
<< Home