It's to illustrate an aspect of a woman's character (that she's uninhibited and doesn't mind casual nudity). (Nudity is not a sin, and if the presence of nudity results in lust - which is a sin - the problem is with the observer, not the nude person.) The point of this scene (and countless others like it) is not to titillate or arouse. Are they not allowed to stand naked in front of a mirror?)Įven after bringing religion into the equation, it still makes no sense. Are breasts such a horrifying sight that we feel the need to protect minors from seeing them? (This makes even less sense with girls, since they have them. Once again, I find myself asking why a naked human body cannot be seen by anyone under the age of 17. And that's where things stop making sense.
STARLET NUDITY MOVIE
But, from the MPAA's perspective, the nude scene alone would disqualify this movie from a less restrictive rating. There are reasons beyond the "graphic nudity" for Broken Flowers to be rated R, so I'm not going to quibble with the classification. Frankly, it's a lot tamer than some nude scenes in films that have not been labeled as containing "graphic nudity." There was pubic hair in The Devil's Rejects, and the only "graphic" that film got was for violence. Admittedly, we see pretty much all of her (breasts, buns, pubic hair), but it doesn't last long. So what was so shocking, so unusual that the MPAA coined a new term for it? A naked woman walks into a room, smiles at Bill Murray, then turns around and walks out. That, as far as I could guess, would deserve to be tagged "graphic nudity." Maybe it would be something like the still photographs in Kinsey. Was I about to see a close-up of a vagina or a penis? Was someone in the film going to spread his or her legs? The lack of an NC-17 indicates that the "graphic nudity" occurs in a non-sexual situation, so pornography seemed unlikely. But not "graphic nudity." So what constitutes "graphic nudity?" I was curious.
I can't recall having seen that phrase used before to elaborate on a rating. According to the MPAA's content description, it is rated R for "graphic nudity" (amongst other things). Instead, it's about one of the reasons for the R-rating. The MPAA has given it a justifiable R-rating. Last week, I saw Broken Flowers, the lastest Jim Jarmusch film. Maybe I should dedicate one day a week to an anti-MPAA ReelThought.
0 kommentar(er)
