Reminder that:

 - The film “Sucker Punch” had a sex scene between a male and female where the female character was in control of her own sexuality.

- The MPAA would only allow it after it was edited to look like the girl wasn’t into it and the guy was taking advantage of her.

- Note that if the sex scene had been kept as originally planned and filmed, then the film would have been given an “R” rating - but with the guy taking advantage it was a PG-13.

- The director didn’t want to send that message so he just cut it completely.

If that doesn’t say something about the media and women/female sexuality then I don’t know what will.

The actress who played said female character, Emily Browning, stated:

I had a very tame and mild love scene with Jon Hamm. It was like heavy breathing and making out. It was hardly a sex scene… I think that it’s great for this young girl to actually take control of her own sexuality. Well, the MPAA doesn’t like that. They don’t think a girl should ever be in control of her own sexuality because they’re from the Stone Age.

I don’t know what the fuck is going on and I will openly criticize it, happily. So essentially, they got Zack to edit the scene and make it look less like she’s into it. And Zack said he edited it down to the point where it looked like he was taking advantage of her. That’s the only way he could get a PG-13 (rating) and he said, ‘I don’t want to send that message.’ So they cut the scene!

I’m torn. I want an ‘R’ (rating) because we can get a lot of cool scenes into it, but then I like the idea of younger girls being able to see it.”


When the MPAA took their scissors to the fight scene, the thing that they objected to the most was not the beating of Alabama, but it was Alabama fighting back, which is very strange. The MPAA literally said, “Ok you gotta rid of that, I just can’t deal with that.” And I go, “Why? She’s fighting back. She’s the hero.” “Well, it’s because she becomes an animal.” “Well that’s the fucking point!” It got to the point of actual story content that they were trying to eliminate.

-Quentin Tarantino on the “True Romance” commentary

Over and over again in “Bully,” we see adults who feel bureaucratically paralyzed, who look the other way, who are unwilling to make judgments between perpetrators and victims, or who actively condone vicious and sadistic behavior as the Darwinian natural order of childhood. In many cases you can feel considerable sympathy for these people. After all, the schools must try to educate bullies as well as victims (and the latter often turn into the former), the distinction between normal horseplay and bullying can be hard to parse, and no adult can protect a child from all possible harm.

Declaring that underage kids can’t even see this film without a grown-up to hold their hands, however, falls somewhere near the nastier end of that spectrum of indecision. With the stated goal of not offending anybody, the MPAA has essentially told the bullied teens in the movie and outside it — gay and lesbian kids, autistic kids, disabled kids, fat kids and nerds and Goths and plain old weird kids who don’t fit in — that their very existence is too upsetting for normal kids to see, and they should crawl back under their rocks.

Overrated: Bully’s R Rating Should Mean the End of the MPAA

The new documentary Bully takes on the issue of harassment in American high schools, depicting real scenes of school bus torture, schoolyard violence, administrative indifference, and the tragic fallout in explicit detail. Now, the Motion Picture Association of America has made sure that most American high school students won’t be able to see the film: It’s slapped the doc with an R rating.

Read about it on GOOD→ 

The MPAA didn’t just okay the German scat porn in South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. They PUT IT IN THE MOVIE.

6 Sneaky Ways Movies and TV Shows Outsmarted the Censors

#5. The MPAA Accidentally Made South Park More Disgusting

According to [Matt] Stone and [Trey] Parker, every time the MPAA told them a scene [in South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut] was too raunchy for an R-rating, they’d submit what they thought was even worse, and, to their surprise, the more disgusting example was always given the green light. For example, there’s a scene in the movie where the kids discover a porn flick starring Cartman’s mother. Originally the video was of a woman having sex with a horse, but after the MPAA shot it down, they resubmitted a longer version where she ate human feces. They meant it as a big fat “fuck you for trying to tell us what to do,” but the censors thought it was fine.

Read More

The MPAA’s Terror of Oral Sex Only Hastens Its Journey to Utter Irrelevance

Evan Rachel Wood is making the news this week with a complaint about oral sex. For her recent turn in Charlie Countryman, an apparently execrable movie about a guy mourning his mother who receives a vision to travel to Eastern Europe, where he falls in love with a gangster’s moll (oh boy), Wood filmed a sex scene. This sex scene apparently depicted Shia LeBoeuf going down on Evan Rachel Wood. And the MPAA, when they saw the film, threatened to give it an NC-17 rating on the basis of that scene. Because there is apparently something so deeply offensive and radical about cunnilingus that the Children of AmericaTM cannot possibly be exposed to it. Meanwhile, as Wood noted in her tweeted rant, “the scenes in which people are murdered by having their heads blown off remained intact and unaltered.” Such are the views of modern film scolds and censors. Just a few years ago they were doing the same thing to the relatively tame oral sex scenes in Blue Valentine. And the media is reporting that Lars von Trier’s upcoming Nymphomaniac is about to get hit with one, too.

It’s funny how increasingly irrelevant the fear of the NC-17 — and the MPAA more broadly — feels.

READ MORE on Flavorwire


Evan Rachel Wood accuses MPAA of ‘shaming women for enjoying sex’ as censors cut steamy scene from film

Actress Evan Rachel Wood has come out swinging against the Motion Picture Association of America, after the organization censored a scene from her upcoming film Charlie Countryman that apparently depicted a woman receiving oral sex.

“I would like to share my disappointment with the MPAA, who thought it was necessary to censor a woman’s sexuality once again,” the actress began. “The scene where the two main characters make ‘love’ was altered because someone felt that seeing a man give a woman oral sex made people ‘uncomfortable’ but the scenes in which people are murdered by having their heads blown off remained intact and unaltered:”

This is not a movie for young children, but it is our judgment that it is not inappropriate for mature, inquiring teenagers who are looking ahead to the emotional challenges and opportunities that adulthood holds.

The IFC Center in New York will ignore Blue is the Warmest Color’s NC-17 rating and allow teens to go in and watch the film.

Absolutely fantastic. I will never understand why so many honest, important movies about high school kids are made unsuitable for high school kids to watch by the MPAA.

You have to question a cinematic culture which preaches artistic expression, and yet would support a decision that is clearly a product of a patriarchy-dominant society, which tries to control how women are depicted on screen. The MPAA is okay supporting scenes that portray women in scenarios of sexual torture and violence for entertainment purposes, but they are trying to force us to look away from a scene that shows a woman in a sexual scenario, which is both complicit and complex. It’s misogynistic in nature to try and control a woman’s sexual presentation of self. I consider this an issue that is bigger than this film… It is OK to torture women on screen… Any kind of violence towards women in a sexual scenario is fine. But give a woman pleasure, no way. Not a chance. That’s pornography.
—  Ryan Gosling’s letter to the Motion Picture Association of America when the film Blue Valentine was given an NC-17 rating because of a scene in which Gosling’s character goes down on his girlfriend
Help Reverse MPAA's R-rating of TWC's "Bully."

The Motion Picture Association of America has given The Weinstein Company’s new documentary “Bully” an R-rating due to some violence and harsh language. TWC had trouble with the MPAA with “Blue Valentine” but was able to challenge the NC-17 rating down to an R. They lost an appeal to have the rating of “Bully” reduced to PG-13, which means that a vast majority of the audience who benefit most from the film (those under 17) will most likely be unable to see it. Also, the film will not be shown in schools across the nation due to its R-rating. 

Please help get the rating reduced to PG-13 and help ensure that this relevant, well-intentioned, and potentially life-saving film reaches the audience that needs it most.
Thank you. 

The MPAA as evil as it is doesn’t support bullying.
They’re just sticking by their rules as stupid as those may be. To compare the MPAA’s rating of The Hunger Games and Bully is ridiculous. They didn’t have either in mind when rating the other and they were not trying to promote child on child death/bullying nor are they attempting to silence those against it. 

The Hunger Games is not about kids killing each other for sport.

Bullying is not an epidemic. If anything it is decreasing simply because it is drifting towards virtual harassment and as any mildly intelligent person should know, that is not a real issue.