[To start, here's a link to a post, about nudity and motion pictures, from my old blog: Co-ed Naked Blogging]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L – LIMITED ADULT AUDIENCE, FILMS WHOSE PROBLEMATIC CONTENT MANY ADULTS WOULD FIND TROUBLING.
This is an extremely restrictive classification, suggesting a far narrower allowance than may sometimes be realized, and therefore excluding even most adult viewers
As a follow-up to my Japon post and comments, I just noticed that the USCCB (Office for Film and Broadcasting) gave The Wrestler an 'L' rating for "Strong sexual content, including graphic nonmarital sexual activity, some nudity, brutal wrestling scenes, drug abuse, pervasive rough and much crude language, and some uses of profanity."
That "strong sexual content" includes, among other romps, a full lap dance that won't leave you imagining what goes on inside of strip clubs. From the standpoint of representing sexuality onscreen, this is at least as offensive as the nudity that occurs in Japon, if not more so because none of the sex/nudity in Japon is at all glamorous or "sexy."
Besides the nudity in Japon, the subtle attacks on the Church may be offensive, but I would argue that Japon features a redemptive element stronger than The Wrestler (and that Japon can possibly be read in a kinder spiritual light than I gave it credit for). I think that it could even be argued that The Wrestler strongly mocks the Faith by presenting Randy the Ram explicitly as a "Suffering Servant," seen most clearly when Tomei's character compares Randy to Christ suffering in The Passion of the Christ and again during his final bout in the ring. To be clear and state things bluntly in this short comparison/contrast post that I'm writing here, I found The Wrestler to be the more offensive film.
But, it, too, had moments of heart-breaking (if sometimes contrived) truth about broken relationships and broken people. It roared where Japon whispered.
For Elder Ralph, I have to say that I respectfully disagree with John Armstrong's view of the movie. I don't think that he adequately accounts for (or even understands) the moral bankruptcy of this film. And he does his (mostly conservative, I'm sure) readers a disservice by not mentioning things like that shot of Randy "ramming" a half-naked woman in a public restroom. I'd have to agree with the USCCB's conclusions over Armstrong's. This movie should not be seen, even by most adults.
Yes, I guess that makes me a prude. And probably even a hypocrite for having sat through the movie. But I have to agree that, in theory at least, I did not need to see this film. And I think it did me more harm than good. But, at least I can be here now telling you why I think you shouldn't see it.
You may disagree. You may see it anyhow. I understand and respect that decision.
I could easily paraphrase the USCCB's review of The Wrestler to have it describe Japon.
Director Darren Aronofsky's study of loneliness, set in a landscape of trailer parks and strip malls, is unsparing in its portrayal of the titular sport, the sadistic impulses of its fans, and the demeaning sexuality of the strip club where the protagonist unwinds, but the drama's artistic intent and achievement are clear, as are the fundamentally decent aspirations of the troubled man at its core.
From a purely artistic (and I might even argue moral) standpoint, Japon is the better movie by a mile.
But I still don't blame any of you for never seeing it.
To Scott and any others, I'm curious. What is your limit for morally objectionable material? Would you "never ever" see The Wrestler?
I respect anyone who stays away.
I guess my own stance is that I feel like I can't keep myself from wading in this dirty world and its dirty art, so I might as well slow down, take a look around, and try to find the gems that may have been tossed out with the trash. There is a wealth of riches out here that just needs to be picked up and given a good scrubbing. At the same time, I'm well aware that I run the huge risk of being soiled myself out here.
Just to keep the fun rolling, the USCCB (Office for Film and Broadcasting) also gave Gran Torino an 'L' rating, which I agree is appropriate. I also stand by my prior assertion that Eastwood's melodrama may not be the strongest film narrative of the year, but it is the year's strongest (and yes, most obvious) filmic gospel parable.
This is why I watch 'L' movies, because sometimes they knock your socks off.
So, again, to all, what is your limit for morally objectionable material? Would you "never ever" see Gran Torino?
Obviously, I consider myself part of the "far narrower allowance" of the Limited audience, but only because I already find myself here. Still, most of these movies do me no favors. I yearn for more A-1 General Patronage films, but quality ones are few and far between. I'd either have to disengage and live exclusively in the glorious past of the Hays Code or I'd have to settle for the mediocre "family friendly" fluff that is being produced today, in which case I'd rather just stop watching movies.
"Wrestling" with these categories may seem foolish to some, but I can't help it. For better or for worse, it's how I think about movies.
After writing and saving all of this, I went off and read some reviews. It seems like Kenneth Turan is the only big name who has given the movie a bad review so far. Many of the other reviews forgive too much because they're so enamored by Mickey Rourke's performance.
I need to thank J Hoberman for mentioning Roland Barthes' essay The World of Wrestling. Wow.
1 comment:
I'd say my limits are graphic rape, torture porn horror films (like Wolf Creek, Hostel, etc.), and stories about dog hotels.
I felt that Hostel was brave for pushing the boundaries of horror (Rob Zombie's stuff is also excellent)- it was a decently done film, but then films of that sort proliferated and they weren't as well done in addition to be disturbing, so it wasn't worth wallowing in them, as you say, anymore.
As far as nudity goes, I think that it's true to some extent that the actor is revealing a bit of self, but actors do that all the time in film, regardless of whether it sexual or not. Because anytime you are seeing a film, you are seeing to a degree the person that actually exists- their height, their facial tics, the wrinkles on their hands, it's no different really than seeing any other body part, except for what we in the audience attach to it because of the cultural triggers that nakedness sets off. And that doesn't even take into consideration at all that naked bodies can be manipulated in the editing room as much as anything else.
As far as violence goes, maybe any given character isn't really being murdered, but the violent emotion that is going into such a scene is real, and actors have discussed the various effects that these scenes have had on them.
I have seen sex scenes and violent scenes that have enhanced a film and ones that have been totally unnecessary. Like much controversial material, it really depends on how it is handled.
Except in the case of rape. But see, here I am revealing my own limits :).
Post a Comment