Forget trying to maneuver your way through all the mixed reactions to Watchmen crowding the interweb today. There’s only one question you need to answer, apparently, in order to make up your mind whether or not to see the highly anticipated adaptation: are you okay with a massive blue penis in an R-rated comic book movie, or will you be offended and demand an apology from the MPAA? Over at the site Movieguide, which is partnered with The Christian Film & Television Commission, organization chairman and “spokesmen” (is he multiple people?) Dr. Ted Baehr is quoted as saying Watchmen should have received an NC-17 rating for its constant display of male anatomy, and he claims the MPAA has agreed to bring the complaint to their ratings board. And finally, with the defensive against nudity being necessary to any film, Baehr says, “After all, would ‘Casablanca’ become an even better work of art if the script contained a bunch of “f” words, or if Ingrid Bergman appeared completely nude? Definitely not!”

Well, personally I wouldn’t have a problem if Bogie cursed a lot, though I agree that Bergman was always great despite always having her clothes on. As for the blue penis issue, though, I have to remind folks that blue-skinned nudity is not the same as realistic flesh-colored nudity, and that whether it’s Rebecca Romijn in the X-Men films or a digital replica of Billy Crudup in Watchmen or the eagerly awaited Smurfette shower scene in Sony’s upcoming Smurfs movie, the ratings board will likely be okay with it. As will most anyone else that doesn’t have a lame obligation to excessively puritanical groups like the CFTVC.

Sample quotes and links from those internerds who disagree with Baehr, as well as some who actually agree, after the jump:

…Read more

The advantage of seeing the Ashton Kutcher-starring Spread at Sundance, as opposed to in theaters down the road, isn’t just the fact that director David Mackenzie hasn’t yet been forced to neuter the film’s skintastic sex scenes (his 2003 Young Adam was shaved down for far less to get an R rating here in the States), but also the way it so nicely compliments a film that screened a few days later, Steven Soderbergh’s The Girlfriend Experience. Neither movie quite works on its own, but as a pair, they are the yin to one another’s yang — portraits of a Hollywood hustler and high-class escort that, taken together, give a well-rounded picture of that world.

That’s the beauty of film festivals: Cramming thirty-odd films into a week’s time has a way of illuminating thematic connections between stories you’d almost certainly miss when screening them months apart at the megaplex. Autism, genocide, un-reciprocated love, sex-for-pay — all big themes at this year’s Sundance. And while neither Spread nor The Girlfriend Experience has much to say about those first few categories, they prove plenty revealing when it comes to understanding the realm of sex work.

…Read more

• Focus Features has accepted an NC-17 rating for Ang Lee’s Lust, Caution, despite the fact that it will seriously hamper the film’s chances of reaching the audience it needs to gain critical mass come Oscar time. According to The Hollywood Reporter, although the film contains no full-frontal male nudity, “male-on-female oral sex, non-S&M restraints and several nontraditional sexual positions are depicted, conveying the aggression and emotional conflict between the main characters.”
• Unfortunately, it looks like DGA members won’t be able to enjoy any of that in the comfort of their own homes. First the Directors Guild of America said studios could send their members award season screeners; then they said they couldn’t; then they said they were planning to say they could, but now they’ve said that they can’t.
• With male and female audiences divided over the equally drecky-looking Scarlett Johansson vehicle The Nanny Diaries, and the Jet Li/Jason Statham fight pic War, Variety says SuperBad has a chance at pulling off another weekend at the top of the box office. In related news, Knocked Up is a huge hit in Australia and Russia.
• Anger Me, a documentary in which former child star/experimental filmmaker/Hollywood Babylon muckraker Kenneth Anger tells stories about his own life for two hours, earns the ultimate backhanded compliment from Variety: “Tech credits are adequate.”

Our regular guest writer, Dodd (moviedodd at spout.com), tells us what’s the latest in movie rating news, and shares his mixed feelings about the proposed changes. Dodd is finishing up a Master’s degree in Film Studies at Ohio University.

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the current film rating system implemented by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Filmmakers have raised hell about it all on their own for the past few years, but now the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated has served as an expose on the selective standards of MPAA members. The film seems to have had an affect already. Since its release, MPAA head honcho Dan Glickman has admitted to the organization’s vague guidelines for what sets an R picture apart from an NC-17 one, and that proper actions would be taken to fix that problem.

It seems that Glickman was not just throwing words around for publicity purposes. According to a recent Variety article, Dan Glickman has announced that the MPAA is developing a “hard R” rating, which is not to be confused with the original “soft R.” In other words, films like Little Miss Sunshine, with its occasional F-bomb and sex joke, will be branded with a regular R. However, movies with blood-spurting decapitations, hardcore sex scenes, and f**k thrown into every sentence will be awarded the new, hard R rating.

Not only will there be a new R-rating, but the NC-17 rating may be eliminated. The hardcore rating limits film distribution and advertising on television, so the organization wishes to lump anything that is extremely graphic in nature under the new hard R-rating, with hopes that audiences, exhibitors, and advertisers will embrace it more than the much-feared NC-17.

I feel a little torn on this issue. Apparently, the new hard R-rating is the result of parents complaining that their children are being exposed to graphic content in R films. First off, the film is rated R, which means that the content is not appropriate for those under 17. Parents who choose to allow minors to watch these films have been warned to be cautious. Secondly, R-ratings currently contain little descriptions indicting the nature of the content–anything from drug use to angry sex to graphic conversations. Finally, if these descriptors prove to be too vague, there is a wealth of information about the graphic content of movies on the Internet, from movie reviews to the MPAA’s website to Yahoo’s Movie Mom. Therefore, my question is whether or not a new R-rating will stop parents from complaining. Teens will be teens, and they will always figure out ways to see hardcore content. While the rating system is useful, it will never magically babysit kids.

On the other hand, I am happy to see the elimination of the NC-17 system. Yes, it can be affiliated with the cult disaster known only as Showgirls, but the rating has also sunk potential pictures like a rock for miniscule details. It has also locked its sights on unconventional sex rather than violence. It will be nice to see art house gems such as Bad Education not being ostracized like a sleazy snuff film.

What do you think? Does the MPAA need a new R categorization, or will people complain about it anyway? Are you ready to see NC-17 get tossed aside, or does it still serve a useful purpose?