why rated R?
anything objectional
share[deleted]
Anything goes these days unfortunately. I still remember seeing Jack Valenti discussing the ratings system at the AFI in DC. A woman in the audience berated him for not giving THE EXORCIST an X. He said he would have given THE WILD BUNCH an X for its sheer violence if it hadn't been heavily cut. Which reminds me Herschel Gordon Lewis, the Godfather of Gore, is making a special Halloween appearance with 2000 MANIACS at the AFI in MD this week. I saw that movie ONCE and never had any desire to see any of his other films.
shareThat's pretty much it. I don't think it had much, if any, bad language. It would probably get a PG-13 today.
He died. You don't get any older than that.
share
It's all a question of the timing. In 1970, when the film was released, Paula Prentiss's full frontal nudity (in slow motion, but still pretty quick) was enough, by itself, to get the R.
M*A*S*H, which came out the same year, was given the same rating for one nipple, some swearing, a little blasphemy and a lot of blood.
Now, these would both get a PG-13, as someone else pointed out.
--Jack, you have debauched my sloth!
No they wouldn't. You can almost never get away with full frontal nudity in a PG-13 rated movie. Boobs, maybe a butt, but not full frontal. And I would say there is still enough blood, brief nudity, and an F bomb or two to get MASH an R. The ratings system hasn't changed as much as you think, what's changed is our acceptance of this kind of content.
Insert pretentious signature here
[deleted]
That scene was incredible for anyone who loves a woman with a goodly bush. WOOOHOOO Paula! Love ya baby!
shareThe naked gal guaranteed an R-rating. Personally, I think blood and guts warrant an R. Naked people are normal, heck I get naked every single day to shower up.
mmablaster.blogspot.com
Can any film aficionado list an American film that included full frontal nudity prior to 1969 when this movie was filmed?
Also, anybody recall a scene of a man taking a dump prior to Catcha Veintidos?
ANTI-WAR "massage"! Is the last thing 'murica needs in these times:-/
shareThis film was made during the Vietnam War which was completely unnecessary and was a war that 'murica lost.
As this country suffers blowback from its evil deeds done to obtain hegemony, the first thing this country needs is a solid anti-war film showing how militaristic this country has become. Unfortunately, that will never happen since the Agency and the military have way too much influence over what Hollywood portrays. So go and watch your Charlie Wilson's War, Saving Private Ryan and Parkland to continue your propagandized "education".
The full-frontal nudity is enough for the R-rating for me personally, but I read the book/watched the movie at 12/13, respectively. There is nothing in either that a preteen can't handle. Find one single 12 year old that hasn't seen tits/bush and I will give you $1000. I wouldn't show it to little kids, but I think preteens can handle the content. They might not 100% understand (I did), but the message is very important and hard to miss in either medium.
share