Sorry for upping this 2 years old thread, but I think I have an answer to that question. I think it may have been the distributor (Universal through Focus Feature) who asked for an R rating. They made sure they had enough material to warrant it and then aimed for the R with the MPAA. Let's face it, not many kid are interested in Jarmush's movies so they wouldn't loose a big audience there. But by upping the rating to R, they'd be sure to get all the pervs' attentions (R rated movie with Alexis Dzenia and Sharon Stone, yummy) who throw themselves at R rated DVD's of Judd Appatow's comedy (I'm caricaturing a bit, but you get the idea, : the R rating actually brings more adult audiences to see an 'artsie movie' they'd have passed otherwise). Its a well known fact that the MPAA rating system is nothing but a sham ever since the 70s/80s. It's nothing more than a part of the business and studios know how to use it (well sometimes their calculations seem a bit off, but they never loose money because of it: think of die Hard 4, where the studios' attempt to get a wider demo by making it PG13 pissed off the longtime fans, but didn't prevent the film from being a commercial success).
"You hear me talkin', hillbilly boy ? [...] I'ma get medieval on your ass." Marcellus Wallace
reply
share
Cerebral-Pulse
12 years ago
agreed, though not for the same reason. rating the movie R is dumb but there was nothing of value lost to begin with. nobody below 16 will even bother with this movie. what 13 year-old would want to see a indie comedy starring the guy from ghostbusters? the demographic is really niche and the R rating didn't change much.
that being said, the reason they gave it an R rating was dumb. today, you can see a penis in just about any R rated comedy, but labia is still frowned upon, so they cover it with pubis. just a little pet peeve of mine.
reply
share