I counted less than ten profanities, there's only partial nudity, and really nothing that can be described as graphic images of any sort. I think the MPAA went overboard with this one... ||
Are you watching closely
There's boobs, butt, language, archive footage of violence. Plus it's Nixon, so yeah there you have it.
shareAs ridiculous as it sounds, Nixon's lone use of the "MF" word is probably what pushed it over the top.
"I know I'm not normal -- but I'm trying to change!" ~ Muriel's Wedding
Of course that is the reason and it makes one wonder why anyone would even ask the question. Kudos to Ron Howard on this one. Not sure if a PG13 would have helped him at the box office but he retained the authenticity of his character and got slapped with an R rating because of it.
shareI tend to agree with the other people on the board. The partial nudity, however minor, and the rather bold use of the big "MF" were probably the factors that really pushed it over to the R-rating. I would also argue that the entire tone of the movie is quite deserving of an R-rating; it is a very dark and serious film. Even though I could not really see anything bad enough to warrant an R-rating, I also do not believe that a PG-13 rating would have been appropriate either. This is one reason why I believe that the American rating system is flawed. Frost/Nixon simply does not fit firmly into either rating.
Chris of SPF Eighty Five Movie Reviews
www.spf-eighty-five.blogspot.com
I completely agree with you. This movie doesn't seem to fit either rating. If rated PG-13, the use of "MF" would seem kinda harsh for the rating. However, keeping anyone under 17 from seeing this movie seems ridiculous to me. Other than three words, it's PG rated.
share"When was there even partial nudity in Frost/Nixon though??"
Early on, there's a dark and blurry side shot of a naked chick getting out of Frost's bed (nothing explicit); and near the end, there's a rear shot of Birt going skinny-dipping. Both instances very brief.
"I know I'm not normal -- but I'm trying to change!" ~ Muriel's Wedding
It's not so much what happened in the movie that gave it an R. It has to do with who the movie is marketed towards. This film was marketed towards adults so it probably did better with an R rating.
If teenagers were really into Nixon/Watergate then I'm sure they could have gotten the MPAA to give it a PG-13. It's all about marketing.
Not really. All the President's Men got a PG in 1976 (before the PG-13 was created). And there are at least seven "F bombs" in that movie.
So were kids smarter and more open to politically charged movies in the 70s?
It's sad that this movie got an "R," which means high schools can't show it.
Dude means nice guy. Dude means a regular sort of person.
Agreed, this movie is certainly not a hard R....
My theory is that Ron Howard didn't want a lower rating. It isn't unheard of for directors to go for an R simply because they are focused on a more adult audience rather than teens (Robert Altman with "Gosford Park" comes to mind).
This is just my assumption; but it seems like Howard has enough Hollywood clout, and also the full power of Universal Studios behind him, to get whatever rating he wanted.
That said...I agree that the rating system is incredibly flawed and biased and ridiculous in America...and I also agree that, if anything, the "motherf_cker" was what would have pushed the rating over the edge.
MPAA is a joke. they rate movies out of their asses and force everyone to follow. the pg-13 usually ends up being far worse than R. the rationg "R" shouldnt even EXIST. People above 13 are old enough to choose what they want to see, and if their not, well, you got a mentally challenged one.
----------
In this universe, there's only one absolute... everything freezes!
I don't think Ron Howard wanted an R. I'm sure the lousy box office would have been bigger if more politically-savvy teens could have seen it.
shareI cant remember any boobs, but there was one lingering shot of a male butt and multiple f-bombs. The nudity i noticed in Frost/Nixon wasnt sexual in anyway.
Solaris on the other hand for example, had long and gratuitous shots of George Cloney's ass during a couple of very sensual scenes...yet that film still was only rated PG13.
I think if only the f-bombs were edited out Frost/Nixon, the film could have easily been a 'PG13 for thematic elements'. The cursing was totally unnecessary IMO, but I still dont understand the R rating.
I know one thing baby...you will survive
are all you lot that dumb, it was quite clearing given the rating for the War montage.
Albeit brief, actual war violence, is pretty sensitive stuff as it is 'real'
Its certainly not the rating because of the target audience.
so people bellow 18 year old should be totally blind from war and forced not to know what happens there?
----------
In this universe, there's only one absolute... everything freezes!
[deleted]
From the MPAA Rating Manual: ''A motion picture's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context.''
so...
Two nonsexual curse words = R rating. i.e, WTF! or That MF got what was coming to him.
One sexual curse word = R rating. i.e, Baby, I wanna get you in that bedroom & F you.
Check it out here. http://www.filmratings.com/Ratings_Rules.pdf
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger."
What I mean though is that this film pales in comparison to other R rated films. Take Natural Born Killers or Clockwork Orange or Saw. They're all very graphic and have the same rating as Frost/Nixon, which never shows full-blown nudity and keeps the profanity to a minimum.
The MPAA should revise its standards...
Are you watching closely?
I don't disagree with you, but as it stands, it does meet the MPAA criteria for an R rating, albeit just barely. Howard or the studio could have easily edited & post-dubbed the film down to a PG-13 without compromising the film, and you can bet they would have if they'd felt it would've made an impact at the box office. But this isn't the sort of film teens run to see in droves, so they let it be.
Also, all the films you mentioned originally received NC-17 ratings when first reviewed by the MPAA & were re-edited down to R ratings before their release. Clockwork Orange remains an X or NC-17 rated film & was only shown in an edited R-rated version for its VHS release in the '80s.
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger."
Yeah, you're right, if it had been toned down to a PG-13 it wouldn't have made much of a difference, if any at all. I doubt many teenagers watched this film, even though I'm 16 myself...
I suppose it just seems wrong that a film's rating rests more on the whims of its editors than on the crappy guidelines of what is supposed to be a respectable rating system. Same thing happens with the Entertainment Software Rating Board.
By the way, your signature = Epic win. ||
Are you watching closely?
If you're really interested in the subject, check out the indie doc This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It's pretty illuminating about the MPAA practices.
Oh and thanks, re my signature. Mark Twain quote.
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger."
Thanks, I'll check it out.
Are you watching closely?
So a 13 year old can handle one nonsexual swear word, but not more than that? That doesn't make sense at all. Either they can handle swear words or they can't.
share