Watch the first 6 minutes of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, considering how Kimberly Peirce, the director of Boys Don't Cry (1999), responds to the ratings board's decision to cut three scenes in her film.
Do you think Peirce's answer about male-dominated Hollywood and female pleasure is justified? If so, why? If not, why not? As always, be sure to include specific examples (in this case, Peirce's dialogue perhaps...) to support your response.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not Necessarily Justified
ReplyDeleteI do not necessarily think that Pierce's answer about female pleasure is justified. She says in the film that she thinks that movies are mostly the male experience and that female pleasure is scary. From my experience watching films I tend to think quite the opposite. In most films the female body is shown a great deal more than the male body and in fact the entire male body is rarely seen. Not only this, but often times from my experience, females appear to be shown much more in sex scenes than males. The valid point she does seem to make is that for the most part these movies are made from the male perspective. In this sense I can understand where she is coming from by saying that there is an issue with female pleasure. But even though many of these films are in the male perspective, they still do show female pleasure. The question then simply comes down to what the ratings board thinks, not what the rest of the film industry thinks. In a "construct" as she puts it, dominated by males one would actually expect to see more female exposure as opposed to male exposure because males are attracted to the female body. This again goes brings us back to fact that the problem is not necessarily the male filmmakers but the ratings board.
I thought that the comments for Pierce, which seemed to make it a sexist issue about the rating system may be justified, but most likely for her specific case. It seemed that the collection of all the interviews, and one specifically states, that the rating system seems to be arbitrary. It was probably the case then that the people who viewed and rated Pierce's film were more on the sexist side. But this in general was do to the fact that they happened to be the people choosen to screen the film. As one of the interviewees stated the raters are told they are the "last bastian of morality", and so it seems that they used their already ingrained sexist views to make up this morality for the rating. But it also seems that since no one knows the raters or has a framework by which to work by, the enitre system itself cannot be called sexist. This understood it does mean the rating system is good, because with such an arbitrary nature no one will, or could know what is considere NC-17, and thus makes the whole system somewhat of a "whos morality are we working with" crapshoot. This in turn shows and demonstrates the ineffectivness of the rating system and is argument that it does not censor.
ReplyDeletethe ratings
ReplyDeletei have to agree definitly with her view and question about how she can shoot a guy in the head and that not offensive, while him wiping something of his mouth in a love scene is. when she talks about one of the scenes and why it was offensive this is what she said, "so whats the problem? 'well we don't really know, buts that offenseive'" that statement makes me feel like there should be a definite reason or else they can't cut it, cause i don't think saying "well it's offensive" is a logical answer, they should have something to back it up or have to explain why it's offensive.
I think Kimberly's answer is justified just by what i've seen in the 8 min. clip. For the board to wanna give her a NC-17 because a dude wipes his mouth after going down on a female is just stupid to me. For those who did not like the female orgasm scene (those who gave her this rating)they must don't know how to pleasure a woman or don't like to give pleasure to a female (yeah brains on the wall is good, but a womans facial expression during an orgasm is uncomfortable 2 watch and is too long?) I've seen prison movies where dudes got raped and they had an R rating (American Me), and for the board to not give a "good reason" for the rating just tells me that maybe they may have something against this director or just being way too complicated for no good reason. My opinion, NC-17 and R rated movies are for adults anyway and it's bs that we have guidlines on what to watch as adults in theaters!
ReplyDeleteI agree with her answer to a certain extent, BUT, I have my own thoughts on this, let me explain. I agree with her when she stated that the movie industry is completely male dominated, and as she was refuring to the fact that in most sex scenes in film, guys arn't conserned with "female pleasure", but thats almost true for just sex in general. Excuse my bluntness but you could'nt find me one guy if you tried that cared more about getting me off than himself.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that she had to alter her movie in 3 scenes after working so hard on it is bull crap though! I feel the rating system is a waste of time, we live in America after all. If I'm forced to pay taxes, I should be able to see which ever movie I darn well please!!
I feel that Peirce's claims are justified because she makes certain claims about the movie industry that I agree with. When she claims that it doesn't make sense to deny a female orgasam but to allow a gunshot wound to the head I agree that it doesn't really make sense. But I feel that the ratins board just doesn't like the female perspective when it comes to anything not just pleasure. Typically in fils women are either portrayed as homemakers or streetwalkers. There isn't a whole lot of in between when it comes to hollywood movies. I think that when someone (like Peirce) is trying to tell a story from a womans perspective that isn't a part of this mother/whore stereotype it is alien to the conservative, christian system. As for the male dominated film system here is an example: look at the current Oscar nominees for Best Director, how many are female? And people are going to vote for the people who are much like themselves so it just goes to show what small female influence there is in the film industry.
ReplyDeleteI agree on what Pierce is saying in the eight minute clip. The reason would be that from all the movies I have seen, the scene from the eight minute clip and there reason why they rated this movie NC-17 there no reason why. One concern that I was thinking was that one of the reason why that they made thin movie NC-17 was because of someone getting shot in the head, from all the movies that I have seen with gun violence there’s always someone getting shot in the head or in the stomach, so why make it NC-17 because of that scene I just don’t why. Another scene that I don’t understand why make this movie NC-17 is the female orgasm scene, I haven’t seen this movie before so I don’t how long the orgasm is, but form all the other movies I seen with orgasm I’m pretty sure that it’s not that long. From all these reason and probably many other reason why they made this movie NC-17 are probably good reason why this movie shouldn’t be R. That’s why I agree with what Pierce says.
ReplyDeleteSplitting Hairs
ReplyDeleteWatching Peirce’s response to the rating system in the film THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED, gives me mixed emotions. In an industry that has been through more makeovers then its stars, it is hard to understand what passes for watch-able and unwatch-able. To Pierce’s point I can certainly feel her frustration. As a director Pierce strives to translate her vision to the screen, the problem lies in the fact that her values and ideologies do not parallel those that are judging her work. I think that her response to the rating given is blown way out of proportion. Peirce’s in your face look at an American sub-culture is lost on many average viewers, and especially to those grading its offensiveness. Her excuse that “most movies are directed by men, written by men…” is to me a flimsy way of trying explain her hatred for the ratings system. In this so-called “male driven society” would not a movie that showed scenes of female eroticism and orgasmic pleasure be a welcome outcome? I believe that her distain for this rating is based on the all-mighty dollar.
If a film receives a “NC-17” as opposed to an “R” rating, everyone knows its dead in the water; it’s considered “taboo” and no will not be supported. Maybe the ratings system is seriously flawed, and one situation can not justified another, but we still need to know what we getting into before we devote our time to it. It is not Hollywood’s job to baby sit and spoon feed the public, but it is their responsibility to warn of sensitive material that may offend. Film makers like Peirce have always tried to push the envelope, and stretch society perception of what is real, but do we have to be so blunt? Can we not leave anything to the imagination?
It is very interesting that the boards are disturbed by the length of an orgasm. I would have a better understanding of their concern if the film showed the orgasm, but it only shows her face. Peirce claims that the boards are afraid of the woman's pleasure because the male perspective is not familiar with it. I do not agree with this statement because I feel that the men on the board are all too familiar with this sequence. I feel that a male like this, shown a male and female orgasm, would be more "excited" by the female orgasm. The audience perspective of the female orgasm in her film is on top of the female character; this places the audience in the position of sexual dominance. I can definitely see the board squirming at that for being "too arousing". Perhaps it is because I have become too desensitized, but I do not see a problem with this. But I realize that is just my own opinion. I think, however, that if a film gets an "R" rating, parents make the decision to show their children and the boards should calm down because these films are for adult audiences and they are there to protect the children, not the adults.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pierce, and think her statements are justified, as it seems that a large portion of film ratings are not favorable to women, or sex in general. While in her film it was okay to shoot someone in the head, but not to show an orgasm, displays a major contradiction; as Pierce states, who’s ever been hurt by an orgasm that was too long? There’s no reason that violence should be considered okay, while sex should not, especially when shown by a female perspective. Pierce discusses how female pleasure in her film, and in others as well, is looked down upon, but one thing she doesn’t take into consideration in the eight minute clip, is the fact that the character Brandon is a transgender. While female pleasure may have made the ratings board uncomfortable, seeing a transgender in a sex scene probably made them even more uncomfortable, making them more inclined to give the film a NC-17 rating. Films that explore the topic of gender identity and sexuality often automatically receive harsher ratings, just because of the subject and the characters. I agree with Pierce in that Hollywood is male dominated, and that they are uncomfortable with female sexuality, but I also believe that Hollywood is more uncomfortable with the “taboo” issue of gender identity, which was probably a major issue in initially rating her film.
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe that when she said that the view is from a "male perspective" she is correct. I thought it was pretty rediculous that she couldn't get her interview though. Yeah, alot of hollywood consists of men, but at the same time don't you think that men may enjoy seeing that kind of thing? "The male experience" is percieved perfectly in the orgasm situation. If you were the man giving her pleasure, that is EXACTLY what he would see! I think that Hollywood doesn't necessarily fear nudity, but the reality of the sex scenes. If she had a 2 second orgasm then would it be such a big deal? No, but at the same time, its not nearly as real. Also, if he were "to go down on her" and not have any wetness on his face to wipe off, which was such a huge problem, then it wouldn't be as realistic, and it wouldn't have been such a huge deal.
ReplyDeleteI would DEFINITELY agree with Peirce's statement. Sex scenes in Hollywood films seem to be geared toward male audiences. The more of the female form they can show, the better. However, there is very little focus on the female's take on sex.
ReplyDeleteI found it rather interesting that the ratings board wouldnt allow the anal rape scene, when I can think of at least two high profile films ([i/]Pulp Fiction[/i] and [i/]Deliverance[/i]) which showcase rather graphic male-on-male rape scenes. Therefore, their decision doesn't make sense if compared to the precedent that has been set.
Kimberley Pierce is completely justified when saying that the movie view is from a male perspective. Most movies are written and directed by men and this results in a male dominated movie society. When Pierce states "Even in sex scenes,...it's from a male perspective" she is saying that sex is usually shown on the screen, how a man wants it to be. The man wants to be in control and have his pleasure where the female's pleasure is "unnatural...scary" as how Pierce states it. A woman's pleasure is a private and pure experience and does not need to be shown on screen, when violence and blood is no issue. Anything that just seems unnatural to our "perfect" world is just not right to show in a film. These "unnatural" scenes in her movie, BOYS DON'T CRY, really happen in this world. We are all grown ups and we can handle it. These are the problems with our rating system. These people are telling adults what they can and cannot see. It is like someone else telling you what to do, what to watch and what to say the rest of your life.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Kimberley Piece's statements and I'm on her side of the argument. I think that the rating board is full of the stupidest people. For example, in pulp fiction, one of the male characters gets raped by another male character... there is characters getting shot in the head and brains flying all over the place... and pulp fiction got rated R. And then the rating board says that she cant have a sex scene with the guy whipping the woman's... of his face is kinda dumb. The rating board is so overrated.
ReplyDeleteI of course agree with most of Piece's arguments. The fact that gore is so blatantly allowed when certain, minute sexual taboos are shunned instantly is an obvious hypocrisy. If it's perfectly fine, to allow visions of intense pain and agony, then why not allow the opposite? Why not show extreme pleasure, what's wrong with an intense orgasm scene? It doesn't bother me, and I would assume, that most of my peers concur. Also, movies that deal with touchy subjects like gender identity confusion, and sexual miss-conduct are - from a psychoanalytical point of view - are quite important. They can allow us to sympathize with characters we would otherwise be unable to understand.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, I usually can't stand movies with blatant sexual content or movies like HOSTEL, where it's only appeal is in it's 'torture porn'. To me, it's only a gimmick, a pathetic attempt by weak minded fools to sell tickets to pedantic garbage. It does nary take an ounce of creativity to divulge the most disgusting ideas imaginable and manifest it on screen. As a matter of fact, I would go as far to say, that gore in movies has made people more and more sexually deviant. As evident in the content flow on the internet.
I would have to agree with Kimberly Peirce's statement. I think showing someone being shot in the head and showing all the brain fragments flying everywhere is more graphic than a rape scene. Don't get me wrong, it's hard to watch someone being raped, but watching someone get their head shot off, much more graphic. When showing a sex scene with a woman fully naked or half-naked, it's mostly aimed at a male audience. I do believe with Kimberly Peirce's statement that Hollywood is a male-dominated industry. Most of the movies made today are directed and written by male's. That's the way it's pretty much been. I know the ratings system is to protect children, but why would you take your kid to watch a movie like BOY'S DON'T CRY? This movie is way to graphic for kids, as is most rated R action movies. There is no way you should be able to get away with someone getting their head blowin' off, especially if you can't show a women's face during an orgasm for a minute or less. Yet, that's rarely the case. Don't get me wrong, I love those kinds of rated R action movies, but they are more graphic than a rape scene and a female orgasm scene. The rating system isn't very fair.
ReplyDeleteKimberly Peirce's answer about the female's pleasure may not be justified based on one's morals, but is justified based on reality.
ReplyDeleteIts true what she said in THIS FILM IS YET NOT RATED , that movies won't be released unless it has at least a NC-17 (her movie according to the board, had too much "female pleasure"). She stated that unfamiliarity is what breeds the NC-17's. And the boards being disturbed about the length of an orgasm, was Peirce's understanding that they're not comfortable with the female's pleasure on screen. I personally think the board's attention was to keep kids from watching those scenes... But I don't think "kids" were asking their parents to go see this movie (LOL). Parents are the ones who need to step in and monitor what their kid are watching. Adults watch what they want to, and it's based on the individual to choose whether to watch a movie or not (no one is forced to watch anything). Either way, reality isn't always kid-friendly, because the real world doesn't ride on tricycles anymore (LOL). Parents should do the monitoring, and the boards should just rate the movies.
I believe her comment on a male dominated not understanding Hollywood is definitely justified. Pierce brought up an interesting point that seems to have never been brought to light earlier. It is quite well known that Hollywood is a predominantly male industry and men are usually not open minded. Pierce's argument that sex should be and had not been previously shown from a female perspective is intriguing and further shows that most men do not care about women's experiences or presenting them. There was no nudity in this scene and nothing that hasn't been presented in other films.The orgasm scene was chosen to be cut because it was saw as being too long. This could be actual complete bliss presented in which females could relate knowing how perfect the moment is but the men seem to simply not understand the women's perspective and I believe Pierce when she says, "Unfamiliarity is what breeds the NC-17 rating." The ratings board should be reformed or our country should be more accepting all around of all opinions and lifestyles much like more sexually active countries.
ReplyDeleteWhen Pierce was happy that her movie received an NC-17 rating it was obviously because she knew there was adult content involved. However, I think that the studio pulling the movie or not releasing it until it was modified is a failure of this system. I disagree with her that cinema is dominated by male perspective because the female body is seen as a work of art. It is showcased in many movies; for example the drawing of the nude woman in Titanic(for some reason it won't let me underline the movie title). Therefore, I believe the problem is with the rating system itself and not a gender bias. There needs to be a way to release these types of films that contain explicit sex, because it is an art, and the female body has been a subject of artist's for a long time.
ReplyDeleteWhat gives you the right?
ReplyDeleteI honestly think that the rating that BOYS DON'T CRY was not fair. The reasons why the board gave her that rating were pretty much ridiculous and I don't understand what gives them the right to rate the movies that the American public is watching.I agree with Pierece's point of view, especially for her case because I understand what she means when she mentions that many movies have the sexual pleasure from the point of view of a guy and not a girl. I understand that maybe the clips that they showed shouldn't be shown to kids, but I'm pretty sure kids don't want to see that either, and if teenagers really wanted to watch this kind of things the internet has many options to watch this kind of movies online. BOYS DON'T Cry could of been an R rated movie and it wouldn't cause any damage to anybody. Everybody has different opinions but I think that no one has the right to rate movies just because of their point of view in life.
I think that Pierce's comments about male dominated Hollywood shaking their heads at female pleasure in film is entirely justified. It seems like, in Hollywood films, women who have too much power, too much pleasure, et cetera, are viewed by many to be unnerving and unsettling, despite the fact that it is completely natural. It really only becomes a problem when it is unnecessary to the story line. But, the ratings board, attempting to keep "morality" in cinema, doesn't see this. Having an non-graphic rape scene, for a brief period of time, that further. Watching someone get shot in the head, as Pierce mentions, is far more traumatizing than seeing someone orgasm for ten seconds.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that her claim about male-dominated Hollywood and female pleasure is justifed. I do however agree that the ratings system is unjust but I feel this way for other reasons. In the case of BOYS DONT CRY the orgasm scene was rather drawn out, and though it has a meaning, to the casual onlooker it may seem erotic. An erotic scene like that could be a direct cause of an NC-17 rating. When it comes to male pleasure on screen I personally have rarely seen it last longer than a few seconds, in fact when it comes to the male orgasm usually on screen all you see is the final grunt and then the guy rolls over. That isn't too erotic.
ReplyDeleteI do however agree that the ratings system is unjust but that is because the system is left up to the judgement of average people that have no background in film and just use their own opinions to rate movies. It is unjust because some movies will get NC-17 while others will get an R for having very similar scenes. For example, a have seen a movie that had a similar length orgasm on screen that only got an R rating. The movie I am referring to is WHEN HARRY MET SALLY and the scene when they are in the diner and Sally fakes an orgasm in the middle of the diner. Even though it was a faked orgasm, it was the same length, greater intensity, and seemed just as real as the one in BOYS DONT CRY. So how is it fair that a similar on-screen shot gets an NC-17 rating? Another point to prove the system is unjust is the comparison of the rape scene in BOYS DONT CRY to the rape scene in the movie AMERICAN HISTORY X. In both movies the main character is anally raped on screen, however AMERICAN HISTORY X got an R rating.