In the wake of the Culture Wars of the past 40 or so years, there has been great arguments over what is "appropriate" in society. Those arguments are usually fought on a battlefield in which terms like "family values" and "political correctness" are thrown around. From time to time these battles drift into the arts, with left & right arguing about the impact of language, sex & violence on television, which books should be read in schools, whether Tinky Winky or SpongeBob are gay, or the content of the latest film releases.
So that leads into the idea that Controversial Films might make for an interesting topic. Which films have been lambasted & created controversy (from either the left or right side of the spectrum)? And did the movies deserve it, or was it all an overreaction?
The impetus for this diary is the recent controversy created by the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) ratings decisions with two films. The MPAA ratings for films (G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17) have long been a source of contention among filmmakers, since the standards can be very, very subjective with no accounting for context, and how well a film is distributed, marketed, and attended/sold can be affected by the ratings.
From MovieChopShop:
|
Yes, these are the folks that decide which movies are the G’s, and which are the PG’s, the PG-13’s, the R’s, and—god forbid—the NC-17’s. And after they’ve made such decisions, they take it upon themselves to provide Americans with the reasons for such decisions. A good idea—account for yourselves and keep the public informed so that they can better make their own personal viewing decisions.
And while it is, in fact, a kind and goodly sentiment, once we start to delve into the specific vernacular thought up by these strange ladies and gents, that’s when all rational thought seems to slip away. Personally, I’m still trying to figure out the difference between "sexuality" and "sexual content," and why some violence is "strong," some is "brutal," some is "graphic," and why some is "strong brutal and graphic." ... Why does Reservoir Dogs have "strong language" while The Departed has "pervasive language," and Pulp Fiction has "pervasive strong language," when they really all seem like they might as well be about the same?
About 4 years ago, Kirby Dick directed & produced a documentary called 'This Film Is Not Yet Rated' about the rating system of the MPAA. The film documents how the identity of the people who rate movies are kept a secret, some of the board members have no training or film background, and they can make decisions that show wide disparities of reasoning from film to film. The MPAA has come under heavy criticism for subjective ratings when it comes to language, sexuality, violence, or even smoking by characters (which the MPAA has used as a consideration for a film's rating since 2007).
For example:
- "One Fuck Rule" - With very few exceptions, under the MPAA rating system a movie is allowed to use the word "fuck" once and maintain a PG-13 rating. If the word fuck is used twice, no matter the context, it's usually an automatic R rating. There are some exceptions to this. If the one use of the word "fuck" is part of a compound expletive ("I've had it with the Motherfuckin' snakes on this...") then it can still be an automatic R, or if the one use of fuck is used in a sexual manner instead of an excited one (yelling "Fuck You!" in anger versus a character saying "You fucked him?") then it can still be an automatic R.
From an essay by James Berardinelli over at
Reelviews entitled "
Life Is Not PG-13":
The insidious thing about this is that movies that should be rated R are emasculated in order to get a PG-13 rating. Nudity is obscured, sex becomes implied, and no more than one "fuck" is allowed... People can be murdered, but their deaths can't be bloody. It works the other way, too. In order to avoid a PG rating, some filmmakers intentionally add profanity, mild sexual content, and a little violence to attain a PG-13. Sometimes, deletions represent ornamental (as opposed to substantive) cutting. But there are times when they genuinely impact the director's vision and/or the viewing experience, when the artificiality of how a scene is shot or edited call attention to what's going on.
The PG-13 rating was created back in the mid '80s as a middle ground, because of controversy over the PG rating given to 'Gremlins,' 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,' and other films. If you go back and look at some older films from the 1970s & early 80s, there are many PG rated films with lots of "strong language," and nudity. However, in general, the current rating standards are such that any depiction of female nudity is usually an automatic R rating.
Whether a film is rated PG-13 or R can mean millions of dollars, especially to movies that need to recoup large budgets. A PG-13 film can be attended by teenagers, where an R rating may mean fewer screens showing the film & less advertising from the studio. Beyond R, an NC-17 rating means much more to a film than just no one 17 & under can get into to see it. That NC-17 also means some theater chains won't show the film, the studio will treat it like a red-headed stepchild & won't advertise or promote it, and some retailers won't stock the DVD/Blu-ray.
Recently, the MPAA has been excoriated by critics for giving an R rating to the critically acclaimed film 'The King's Speech.' It stars Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter, and deals with how a speech therapist helped King George VI overcome his stammer. The film's R rating is due to just one segment in which the speech therapist encourages George to curse. For that, the film has the same rating as 'Saw 3D' where someone is lowered onto a buzz saw.
From Patrick Goldstein at the Los Angeles Times:
To call the decision crazy and unhinged would be to let the MPAA off too lightly. Its ratings decisions, which frown on almost any sort of sex, frontal nudity or bad language but have allowed increasing amounts of violence over the years, are horribly out of touch with mainstream America, where families everywhere are disturbed by the amount of violence freely portrayed in movies, video games and hip-hop music...
What does the MPAA say in its defense?
Joan Graves, who heads the MPAA’s rating board (officially known as the Classification and Rating Administration), argues against making an exception for "The King’s Speech." "We’ve made clear what our language guidelines are, and it’s not fair, in fact it would look arbitrary, if we threw it out for just one film... Our perception is that parents still feel the same way about bad language, especially in areas like the Midwest and the South, where they often have a problem with God, as in goddamnit. On the coasts, perhaps because they have more urban centers, they’re more concerned with violence."
Of course, sex is also a place where context is not king for the MPAA.
The producers of 'Blue Valentine' are "dumbfounded" by the NC-17 rating slapped on the film by the MPAA. The NC-17 is due to a sex scene that is really no different, as far as nudity & content, than any R rated film. Except this sex scene is between a couple with a failing relationship (played by Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams), which the film tries to be real about.
From a piece entitled "Why the MPAA Should Be Ashamed of Itself" by David Chen over at /Film:
What put the film over the edge? A lengthy, painfully uncomfortable sequence in which Dean (Ryan Gosling) tries to have sex with Cindy (Michelle Williams) in a hotel room. With their marriage falling apart, Dean is looking for anything that will keep the two of them together. Cindy, however, is not as eager to work things out. It’s a beautiful sequence and one that’s shocking for its seeming verisimilitude. The film’s use of nudity is not salacious or even tantalizing; on the contrary, it depicts sex as a desperate act of last resort.
Understandably, the Weinstein Company swore they’d appeal the ridiculous decision. "We’re going to have to overturn this. This is serious stuff. This could really hurt the movie," Weinstein said. We hope they succeed... In the meantime, it’s time for more people to condemn the MPAA and their outrageous antics. We’re heading towards an age when we don’t need a mommy-like organization to dictate what our delicate sensibilities can and can’t be exposed to. I deeply hope that the MPAA’s irrelevance is imminent.
Of course, as long as there's been movies there's been controversy. Hell, probably as long as there's been the written word there's been someone else who was pissed off by someone else's imagination (I suspect many a caveman were probably bonked over the head for their "inappropriate" cave drawings).
AMC's filmsite probably has the definitive list of "controversial films."
Films always have the ability to anger us, divide us, shock us, disgust us, and more. Usually, films that inspire controversy, outright boycotting, picketing, banning, censorship, or protest have graphic sex, violence, homosexuality, religious, political or race-related themes and content. They usually push the envelope regarding what can be filmed and displayed on the screen, and are considered taboo, "immoral" or "obscene" due to language, drug use, violence and sensuality/nudity or other incendiary elements. Inevitably, controversy helps to publicize these films and fuel the box-office receipts.
Some notable films that inspired controversy:
► ['A Clockwork Orange'] (1971)
"When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man."
|
The film, based on the novel of the same name by Anthony Burgess, was originally given an X rating in the U.S. (
Stanley Kubrick cut out about 30 seconds of sexual content to secure an R), and was withdrawn from the United Kingdom after some copycat violence & threats against Kubrick & his family. It wasn't officially available in the U.K. again - in theaters or on video - until 2000, a year after Kubrick's death.
'A Clockwork Orange' is generally lauded today as one of Kubrick's masterpieces, with Anthony Burgess' story playing with themes of free will & individuality (even if it's the individuality of a sadist) versus the conditioning of the state towards "goodness." However, the movie's critical acclaim hasn't always been so. Pauline Kael of the New York Times called the film "Pornographic" in her review, where she also accused Kubrick of "making the attacked less human than their attackers."
The dystopic film about fascist social conditioning and free will was heavily criticized and opposed by religious groups for its sexual and violent content. Feminists were outraged with some of the misogynistic images - such as the obscene female poses of the supine furniture in the Korova bar, the prolonged rape of a big-breasted woman, a gigantic penis sculpture being used as a murder weapon on the Cat Lady, and a view of the protagonist's snake gliding toward a woman's vagina.
The most infamous was the rape scene of Mrs. Alexander (Adrienne Corri) in her opulent house, Alex's (Malcolm McDowell) gang of droogs (Pete, Georgie, and Dim) who were wearing masks with comical noses. After cutting away her skin-tight red jumpsuit Alex delivered horribly vicious blows of his boots to Mr. Alexander's (Patrick Magee) mid-section -- timed rhythmically to his singing of Gene Kelly's tune "Singin' in the Rain". In a later scene, Alex was subjected to corrective treatment -- experimental aversion therapy imposed by the state in which he was behavioristically conditioned (with his eyes clamped wide-open in order to view scenes of violence in films while drugged to induce nausea and forced to listen to his beloved Beethoven) to suppress his violent and sexual drives - and in the process gave up his own individual and personal rights.
The film is also an interesting case of "creator backlash," given the attitude Burgess had towards the film (and Stanley Kubrick). Reportedly, the story was inspired by the assault & rape of Burgess' wife. Burgess expected the audience to be repulsed by Alex de Large & the Droogs, but instead people began emulating them & made them a part of pop-culture. The film also cuts the final chapter of Burgess' novel, which is somewhat significant.
► ['Triumph of the Will'] (1935)
This movie and 'Olympia' (which documented the 1936 Olympic games in Berlin) would haunt Leni Riefenstahl to the day she died. It is widely considered one of the first & best known uses of propaganda in film history. Riefenstahl's film chronicles the 1934 Nuremberg Rally, and promotes Germany's return to power under the Nazis.
For decades, Riefenstahl claimed she was just a documentarian chronicling events. However, she could hardly be called anything close to an "objective filmmaker," since 'Triumph of the Will' was financed by the Nazi government, commissioned by Adolf Hitler himself, and completed with the full cooperation of all involved, with the rally planned around Riefenstahl's filming.
Riefenstahl is at pains to insist she was never a member of the Nazi Party. Her position has always been that she was an artist, working in a vacuum. The tragedy of her career, from her view, is that "Triumph of the Will" and "Olympia" gained such fame, and were so closely identified with Nazism, that she was never able to finish another film. There were other documentaries about the Nazi rallies, but nobody remembers the others; only hers, because it was so good... There is no mention in her films of anti-Semitism, she points out. She did not know until after the war about Hitler's genocidal policies against the Jews. She was a naive artist, unsophisticated about politics, detached from Nazi party officials with the exception of Hitler, her friend - but not a close friend. She was concerned only with images, not ideas.
And so on. But it has been pointed out that the very absence of anti-Semitism in "Triumph of the Will" looks like a calculation; excluding the central motif of almost all of Hitler's public speeches must have been a deliberate decision to make the film more efficient as propaganda. Nor could it have been easy for a film professional working in Berlin to remain unaware of the disappearance of all of the Jews in the movie industry.
'Triumph of the Will' is also notable for its influence. Many of the techniques used by Riefenstahl have been borrowed by filmmakers and political campaigns.
From 'Star Wars' (aka Episode IV: A New Hope):
In Ridley Scott's 'Gladiator,' Commodus' (Joaquin Phoenix) entry into Rome mimics Hitler's arrival in Nuremberg.
► ['I Spit On Your Grave'] (1978)
"This woman has just cut, chopped, broken, and burned five men beyond recognition... but no jury in America would ever convict her!"
|
The
original 1978 film was (
and arguably still is) very controversial, having been banned in a lot of countries. The controversy largely stems from a very graphic rape scene, and how you interpret the film. Is it a movie portraying the horrors of rape, and the revenge of a strong woman that's not going to take it? Or is it misogynistic trash that titillates its audience with sadism against a female protagonist?
This has long been the dichotomy of the 70s/80s era exploitation films. Some Feminists saw sexism in the T&A or the acts of violence directed at the female characters. However, the other side of the argument is some of the exploitation films were also the first films to have strong female characters that weren't dependent on men to "save" them.
From a 2009 Los Angeles Times article on Feminism & Exploitation films:
"Even in the mid-'70s, the kind of proto-feminist element was being written about," said Kathleen McHugh, director of the UCLA Center for the Study of Women. "Feminist film scholars were writing about Roger Corman and Stephanie Rothman, locating a feminist impulse in the standard plot, where you have these powerful, self-assertive, one might even use the term 'extremely aggressive' women who are wreaking vengeance against forces, people, men who are trying to keep them down."
However, not everybody saw it that way. For example, with 'I Spit On Your Grave,' Roger Ebert wrote a scathing review, calling it "an expression of the most diseased and perverted darker human natures."
July 16, 1980
A vile bag of garbage named "I Spit on Your Grave" is playing in Chicago theaters this week. It is a movie so sick, reprehensible and contemptible that I can hardly believe it's playing in respectable theaters, such as Plitt's United Artists. But it is. Attending it was one of the most depressing experiences of, my life.
This is a film without a shred of artistic distinction. It lacks even simple craftsmanship. There is no possible motive for exhibiting it, other than the totally cynical hope that it might make money. Perhaps it will make money: When I saw it at 11:20 a.m. on Monday, the theater contained a larger crowd than usual.
It was not just a large crowd, it was a profoundly disturbing one. I do not often attribute motives to audience members, nor do I try to read their minds, but the people who were sitting around me on Monday morning made it easy for me to know what they were thinking. They talked out loud. And if they seriously believed the things they were saying, they were vicarious sex criminals.
Also, back in 1980, Ebert & Gene Siskel devoted an entire show to "Women in Danger" films. During it, Siskel proposed the theory that these films were a reaction to the gains made by the women's movement, and fulfills a fantasy for some men of seeing a woman cowering and being "punished" whenever they have sex or do something un-lady like.
► ['Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom'] (1975)
There is a reason the word "Sadism" is derived from the Marquis de Sade's name. 'Salo' is from Italian poet, novelist, painter, and director Pier Paolo Pasolini & based on the novel Les 120 journées de Sodome, written in 1785 by the Marquis de Sade, which tells the story of libertines who kidnap a group of teenagers, take them to a chateau, and subject them to 4 months of the most depraved torture the four libertines can imagine.
The film has been controversial from the beginning, and is still banned in many countries. However, the film does have fans (a 2001 Village Voice critics poll had it as the 89th greatest film of the 20th century).
In 1994, an undercover policeman in Cincinnati, Ohio rented the film from a local gay bookstore, and then arrested the owners for "pandering." A large group of artists, including Martin Scorsese and Alec Baldwin, and scholars signed a legal brief arguing the film's artistic merit; the Court dismissed the case because the police violated the owners' Fourth Amendment rights, without reaching the question of whether the film was obscene.
► ['The Warriors'] (1979)
Warriors! Come out to plaaaaaayyyy! Based on the Anabasis by Xenophon, Walter Hill's 'The Warriors' tells the story of a Coney Island street gang trying to get back home after being framed for the murder of a gang leader ("Can you dig it?"), and being hunted by every other gang in New York City.
The film became controversial after release because of acts of vandalism & three murders associated with viewers who had seen the movie. In response, Paramount pulled advertising for the film, and allowed some theater owners to get out of their contractual obligations to show the movie.
From Time:
March 19, 1979
The first killing occurred on Feb. 12 at a drive-in showing the movie in Palm Springs, Calif.
During an intermission a white girl drew comment from blacks belonging to a youth gang called the Blue Coats. Their white counterparts, the Family, came to her rescue. In the shooting that followed, one of the Family, Marvin Kenneth Eller, 19, was killed by a .22-cal. bullet.
► ['The Last Temptation of Christ'] (1988)
This is probably the ultimate "we haven't seen it, but we're going to protest it" film. Based on the 1960 novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, Martin Scorsese's film tells the story of Jesus Christ's life and Crucifixion, except in a much more human way than is normally done. What is the last temptation of Christ? A "normal" life with a human family.
Fundamentalists objected strongly to the film, calling it blasphemous. However, if you actually sit down & watch the film, it's actually a fairly flattering depiction of Christ's story. It still says he's the Son of God, but instead of treating Jesus like a comic-book superhero, the movie treats Jesus with the dignity of being a real person.
From Roger Ebert:
Scorsese and Schrader have not made a film that panders to the audience--as almost all Hollywood religious epics traditionally have. They have paid Christ the compliment of taking him and his message seriously, and they have made a film that does not turn him into a garish, emasculated image from a religious postcard. Here he is flesh and blood, struggling, questioning, asking himself and his father which is the right way, and finally, after great suffering, earning the right to say, on the cross, "It is accomplished."
The critics of this film, many of whom have not seen it, have raised a sensational hue and cry about the final passages, in which Christ on the cross, in great pain, begins to hallucinate and imagines what his life would have been like if he had been free to live as an ordinary man. In his reverie, he marries Mary Magdelene, has children, grows old. But it is clear in the film that this hallucination is sent to him by Satan, at the time of his greatest weakness, to tempt him. And in the hallucination itself, in the film's most absorbing scene, an elderly Jesus is reproached by his aging Apostles for having abandoned his mission. Through this imaginary conversation, Jesus finds the strength to shake off his temptation and return to consciousness to accept his suffering, death and resurrection.
► ['The Birth of a Nation'] (1915)
A supremely innovative & influential film from the silent era directed by D. W. Griffith. It's also a film that's historically inaccurate, promotes white supremacy, and glorifies the Ku Klux Klan.
From filmsite:
This groundbreaking, landmark American film masterpiece about two families during the Civil War and Reconstruction periods was also extremely controversial and explicitly racist. It was based on former North Carolina Baptist minister Rev. Thomas Dixon Jr.'s anti-black, 1905 bigoted play, The Clansman, the second volume in a trilogy.
Its release set up a major censorship battle over its extremist depiction of African Americans, although Griffith naively claimed that he wasn't racist at the time. Unbelievably, the film is still used today as a recruitment piece for Klan membership - and in fact, the organization experienced a revival and membership peak in the decade immediately following its initial release. And the film stirred new controversy when it was voted into the National Film Registry in 1993, and when it was voted one of the "Top 100 American Films" (at # 44) by the American Film Institute in 1998.
The subject matter of the film caused immediate criticism by the newly-created National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for its racist and "vicious" portrayal of blacks, its proclamation of miscegenation, its pro-Klan stance, and its endorsement of enslavement. As a result, two scenes were cut (a love scene between Reconstructionist Senator and his mulatto mistress, and a fight scene).
► ['Basic Instinct'] (1992)
Paul Verhoeven's film was controversial not only for Sharon Stone's "crotch shot," but also with gay groups who disliked the portrayal of a bisexual woman as a psychopathic serial killer. If I remember correctly, some of the protesters stood in front of movie theaters with signs giving away the identity of the film's killer.
Womens' groups called the film misogynistic, and gay-rights groups in San Francisco (including The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)) called it stereotypically-homophobic and gay-bashing. They charged that the main murderess suspect in the film was a denegrating portrayal since she was a mentally-unstable, psychotic lesbian and bi-sexual that was potentially homicidal. Activists groups such as Queer Nation and ACT-UP protested at multiple San Francisco shooting locations, chanting "Hollywood, you stink" and they attempted to disrupt filming.
► ['Last Tango In Paris'] (1972)
Rated X upon its release, Bernardo Bertolucci's film tells the story of an affair between an American widower and an engaged Parisian woman (Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider). The film's depiction of sexuality, and the turmoil (I guess that's a good word for it) of the relationship made people argue whether it was erotic art or pornography?
The film premiered in New York on 14 October 1972 to enormous public controversy. The media frenzy surrounding the film generated intense popular interest as well as moral condemnation, landing cover stories in both Time and Newsweek magazines. Playboy published a photo spread of Brando and Schneider "cavorting in the nude." Time wrote, "Any moviegoers who are not shocked, titillated, disgusted, fascinated, delighted or angered by this early scene in Bernardo Bertolucci's new movie, Last Tango in Paris, should be patient. There is more to come. Much more." The Village Voice reported walkouts by [New York Film Festival] board members and "vomiting by well-dressed wives." Columnist William F. Buckley and ABC's Harry Reasoner denounced the film as "pornography disguised as art."
Probably the most controversial scene deals with a "stick of butter" and anal rape. This & other scenes caused the film to be banned in various countries (Chile banned it for nearly 30 years. It was banned in its country of origin, Italy, until 1987.)
In 1974, it became the first film to be prosecuted under Britain's Obscene Publications Act - and the sodomy scene was ordered deleted. In the director's own country, the film was seized and banned, and charged for its "obscene content offensive to public decency." In the mid-70s, it was permanently banned in Italy (with all prints seized), its stars and director were condemned, and Bertolucci was given a 4-month suspended prison sentence.
It should also be noted that Marlon Brando received a Best Actor Academy Award nomination in 1973 for this film, and Bernardo Bertolucci was nominated for Best Director.