Wednesday, March 22, 2006

How Do We Rate?

In the United States : According to the MPAA These Girls contains the following - Teen sexuality, nudity, language, and drug content. I don't think this has any bearing on the U.S. DVD release.

In Alberta - once upon a time, a very Liberal province for film Classification - we get the 18A - you can't see this film without an adult if you're are under 17. I myself can't imagine too many 15, 16, or 17 year olds going out to the movies with parents or aunts or legal guardians. Here is what they had to say about the content - which, to me, sounds more like a list of selling points to the teen audience than a warning.

Content Elements:
Frequent use of the sexual expletive, some in a sexual context; frequent use of crude sexual language
Infrequent weapons and hand-to-hand violence-some blood
Portrayal of sexual activities between adults and minors-no nudity
Buttock nudity in a non-sexual context
Frequent portrayals of illegal drug use for recreational purposes involving minors

Thematic Elements:
The journey towards maturity
The exploration of adolescent sexuality
Using sexual power to manipulate others

Classification Rationale: Rated 18A for frequent coarse language, portrayals of substance abuse and sexual content involving minors, and mature thematic content.

In Ontario - which has had a very conservative classification policy in the past - we rate 14A. If you are under 14 you need to call your favorite uncle who likes to corrupt his nieces and nephews.

In British Columbia we rate 18A as well but they have by far the most detailed breakdown of "contentious material". Also they get the award for using the most outdated terminology. Who says 'fisticuffs' these days? - I guess it is 'British' Columbia. Read on...

The determinative classification rationale was sexually suggestive scenes involving minors. The following is a list of the most contentious material noted by classification staff:

  • Approximately four sexually suggestive scenes involving minors;
  • Nude breasts and buttocks in a sexual context.

In addition to the foregoing content, classifiers noted the following:

  • Approximately 91 instances of coarse language including blasphemy;
  • Three instances of drug use depicting characters smoking marijuana;
  • Fisticuffs including a character being hit in the head with a tire iron.

What I can't understand is how buttock nudity can be 'in a sexual context' for one person and in a 'non-sexual context' for another? Maybe I am showing my naive side.


Blogger dave said...

to be fair, you see the side of caroline dhavernas' breast in one scene. but that's really just a joke and censors should get a foot up the ass.

- dave jaffer

1:02 a.m.  
Blogger Red Devil said...

Maybe it was the sight of David Boreanaz' ass that made them feel uncomfortable. I hardly think that teenagers today would find anything in this film particularly shocking. Hey, I sat through the film with a priest and a nun without incident - I think that should count for something.

8:54 a.m.  
Blogger Bruce Fletcher said...

This discussion really makes me miss my days as a Canadian Film Censor - uh, I mean "Film Classification Officer".
Keep 'em shaved!
Bruce Fletcher
Director of Programming
San Francisco Independent Film Festival

11:29 a.m.  
Blogger dave said...

not one to hold my tongue on such matters, i say "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke."

- dave jaffer

1:51 p.m.  
Blogger Red Devil said...

or "joke 'em if they can't take a fuck" - as it were.

7:20 p.m.  
Blogger dave said...

well put.

- dave

2:02 p.m.  
Blogger SebbyAkami said...

Will the DVDs sold in the US be an edited version of the movie?

1:12 p.m.  
Blogger Red Devil said...

there are only a few little changes to the dialogue for the US version. Basically the girls have aged a few years for the US version.

8:35 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home