R-rated Question of the Day

Today, I was interviewed by Paul Asay of Focus on the Family’s Plugged In. We had a delightful conversation about Christian discernment at the movies. I respect Plugged In’s focus on helping us be discerning moviegoers and discerning parents.

It was a very encouraging exchange*, and I’m grateful to Mr. Asay for his thoughtful questions. He was the model of a good interviewer: respectful, educated, challenging, and gracious. I’ll let you know when the conversation is posted.

And speaking of being concerned about what our families see on the big screen, here’s a question that occurred to me today: Doesn’t it strike you as odd that a movie in which a character says the word “fuck” will get an R-rating, but a movie in which the main character is a likable Playboy bunny can be Rated PG-13?

I wonder how many kids are on their way to see The House Bunny this weekend.

Pardon my French, but something seems seriously @#$%ed up here.

*The conversation with Paul Asay was a good reminder for me that there are people at Focus who value what those of us at ChristianityTodayMovies.com are doing, as opposed to a certain editor who publishes lies and slander about us. (No, still no apology from Focus on the Family yet for referring to CT’s critics as sexual perverts, but I have been receiving off-the-record, personal apologies from individuals within Focus who are horrified by the “boundless” accusations from a certain website editor there.)

 

  • Facebook
  • coffeemonkey

    So, shouldn’t you have included in your title “Warning: PG-13 rated!” instead, given your comment on Bunnies versus language?

  • grdthepoint

    I’d like to second Scott C.’s request. I’m looking forward to reading the interview.

  • Buddy

    In other words, it’s unacceptable to say the word, but defining yourself by it is OK. It’s kind of like certain religious traditions in which saying the word @$$hole is an abominable sin, but being one seems to be a prerequisite for leadership.

  • gaith

    I believe “The American President” holds the record with three f-bombs, none used in a sexual context.

  • petertchattaway

    Up to five f-bombs in a PG-13 film? I don’t think so. For as long as I can remember — going back to 1987′s Throw Momma from the Train — the rule has been no more than one, or maaaaybe two, and only if the word is never used in a sexual context. (In that film, a book written by one of the characters had to be renamed “100 Women I’d Like to Pork” because “pork” was acceptably PG-13 and, uh, the other word was not. Even though the filmmakers said that they personally found “pork” more offensive.)

  • Darrel Manson

    What’s wrong with Playboy bunnies? Films about waitresses or barmaids are something to avoid? Of course with Playboy Clubs a thing of the (now getting to be) distant past (except in Las Vegas – but that is a whole other culture), the role of bunny isn’t much understood. They dressed no more provacatively than Hooter girls.

  • Scott C.

    Will you let us know when and where the interview will be published?

  • ladypartain

    Maybe it’s because THAT WORD is just more offensive.

  • azhiashalott

    This continues a trend I’ve noticed — I’m increasingly less offended by movies rated R than by those deemed acceptable for a PG-13 rating.

  • http://www.conversantlife.com/blogs/natebell natebell

    I believe the MPAA will allow a film to use the f-bomb up to five times without resorting to an R. I’ve seen The House Bunny, and would say it probably falls somewhere between a PG-13 and an R. This is where the more nuanced UK rating system (Uc, U, PG, 12A, 12, 15, 18, R18) would come in handy!

  • grdthepoint

    It strikes me as very odd indeed.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X