Is there too much BLOOD?
October 17th 2006 00:25
In America it is optional whether to submit your film to the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), where a board of censors will decide what rating the film should receive and where the cuts should be in order to receive this particular classification. Most horror movies end up rated R (persons under 17 have to be accompanied by an parent or adult guardian).
The classification up from R is NC-17 (no one under 17 admitted). This is more or less the equivalent of the Australian rating R, the New Zealand rating of R18 and the British rating of 18. Originally the NC-17 rating was known as the infamous X rating, and was dished out to films with sexually explicit content. Any movie with an X rating had a lot of difficulty with distribution as cinemas generally refused to advertise an X rated film assuming it was a porn flick.
In Australia films rated X are specifically porn titles and can not be offered for hire in video stores (unless you live in the ACT or NT states). A classification NVE (non-violent erotica) was tried out to differentiate between violent content and sexual explicitness, but failed to get past the Senate.
The modern horror film suffered greatly due this hopeless set of regulations. The criteria the MPAA use, and still use, for what is regarded as too violent, disturbing and/or offensive is inconsistent and strangely prurient. In the States Blockbuster video refuses to have films rated NC-17 on its shelves.
Unfortunately the rest of the world generally gets what the MPAA spits out. The American censors hate the sight of blood. Any movie with a large amount of blood shed is likely to end up butchered by the MPAA. But, it’s not just the amount of blood, it’s the execution of the special effect. If someone gets decapitated in a horror flick and the blood jets up a metre, it has to be edited so that the blood only appears to jet up thirty centimetres (or in American terms a few feet). It’s bizarre.
This is why in most of those absurdly violent, commercially successful Stallone/Schwarzenegger action flicks there is a high body count, but precious little blood spilled.
The late 70s and early 80s was a limbo period where horror films were pushing the boundaries and the MPAA weren’t quite hip to the carnage. George Romero released Dawn of the Dead (1978) unrated, taking a chance that the film’s publicity campaign, poster art and trailers indicating this was a sequel to Night of the Living Dead (1968) would be enough to get the horror fans in droves. And his risk paid off. Fans squirmed with bloody delight at the relentless uber-violence on screen.
Romero assumed it would work again (and why wouldn’t it?) with the third instalment, Day of the Dead (1985), but the film bombed at the box office (as did Re-Animator, another unrated masterpiece), possibly due to the conservative Reagan years clamping down.
The original Friday the 13th (1980) was given an R rating, but the gruesome deaths on screen were, in comparison to later R rated movies, very explicit. The MPAA realised directors were getting away with murder. The following year two films; Friday the 13th Part 2 and My Bloody Valentine got severely reprimanded by the board of censors and subsequently were shorn of most of their SFX work (Oh, to see uncut versions of these!!)
When John Carpenter made The Thing (1982) he knew the MPAA would not take kindly to his malevolent beast from space. His makeup artist Rob Bottin suggested they use alternate colours for the alien’s blood (there were numerous gory transformations in the screenplay). This of course successfully confused the MPAA enough that they cut nothing from the finished film and to this day is possibly the most gloriously gory R rated film ever made. There’s no way in hell The Thing would pass uncut these days if it wanted to secure an R rating.
Horror fans have been bemoaning all of this for years. The NC-17 classification was meant to inform the public that a film has adult material (sex, violence), but isn’t a porn flick. Very few horrors opt for this classification, because cinema advertisers still baulk. These days producers and directors decide to go with the R version at the cinemas and release the DVD unrated. But this is still a compromise that shouldn’t have to be made.
* the logo on this page was taken from the the following wikipedia page:
MPAA film ratings system
It is licensed under the GNU Free Document License
The classification up from R is NC-17 (no one under 17 admitted). This is more or less the equivalent of the Australian rating R, the New Zealand rating of R18 and the British rating of 18. Originally the NC-17 rating was known as the infamous X rating, and was dished out to films with sexually explicit content. Any movie with an X rating had a lot of difficulty with distribution as cinemas generally refused to advertise an X rated film assuming it was a porn flick.
In Australia films rated X are specifically porn titles and can not be offered for hire in video stores (unless you live in the ACT or NT states). A classification NVE (non-violent erotica) was tried out to differentiate between violent content and sexual explicitness, but failed to get past the Senate.
The modern horror film suffered greatly due this hopeless set of regulations. The criteria the MPAA use, and still use, for what is regarded as too violent, disturbing and/or offensive is inconsistent and strangely prurient. In the States Blockbuster video refuses to have films rated NC-17 on its shelves.
Unfortunately the rest of the world generally gets what the MPAA spits out. The American censors hate the sight of blood. Any movie with a large amount of blood shed is likely to end up butchered by the MPAA. But, it’s not just the amount of blood, it’s the execution of the special effect. If someone gets decapitated in a horror flick and the blood jets up a metre, it has to be edited so that the blood only appears to jet up thirty centimetres (or in American terms a few feet). It’s bizarre.
This is why in most of those absurdly violent, commercially successful Stallone/Schwarzenegger action flicks there is a high body count, but precious little blood spilled.
The late 70s and early 80s was a limbo period where horror films were pushing the boundaries and the MPAA weren’t quite hip to the carnage. George Romero released Dawn of the Dead (1978) unrated, taking a chance that the film’s publicity campaign, poster art and trailers indicating this was a sequel to Night of the Living Dead (1968) would be enough to get the horror fans in droves. And his risk paid off. Fans squirmed with bloody delight at the relentless uber-violence on screen.
Romero assumed it would work again (and why wouldn’t it?) with the third instalment, Day of the Dead (1985), but the film bombed at the box office (as did Re-Animator, another unrated masterpiece), possibly due to the conservative Reagan years clamping down.
When John Carpenter made The Thing (1982) he knew the MPAA would not take kindly to his malevolent beast from space. His makeup artist Rob Bottin suggested they use alternate colours for the alien’s blood (there were numerous gory transformations in the screenplay). This of course successfully confused the MPAA enough that they cut nothing from the finished film and to this day is possibly the most gloriously gory R rated film ever made. There’s no way in hell The Thing would pass uncut these days if it wanted to secure an R rating.
Horror fans have been bemoaning all of this for years. The NC-17 classification was meant to inform the public that a film has adult material (sex, violence), but isn’t a porn flick. Very few horrors opt for this classification, because cinema advertisers still baulk. These days producers and directors decide to go with the R version at the cinemas and release the DVD unrated. But this is still a compromise that shouldn’t have to be made.
* the logo on this page was taken from the the following wikipedia page:
MPAA film ratings system
It is licensed under the GNU Free Document License
| 108 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Sisi
-Any movie with a large amount of blood shed is likely to end up butchered by the MPAA.
-The MPAA realised directors were getting away with murder.
haha awesome effort mate
Comment by suitably*wounded
Eternal Days; Author: Illness, M.
[Aside warning to the kiddies: Do NOT try this at home. Trained goofball on a professional course. Not pending in any state. Put that damn tray table up and you better not forget to tip the monkey butler.]
As to whether or not there's too much blood, we all know it's arbitrary anyway, as has been repeatedly stated. However, I do feel some falls on the side of gratuitous (and no, I'm opting for another genre by way of explanation, but y'all will still get my drift and can sue for travesty later) exploitation, like it did in Kill Bill Vol. 1. Arguably, that could be the point, but I saw it as a detraction. Where as Vol. 2 is pure (in my humble opinion) pure perfection. And there's plenty of evidence for coothness (is that even partially a word?) that it's unnecessary to use any to support a thesis.
And I can't imagine where on the gore level one wouldn't know to put cheese or Corman, but they aren't lauded for realism. Consequently, we use them for frat parties, ooking out pre-pubescent girls and rebelling against English teachers via plots, character
development or anything vaguely resembling a story.
/my blabbering endeth for the day
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
I agree with you, Kill Bill 2 was much better than the first part.
Unlike other genres, I kinda enjoy a certain level of fromage in horror movies ... Which is why I sub-title my blog "The high art & deep trash ..." .... There can be something intrinsically enjoyable about bad acting, cheesy setups, and characters doing really really dumb things ...
And, for your PIECE of mind, your Horror Club membership hasn't been revoked ... its been repulsed.