MPAA

I will never understand why the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) gives graphic violence in a movie an R rating and gives graphic sex an NC-17 rating. Case in point is the R “Eastern Promises” received and the NC-17 for “Lust, Caution.” Certainly a case can be made for the very graphic violence in “Eastern Promises” being integral to the plot and the point director David Cronenberg wants to make about evil. And the violence, while abhorrent, should be there. However, because the violence is so graphic (two throats being slit and two fully dressed men being killed by an unarmed, naked man), the movie should have received an NC-17. On the other hand, “Lust, Caution” received a deserved NC-17 for graphic sex scenes that are integral to the plot and character development. The two main characters, living lives full of deception, can only be honest when they are having sex. Director Ang Lee was adamant about maintaining the integrity of the script and holding to his vision for the film so he did not re-edit to get an R. The bigger question here is why is violence more acceptable than sex?