Quantum of Solace isn't due in theaters until November, but the October edition of the UK's Empire Magazine, along with reportedly, Daniel Craig, has dubbed it "the bloodiest Bond ever." The MPAA rated it PG-13.

The bloodiest Bond ever? PG-13? Hmm...

Was the MPAA drunk? Perhaps off a case of 30-year-old Scotch sent by Quantum's producers? Or did Craig slip something in their martinis and shake?

Then again, on closer investigation into the suspicious ratings decision, it appears this isn't the first time the MPAA's turned a visually impaired eye to Bond's heavy-fisted shenanigans. For example:

License to Kill, PG-13: Drug lord Sanchez feeds Leiter to a shark, sticks one of his own henchmen in a brain-bursting hyperbaric chamber, and spears another with a forklift. His right-hand man, a budding Benicio Del Toro, meets his unpleasant end falling into a giant shredder. And Sanchez's exit -- being burned alive -- is no less disturbing.

Die Another Day, PG-13: It's an electric battle as Bond and a billionaire villain shock each other until the latter is sucked into an airplane engine. Not to mention earlier when Bond gets a wooden rod rammed into the back of his skull and is nearly strangled in a North Korean torture chair.

Live and Let Die, PG: 007 inflates more than drug kingpin Mr. Big's ego when he shoves a shark bullet in his mouth that blows him up like a balloon until he explodes.

Casino Royal, PG-13: Testicular torture. No one needs to be reminded of the cringe-worthy details, despite the lack of close-ups, of raw, mangled... I've said enough.

It appears all Bond movies so far have fallen under a PG or PG-13 rating. If Bond doesn't deserve an R, what does? Pulp Fiction? Pineapple Express? What's the secret R-rated ingredient? Perhaps we should consult the MPAA on this matter. And find out what's acceptable/expected in a film rating, according to their definitions.

PG-13: Color outside these guidelines and you're in R territory:

Nudity: As long as it isn't "sexually-oriented." (So Bond getting a physical in a doctor's office: OK; Bond examined in his hotel room by Shea Bangs: not OK?)
Violence: As long as it's not "both realistic and extreme or persistent." (When is violence not extreme or persistent?)
Expletives: Not in a sexual context. Otherwise, it depends... (So, no swearing during sex?)
Drugs: maybe? The MPAA isn't clear on drug use, but "drug abuse" is in the R category. (Perhaps if no one inhales, it's OK.)

Was Le Chiffre's pummeling of 007's crown jewels not both "realistic and extreme or persistent"? It was certainly sadistic. Or is the MPAA not referring to violence so much as to bleeding, the kind that takes the form of geyser-spurting, face-splashing gore? You can feed him to the sharks: we just don't want to watch them eat. Or is it less about half-chewed flesh than sexy flesh (which is way worse for pre-teens than violence), or the lack thereof? For a global womanizer, Bond's on-screen love-making is rather demure.

But then it's all open to interpretation anyway, the MPAA's interpretation. In a world where violence is increasingly prevalent in our media (make-believe and real-life), perhaps it's simply that the MPAA's tolerance for torture and the like has been raised. (I pray we never need anything beyond NC-17.)

I suppose then PG-13 might be a license to kill after all. As long as the murders aren't too messy and no one gets too naked or too stoned.

Recommend (0)

|  Comments (0)

|  Email

|  Share

Share  Facebook Digg del.icio.us