Mature subject matter
Via the Leiter Reports blog of political theorist Brian Leiter, I see that the new Francis Ford Coppola movie Youth Without Youth has been rated "R" for "gun violence, sexual congress, female nudity, metaphysics."
What is the specific brand of metaphysics in question? If the film had proposed substance dualism as opposed to idealism, would it have garnered a "PG-13" rating instead? Would multiple realizability count as more or less inappropriate for younger audiences? (The Maoist tendencies of Hilary Putnam should be especially pertinent here.)
I'm going to have to side with Plato and say that metaphysics, specifically the Form of the Good, should not be attempted until age 35. A minimum of 15 years training is required before one can discuss these matters with the common folk.
What is the specific brand of metaphysics in question? If the film had proposed substance dualism as opposed to idealism, would it have garnered a "PG-13" rating instead? Would multiple realizability count as more or less inappropriate for younger audiences? (The Maoist tendencies of Hilary Putnam should be especially pertinent here.)
I'm going to have to side with Plato and say that metaphysics, specifically the Form of the Good, should not be attempted until age 35. A minimum of 15 years training is required before one can discuss these matters with the common folk.
posted by to scranton at 4:58 AM
10 Comments:
Fun. Just to make sure we're all on the same page, the NYT frequently makes jokes on its "Rated _ for ____" part.
Political theorist and UT Law professor, fool.
Well, reading Also Sprach Zarathustra gave me an insurmountable urge to, shall we say, discharge my manly powers, but it is a matter of dispute whether Nietzsche's concepts of the Will to Power and Eternal Recurrence of the same properly belong to Metaphysics, but then again every single criteria the MPAA uses to rate fims is up for dispute. I still think Bambi should be rated NC-17. I have yet to recover from the severe trauma of realizing that Bambi's mother would never come back, and I am now forty.
Speaking of which, I took Scantron's advice and watched Reds last night. How this movie was rated PG I have no idea. Beyond all the obvious jokes about it corrupting the young by presenting a sympathetic portrait of Greenwich Village lascivious rabble-rousers and traitorous Communists, it's really, truly, an inappropriate movie for 3-year-olds accompanied by their parent. Not that a lot of mothers and fathers outside of various intellectual circles took their toddlers to the opening screening of Reds, of course. But seriously, the word "fucking" (referring to sex) is heard on at least one occasion, and we witness the act itself (a tergo!). We see Russian soldiers with their legs severed, and Eugene O'Neil drinking Whiskey like it's water. The main character (a human being, not a silly deer) dies at the end, and we are constantly subjected to centenarians saying scary things about the olden days, when--as Scantron will happily impersonate for you--we took those ale-yen common-ists and deported them because they were not only common-ists, but ale-yen common-ists.
I'm tired of Communists like Warren Beatty making movies about their totalitarian project, and then getting their Jewish Communist buddies in hollywood to get them low MPAA ratings.
What do you all think? Can I build a campaign platform out of this?
Don't forget, there's also a blurry, faraway shot of Jack Nicholson's ass. That is an automatic NC-17, hands down. (Perhaps more disturbing than seeing Harvey Keitel full frontal in the Bad Lieutenant.)
Really, though, I think you're on to something. Beatty obviously wanted to catch viewers when they were young and not yet indoctrinated by bourgeois ideology. A young(er) George Soros probably helped him in his nefarious plot.
But seriously, what did you think beyond the trivialities of the ratings process? Did the characters not often speak as though they were reading off a manifesto? (Beatty's script, to be exact, aided by the input of British Marxist playwright Jasper Griffiths.)
Sheriff, you must infiltrate Leiter's inner circle. You have my full confidence.
The movie just seemed hollow. Like it was missing something. Then it hit me: Warren Beatty just didn't do a very good acting job. It needed Tom Cruise or Denzel Washington. Beatty just isn't very good at doing the whole subdued-to-in-rage thing, which was probably 90% of the movie.
And was it just me or were most if not all of Nicholson's lines garbled? I could not understand what the hell that guy was saying.
I thought he was awesome, although he grows sort of predictable in retrospect. For example, the following exchange could have occurred in any Nicholson movie at any time:
JN: Why aren't you in Chicago with Jack?
Girl: Why should I be? He has his things and I have mine.
JN: [Pause.] What are they?
Girl: What?
JN: The things that you have. That are yours. What are they?
Yeah, well, I was thirteen when I saw the film last. The full import of that exchange must have gone over my head. I was, after all, a pious little altar boy at the time.
Strange as it is, I also just watched Reds - before, I should add, having seen this thread. As it turns out, I lived on the block that where all the film's Greenwich Village scenes were shot - Grove Street, just west of 7th Ave. The scene that has Louise visiting Eugene O'Neill in the city was shot directly across from my apartment. They had to cover over the sign for an inauspicious Polish laundromat. Never have I encountered a more curmudgeonly bunch of laundry workers! Crewmates, take your laundry to the Chinese around the corner. Don't let those Poles rip you off.
Post a Comment
<< Home