I'm rather surprised that this movie is rated G. Be warned for those looking to rent this. It should be rated R for one unnecessary scene. There is a single shot of a topless hippie chick who had died at piedmont. There is also an unnecessary shot of the scientists' buttocks as they walk toward or away from a shower.
Like I said, completely unnecessary. Not sexual in anyway. But tell a teenage boy that a topless girl is not sexual...
Some may agree, some may disagree... but, in my opinion, the G rating is way off base.
That shot of the scientists' bared buttocks made the whole picture for me.
Had I been the director, I would have extended the shot's length.
I don't get why it would garner a "Mature Audiences" rating though, guys walking around bare-ass is simply a fact of life. Happens in the locker room all the time. No different than being shirtless (of which we get plenty of from James Olson in the pic).
That dead chick's tits I could care less about.
"Don't call me 'honey', mac." "Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"
There were a number of movies, even before movies had content ratings, where a male character was shown in the buff from the rear of course. "Planet of the Apes" (1968) comes to mind and "The Naked Pray" (1965?) comes to mind. Juliet was even shown naked from the rear in "Romeo and Juliet" (1968) and, from all accounts, no one was too upset. It was freaking Shakespeare for crying out loud and teachers were assigning it in English class. Some cautious teachers asked parental permission to play it safe. Hollywood played it safe by putting "Recommended for Mature Audiences", "M", on there edgy-er movies, but it didn't keep anyone out. To the contrary; many rebellious teenager, of the era, were doubtlessly attracted by it.
In 1971, as now, movie ratings were set by the supposedly representative board established by the Motion Picture Association of America. In the case of "Andromeda Strain" they didn't think a scientist, bare from the rear, was a major moral hazard. After "One Potato Two Potato" and "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" the sight of a red neck, putting the grab on a black nurse, in a very thick bio suite, wouldn't have caused that much concern. As for blood and guts the space bugs made blood turn into a solid so that wasn't an issue.
Of course the rating system has changed over the last four decades. As the Nixon and later Reagan administrations declared war on drugs depiction of drug use became an issue. "Wild in the Streets" (1968), with all of its pot and LSD use, went from suggested for mature audiences to "R" rated. Concern about the violence in "Gremlins" (1984) resulted in the PG-13 rating. Moral panic over sex and violence had an effect. "Rebel without a Cause"(1855) may have been more or less suitable for everyone, over a half century ago but the last time it was released in theater, during the nineties, it was rated PG-13.
When the rating system was set up the "G" rating was sort of the default rating for the public. Changes were made in the scripts in "The Planet of the Apes" series in order to keep it. Many other film were changed for general audiences. Somewhere along the way audiences began to feel "G" rated movies were the same as what the could watch on TV free of charge. Teenager began to associate it with Disney cartoons which made it uncool. Today, far from trying to get a "G" rating most studios sometimes include scenes and words to get a "PG" or, more often a "PG-13" rating.
TAG LINE: True genius is a beautiful thing, but ignorance is ugly to the bone.
I was watching it on Netflix and the topless girl made me do a huge double take. I realized I've never seen this movie on DVD or anything but TNT or SyFy et al. Personally, I think the topless girl added to it. The fact she died in the act of lifting the sheet off herself to climb out of bed showed just how fast the disease struck and made it creepier. I think the use of non-sexual nudity added to the realism by giving the film a more day to day medical feel. I mean, how many doctors will blink twice at nudity?
Bible thumping has nothing to do with movie ratings. A movie's rating is not a statement about the "quality" or "moral decency" of a movie. They are simply advisories to parents to help them decide which movies to allow their children to see. Nothing more, nothing less. Adults can see anything they like, regardless of the rating. Honestly, the only people out there that get bent out of shape about a movie getting an R or X rating are children. Adults couldn't care less.
Who said it should be rated R? I haven't seen the post....please point me to it. The movie should have been rated PG for intensity....but R? Give me a break.
OK....I just read it. Sorry for jumping all over you. Although I would not have been surprised if it had been rated R back in 1970 (they were usually so strict about nudity back then), I cannot imagine anyone in this day and age thinking this movie still would warrant such a rating. It should have been a PG....and a PG would be appropriate today.
Actually, there are plenty of examples of PG movies from the 1970s (and a few into the 1980s) that have brief instances of toplessness. I think it was part of a free-spirited hippy phase in American culture.
There's a lot of douchebag replies to this thread. Yes, we understand your sensibilities are not infringed upon when you see a pair of tits or an ass. The point of this post was to highlight the fact that the film received a 'G' rating despite it's adult themes.
'Patton' was another film to receive a 'G' rating despite it's heavy use of language. It's like they just figured these movies are tame by today's standards and slapped a General Audiences rating on the front arbitrarily.
It's like they just figured these movies are tame by today's standards and slapped a General Audiences rating on the front arbitrarily.
Rather the reverse. It's not like they only gave it the G rating this decade. Among all the histrionics about censorship, several people in this thread pointed out that the ratings system did not mean then what it means today. While a modern G rating means "this is pabulum for ages 8 and under guaranteed not to contain anything that might make a moral guardian flinch", it originally meant "we see no reason to suggest a minimum maturity level on this film." There's no sexual content (the idea that nudity is always sexual didn't arise until at least 20 years later), no swearing most kids wouldn't hear regularly anyway, and only one really graphic image of gore.
Yes, it's not a movie for children, but that's not what G was supposed to mean.
reply share
This is not directed at the most recent post (tparadox_88) but the first post and any one agreeing and complaining about one movie made over 50 years ago and how children might see it...
Yes this is important! Never mind war, homelessness, unemployment, violence is so many parts of the country, innocent people getting killed, bombing, disease, the "Tea Party," Sarah Palin and other idiots, rich get multi-multi-richer and more people poor from the 8 years of Bush crap, outsourcing jobs while American citizens are laid off, etc., etc.
The movie rating of a 50 year old movie is IMPORTANT to think about, raise the topic, discuss and disagree on, etc.
But for me to be fair, this is America (I am anyway, I know this site must be global. But that's another reason actually to say who cares about one movie rating) and if this is America, free speech and that's all anyone is doing here.
But what the #$%? Let's grow up! If we are adults here talking about a pair of woman's breasts in ONE shot. COME ON! It's the 21st century according to the accepted calendar and a lot longer/older according to other cultural calendars.
Soon we'll be hearing someone out on the street with a cart yelling out "Bring Out Your Dead!" (meaning progress backwards to the Dark ages!)
Like I said, completely unnecessary. Not sexual in anyway. But tell a teenage boy that a topless girl is not sexual...
In a Buffy episode, Xander said some along the lines of "I'm a teenage boy. Looking at LINOLEUM makes me think of sex!" :-)
I'm glad that I live in a country (Sweden) where nudity doesn't necessarily imply sex, and where sex is not considered inherently dangerous if not outright evil ... reply share
We have the Puritan influence to thank for that. They left Europe seeking freedom from official, mandated state religion and left a cultural imprint that in some ways is just as restricting.
The G rating is a bit odd for this movie, based on an old rule of thumb in the pre-PG-13 days: If a movie could be shown completely unedited on network television, it could get a G rating. This movie fails that test.
Of course, these days, the MPAA won't rate much of anything G, even kids' cartoons. It's silly.
Things have definitely been regressing. It wasn't "network" television, but several years ago a local station - I think it was actually a UPN affiliate but they didn't have any "network" programming on Sunday nights at that time - showed Blazing Saddles. I was expecting a cut-up bleep-fest at best. But it was uncut. "N-words" and everything. I called the station the next day to compliment them on that, and the person said they'd only received positive calls.
If something like that happened more recently, or any time within the last 7 1/2 years for sure, I would expect all kinds of "outrage" and "protests" and probably fools like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson flying in to see who they might be able to blackmail, maybe the station being fire-bombed by "peaceful activists" and so forth.
Back in those days, the G rating was different. It actually meant what it said; that the movie was for GENERAL audiences. This is unlike today, when the G rating is assumed to automatically mean that the movie is aimed specifically at little kids, a very narrow demographic that is most decidedly NOT a broad, general audience.
Planet of the Apes came out in the summer of 1968...a few months before the ratings system (including "G") came out in November.
Perhaps Planet of the Apes got a re-release with a "G."
The truth of the matter is that MOST movies of the 60's were INTENDED to be "G." Everybody was invited, all ages -- if a little nudity or a swear word snuck in, it was OK. 1960's Psycho was not age-restricted in America, all ages were admitted -- PARENTS had to do the forbidding. The phrase "Suggested for Mature Audiences" was sometimes used, but it was way too vague to work right.
Specific Hollywood sixties movies like "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" made before the G,M, R, X ratings DID get restrictive "No one under 17 admitted." This, too, required Hollywood to start allowing for more graphic content and the ratings code to cover it.