So, the hits keep on coming as far as seeing icky things on the telly is concerned. What's the deal??? After seeing the real life broken arm, and then the disgusting torture on Weeds, here is what has happened:

1. A documentary I watched on fundamentalist religion included a segment on bloodless surgery in which a liver transplant is done. I'm following along--la, la, la--not expecting that viewers will be subjected to clips from the actual surgery. Yep! Next thing I know, this slippery liver is casually plucked from one body and dropped into a plastic bowl filled with ice and water. Then, a nurse or doctor or somebody who's dressed in scrubs carefully takes the bowl into the other operating room. It's like when you have a too full cup of coffee that you try not to spill on your way back to your desk. You walk all slow and as steady as possible, staring down at the cup, willing all the contents to stay contained to avoid a big mess. That was exactly what was going on here, only with a major organ on ice in blue tupperwear. I watched in horror praying to God that the person doesn't trip, sending the liver flying, that no sloshing occurs, etc, etc. Aaaaaaaaaaah! Here I am all settled in to watch a nice little program that will possibly teach me something about fundamentalism, and suddenly it takes a turn. Which, when I think about it, kinda mirrors my own views of organized religion. Seems ok on the surface but often takes a turn! That's all I'm going to say about the movie because, honestly, I didn't think it was well-done or informative. It didn't shed any new light and just isn't worth discussing, which is a bummer.

2. I caught up on the new season of True Blood with Em. Now, I can hear you saying, "Oh come on, you have to know there is going to be violence in that," and it's true. I do. But, I feel like they're really outdoing themselves so far this year. After a human prisoner is basically ripped apart by a vampire, and the body parts go flying, I had a highly inappropriate response. I started laughing. Not that watching another prisoner fishing around in the dead guy's dismembered hip to find the metal plate to use to help him break his own chains and escape certain death is hilarious per se, but somehow the over-the-top gore and horror of the situation really got me giggling. I'm *losing* it. The show is still good, though, and often truly humorous. I'll take body parts flying and landing with a thud for the vampire in a track suit at the mall any day. Heh. Can't wait to see what happens next!

3. THEN, I watched the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated. I have a lot to say about this one. It is definitely an interesting and informative look at the MPAA's rating system. I've always kinda wondered how ratings for movies are decided, and by who, and it turns out no one else really knows how this works either. It's all Top Secret Information. Here are the key things that stood out for me:

• As far as I can tell, being an MPAA rater is like participating in the witness protection program. You go in and park in a secure garage, you do your "job" of determining ratings, and then you're protected from anyone ever finding out who you are. Names are not released. Directors do not know who is making decisions about their movies, and this film makes it very clear that precedence is irrelevant in the decisions, especially in the difference between an R or NC-17 rating.
  

• Director Kirby Dick hires a female private investigator, and her partner, to help him track down the names of the MPAA raters. It was hilarious to watch this woman screech around town in her minivan in hot pursuit of raters heading to the local chicken joint for dinner. But, she did a good job catching photos and footage of them. The organization claims that raters are parents of children ages 5-17. For the most part, this is a lie.

• Sex or violence? Sex or violence? Which one do you think has the biggest impact on stricter MPAA ratings? If you guessed sex, you are right! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Most of us are aware that Americans are weird about sex, so this probably isn't a big surprise for all you smarties out there. Turns out showing a sword entering the back of a man's head and exiting through the mouth, among other violent atrocities, gives you an 'R', while a flash of pubic hair takes you right into NC-17 territory. Say what??? Really? Yes. It's ok if you show several people gunned down, someone sawed in pieces by a flying chain saw, or a fake breast ripped out with a knife; you'll get an R. It's cool for youngsters to see that. But, someone getting off through graphic sex or masturbation? Oh no, no, no. That is wrong with a capital W and is swiftly assigned an NC-17. Good lord. The message here is disturbing. Graphic sex is more uncomfortable or upsetting for people to watch than ruthless murder and brutal violence. Uh...yeah.
  

• Interestingly enough, not all types of sex leads to stricter ratings. There are layers of acceptability. Heterosexual sex seems to be alright, as long as you avoid the pubic hair, stick to a couple of biblical (read: vanilla) positions, and don't focus too much on the woman getting any pleasure out of it. That's right. The longer the female orgasm, the more likely you're going to be strapped with an NC-17 rating. Hmph. Thanks for nothing MPAA! Heaven forbid that anyone under the age of 17 should ever find out that a woman *gasp* could possibly enjoy sex! The same (double) standard hold true for masturbation. A guy doing his thing with an apple pie is a-okay, but a girl taking care of business, even outside of her underwear, somehow is not. Don't even get me started about gay sex and movie ratings. Argh. The double standards, blatant censorship based on skewed moral priorities, and misguided decisions on the part of the MPAA really bug me.
  

• Finally, before this post reaches novel-length proportions, a director is allowed to "appeal" the rating assigned to his/her movie. While the members of the appeals committee is Top Secret Information as well, we learned that clergy (yes, you read right, CLERGY) serve on the appeals board. Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. Another Really???
  

So, This Film is Not Yet Rated is rated NC-17, and I guess I should have considered what this might mean before watching it. I did not. It ended up that several movies I've refused to watch due to my sensitivity to disturbing violence (Rated R!) were featured here: Sin City, American Psycho, Boys Don't Cry, to name a few. And, watching this movie, I got to view all the bad parts in one clump that made me avoid the movies in the first place! It was intense and upsetting on some levels to see all this horror in a concentrated period of time, but also strangely better than sitting through the movies themselves, I think. It was like confronting a fear in a way. I just got it over with all at once by watching the documentary, while in the individual movies I'd be all stressed out, tense and distracted waiting for the violence to come, preparing to cover my eyes or run away, unable to get anything from the story or film-making at all. I'm weird that way. I think the problem is that when I watch a movie, I'm very much in the present moment of what's happening on the screen. I have a hard time separating reality from the story, and I start obsessing about the reality in the story.

One other thing I appreciated about this documentary was the interview with director/actor Kevin Smith when he said the thing he finds most offensive in movies is using the concept of a 'woman in peril' to drive a plot. Usually this takes the form of rape or other violence against women, and it happens too much. This was followed by a montage of rape scenes from movies, which really sent me spiraling, but I thought he made an important point. I was glad to hear a director calling that out.

As you can probably tell, I highly recommend This Film is Not Yet Rated for its interesting and insightful look at the MPAA and the movie business. And so you can get as huffy about the whole thing as I am.