Forget trying to maneuver your way through all the mixed reactions to Watchmen crowding the interweb today. There’s only one question you need to answer, apparently, in order to make up your mind whether or not to see the highly anticipated adaptation: are you okay with a massive blue penis in an R-rated comic book movie, or will you be offended and demand an apology from the MPAA? Over at the site Movieguide, which is partnered with The Christian Film & Television Commission, organization chairman and “spokesmen” (is he multiple people?) Dr. Ted Baehr is quoted as saying Watchmen should have received an NC-17 rating for its constant display of male anatomy, and he claims the MPAA has agreed to bring the complaint to their ratings board. And finally, with the defensive against nudity being necessary to any film, Baehr says, “After all, would ‘Casablanca’ become an even better work of art if the script contained a bunch of “f” words, or if Ingrid Bergman appeared completely nude? Definitely not!”
Well, personally I wouldn’t have a problem if Bogie cursed a lot, though I agree that Bergman was always great despite always having her clothes on. As for the blue penis issue, though, I have to remind folks that blue-skinned nudity is not the same as realistic flesh-colored nudity, and that whether it’s Rebecca Romijn in the X-Men films or a digital replica of Billy Crudup in Watchmen or the eagerly awaited Smurfette shower scene in Sony’s upcoming Smurfs movie, the ratings board will likely be okay with it. As will most anyone else that doesn’t have a lame obligation to excessively puritanical groups like the CFTVC.
Sample quotes and links from those internerds who disagree with Baehr, as well as some who actually agree, after the jump:
- The good folks at Vulture had already posted a round-up of ‘glowing’ reviews for Dr. Manhattan’s “wang” earlier today, and they were also the ones to direct our attention to Baehr’s penis protest, which they believe is “probably unintentionally selling a few thousand tickets to see it in IMAX.”
- Vulture found the story via Fark.com, which has a lengthy commenter discussion going now on the Watchmen wang and which classic film actresses we’d all most like to have seen do nudity, plus this excellent quote from the X-rated Casablanca: “I’m shocked,… SHOCKED to find that nudity is going on in this movie!”
- In a thoughtful article titled “In Defense of the Penis” from The American Prospect’s blog, Phoebe Connelly writes, “Yes to the blue penis. Let’s hope it makes people pause to consider why it’s discomfiting to have male nudity displayed, not for laughs, and not part of some art house epic, but just as a side-bit character trait that no one seems to remark on.”
- Anghus Houvouras has a similar defense, titled “Going Full Frontal: Watchmen busts out the blue penis,” at Encore Online. Here’s an excerpt:
Surely there has to be a difference between just seeing sexual organs and watching them in action. That very difference separates a movie like Last Tango in Paris from a skin flick like Yank My Doodle, It’s A Dandy. It seems like since the ‘50s, America has been embroiled in penis prohibition.
- “As for all the controversy about Dr. Manhattan’s blue, glowing penis,” writes Jim Genzano at phillyist, “I don’t really get it. Yes, it is a little jarring to see a penis just sitting there, nonchalantly, in the middle of a mainstream American movie. But it’s just a penis. It’s really not that big a deal.”
- “Frankly, people are making too much of a big deal about this,” writes Erik at RandomChatter. “It was never gratuitous in the film. Yes, it was there, but it’s not like it was swinging around in circles or anything.”
- Commenting at the Watchmen page on ChristianAnswers.net, 17-year-old Rachael claims to have looked away for most of the film’s sexual content, but writes that Dr. Manhattan’s “genitilia was understated and easy to overlook.”
- Madame Arcati bypasses reviewing the film to solely and favorably review the penis, and raises a point many Watchmen watchers will be having: “Filmgoers who are not fanboys/girls of Alan Moore’s creation may wonder why Dr M does not simply wear a loincloth or a fetching thong. This is a good question. After all, he does put on a suit for a talk show. So he is cognisant of human decency.”
The Baehr brethren:
- “If you take your kids to see ‘Watchmen,’ you’re a moron,” writes conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel, on her own site. “It’s rated ‘R’–which should kinda sorta be a hint–but it really deserves an ‘NC-17″…Oh, and don’t forget another superhero’s swinging computer-generated penis frequently in your face on-screen.”
- In response to a Patrick Goldstein post responding to Schlussel’s review, John Nolte at Big Hollywood defends the conservative critic, though he isn’t necessarily condeming the ****, as it were:
Water’s wet, the sky is blue, and “Watchmen” is marketing to kids.
Sure there may be the rare straggler every once in a while, but you go to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and it’s like opening a hothouse filled with hungry baby chicks. For or against a film, they all sound alike because they all think alike. When it comes to film, Debbie and I don’t always agree, but I like her style, and love that she’s out there. Score one for diversity.
- Commenting at Slashdot, “Culture20 (968837)” writes:
The problems with R ratings, is that they’re “Adult supervision required”, and are usually applied when only one of “graphic sex” “full frontal nudity” “realistic sadism” “exploding bloody messes” “attempted rape” “adult language” or “soft-core porn” exists. _All_ of these exist throughout Watchmen, so it really should have been rated NC-17 “No one under 17, ever”.
- Crosswalk.com, which does point out that Manhattan is often wearing “no underwear,” goes so far as to deem even it’s own review of Watchmen “not appropriate for young readers.”
- The review at Plugged In Online does the same.
- At least those in America can see the penis if they want. Due to censorship in the United Arab Emirates, we get the following complaint at the UAE community blog:
In the last 20 minutes of the film someone has seen fit to cut the movie like a 4 year old on a sugar-rush– The problem? A giant glowing blue penis of a certain character (who just happens to be a main character); this means that any full-body shots of him are cut (along with any narrative/audio) which in turn leads to a highly confusing last 20 minutes.
Originally posted on:
SpoutBlog