there most certainly was a theatrical trailer for "American Pie" that featured the racier version of Bigg's pie dalliance. I saw it with my own two eyes, and it was made more memorable by the big red warning screen in place of the familiar green trailer intro saying that the trailer is "suitable for all audiences" even if the film is not. certainly there was a tamer trailer for obvious reasons, as the former could not be played before most films.

Never seen the unrated DVD, so the only time I have seen that scene is the trailer I saw before the film was released.

Of course, I'm come to expect such sloppiness with facts from salon.

To wear bike helmets at all times.

1) you can never be too safe

2) everyone is retarded anyway

LeCastor -- very nice post-- your best ever, insofar as I've seen. And to Tideswimmer and Lanscot, let me add that 'Whale Rider' is one of the best, most inspirational films I've ever seen. That a PG-13 rating would prevent any girl (or boy) from seeing it is depressingly indicative of all that is wrong with the current system. Just like the fact that adults in the U.S., in the lonely days before DVD, were totally prohibited from seeing Kubrick's true version of 'Eyes Wide Shut' first made me realize that the U.S. is very far from being the most free country in the world today. (And that was before the right-wing coup of 2000.)

My post was directed at the parent who indicated that researching acceptable movies for her kids was too difficult. I was merely pointing out that it takes less time than posting a letter to Salon.

"Kidwatch" movie descriptions are also available in the newspaper, if you don't have internet access, and movies are also reviewed in magazines, newspapers, free weeklies and on TV.

Not to mention the very important point that others have made here, namely that the ratings system is hard on sex and soft on violence, so it's not even reliable.

If you need the MPAA's movie ratings in order to decide what to let your kid see, yes you are a very lazy lazy parent.

Another well known masturbation scene in an R-rated movie, one that did get shown in the theaters, is the one in "There's Something About Mary". Ben Stiller's character Ted is convinced by his friend that he can't go into a hot date with a "loaded gun", and while they do not show his penis in his hand they do show him while in the act, and they do show his semen dangling from his ear as he answers the door when Mary arrives. And they do show what Mary does with it when she mistakes it for hair gel.

Most people are familiar with that scene, and if this article's description of Lyonne's scene is not leaving out too many details then I can't see how you can let Stiller's scene pass and not Lyonne's. Just because one is funny and the other is not shouldn't make a bit of difference.

This is what we get? Crap. This is Crap. The world is falling apart and we are getting Hollywood Crap.

"You have never seen an American film given and NC-17/X rating for violence or drug use. That's a myth."

Wrong. Robocop. Hellraiser 2. And that's just off the top of my head.

There is at least some irony that the same lawmakers and religious people who despise any kind of family assistance in the way of welfare, childcare, and living wages, while also trumpeting for offshoring and a drug war that destroys families can shroud themselves in 'Family Values' rubric when it comes time to censor thought. They don't mind subjecting most kids to 3rd world living standards, but try to have a frank discussion with a kid about sex and all of a sudden it's "Please! Save the children!"

Doublespeak at it's finest.

"Lastly, speaking of (self-)righteous, isn't Stephanie the same "thinking adult who cares even remotely about the vast artistic possibilities of moviemaking" who nominated Pride & Prejudice for EVERY category in Salon's last Oscar poll?"

-- wrenhunter

That made me smile.

Honestly though, folks, no one is taking into account the real issues of exposing children and younger adolescents to so much sensationized gore:

They aren't miniature adults. Their brains simply lack the filters which develop in late adolescence when the reorganization of the forebrain is consolidated. These images go directly to immature brains which truly cannot make value judgements about real vs. simulated because their brains don't have the neural mechanisms to do so.

It isn't about some idealized and artificially inculcated state of innocence. Earlier societies could not wrap their children in cotton wool to protect them from the realities of life and death as we perversely attempt to do and then subject these same kids to hundreds of hours of pretend violence. Children saw famine, plague and war 'up close and personal' and not as 'entertainment'.

They still do elsewhere in the world every day.

These earlier societies did teach coded messages about these facts in 'folk' and 'fairy' tales - see Bruno Bettleheim, 'The Uses of Enchantment' - but Disney & Co. (in search of material they didn't have to pay copyright for) has, for vast profit, turned these tales into pastel consumerist fantasies.

Zacharek's overreaction to the MPAA is far greater than the MPAA's overreaction to some film's sexual content. From the beginning to the end of the article, Zacharek sounds like a characture of the very thing she accuses the MPAA of practicing.

As a member of two of the three groups the author writes about with disdain (a parent who cares about what his young children are exposed to, and a member of the "cassock" crowd, or clergy), I can say I do care about ratings, and I do enjoy full-fledged adult fare. An NC17 rating would not stop me from seeing a film (it may even entice me) but I'm not particularly concerned that it may not make a huge return. The ratings given by the MPAA are but one way I judge whether my seven and nine year old boys should see a film. But they are an important starting point, as imperfect and biased as they may be.

Zacharek's tone throughout the article regarding children makes it appear as if she resents that fact that children exist within our culture, and we must make alterations and accomodations to their existence in order to protect and guide them through the murkey channels of growing up. This surely cannot be the case, but must be a reflection of Zacharek's overreaction to the MPAA's existence and practices.

Her representation of the MPAA as some prudish board wanting to keep us all safe from sexual content is absurd. If you consider the standards of what passes for PG as compared to thirty years ago, it is clear that the board is rather closely reflecting our cultural standards, not some 1950's idealized, nonsexual world.

It is not clear how it is that the MPAA restricts or censors films, or impinges on our freedom to enjoy this or that tantalizing indulgence or provocative theme. It may, in fact, limit the commercial viability of a film, but no film maker has the right to make huge returns on their film. If someone wants to push the liimits on what is shown in a film, great... but don't whine about receiving an NC17 and not being able to reap huge profits.

I look forward to the next great film that pursues the depths of sexuality and passion, such as "The Piano" or "Magnolia" or "Eyes Wide Shut." I do not look forward to taking my sons to such films without having been given some indication that, yes, this is not appropriate for young children, as much as this may offend some who don't wish to be burdened with caring about such things.