All the more reason to lower the rating. The vast majority of kids wouldn't see it anyway, and those that did would not only be obviously mature enough to handle the brief swearing bit, but they might learn something, too. American Jesus forbid that our children should get any sense of furrin' Yoo-Roh-Pee-Ahn history!
The rationale behind giving the FCC the authority to regulate broadcast content was originally based on the idea that the airwaves are a limited resource, that they belong to the public, and that therefore broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public interest. The “scarcity” argument has long since been rendered moot by the proliferation of cable and satellite channels, not to mention the internet. There's absolutely no reason why over-the-air TV and radio shouldn't have the same First Amendment rights as cable, satellite and internet providers, as well as printed books, newspapers and magazines.
What you can say fuck five times in a 12? Wow, I thought it was just once! That was the only bit of Be Cool that was really funny
I'm probably getting my US and UK ratings mixed up.
Interestingly the BBFC originally gave The Kings Speech a higher rating as well, however they, I believe, have now relented in hindsight.
I always thought Southpark the movie made a very good point about how violence was more acceptable than swearing.
That said I'd turn the argument on its head, I don't think there should be more swearing in lower rated films, I'd say there should be less violence in them. It all used to seem much simpler in my youth: U, PG, 15, 18....you pretty much knew what you were going to get from each of those films but now? It seems far more confusing, and I imagine more confusing for parents too.
I don't for one moment think you can, or even should, protect kids from harsh language, especially given how easy it is for them to see the DVD anyway, but cursing, like violence, is losing its ability to shock. I'd always cite Torchwood here. In its first series fucks were thrown around like confetti to the point where it became silly. By series 2 they'd gotten more restrained, and when it got to the point where a character did say fuck, it was actually a powerful moment.
Is it important to show the language of the shop floor in a film like Made in Dagenham? Definitely. Do you need to say fuck 16 times to do that? I'd argue probably not. I mean if you're going to be realistic you'd probably need a lot more than 16 I would imagine! You're going for a feel for the shop floor, and I'd argue that you be achieved as well with sayin fuck five times as 16 or 116.
The BBFC/MPAA really need to take context into account a lot more though.
Is the C word an automatic 18 certificate though?
Personally I think it's all about context. Fuck and cunt can be used in ways that aren't offensive or shocking. "Now then, you funny old cunt what the fuck you been doing with yourself." can be just friends talking in a light hearted way but compared to "I'm going to fucking knife you, you cunt!" said with a threatening manner makes all the difference to how acceptable they are.
I would also disagree with you on the level of shock that can be had from swearing. You cite Torchwood, so I will as well. The first series they swore all over the place and it was juvenile and not at all shocking, however in the second series they swore less and in the context of Gwen and Rhys having an argument Rhys uttering "I fucking hate you sometimes" was a bit of a shock. Again, I think it's the context that makes the impact greater or lesser.
I am surprised with what it's possible to get away with at all ratings nowadays. Fuck can be said in a PG, Cunt in a 15. 12 rated movies have as much violence as 18 rated ones when I was a kid. I don't think it's particularly a bad thing, just surprising to me.
As for Made in Dagenahm I agree with the producer of the film on this, after the first one you don't notice it because it is natural speech, cutting them would serve no purpose because once it is said it's not going to get worse he doesn't change it from natural speech to threatening behaviour at any point so why should it make any difference if it's 1 or 1000? Cutting would serve no purpose but keeping them did keep a more authentic feel than suddenly changing from "Oh fuck off" to "Oh bugger off" because they had reached the limit.
. Whilst there is an argument over the context (not to mention the emotion the actor injects into the delivery) the fact remains that if we'd seen Owen and Gwen saying fuck for the ten minutes previously the impact would have been lessoned. For me language/violence whatever has more impact if its unexpected. That's why films that are pretty much gore free until one major act of violece will always be more shocking than the Saws of this world where violence is there all the time. 
Funnily enough you're citing the exact same bit of Torchwood that I was refrering to
I would debate that the word cunt could ever be used inoffensively. It is about the one truly offensive word left
re Made in Dagenham I would have to say that I don't even remember how many times I even heard the word fuck in it, which maybe proves the producer's point. Although you could just easily as say that the inclusion of the word didn't even register, which again suggests why include it all those many more times if it isn't going to register and all you're going to do is limit your audience?
There's a debate to be had about the neutered films of the past, but all I'll say is this; sometimes being constrained in terms of language/content/nudity/violence often leads to more subtlety and originality than if you can do what you like.
Hell most directors go a bit shit once they have complete creative control (see Lucas Jedi onwards, Peter Jackson's King Kong, Neil Marshall's Doomsday, most modern Spielberg films etc etc) I'm digressing and probably going a bit off topic here though.
But I don't think we should assume that any of those things are necessary, or synonymous with quality.
They were pretty good, actually.
I have an extensive collection of films noirs from the 40s and 50s. They have no nudity, no gore, and no language, and a lot of them are as good as anything I've seen in a theatre in my lifetime.
None of those things you mention are necessary to tell a good story, or make a good movie. In fact, they're often used a substitute for good storytelling, much like special effects, or gimmicks like 3D.
Now, that said--I like language, gore, and nudity as much as the next guy. I am, for example, one of the few people here who saw Piranha 3D this summer.
I knew some smartass would point out my comment. What fucking difference does it make to this argument?
Yeah I pretty much agree with that, and again its not like I have a problem with language, I love In Bruges and the word fuck's probably used more in that film than any other
No one's arguing that The King's Speech should be rated lower than a PG-13. But if the movie only has a few f-bombs uttered in a therapeutic session and not uttered at or against anyone, why on Earth would the MPAA want to discourage 13-17-year-olds from seeing it? Because they've never heard such language before?
No one's arguing that The King's Speech should be rated lower than a PG-13. But if the movie only has a few f-bombs uttered in a therapeutic session and not uttered at or against anyone, why on Earth would the MPAA want to discourage 13-17-year-olds from seeing it? Because they've never heard such language before?
[/QUOTE]
And the problem with that would be what, exactly? Elitism can be a good thing if applied to subjects in which people can aspire to better themselves. Obviously, some elitisms, such as those tied to ethnicity, are questionable at best. But if we agree that good morals are desirable, shouldn't we value elitism in that area?
But their job is to "micromanage" - to consider films on their individual merits - and their rules regarding violence aren't arbitrary; there's no body count or weapons-firing limit for a PG-13 rating, but drop a few non-aggressive f-bombs, and you've gone over your quota.
