Posted Jun 18th 2007 7:17PM by TMZ Staff
The title of the hit movie "Knocked Up" suggests that Katherine Heigl's character is going to give birth, and boy does she ever! If you haven't yet seen the comedy, sorry to spoil it for ya, but there are multiple shots of a baby popping out ... with the camera right there between mom's legs. Or was it?
TMZ put its detective cap on to find out how "Knocked Up" writer/director Judd Apatow created this graphic scene and still managed to get an R Rating. We spoke with Larry of Honey's Place (an adult novelty distributor often called the "Costco of the porn industry") who believes the scene could have been created with special effects. Larry told us "We have vaginas in our warehouse. (Holy moly!) Manufacturers like Doc Johnson take a real porn star and make a latex mold of the body -- and they are pretty lifelike." Gee. Larry doesn't pussyfoot around.
Linda Teglovic, agent/owner of Body Parts Models says it's a tough job. "I would have a hard time finding a girl to do that," adding she has never seen a request for a "vagina double" on any breakdowns (casting call lists) that she's seen. But then again, anything's possible.
The New York Times Magazine reported in May that "The Devil Wears Prada" star Anne Hathaway was originally cast in "Knocked Up," but pulled out because she had problems with the vagina. Apatow told the Times "Hathaway dropped out of the film because she didn't want to allow us to use real footage of a woman giving birth to create the illusion that she is giving birth."
The MPAA wouldn't return our calls and Apatow was unreachable. Our best guess, culled from these snatches of information, is that "Knocked Up" used a stunt vagina.
Mystery solved?
Filed under: Movies, Wacky & Weird
Tags: anne hathaway, AnneHathaway, devil wears prada, DevilWearsPrada, judd apatow, JuddApatow, katherine heigl, KatherineHeigl, knocked up, KnockedUp, mpaa, rating, vagina
Posted May 11th 2007 2:51PM by TMZ Staff
The MPAA, which dishes out the ratings for movies, said that they've had enough of smoking, which now joins sex and violence as a celluloid ratings bumper.
Dan Glickman, Chief Finger Wagger for the ratings board told the NY Post, "Now, all smoking will be a consideration in the ratings process," and that "pervasive" or "glamorize" smoking might snag an R-rating for flicks. Put that out!
Anti-smoking activists have long sought an automatic R for pix that feature puffing, but regulators stopped short of the instant R, and will consider films individually, as they always do.
Filed under: Movies
Tags: anti-smoking, dan glickman, DanGlickman, mpaa, no smoking, NoSmoking, ratings board, RatingsBoard
Posted Jun 21st 2006 10:50AM by TMZ Staff
In the last couple days, we've been both amused and puzzled over the excoriation of the MPAA's inveterate ratings. We all know them - G, PG, PG-13, R, etc., but, what is it, exactly, that gets you an R instead of a PG-13? Or a PG instead of a G?
Today, two very unusually different groups find themselves to be strange bedfellows, indeed, as they both struggle to answer those questions.
On one side of the Sealy Posturpedic is Kirby Dick, the firebrand director of "This Film is Not Yet Rated," the documentary from this year's Sundance Film Festival that attacks the MPAA for systematically rating comparable studio and indie films differently, and for the secrecy of the ratings board which blocks accountability and allows these faceless folks to operate with impunity. In a move that is poetic, after the MPAA gave the doc an NC-17 rating, Dick and his backer, IFC Films, have decided to release the doc without a rating, as was announced earlier this month.
On the other side of the bed are, of course, the Baptists - a group that for the last few years has made it a point to define itself as being against everything, from public schools to gay rights to Walt Disney World. This time, however, it seems they might have a legitimate point. The group has a substantial beef with the Motion Picture Association of America over the Christian sports-themed movie, "Facing the Giants" - the sort of pablum that would normally disappear into the shelves of video stores were it not for the MPAA's bizarre decision to give the film a PG rating due to its strong Christian themes.
As today's L.A. Times ' notes,
"In the last week alone, the Motion Picture Assn. of America, which oversees the rating board, has been swamped with more than 15,000 e-mails arguing that "Facing the Giants" deserves a more family-friendly G rating. The complaints - the number of which may be 10 times the previous record for reaction to a ratings decision - say the movie is being unfairly targeted for its religious themes."
While the filmmakers say they were told that those "Jesus Saves" themes were what triggered the PG rating, MPAA officials deny that was the reason, saying it was the film's violence and the protagonist's struggle with infertility and depression, but aren't offering up any proof of that.
And therein lies the problem: As Dick explained when he was a recent guest on my NPR show, "The Business," its precisely that lack of transparency that is the central reason the MPAA is so fundamentally mistrusted, and not just by fundamentalists.
The move by the "Facing the Giants" filmmakers might well be nothing more than a publicity stunt, but unfortunately, thanks to the way the MPAA ratings board operates, we'll never know. That's the sort of move that simply plays into the hands of nutcase, right-wing talk radio, which has today carved another notch in its belt among the many other imagined and real instances which Hollywood is "anti-Christian."
The irony here is rich: "Facing the Giants," which angry about its PG rating, will benefit from increased publicity and box office thanks to the MPAA rating, isn't appealing the ratings board's decision. The documentary about the ratings board's lack of transparancy and apparent unfairness got an NC-17, which it appealed and lost, and now will be release unrated.
We love a good laugh, and Bruce Feirstein's brilliantly revisionist take on the MPAA ratings provides just that this week. But the real blame in this instance doesn't lay with Hollywood, but the vagaries its trade association takes in rating its wares.
Filed under: Movies, The Biz, City Of Industry
Tags: Movie Ratings, MovieRatings, MPAA
