Evan Rachel Wood Slams MPAA Over Deleted Sex Scene

Evan Rachel Wood Slams MPAA Over

'Charlie Countryman' actress claims org's censorhip is sexist, hypocritical

Evan Rachel Wood is fuming mad at the MPAA over the decision to remove a sex scene from her upcoming movie “Charlie Countryman.”

The indie film, co-starring Shia LaBeouf, featured a graphic scene that had a female receiving oral sex from a man, but director Frederik Bond was forced to remove the scene in order to obtain an R rating from the Motion Picture Alliance of America, a move Wood claims is sexist and hypocritical.

“I would like 2 share my disappointment with the MPAA, who thought it was necessary to censor a woman’s sexuality once again,” she wrote on Twitter.

“The scene where the two main characters make ‘love’ was altered because someone felt that seeing a man give a woman oral sex made people ‘uncomfortable’ but the scenes in which people are murdered by having their heads blown off remained intact and unaltered,” she added.

The drama, currently playing in limited release, was given an R rating because of “some brutal violence, language throughout, sexuality/nudity and drug use,” according to the org.

This isn’t the first time oral sex between a man and woman has led to controversy with the MPAA. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams’ drama “Blue Valentine” received an NC-17 rating back in 2010 for a scene where Gosling’s character performs oral sex on Williams’ character in a hotel room, but the ruling was overturned without any changes being made to the the Weinstein Company movie.

Wood, 26, made similar comments about the MPAA while promoting the Millennium Entertainment film in New York earlier this month.

See the actress’s full Twitter comments below:


Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 17

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. constance says:

    Wood is correct. If we as women do nothing we are allowing ourselves to be shamed or made to feel disgusting if we enjoy sex. This spills over into all areas of society. It is time WE decide not to be objects.

  2. Evan Benz says:

    Evan Rachel Wood has an awesome name !!!

  3. Kram says:

    Shut up Rachel! Women are excepted as sexual and no one is indifferent for it but you. Ratings have to be made otherwise people like you would allow anything to show for “art”, try thinking of someone other than yourself for once. Younger crowd and teens need to be monitored other wise they turn out to be like you! Respect the system and quit listening to people like Shia who have no respect for how he got to where he is. Little punk! Sick of you actors who think your really working for a living, your over paid, drama ridden people whose reality is based of copying life. Get one!

    • peabody3000 says:

      it is odd to read you so disrespectfully talking about “respect.” very odd. her point about favoring violence over something pleasurable is a highly valid one. “if you suck on a nipple, its an X, if you cut it off, its an R” ~ jack nicholson (attributed)

  4. Angeleno says:

    The MPAA is nothing but a shadowy bunch of people (we are not allowed to know who they are or what they represent), who meet in secret (with secret criteria), to make decisions that affect us all. I can’t think of a single other group who are allowed to make decisions that affect our entire society in such secret conditions. Any other group making these kinds of decisions would be subject to “sunlight” laws and some kind of public oversight. The makeup of the group should be scrutinized so that we can be assured that a broad spectrum of viewpoints are represented. The way this is currently done is beyond ridiculous, and I don’t know why we continue to put up with it.

  5. Brian says:

    Honestly, the MPAA needs to be disbanded. I was a teenager when the PG-13 rating was put into place after Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom and Gremlins were deemed to violent for a PG rating but not violent enough to warrant an R. I can’t think of a time when the ratings system, over the last 30 years, hasn’t been a constant source of ridiculous, poorly-made decisions. Often the scenes that are most objected to are sexual, loving relationships. By stamping something with an NC-17, they keep honest, mature films with integrity from receiving a mainstream release and playing anywhere but the most rare, obscure theatres… while you’ve got stuff with constant swearing, horrible violence, and even mutilation and rape that passes by the censors unobstructed. I’m not sure why puritanical America seems to be at its worst via the film ratings board. And I don’t know of any parents who blindly base their decisions about what their kids should see on the ratings systems anyway. At this point, the ratings system serves absolutely no purpose but to censor sexuality while allowing the movie-going public, and especially teens, to see far worse, more disturbing graphic scenes. If someone is deemed (by the ratings system or by their parents) mature enough to watch all of this horrible hatred and violence perpetrated by what man on another, what’s a little cunnilingus between consenting adults? I think it’s become quite obvious that a lot of the problem is that we, as a country, are teaching our children that hate and violence and mutilation and rape are preferable to sexuality, even when (and especially when) that sexuality is between consenting adults. Graphic representations of hatred, destruction, and death: acceptable; graphic representations of love and life: not.

  6. Paul B says:

    Don’t worry ERW…the movie will be released soon on dvd, blu, vod, etc in the ‘unrated director’s cut, featuring scenes too explicit for theaters’ blah blah blah. Looks like another ‘irate’ actor getting publicity for their film.

  7. E.V. says:

    who cares? the MPAA sucks! Yeah, let’s show some beheadings and guys beating the sh*t out of each other, but whoa, wait a minute, a guy’s giving oral to a girl? they show them thrusting forward during sex? hey, that’s crossing the line!

  8. Everybody’s a F****ng victim today. No by all means, let’s keep a graphic oral sex scene in the film and keep it R-rated, just to sooth your tender and wounded feminist sensibilities, and not maybe because the envelope is being pushed too far between R and NC-17 – which was created specifically for non-R-rating compliant material. Funny, I’ve never seen Meryl Streep naked, and she’s a 3 time Oscar winner. Get a clue, Rachel…

    • Rick says:

      So, you’ve never seen Silkwood then? Because 3 time Oscar winner Meryl Streep shows her breasts in it.

    • ShawnN says:

      But why is a sex scene between two consenting adults considered to be “pushing the envelope too far” when the scenes of graphic violence aren’t? That says something about the priorities of the people rating films, and shines a light on American attitudes toward sexuality which I think are unhealthy and kind of backward. Yes, the NC-17 rating exists for “non-R-rating compliant material” but Wood is questioning what exactly constitutes R-rated and why. Sex scenes and nudity often aren’t a problem but for some reason oral sex on a woman seems to net those NC-17 ratings quite often, this is a pattern that has developed and it betrays a bias within the MPAA. Why is the movie-going public made so uncomfortable by sex, something normal and natural that everyone can relate to, but not by brutal, bloody violence? Or rather, why does the MPAA seem to think this is the case? And should they have the power to make that decision? And they are making the decisions. The rating system is meant to provide information to parents, it isn’t supposed to be censorship. But the MPAA are able to use it to force filmmakers to make concessions and cut their films to at least an R if they want the film shown in theaters in any major capacity. Why do they get to make that decision for you?

      • Frank W says:

        Because pretty much everyone knows that those scenes of violence are fake and you can’t really fake a “graphic” sex scene. If it’s like that French director of (I think the titles is) Exterminating Angels, that’s definitely NC-17. If the guy’s head is down there and you don’t see genitalia, then it’s R. I do think they went to far with THE COOLER where their was a tuft of hair visible at the end of the sex act that was inferred and slapped an NC-17 on it. If it’s more like that, then it’s also an R.

        But the real problem is the stigma of NC-17 (which was supposed to erase the Stigma of “X”) It just means NO CHILDREN UNDER 17 ALLOWED (or is it 17 AND under?). It’s still treated as a symbol of Porn and it’s not. Let’s just bring back the M rating (for Mature) which was replaced by GP/PG and then make it a vague NO CHILDREN ALLOWED and then leave it to the parents to decide if their older 17 and up kid can see it.

        I know of a 12 year old kid who showed porn to other kids that he had on his phone. They’ve seen it already. And the French movie I mentioned above was freely available on Sundance that’s part of the second tier Comcast non-premium line-up.

        And I would have rated ALL of the SAW and HOSTEL movies NC-17. It’s not the graphic violence, but the Torture Porn that they created and then spawned all the copy cats.

      • Paul B says:

        Shawn, there’s been many movies over the last twenty years that were given the NC-17 rating for excessive violence before certain shots or scenes were trimmed or removed to receive an R

    • Michael Anthony says:

      Have you seen the scene? If not, why do call it graphic? Most if the time,the actual “parts” are not seen.
      Interesting on how much damage u think that this does. Blowing a head off, torture and rape are all OK for an R. But real sex? Oh no, that’ll damage us all. Give me a break!

  9. Davis Wright says:

    Does she intentionally misspell women? Or does she just unintentionally render her argument as churlish due to analphabetism?

    • OKW says:

      “spells like a fourth grader”
      Come on, she made ONE mistake buddy. Give the gal a break.

    • Dovan Cigna says:

      What silly questions. Analphabetism does not necessarily “render an argument as churlish”, fancy pants. You are missing the forest (or dare I say, bush), for the trees. Perhaps unintentionally? Either way, ironically enough your comment reinforces what the woman is saying in the first place.

More Film News from Variety