In the 1950s, Hollywood waged war with the Red Scare, purging many of its own and denouncing them as communists. Numerous directors, actors and writers were blacklisted, forbidden from ever working in movies again.

In the 1990s, Hollywood was once again thrown into turmoil, as the post-Columbine, everything-should-be-happy movement threatened artistic freedom. Marilyn Manson and Oliver Stone were among the numerous entertainers brought in as the United States questioned the value of the work these artists produce.

Last week, Hollywood was again divided as it faced one of its toughest challenges yet – whether or not to show George Clooney’s naked butt.

The third collaboration between Clooney and director Steven Soderbergh, “Solaris” is all set to be released on Nov. 27, but the sex scene featuring a bare Clooney is still hanging up the rating of the film. The Motion Picture Association of America, the company that rates 700 films a year, gave the film an R, but Soderbergh is petitioning for the more acceptable – and more box office-friendly – PG-13 rating.

Once part of a larger sequence of sex scenes, Clooney’s two naked shots sound quite tame. In the first, Clooney is seen slow dancing with his wife (played by Natasha McElhone), and in the second, Clooney lies on a bed and talks with McElhone.

This butt-battle leads to the larger debate over the inconsistencies in the MPAA rating system, in which the nudity-free, searching-for-a-sexual-identity film “Chasing Amy” is rated on par with the very explicit, orgy-filled exploits of Bill Harford in “Eyes Wide Shut.”

Made up of 12 parents, the MPAA is in charge of guiding the average American parent through the sex, violence and foul language of contemporary mainstream movies. But why, must I ask, do they control the viewing style of everyone else?

Admittedly, there isn’t a good way for parents of teen-agers to give their 16-year-old children a free pass to get into R-rated movies, but a better rating system must be found.

Directors have even begun to protest the system. After Darren Aronofsky was given an NC-17 rating on his revolutionary addiction film “Requiem for a Dream,” he decided to release the film unrated rather than deal with the stigma of such a harsh rating.

Among the many films to receive and be released with that rating are “Orgasmo” and “Showgirls,” two films about nothing more than sex and nudity, and features plenty of both.

By comparison, “Requiem for a Dream” is a deep look into the dangers of addiction, which is likely to drive children away from the drugs, swearing and sex depicted in the film.

The system took a step in the right direction by dividing the ratings even further by including the questionable content along with the actual letter rating. That way, viewers are more likely to know what the MPAA decided was objectionable about the film and can plan their viewing accordingly.

There just needs to be one more step taken so the cineplexes will know whether or not a parent has approved that movie for their child, as opposed to the blanket system in place now. A computerized-database of names, birthdays and parental consent at each theater may work, instead of turning everyone away just because of one’s age.

Even though this system may not be realistic at the moment, the system still needs to be revised for its inconsistencies. After all, if the MPAA can give a PG-13 to Emilio Estevez’s gratuitous rear shot in “Loaded Weapon 1” and Dennis Franz’s exposed posterior in “City of Angels,” why can’t Clooney freely show his butt for the “Solaris” audiences to see?

Todd LaPlace is a junior in journalism and The Lantern arts editor. This column is dedicated to Scott – we love you and our thoughts are with you. Todd can be reached at [email protected].