Cool News
Harry's MODEST PROPOSAL for the Film Industry
How do we fix what is wrong with the rating’s
board... The MPAA?
This has been an issue that has been building and
building up to a boil for quite some time now, and
something has to be done about it.
Right now in this country we do not have a viable
adult rating for the Motion Picture Industry. As a
result many stories that are simply ‘Adult’ can not
have a fair shot at release.
Sure we do have the NC-17 rating. In principle it is a
workable concept, but the way it was enacted. The
way Newspapers, Television and the Theaters
themselves treat it... Well, it might as well be
pornography.
I’ve been asking around the industry, trying to get
some answers. Grasping at straws of wisdom hoping
to turn a bit of it to gold. Not to line my pockets, but
to put forth an idea that could help solve this
problem.
One filmmaker (a notable writer/director) actually
said to me that he wished that something like the old
Hays Office was here again. That way he would
know exactly where he stood. What he could and
could not show... Definitively.
My God. I couldn’t believe I was hearing this. I
flashed to PLEASANTVILLE where an exasperated
accused artist asks of the judge which colors he could
paint with, what was forbidden and what was allowed.
That all he wanted was to be able to paint without
worry.
Have we really subjected our artists to this sort of
hopelessness?
That’s not what the MPAA was built for.
So, what was the MPAA created for? Why did Jack
Valenti set out upon this enterprise? Well, let’s give
Jack the floor....
"It was plain that the old system of self-regulation, begun with the
formation of the MPAA in 1922, had broken down. What few threads there
were holding together the structure created by Will Hays, one of my two
predecessors, had now snapped. From the very first day of my own
succession to the MPAA President's office, I had sniffed the Production
Code constructed by the Hays Office. There was about this stern,
forbidding catalogue of 'Dos and Don'ts' the odious smell of censorship.
I determined to junk it at the first opportune moment." -- Jack Valenti
Well Jack.... It is now plain that the current system of
anonymous regulation beginning with your term as
President of the MPAA has broken down. The secret
catalogue of ‘Dos and Don’ts’ that the secret society
that you preside over uses to judge films has the
odious smell of censorship. I feel determined to
advocate for the Film Industry to junk it at the first
opportune moment.
Jack claims that the MPAA is not about approving or
disapproving film content, but rather the primary task
of the MPAA is to give advance cautionary warnings
to parents. To help them in their decision about the
moviegoing of their children.
That’s all lovely and all, but why then did the MPAA
work hand in hand with Warner Brothers on EYES
WIDE SHUT and point out exactly what was
WRONG with this scene and that one. Offering up
advice as to how it could be made.... Acceptable.
You know... Michelangelo really should have placed
a figleaf over his “David’s” genitalia. With a few
strokes of a paintbrush... a click or two of a mouse,
we can now cover up offensive material. Perhaps we
could take a chisel and turn “DAVID” into a eunuch.
That way we could admire, the majority of the
original artist’s work. All the non-offensive areas
anyway.
Alright, I’ve been complaining thus far but I haven’t
really come up with anything to fix things as they
stand.
I decided to write Roger Ebert and ask him for
advice. Afterall, Roger was the most vocal critic at
the presentation of EYES WIDE SHUT the other
night on the Warner Lot.
Here is Roger’s complete answer:
“I think, and have long said, that if we are to have the MPAA system at
all, it needs a WORKABLE adult category. NC-17 has now clearly been
rendered unusable, just as X was, because it is identified with
pornography. There needs to be an A (for adult) category BETWEEN the R and
the NC-17.
NC-17 should be renamed X, a useful category that everybody understands. It
would stand for porno, pornographic violence, etc. ‘A’ would be for adults
only and would include such films as the uncut "EWS" and "Natural Born
Killers." Theaters, newspapers and broadcast outlets that currently ban
NC-17 would ban X (or NC-17) but would show A, especially since they could
still get points for saying they didn't accept X.
As things now stand, the U.S. is the only major moviegoing nation with no
workable adult classification! Every single movie made by a major Hollywood
studio can be seen by anyone of any age (with an "adult guardian," of course).
Best,
R”
The rating A. I like that. It can stand for Adult or Art
or Acceptable. A rating between R and NC-17. The
problem is whether or not it would be an acceptable
rating that theaters would show like any other, if
television and newspapers would carry the ads like all
other film ads. That’s the big key.
Would it be Allowed as a viable rating?
A long time ago the Comic Book industry had a
similar ‘ratings board’. From time to time the writers
and artists wanted to deal with issues that just were
not ‘kiddie’ fare.
Drugs were coming into the mainstream and they
wanted to have the characters in their universe
dealing with those real world issues. So the big
companies... Marvel and D.C. released the issues
unrated by the board. They did this more and more
often till finally they bowed to no ‘ratings board’.
From the advance reviews of EYES WIDE SHUT it
seems at it’s core to be a morality play. Before Dante
saw Heaven he first had to see Hell. It’s part of the
coin. Good and Evil, Right and Wrong.... It’s all part
of the same story.
Perhaps like that so called juvenile medium of
comics, it is now time for films to grow up. We are
no longer the society we once were. Information and
awareness to the forbidden is accessible far earlier in
one’s life than it once was.
I believe that there at least needs to be a separate
Appeals Board. A place where filmmakers can plead
their case. No... You know, I don’t think that is
needed.
I don’t believe filmmakers should plead their case.
An artist should not ‘ask’ permission or plead
forgiveness. Instead, perhaps what needs to happen is
when a filmmaker ‘tests’ his film, that an audience. A
full and normal audience made up of regular people.
Folks like you and me. That a new question needs to
appear on the bottom of the card.
Perhaps something along the lines of:
“This film should be rated:
A) G - a film for all audiences and age groups.
B) PG- a film where we advise the parent to attend
the film with their child.
C) PG-13 - a film where no child under the age of 13
is allowed admittance to the theater without an adult.
D) R - a film of adult nature where all 17 and under
age children must be accompanied by an Adult.
E) A - a film of merit that is meant exclusively for
legal Adults, and for which no child will be admitted.
F) X - a work of pornography, no artistic merit, for
Adults only.”
The screening of this nature can be attended only by
adults, and would be monitored closely by an outside
organization created by a board of governors made up
of representatives of each distribution company.
Majors and Independents. The ‘adult’ audience
would need to be made up of at least 50% parental
couples. The other half would be merely adults. Our
children are raised as much by society as they are by
parents. It is only fitting that the decisions about the
viewing of our youth at least have the feedback of
mere adults. Also the screenings would take place in
a single theater. The audience would be paid to
attend and would never be told in advance what type
of film they were seeing. The recruiters simply would
not know what the screening film would be.
Ok... Now I may be judged as being naive. I may be
young. At 27, you could say I’ve never raised a
child. However, given my mother’s alcoholism, I had
to raise my sister and teach her right and wrong from
the age of 2 till this very day. When my mother died
6 years ago my sister came to live with my father and
I. When my sister wanted to know about drugs,
school, God, sex, etc. She came to me. She
graduated High School. She has never been arrested.
She is the fiancee of a young upstanding young man,
and she is set to go to college. On Father’s Day, my
sister gets gifts for Dad and me.
I raised her on film, explained to her what was going
on. Taught her about film makeup. When she
wanted to know about Serial Killers, I gave her all the
information. Talked with her about Criminal
Psychology. Now, Dannie is heading to college to
study law enforcement and art. I did not mess up. I
do have a say in this.
It may not be the perfect fix, but at least I offer up a
suggestion for a different way of doing things instead
of just complaining. It’s time to stop complaining
and fix the problem as it faces us.
This is merely my suggestion for an alternative.
-
+ Expand All
-
I've often felt that having any one tell me what I can or cannot see is more than a little insulting. If I am watching the film and I find it insulting or crap, I still have the power to walk out. Nevertheless, some censorship is needed, if only to protect the young from unsuitable material. Living in Britain, we have a system that gives any movie with an adult theme (be it violence, very strong language, or porn) an 18 rating - ie, no one under that age is permitted to enter the theatre to watch it, or rent the video tape to take it home. There is no real further distinction between pornography or horror/violence, so far as the certification goes. Usually the name of the film will give it away, or there will be some comment on the matter visible during advertising or on packaging. The system fails us in ocassionally, but only rarely. Any way, the upshot is, that I am in complete amazement that America - the home of the block-buster, and of Hollywood - has no real adult classification system. Surely there are enough examples world wide from which they can draw a foundation? Well, good luck to you all. I hope it is resolved soon for you.
-
Simply put, the plan that you (and Roger Ebert) put forth WILL NOT WORK. Might I remind you that the reason the NC-17 rating was created was so that films could be rated for adults only (whether it was due to sexual content, violence, or other strong subjects) without having the X rating. For that matter, X was also created for this purpose. If the MPAA (or a separate review board, council, etc.) say that there will be a new rating which will be given to films that contain subject matter too intense for children it will be read as 'Adults Only.' And that is what it is, isn't it? It is the stupidity of this country's citizens that causes the films to be censored instead of rated. After all, if we were all smart enough to figure out these complex one- and two-letter ratings, we could likely decide what our children should and should not be viewing. Although I suppose that the same could be said if we paid a little attention to the kind of lives our children were leading.
Anyway, until a plausible way of educating the entirety of this great nation of ours to the fact that 'Adult' does not mean 'obscene,' we will not see a rating for adults that will be accepted by the teeming millions. -
The only problem with a catch all is that some of our most violence loving people here in the states are the most conservative as well, and it just wouldn't do to see Rev. Smith coming out of the video store with an X-rated film under his arm.
-
Ratings only work if they are consistent or reasonably applied. The lists of Dos and Don'ts at least allow access to the things that are 'bad'. Knowing what they are makes it easier to protest. That EWS has been altered in any way is a travesty, an insult to a great director. That it will be shown under an 'R' rating is all right, but surely there's not much that kids won't encounter on late night cable in greater and less healthy circumstances.
At least I will be able to see an 'unblipped' cut in the UK, where the '18' rating works as the 'A' that you suggested should. Admittedly, the ages etc. in the British classification system are absolute. Capable of being worked around, but absolute.
However, i think that ratings in general are a flawed concept, if only because there will always be ways to sneak in, and there is no way to guarantee that two films with 'equal' amounts of sex'n'violence will receive the same rating. Hollywood, and occasionally Washington DC seeming to like nothing more than double standards towards the big studios and those plucky independents. -
Something that strikes me as odd, is that America is a place where raw and brutal violence is accepted in almost every media, while love and the acts commited by those IN love is a big taboo, even though it's legal to show. Noone likes to admit that they're watching pornography, but lots of people does. Being Norwegian I am not used to see pornography in movies. Norwegian law forbids the showing of genitalias in movement. Furthermore strong violence is also often forbidden, and movies containing it will be forbidden, rather than censored. This means that for instance Eyes Wide Shut will be shown here, uncensored, while Deep Throat is banned.
The Texas chainsaw massacre was forbidden here for many years. The last couple of years we have discovered that there are two types of violence: Violence for the sake of irony, and violence for the sake of violence. The ironic kind of violence is now OK, regardless of how strong it is, while violence in an exploiting fashion still will meet restrictions here. This matter I do agree in. I would wish that we could be less hypocritical and say: "Sex between two (or more) adult people is better to show than a guy killing a bunch of people in some obsqure way".
In reply to Harry raising his sister: Do you think that all children can be raised in the same manner? I know I don't. Bringing a child up on beer and horror movies may work fine, while the child next door would be turned into a monster of the same treatment. We should also remember that as upbringers we are not solely influencing our children. Friends, teachers, television and music plays an equal, if not bigger, role in the process of bringing a child into adulthood.
I will now stop rambling. I'm not very used to writing english, so I'm a bit uncertain of if I'm managing to make my point. -S -
On the surface the distinction between an X and A rating would seem reasonable but I don't think it's viable. First of all there's the phrase "no artistic merit." If X were to stand for films with no artistic merit than they would likely be considered legally obscene and therefore legal to censor under this country's current obscenity laws. There would need to be a clarification between "X" and "A" that's more complicated than that which I don't think is necessary either. Personally I think the entire ratings system ought to be scrapped and started fresh. Instead of broad catagories of age appropriateness there should be something more like the TV ratings system with catagories such as Strong Sexual Content or Graphic Violence, etc. All one need do is watch HBO to see the warnings at work appropriately. My local theatre has finally begun listing the reasons why a film is given the rating that it's given on the phone recordings. I think there ought to be ratings such as R(S,GV,L) for R rated with sexual themes, graphic violence and adult language or PG-13(V,L) for PG-13 with violence and adult language. I don't see a reason for an NC-17 or A rating at all. I don't see what business it is for any organization to tell a parent that they CANNOT for any reason allow their child to watch a film even with their express permission. If R ratings were enforced at all at local theatre chains children under the age of 17 would NEVER be admitted without a parent or guardian and then the burden of raising the child would fall squarely on the parent's shoudlers where it belongs. That would mean that parents would have to watch the films with their children or their children wouldn't watch them and if the parent decided that the film had unexpected content that they didn't want their child to view they could simply leave. Of course with an expanded set of reasons for the ratings the parents probably wouldn't be surprised at what they'd be watching. As for the difficulty of releasing an objectionable film and the MPAA, the film industry simply needs to show a little back bone. There is only one example that I can think of a movie rated NC-17 getting any sort of wide distribution and that's Showgirls. Showgirls didn't fail financially because of the rating- it failed because it was an awful movie. If EWS were to be released NC-17 (a rating I've already said I find stupid) it may lose a certain amount of money due to the black hand of the MPAA but it would succeed on its own merits if the film was well done. People would find a way to watch the movie if they wanted to watch the movie and if enough interest was aroused it would be economically foolish for some resilient theatre chains to not start showing it. And the movie would slowly break the stigma of the rating by simply being well done and not "without artistic merit" paving the way slowly but surely for future gambits of the sort. Of course no distributer wants to gamble on a film investment like EWS but if there was a more certain gamble it wouldn't be a gamble. Sure, the MPAA is a horrendous group of old white men and women that seek to push their religious and moral outlook upon the American people and they should be abolished, but a new letter on movie posters won't solve that problem.
-
I live in Canada. Like most countries we have a workable adult rating. However, unlike Europe, we will not see the uncut version of EWS. We aren't considered the foriegn market, so we get the same version the U.S does. More than a few Canadians are upset by this. So I offer my own proposal for what can be done about the MPAA. In a perfect world the ratings board warn parents about which films are suitable for kids, and which aren't. That's fine. What happens though when a movie gets rated NC-17 not only can people under 17 not see it, people over 17 can. In short the NC-17 rating gives too much power to the MPAA. If the highest rating was R, then the power over whether or not children see a film would go directly to the parents. And shouldn't they be the ultimate authority? So instead of letting silver-haired beareaucrats decide what movies children should see, let parents. The soulution to the MPAA problem is to take away the power of NC-17 and make R the highest possible rating.
-
When the MPAA rating system went in to place, M was a rating for Mature audiences right above R. Let's bring it back. I bet it's still in place, and all we would need for the MPAA board to do is start using it.....
-
I misspelled bureaucrats above. Yeah I know, but these things are important to me!
-
Jhett Dark is right. An "A" rating won't work because that's what the NC-17 was originally supposed to be. My suggestion is to create another rating between PG-13 and R. This new rating would have the same definition as the current R. Then change the definition of R to be what NC-17 is now. If people are too stupid to understand what NC-17 means, then let's trick them into accepting an NC-17 definition under the comfortable R rating.
-
The MPAA is in for a change. What is it they say: Things that don't change die, disapear...
Now, the USA is the prominent world leader in movies. Oh sure, alot of movies aren't necessarily of good content, or good values, but are the movies we watch, every where in the world. Those who don`t live in big towns like NY, LA, etc, don`t get to see a lot of foreign movies. So what movies do we see, American movies. Let`s face it, american movies are THE movies everybody sees. I come from Canada, and my movie theatre (which is 10 screens btw) only shows american movies. This tells me the americans (hollywood) are on to something. With this knowledge, we have to accept that without hollywood, the movie phenomena would be in trouble. BUT, hollywood, in all its glory, is controlled by people who don`t understand this. These are probably the people who would cover up the "erotic appearance" of the "Venus de Milo". Now, when I saw it in front of me (venus), I had chills. This statue, for me is what true art is all about. I think of the MPAA, as people who would cover up every piece of art, just because it shows something that is still taboo. Seeing Venus in all its glory, was incredible for me. Had I seen it "censored", I would`ve thought to myself, what`s the big deal. The point I'm trying to make is that, movies, just like art, is something you have to see in all it's ORIGINAL grandeur, not "censored". To censor something, is to take away something. (figuratively)
So kuddos to Harry, or whoever thought up of the new system. And if any MPAA person reads these messages, take all we (as a movie going public) have to say, and do something good. And remember, everything dies, but you can do things to live longer, in this case, "change" will let you live longer.
-
I think you all are looking at this the wrong way. The MPAA only has as much power as the movie theatres give it. It's the movie theatre owners who tell the studios they won't show NC-17 movies. The studios in turn tell their directors to deliver an R rated film. If the MPAA gives the film an NC-17, the studios force the director to make changes in order to please the theatre owners. What we need to do is direct our efforts at changing the theatre owners' perceptions of the NC-17 rating. We need to let them know that we want to see these movies the way they were intended and that we are adult enough not to be offended. If the theatre owners see that there is a large market (read $$$$) out there for NC-17 movies they will begin showing them in their theatres. I'd suggest that we start writing letters to our local theatres as well as the big chains and let them know how we feel and how much money they can make off of us.
-
The A rating would do something bad that the rating board would never do. It makes artistic judgment, something totally outside the purview of the board. In my view, many porn movies I have seen have much more artistic merit than many "regular movies I have seen. Ebert's proposal would bring real censorship.
-
Wasn't the NC-17 rating SUPPOSED to be a "cleaner" version of the X-rating? When you think of an X, you instantly think of gratuitous sex, violence, and nudity. But I thought the whole point of the NC-17 rating was supposed to bridge the gap between the R and the X. When people hear NC-17 today, they instantly think pornography, when in most cases, this isn't true. Take the first NC-17 rated movie, HENRY & JUNE (1990). Too strong for an R, but not nearly as graphic as an X. Hence, NC-17. I think the X rating should still be in use, as well as NC-17. Hopefully this would clarify a difference between the ratings. Then perhaps movie theaters wouldn't get cold feet over showing NC-17 movies, as they wouldn't be as bad as "the dreaded X." Then maybe we'd be able to see EYES WIDE SHUT the way Stanley Kubrick intended.
-
Here in Canada, we have the following Ratings: G:General PG:Parental Guidance AA: ADULT ACCOMPANYMENT R: RESTRICTED to ANYONE UNDER 18! none of this NC17 crapola.. "R" means that! and it's been that way since I can remember... and "R" movies are in ANY theatre, advertaised in any newspaper... So, if you wanna blame someone for having a decent, normal rating system, Take a cue from Matt and Trey, and "BLAME CANADA!"
-
...while we're on the subject of ratings...my dad has a bunch of old newspapers in the basement, from the late 1960s/early 1970s. Looking at the movie sections, I noticed to ratings that aren't in use anymore: M and GP. Are these the equivelents of today's R and PG ratings, adhering to the same rules?
-
I do not believe for a moment that an A rating will solve anything -- nor do I believe it SHOULD. An R rating should really be the most restrictive rating for a movie in an enlightened society. Obviously, it means that parents would have to educate themselves better about films, but I think they do so little of a job of raising their children nowadays that it would only make sense.
-
I have a big problem with "artistic merit" being the yardstick for an NC-17 vs. an A rating (if such a plan were enacted). The net result of such a system is the punishment of filmmakers who are simply not as talented -- which is ridiculous. An untalented filmmaker, who tries to address a serious subject but does it BADLY, does not deserve virtual disenfranchisement. Again, I feel the R rating is really the most severe restriction any society should enforce.
-
Harry briefly touched on this, but let me reemphasize it. The MPAA was created to be an impartial, anonymous ratings board to which the studios would submit a finished product to receive a rating. The board has drifted radically from this mandate, to the point where they are offering advice to studios on how to get certain ratings. THIS is the root of the problem with the MPAA. The solution is simple: allow the studios to submit a film to the MPAA ONCE, and once only (no cutting stuff and sending it back), and the MPAA would then give the film a letter rating using the current system. The studio would then be forced to A) live with the rating, or B) releasing the picture unrated and convincing theaters to carry it anyway. We missed a beautiful opportunity to do this with EWS. Yes, this would likely mean the end of NC-17 (the movie would simply be unrated). Remember, the studios are primarily interested in making money. They tinker with the ratings to maximize profits. If the MPAA rating becomes an absolute rather than a variable, then the studios will turn their attention to other areas to maximize profits- like convincing studios to carry NC-17 films, and to convince the public that NC-17 does not equal pornography. The NC-17 experiment failed because the studios were too gutless to back it up. They need a financial motive to do so.
-
I don't get why we need another adult rating. Showgirls was NC-17 & it did pretty damn good at the box office, even if it was kept out of alot of theatres. I think if the studios had just been releasing more movies at "NC-17", instead of toning them down for an "R", we wouldn't have this problem now. Eyes Wide Shut was the perfect opportunity to give NC-17 some foothold, but the wimps at WB had to tone it down.
Does anyone believe Eyes Wide Shut would've failed had it gotten an NC-17? Please! -
[My opinions; skip if you don't give a rat's ass.] The MPAA, the ratings board, the V-chip, album ratings, ad nasuem should be illegal. They are a de facto form of censorship and the EWS incident proves that. What people forget is that there is an amendment to the constitution that forbids censorship. But the wording reads "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." So well-fed lawyers and politicians (and entertainment executives) who want us to think in certain ways and be worried about certain things, say "OK, Congress won't do a thing; we'll leave it up to a private, non-governmental, and unelected ratings board." Two things follow from this. One, the result is the same as if there was a government censorship board. In some ways, it is even worse, because at least with the government there is the pretense of being able to petition the government for a redress of grievances (part of another amendment). Two, the government is *complicit* in the abridgment of free speech. If the ratings board were simply a "guide or tool for parents," (that is if there were no other repercussions of a specific rating than providing a limited amount of categorical information), then there would be nothing to protest. That is, people would take or leave the rating as they saw fit, prescibing or proscibing certain movies for their children either based on those ratings, or independent of them. *But*, the way in which the ratings system is applied does in fact result in censorship. Movie theatres refuse to show, blanketly, any movie with a certain rating, regardless of content. Newspapers, magazines, and television refuse to accept advertising for movies with a certain rating, regardless of content. And if, for instance, those younger than the *recomended* 17 years of age try to get into an R movie without an adult supervisor, then the theatre has the *right* to eject them from the theatre, by force if necessary, and with the assistance of the police. True, much of this has to do with the implications of private property. But private property itself is a social and legal construction (i.e., without laws and the force of the state to back it up, it would be meaningless). Therefore, the government *is* involved in the abridgement of free, unfettered speech. Two possiblities arise from these conclusions. One, abolish the MPAA in its current form, i.e. as the arbiter of good taste and public morals. Make it illegal for any public forum (whether or not privately owned) to blanketly or systematically refuse to exhibit certain things (i.e. movies, or advertising for movies) based on any ratings or recommendation system other than its own judgement. Any linkage of a ratings system and a privately owned public forum would be considered a private trust formed with the intent of denying citizens their constitutional rights to free speech and have that speech be heard. This would have the effect of reducing the MPAA ratings system to the equivalent of any other group's or reviewer's opinion. Leonard Maltin and Roger Ebert would have as much influence as the MPAA, as would every kid with a website. Any and every group would still be allowed to give their opinions on works - as they all do currently. Furthermore, theatres would not be allowed to keep youth out of movies (any more than they could discriminate aganist any law-abiding citizen); it would instead be up to parents and children to develop individual systems (based on either mutual trust, or on the fear of parental punishment, or whatever) to make sure the parents wishes were adhered to. The second option is to repeal the First Amendment, since the current practice is in violation of it. Society must simply decide which thing it values more: freedom of speech, or the ability to censor things. ........................................................................................................................... Having said that, I don't expect society to be anything approaching this logical. No, history shows that left to their own devices, politicians will continue to muck about, hacking away at and compromising our rights. History shows that, as Fredrick Douglass said, "Without struggle, there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand." That is, until we band together to demand our rights, in the streets as the Wobblies did at the beginning of the century and as the students at Berkley and in Paris did in '68, they will slowly be chipped away, repealed, and rescinded until we have nothing left. (And having said that, I still think there are more important matters than being able to see Tom Cruise's dick; but a society that is not free in social or political matters cannot hope to be free in artistic ones.) Thanks for reading. -CG
-
I don't know exactly how yet...but I'm sure Canada is to blame for this! Kill 'em all!
-
One thing not mentioned so far is the fact that many newspapers and TV stations will not carry ads for NC-17 rated films. Also, many theatres will not run NC-17 films, since pornograpghic films fall into the same category. Thus there is a fear in Hollywood that a major motion picture will not get the number of screens, or be shown in the best movie houses. Imagine the Kitty Kat Theatre/Adult Bookstore as being the only place in town to show EWS. So it's not just a problem with the MPAA or the film industry. It's an "educational" problem throughout the entire media spectrum. And then there are regional differences in the U.S. that make a film that is acceptable in New York City, unacceptable in bible-belt areas. But it appears that some form of change in the system is needed. And theatres in general must begin to actually enforce the ratings system. To many minors are getting in to see R rated movies without parental consent (or perhaps concern). And having managed a few theatres and watched many films, I can honestly say that how or what a film is rated is a bit slip-shod. I've seen some PG-13 films that have more violence than R rated films. And I've seen some R rated films that I think young people SHOULD see. But that's my opinion, and of course that's another problem with ratings. They are subjective to begin with. What's offensive to one person, is not to another. I read an article in the news about an artist who used his own excrement to paint a picture, along with other colors of paint. Some will call it art. Some will call anything "art". Whoever wrote the article avoided saying the picture looked like shit, but I'm not as clever.
-
While I don't think your idea is really whats needed and its obvious that something is, I think you should not be comparing the comics industry to the film industry.
First off, every comic that is sold on the newsstand, and that number is shrinking daily, has to have the Comics Code Authority stamp on it.
Second - All those "For Mature Readers" or "Adult" comics are sold in Comic shops only and there are no more than 3000 of those.
Third - Comics are a niche industry and because of its self imposed ghettoizing, does no long appeal to the masses - which film does do and WANTS to do. The core audiences for Marvel and DC are no longer 14 to 16 year olds, but 28 - 32! Comics in general are not aimed at kids anymore but aimed at an age group like you and me. Sorry if this reads like a rant, but I was upset to see comics compared to film in that way. The Comics Industry created their own downfall - lets not take film in the same direction. -
OK, this is what I donot get. Why can a kid see a man get blown in half and have his intestines hanging out crying for his mommy if an adult say he can, but can not see a tit or two, or some cursing? I remember when i was at a young impressionable age, I had a stack of porno mags and I talked like a truck driver. Why? Not because I saw bad movies, but because I was a fucking teenager. Thats what we did and what they will keep doing. But apparently kids should be exposed to shit like Pvt. Ryan ( a totally unoriginal movie, a real rip-off) instead. That way instead of cursing and jacking off, they'll jest rip each other apart right? But even violence is judged in movies. If there was a horror movie which featured a character being ripped in half and showing it all, would it get an R rating? I somehow doubt it. But if your Steven "my shit dont stink" Speilberg you can get away with anything. Why does the MPAA do everything short of getting on their knees and blowing directors they like, ie. Spielberg?
-
I'm inclined to go with Son of Shadow's suggestion that "R" be the highest rating. The reason why ANY of the "Adults only" ratings don't work (insofar as the goal is to promote the creation of intelligent film that can use elements that a large part of society deem 'unacceptible') is simple economics: Almost EVERY film company is unwilling to absolutely cut out a major segment of its paying audience: individuals under 17. If the difference between an A/nc-17/x and an R is censoring a butt or other body part here or there, they'll do it every time. In fact, they won't have too. Most directors, who realize their artistic "freedom" is directly linked to their ability to generate high grossing movies, will do it themselves. So by inserting an A between nc-17 and X, you are accomplishing NOTHING because you are not addressing the economic incentive to edit a movie down to R.
If we ELIMINATE nc-17/A/x (or leave X for the prono industry that WANT a way for purchasors of videos to identify their product), and allow EVERYTHING into R, there will be ZERO censorship and ZERO self-censorship because there will be ZERO economic incentive for filmmakers to cut anything out of their movies. What's the danger? That our "innocent" kids will get in without an adult guardian. But not allowing such guardians to bring in kids to see certain movies smacks of governmental paternalism anyway. So the bottom line is allow this danger or suffer self/3rd party censorship. -
Ummm... Did anyone else notice that the premise of Harry's idea for a new film rating system lies squarely in determining what is considered 'art'? I had only a minute or two to be on the net here at work, so I didn't read the rest of the talkbacks. Someone else may have brought this up already - if so, sorry to be redundant.
-
Okay, so I see the title of this diatribe and think "Great, another yahoo thinks he's really cool because he can reference Jonathan Swift's classic piece regarding the Irish famine. Get ready for straight, formulaic "irony". Alright, I sometimes get a kick out of formulaic irony ... I'll chance it.
-----
Well, first, there's no irony here. I ask you, which is worse, reading something by someone who thinks he's cool because he can mimick Swift, or reading something by someone who apparently doesn't even have the faintest idea of the long and "distinguished" history of the title he's chosen?
-----
Thereby, in the interest of all hack humorists and social commentators everywhere, I would like to make a modest proposal of my own. Anyone who writes another piece suggesting a completely outlandish solution to a set of problems, who proposes in jest to solve one problem by creating another, more horrible, problem (moral or physical), but who is at least remotely humorous in doing so (the party of "A"), must volunteer himself for community service in educating youngsters on the long and sordid history of satire in America. Moreover, anyone who writes a piece of humorless and uninventive drivel and gives it a title which has long been reserved for satire, such as "A Modest Proposal", thereby showing all that he is either truly ungifted at the art of satire, or truly ignorant of the history of said profession (the party of "B"), must volunteer himself to be the subject of community service rendered by the party of "A", until such time as he produces a work of satire sufficient to place himself in the party of "A", at which time he must volunteer to serve as educator in the history of satire. Said voluntary service and the acceptance of said service will be mandated by law. Consequences for avoiding such voluntary action, or for renouncing, subverting, or otherwise impeding the progress of such action, will include, but are not limitted to, a fine of $500 (ammount subject to inflationary adjustments) and 35 years of jail time (minimum sentence to be increased proportional to the general life expectancy of the population at large). Repeat offences will be deemed capital offences and corresponding punishment will be delivered swiftly and irrevocably.
----
Free the world of bad satire!
----
By the way, due to the lack of acceptable satire in Harry's piece, I judge it lacking in artistic merit, and give it an "X" rating.
---- Tom Dibble (the party of "B")
-
The age-based ratings system exists for one purpose and one purpose only: marketing. The studios market their films based on age. They don't give a rat's behind about what kids see or don't see. They know that teens are the bread and butter of the industry, so they market their films to them, using age-based demographics to do so.
The best 'ratings' system is no ratings system at all, just a content description. Who would buy food labelled only 'Appropriate for 13-year-olds'? You want to know the content, in case you have dietary restrictions, or if you're concerned about what you put into your body. It's no different from what goes in your mind.
It's been said that conservatives decry sex in movies but not violence, and liberals decry violence but not sex. Movie-goers have different values and opinions, and children of the same age differ from one another in maturity.
With an objective, content-based system, value-based decisions like what is 'appropriate' for children would be taken out of the hands of the MPAA and put back into the hands of the parents of each child, where it belongs. The MPAA is afraid to do this because, like the tobacco industry, they know that a true accounting of all the crap they put in their products would result in a public outcry. -
Six different ratings sounds a bit complicated. What about 7, 11, 15 and X ? Sweden uses 7, 11, 15 and "allowed for children". I haven't seen a cut or "censored" film in years..
-
Personally I believe that NC-17 didn't work is because Showgirls was so raunchy, that the first time a major studio tried to release a so called "sophisticated, adult" movie, that it ended up being very close to soft-porn. If EWS carried the NC-17, that could possibly have changed our entire view on it, because it would be the one of the first major exceptions where the reason NC-17 came about is held true. I mean, so many films are scared to be released NC-17- look at Happiness. What they should do, is obliterate the ratings system, and just come up with some standardizations. Like a film is PG if it contains a maximum of 5 swear words, and 5 instances of mild violence- something along those lines. Just deconstruct the film into what is potentially offensive, put that next to the rating (South Park: Rated R, contains 111 instances of profanity) and parents will then be FULLY informed, the reasons why the ratings exist.
-
Think about it! Both short, both have an accent, dye Valenti's hair black and give him one of those Charlie Chaplin moustaches...ITS HIM! He must have found some sort of rejuvinating syrum. Listen to his nonsensical rants and raves about the film industry! YOU WILL WATCH THE MOVIES I TELL YOU TO WATCH! YOU WILL OBEY! Creepy!
-
What Roget Ebert proposed is stupid and heres why. we cant adequatly change the ratings system BEFORE we change society. Society thinks that NC-17 is pornography and has this stygmata attached to it the same as the "X" rating. Society would again associate this new "A" rating as a contender to replace NC-17 and X and the whole process starts all over. we cannot change it this way. The changes need to come from within the newspapers, TV and others forms of advertising that have made it impossible to advertise a NC-17 film not by creating a rating between "R" and "NC-17"... we need to FIX the way society views the NC-17 rating BEFORE moving forward. I have always been for advertising as a commercial means of selling a product. If you have the money, you should, can, and will be able to advertise your product. If you have the money and you ARENT allowed to advertise your product, then thats censorship and thats EXACTLY what has happened to the MPAA, the NC-17 and society!! --McK
-
I think we should, as some have suggested, eliminate NC-17/X/A/M/etc. However, the problem is that some children will get in without their parents' consent. Therefore, for all 'R' movies (which now include such high art as Deep Throat and Long Dong Silver) *at the door* children must be accompanied by their parent or guardian. The next problem is that we have no way to know that a particular adult is indeed that child's parent or guardian. Therefore, I propose a national identification system whereby all children are licensed to one or two parents or guardians. The parents would carry a special electronic ID bracelet which identifies themselves and their children; the children must also wear these bracelets. The bracelets would not be removable so that people couldn't pretend to be anyone else. In fact, we might as well make them a small implant just under the skin of the wrist. This implant would explode if it is tampered with, so people wouldn't dare try to disable it. People with no arms, or whose arms had been blasted off due to tampering with the tracking device, would be ineligible to become either parents or children. The second minor hurdle is in the renting of movies. Again, the ID implant would be used to regulate parental attention. All VCR and DVD playing devices would be modified to sense the presence of parental implants, as well as minors' implants. If any minors are present who are not assigned to parents within range of the sensing device, the movie-playing device would cease to function. The same technology could be extended to secure parental guidance over music, television, books, museum exhibits, and exposure to exhibitionists on the street (the last with strategically placed explosive devices). To make all of this economically feasible, parents and children would voluntarily submit to targetted marketting and advertisements while viewing the regulated art. Attempts to ignore or avoid this marketting would be deemed as tampering with the device, with the corresponding consequences.
-
Hollywood loves to say, "We're just giving the public what they want." How do they know what we want? I never took a survey saying whether or not I wanted to see Kate Winslet nude in "Titanic". I didn't approve the close-up of man's tongue on a woman's nipple in "Rising Sun". I was expecting an action film, not a porno film.
I was never asked whether I thought showing a nearly nude dance (only a g-string and pasties with swinging tassles) was appropriate for "King Ralph". Rent it, and see if you think that scene is appropriate for the film and for the PG-rating it got. It was marketed to junior high age children.
The problem is we don't know what the content of the film is until after we've seen it, and by then it's too late. We've paid to see the film. Hollywood interprets our payment as our approval of what they put on screen.
The best way is a content-based system. ScreenIt.com is perfect for parents who are concerned about their kids. It absolves the theater owners from having to police children and puts the responsibility on the parents. Hollywood should have a money-back guarantee on all its films! -
I agree that the R rating should be the highest. I don't understand why there is a problem with a theatres enforcing a rating. Isn't that what they are supposed to do. When i was a tenn (way back in the 80's) they carded all the time, when I was 18 they wouldn't let me buy a ticket for Robcop for my 15 year old brother because I wasn't his legal guardian. I worked in a theatre my second year of College in 89/90 in NYC and always had to check id when they gave their ticket in. Ratings should include the "HBO" breakdown, so parents can know what the movie contains.
-
I got this from the Countingdown site: A lot of people are quite rightly angry with the MPAA for the forced edits to EWS in order for it to get an "R" rating. Users on the C2EWS messageboard have requested a quicker way to contact the MPAA than snail mail (by-the-time it gets there no one cares anymore). AJ has done some digging and found their email address. Here it is.
hotline@mpaa.org
Please keep your comments constructive. If you truly want to make an impact don't swear or write abusive comments about the MPAA being a bastion of socialism. LOL!
and don't forget www.middletonband.com
-
(This rant has been rated "R" by me) As a staunch Libertarian I applaud your rant! I think it's high time we stop whining over what ratings we're going to ALLOW these cocksmokers to paste on these films ("Oh don't worry sir, WE'LL figure out how you can safely censor us. We'll just be waiting in the crib while you review our suggestions.") FUCK THEM! It's not the job of the government or the MPAA to "rate" movies that IN THEIR OPINION are suitable only for "certain people". Just list the kind of actions or situations occur in the movie then leave it to a child's LEGAL GUARDIANS to worry about the rest! On a related note, it's not going to matter much longer anyway with the advent of the Internet. It drives the censorship-loving types absolutely apeshit since it's sucking the censorship power out of their control. So I think their trying to crack down wherever they can still exert control. Such as motion pictures. Fuck 'em. They're just the band playing on the Titanic's deck. (Oh, and vote Libertarian this November).
-
I personally don't think that any of the ratings work. Don't get me wrong here, I'm one of the most amoral people to ever walk the face of the earth. But I don't think that some of the material found in certain films is acceptable under that film's rating. I loved both "Austin Powers" films to death, but I'm not sure that they should have been PG-13. I certainly don't think they should have been R either, though. So perhaps we do need an intermediate rating. Likewise, I think many films that are making it as R films SHOULD be NC-17 films. Even though Spielberg edited a lot out of "Saving Private Ryan," it was still too much for R in my opinion. The same goes for "American Pie," "Boogie Nights," and even though I haven't seen it, "Eyes Wide Shut." NC-17 is a good rating. No, it is an EXCELLENT rating--but noone will use it. It Spielberg had had the balls to release "SPR" as NC-17 then we probably wouldn't be bitching now. All it will take is one high profile movie and one studio with the balls to release it NC-17 and the rating will become acceptable. Sure the public is afraid of NC-17! They have nothing to use as a reference point for an NC-17 movie, except "Showgirls"! They think, "My God, if they can get away with some of the shit they do in R rating movies, then NC-17 has GOT to be porn!" When the fact is, more than half of the R rated films that they're already seen should have been NC-17 in the first place. The NC-17 rating is the United States answer to its rating problem. The studios just need to use it.
And on a sidenote, go to the video store and pick up the box to any recent Warner Bros. release. At the bottom of the box on the backside, you will see a listed of the reasons that that particular film was rated what it was. It only those reasons were in bigger print and used in trailers and on posters it would again solve most of the problem. -
The only practical difference is changing "NC-17" to "A". That's no a difference. The reason NC-17 movies are doomed isn't because people don't like the letters, it's because their marketshare is limited and they generate complaints. The solution here is to drop the "must be __ to be admitted" idea. Right now parents have some stupid idea that the theaters are legally obligated to bar kids from movies by rating. Not true. The system is voluntary. That's why it breaks all the time, and it breaking all the time is why people hate it. Kids actually DON'T get into an nc-17 movie? then there wouldn't have been complaints about movies with that rating -- and the rating wouldn't be a death warrant for films. But that's not how it is. Solution? Drop restrictions. Put the ball in the parents' court. These are RATINGS, not laws. Ratings continute to exist (a new system will be needed to clear the existing stigma, admittedly, but not a significantly different one) but theatres don't restrict access unless parents specifically contact the theater and set limits for their specific child. Then all patrons who appear to be under a certain age are required to present ID when they buy their ticket, and if the parents have set a restriction on that child below the level of the movie in question, they don't sell the ticket. The key is placing responsibility for containing "filth" in the parents' hands. And given the sorry state of parenting in this country, by and large that will doubtless result in a weakening of the ratings system and a return to artistic freedom.
-
I believe in the idea of a ratings system, but only when it functions as an indication of content. As it stands today, a rating is nothing more than a big red 'A' on the lapel of Hollywood products. Sex is the bane of the MPAA, and it is this bias that has helped destroy the usefulness of the R and NC-17 ratings. Valenti and his cronies can espouse their commitment to hedging violent images all they want, but their scissors are really waiting for a few seconds of flesh, or that extra butt-thrust to snip away.
Regardless of the MPAA's internal lunacy, they are not entirely to blame. Point some fingers at Hollywood itself, as well as most of the movie-going public. Audiences want a certain dose of sex and violence, and Hollywood aims to please. So, what we get is a large does of grue and t&a devoid of any real sting. As long as it is presented in a dumb enough manner, it just skirts by. Take Total Recall for instance: Arnie runs, Arnie grabs a bystander, men with guns shoot innumerable rounds of ammo into bystander, turning his chest into hamburger helper...Arnie also rips off arms, gores people with drills etc., etc., etc.. However. since this is presented within the frame of A) a fantasy/sci-fi film b) a film bankrolled by one of the studios that helps support the MPAA and C) a really stupid film, the gore flies and Total Recall gets by with an R. Then we have Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Low budget and teeming with disturbing images and connotations of sexual and physical violence, yet displaying very little on-screen violence, it got an X rating. To paraphrase Wes Craven (regarding Last House), violence is fine in Hollywood as long as the film doesn't allow you to think about it or feel its impact.
As for EWS, it was doomed from the start. The MPAA handles disturbing sexual dramas about as well as the Catholic League. Now, this is a film I haven't seen, but from my experiences with Kubrick I can say that it is not a film to go gently in one ear and out the other. From what I've read, it deals with themes that might appeal more to the adult audiences that Hollywood has carefully alienated over the past 15 years, taking on adultery, emotional and physical fidelity within relationships etc., sans the candy coating.
I think the rating system should stand, but some new blood should be pumped into the board itself. Valenti and his crew have lost touch.
In closing, I think EWS should have been the first NC-17 film, not exploitive trash like Showgirls (even as entertaining as trash can be). It undermined--not it destroyed--any legitimate standing NC-17 could have had.
-
Having an "A" rating would be worse than NC-17. Porn is made by the "Adult" film industry. It would be even more associated with porn! Switching letters around isn't going to change anything. What needs to happen is the film industry must show some balls. If they had the balls to show a film from a well respected filmmaker like Kubrick with an NC-17 rating, and it did well at the box office, the problem would be over. It all comes down to money. There must be a financially successful NC-17 film in order to erase the stigma.
-
Somebody above posted that the MPAA is not censorship because it's not a government agency. You don't need to work for the good ol' US of A to censor somebody's work.
Right now, it seems to me that the MPAA knows it's power due to the chicken shit movie theater owners and movie studio execs and is exploiting that power. I mean, what I got with them "helping" WB with Eyes Wide Shut was them covering their ass. If this film had been released as NC-17, it would have totally smashed a big hole through their structure and render their threats obsolete. If a studio realized it was bankable to make an NC-17 movie, then they wouldn't cut the films to the specifications of the MPAA.
I'd also like to comment on the people who say the "A" wouldn't work. Now, I will grant, I'm not too well versed with this stuff, but what I understand from Harry's writeup is that when the NC-17 rating came about, it took the X's place. So, theater owners saw NC-17 as X. So, putting a rating between R and NC-17 would still give the theater owners the satisfaction of not showing "X" movies.
But, I'm only stating my opinions and my views of the situation. I know I'm going to get torn apart with non-intellegent smart-ass comments by the pricks that seem to frequent talkbacks. But, so be it. My opinion has been stated, tear away.
-Q -
Take South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut. The creators decided against "hey, let's release this NC-17" and who are we to argue with them if they accept it. If Kubrick were alive and chose to go along with the studio in approving lame coverup effects, wouldn't we accept his decision? Or if he rejected it, wouldn't the studio have to take his star power into consideration?
Yeah MPAA needs to be cleaned up to be more precise, if anything. They could take some hints from those CAP ratings ( http://www.capalert.com/capreports/ ), you can disagree with the analysis but they do a good job on compiling the statistics.
But if they could objectively rate things, and a theater decides to not show something based on a rating, blame the theater or its parent company for their policy. It isn't censorship until someone makes a decision not to show something. As for MPAA control over posters and trailers, and determining which are 'prohibited' this seems wrong since they are the ones saying 'No, you cannot use this' -
Since we already had a lesson on satire and titles, I had to chime in. Twice in as many days some Harry-clone has misused the word "stigmata." Hey, kids, the word you're looking for is STIGMA. "Stigmata" refers to the wounds that Jesus was said to have suffered during the crucifixtion. Specifically, the nail holes in hands and feet. However, a "stigma" is a negative association that something carries. For example, NC-17 carries the STIGMA of being associated with pornography. I do not think that any ratings have experienced the stigmata recently, however. Oh, and kids, there's this really swell thing known as a dictionary. It can help you use words more correctly. That way, when you're trying to sound all smart and shit, you avoid exposing your ignorance to the rest of us.
-
The "A" rating won't work because, the major media and the talking head morality watchdogs on the right and the left will paint it with the same broad brush as "X" and "NC-17" were. Theaters will still not show the movies, for fear of no audiences, or being arrested or sued. My view is "A" will just be another unwanted rating, that filmmakers will not want to get, and exhibitors will not want to show.
-
I'd say 99% of Net Junkies who visit your site daily agree with you whole heartedly. I think your post about MPAA's disgrace of Sleepy Hollow and the "Cranially Challeged Equestrian" was journalism worthy of every newspaper and magazine TV show. But what is one post or one talkback section going to do the MPAA, Studio's or Theatre owners? We need to shove this down the MPAA's throat. They need to see that post. It needs to be hand delivered to evey MPAA member, studio, and theatre owner in America. The studio can fight this, and I'm sure would like any help they can get. Ask not what Harry can do for you, ask what you can do for Harry! How can we help? Lets barrage the MPAA with letters and whatever else we can ship them. I am ready Harry. Tell us what to do. EWS was a prime candidate to abolish the Plague associated with NC-17. Never again will we have the opportunity that EWS had to shove it down the MPAA's Throat, unless Harrison Ford or Tom Hanks goes NC-17.
This can work, For Christsakes, MIDNIGHT COWBOY was and is rated X. Lets organize! Lets do something. Or we can just continue posting our fustrations to no avail. -
It seems to me that if art is being compromised, it's the artists who must speak up. They've done it before, a coalition of vocal artists in the industry containing powerful and influential individuals, would turn some heads. What is, say, Spielberg, Cameron, and other high-recognition directors boycotted studios who refused to enforce the legitimacy of a Mature rating? (It doesn't matter if you call it A, M, NC-17. As has been said, renaming it is just repeating the same mistake.) These people have big enough presence and clout that if one studio refused to budge, another may pounce at the coup d'etat of being able to work with such a big name. The PR alone would be worth the negative backlash. Such a coalition would benefit from a few big-name actors too, of course, as they are typically charismatic spokespeople who can win over the less zealous portion of the public. So, with such a "boycott" the only way movie theatres get these big names and big stars is to legitimise the NC-17 rating. And, while one theatre may hold fast to their ban on NC-17 content, like the studio, another will be swayed by the opportunity. Even if it's a small theatre, when it suddenly starts drawing record numbers, big theatres will take notice of all the money that they're losing, and that will speak loudly to them, won't it? So, what I'm saying is that the only way to get attention of the machine is to have their spinelessness on NC-17 deny them an opportunity for profit. The only way for that to happen on a significant level is for the *artists* to deny them that opportunity. A small audience boycott doesn't accomplish anything. From the studio's point of view, it's only substituting a radical-right boycott for a radical-left one. Then they just ask themselves "which is the bigger demographic we'd be losing?" I think you know the answer to that. Losing a movie as a *whole* to some other studio, however, would make a much bigger difference as you take away their personal ability to earn money from the non-radical middle. Unfortunately, as is often the case, this is going to require artists to suffer for their work while the battle is being fought. The big question becomes: do enough of them have the integrity to do so?
-
While I completely agree with your sentiment that we need to change the ratings, isn't it anti-intuitive to say that children are raised by society as much as their parents? Isn't that exactly the argument put forth by those who would censor films such as The Matrix, etc., because of their "so-called" negative societal effects? Isn't it best to say that children are raised by their parents and thus are their parents' responsibility?
-
You know what I find ironic is that the same theaters that hold the fate of NC-17 movies in their hands don't have a problem letting people under 17 into R rated movies without a parent or guardian. What's that about?
-
Jul 15, 1999 11:43:32 AM CDT
If you're going to use "Modest Proposal" to describe your essay,
by severian
Just a little British Lit lesson.
-
Jul 15, 1999 11:47:14 AM CDT
polite response to Quint; Ratings are not really the problem...
by blacksilence
I agree with 99% of what you're saying Quint.
When NC-17 was first announced, we were told of how it would be the saving grace of artists who could safely add elements to their moviemaking palette without risking the X-rating. If memory serves, X would be for explicit sex, NC-17 would be a catch-all for everything else (excessive violence, etc) deemed too offensive by the common values.
Unfortunately the message got lost somewhere, and NC-17 is just another name for porn in the eyes of the public, and the artists are right back where they started. I'm convinced that Harry's/Ebert's system will not work. Not only is the "with artistic merit/without artistic merit" idea just as vague as the current MPAA way of doing things, NC-17 should have been perfect the way it was proposed: two ratings -- one for sex, which a lot of people seem to be terrified of, and one rating for violence, which people seem almost casual about. This two-rating system for adult fare would've covered the bases nicely.
The designations are not intuitive, though. We know what R and NC-17 mean only because of rote exposure to them. That's why, as far as ratings are concerned, I agree with some of the posters above who suggested that R should be the highest rating, and I think we should then delineate the differences between the R-rated films by the standard TV-ratings which are much more intuitive, and let us know what the exact content will be.
This system is not without weaknesses, of course: Then you get into the issue of "what is graphic nudity" as opposed to "strong sexual situations", and what does "adult situations" entail?
This, for me, is the big problem, not the ratings. I agree with Harry's assessment that the agencies involved should try harder to outline a set of specific guidelines that moviemakers can go by to accurately gauge their work-in-progress' potential rating, since this will no doubt affect their work with the studios. Perhaps they then can find creative solutions to the problem, instead of having to go back and make cuts, or insert stupid CGI "blocks".
Regardless of how ardently we go on about artistic freedom, the simple fact is that these artists choose to work within the industry, and as such they are at the mercy of money (Some artists choose not to, and they are known as independents). It would be idiotic to assume that a studio is just going to throw money at an artist to do whatever they want without some guarantee that the studio itself would be edified (i.e., make money).
The guidelines would not be censorship, it would merely place the ball in the artist's court, and even though some would disregard the system (as is their right), they would at least know where they stood.
I'm reminded of a line from The Right Stuff, where John Glenn was in the capsule, and was oblivious to a defect.
Werner Von Braun asked sarcastically what they should tell Glenn about a situation which was basically unfixable.
Alan Shepard replied angrily, "He's a pilot; You tell him the condition of his ship..."
The Pleasantville analogy was right on spot. I think a good deal of artists might rest easier in their craft if they at least knew what they were up against, instead of handing their hard work to a committee which seems indifferent and completely subjective (almost arbitrary) in their decisions.
I don't really believe that the bulk of responsible filmmakers out there are trying to subvert anything, which seems to be the main fear of people like those who comprise the MPAA. When filmmaking is mere subversion, it is reduced to a political ploy, and while that is well-justified as free speech, is it really any different than just doing something for the money?
Does it really show any respect for the subject matter as a thing-unto-itself? I don't think so. The thing is reduced to yet another pulpit to trumpet the personal agenda of the maker, and in such circumstances the agenda might as well be money, because it is equally selfish.
I think the best filmmakers are the ones who try to tell a good, powerful story, who love the subject they're interpreting (like painters and their themes) and for the MPAA to let filmmakers swing in the breeze this way is worse than issuing the vague ratings that studios use to force artists to butcher their work.
Sorry for the length of the post. -
The other day, I went into Barnes and Noble here in Austin, TX and picked up a copy of Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho. When I got home, I read it in a few hours and was shocked that I was allowed to buy such a violently graphic book without someone telling me that it could be disturbing to some people. "Someone should have rated this book NC-17," I said. "But wait! There is no rating system for printed literature," I remember telling myself. "I need someone out there to tell me what is decent and in the prurient interest of the good, wholesome citizenry of the United States. If there is no one out there to say what is acceptible to those under 17, how will I know what is good for me?"
-
My only concern with this new rating is that once again, it will fall into the category of the indecent and obscene like its X and NC-17 predecessors. Need I remind everyone that often pornographic films are referred to as "Adult" films. I fear that an A would trigger the same reaction out of the same groups who are opposed to any NC-17 rated movies. Problem remains. How do we fix it? I guess the best way is for filmmakers to not make any films with mature content. You know, go the Disney way...
-
Doogie, I couldn't agree more on the quality of grammar and spelling on these boards. Maybe Harry should stop posting at four in the morning so he can pay more attention to not butchering the English language.
However, you may start the process by looking up "crucifixtion" (sic) in your own dictionary. -
This may be a little late as it seems everyone has pretty much expressed their points already and maybe someone's already brought this up, but Harry's example of censoring David made me think of an actual Michelangelo work that WAS censored in it's time much the same way EWS is being censored now. When Michelangelo originally painted the Last Judgement in the Sistine Chapel in 1534-1541 all of the figures were nude. The church later deemed certain figures unexceptable and hired another painter of considerably less talent to paint clothing on top some of the more 'troubling' figures. Of course now people would much rather see the work of the master rather than be saved the 'gruesome' spectacle of witnessing actual painted genitalia. Work has recently been done to remove the clothing. Also in an ironic twist, The Last Judgement was Michelangelo's last great painting. See any connections there?...
nomad. -
I have an idea. Let's all continue to pontificate endlessly. Better yet, after a certain number of further affronts to artistic integrity occur that are similar to the butchery of Eyes Wide Shut, we revolt in my name (Dimitri). Since someone up above mentioned that this problem will not go away as long as Valenti is alive, I will dispatch a Dimitri assassin. (I'm now taking applications; which one of you is up to it?) That assassin will dispose of Valenti. Then I, Dimitri, will be crowned ruler of the MPAA. I will decide ratings for all films, and all theaters will mindlessly bow to the word of the MPAA (my word), just as they do now. Anyone in the world who does not see eye to eye with what I see fit to give an R rating will also be the benefactor of a grim demise at the hands of a Dimitri assassin. The reign of Dimitri will foster in a new era of artistic integrity. (How's that for a modest proposal?)
-
Jul 15, 1999 1:00:40 PM CDT
Uh, not to be a bitch Harry, but I said this last MPAA post....R
by the tall man
Like I said last time, the only answer would have been to keep the X rating for the out and out porn, and instate an R-17. I still think the R-17 is the best way to go, rather than the A because it seems more "friendly" to the kneejerk censoring, idiotic bible belt types who rallied so heavily against the release of NC-17 titles, screaming from the rooftops that it merely was replacing the X - never considering or possibly ABLE to comprehend a difference between HENRY AND JUNE, ANAL INVADERS, EYES WIDE SHUT and DEBBIE DOES THE WORLD #10 - R-17 is friendlier because the R is more familiar. Reinstate the damn X rating (no one under 18) and introduce the R-17 (no one under 17). This is what they should have done in the first place, unfortunately it's probably too late. Damn idiots.
-
{In regards to a response; i.e., very off topic.] You might want to check your political theories one more time. What I was proposing would trample all over the rights of private property (at least for corporations), the holy grail of the libertarians. What I was proposing was definitely a left-wing solution (which is why the idea - a very simple one IMO - will not occur to anyone in mainstream politics). And do you really think that Libertarians want people demonstrating in the streets demanding their rights and power any more than the Republicans or Democrats or the rich, respectable business leaders they all cringingly serve? Having said that, I do recognize that many ordinary people who want something done about this screwed up world do in fact look to Libertarianism. I know a fair few of them, and admire them so far as their desire for change goes. But they are being fooled IMHO. The Libertarian Party cares very little for any of the issues that attract many young (college or post-college) people to it. At root, it is mainly concerned with reducing the taxes that the rich and corporations pay, by way of gutting and repealing the little social and economic legislation we have that attempts (however imperfectly) to ameliorate the problems of poverty, racism, sexism, etc. Libertarians, before all else, believe that unfettered markets and unregulated capitalism will solve all social problems - sine qua non. But that is exactly the problem with the current bruhaha over MPAA ratings: the MPAA relies on the market and the decisions of private corporations to enforce its ratings. So no, I won't be voting Libertarian in November. And if you agree with me, maybe you shouldn't either. -CG
-
Seriously, folks, my modest proposal notwithstanding, I don't know what to do. (Incidentally, I forgive you for the Swift allusion used improperly.) I agree that the adult rating will not solve this problem. Either a major studio must stand up to the system and deliver a controversial but certain to be profitable nevertheless NC-17 film to the theaters, or society in general must change. Didn't Showgirls have a somewhat wide distribution? I lived in San Antonio at the time of its release, and I recall that it was showing at the Rivercenter (a major mall that many kids frequent). The theater enforced the age restrictions on its own. Harry's questions: "That
-
I guess my biggest problem with the Eyes Wide Shut situation is that Kubrick died. If he had lived, he no doubt would have modified the film as he saw fit to create an R rating. He might have even done something brilliant with the editing that even enhanced the film. (I think the modifications he made for Clockwork Orange to meet the rating were a stroke of genius. Since seeing Clockwork Orange, I've never again been able to first associate the William Tell Overture with the Lone Ranger. The flippant presentation of the scene even meshed perfectly with Malcolm's character.) I do not believe Kubrick would have digitally inserted objects in the manner that has been done. He would have done something more clever. Also, last night's ABC presentation of Tom Cruise that showed him saying that the editing was o.k. was irresponsible journalism. Cruise was saying that Kubrick approved editing in general - not this specific edit. Cruise made the statement before he had seen the latest version. He even said he has not brought himself to watching the film since Kubrick's death. For the general public that won't recognize the subtlety therein, this is an injustice.
-
We can talk outselves round in circles and all day & night, but nothing good is going to come out of it. In this land of free speech, everyone has a voice. So when little old grandma's call up movie theatre owners and complain enough about a film based on what the right Rev. Falwell or some other moral protector deems to be obscene and succeed in getting that film pulled because the theatre owner or the film studio don't want any trouble, its because no-one wants to be seen standing up for something they believe in. Its all apologies we won't do that again. Everyone is scared shitless and there needs to be some people with courage to actually do anything about this. Where are they?
-
I was kinda hoping that Harry would suggest that Jack Valenti should start eating the little children of the world. It would solve the problem of regulation "for the children". (That was for all the English majors out there). It is unfortunate that the most logical solution to this issue would cause more legal problems then it would be worth. IMHO, the most logical way for a film like EWS to handle the controversy is to allow for both versions to be released, and show the uncut version in communities (and times) that would be most appropriate. Unfortunately, thanks to those wacky courts that brought you the Two Live Crew obscenity case, the "dirty" and "clean" versions made available could open up WB to an obscenity trial. Although it is unlikely ANYONE could find EWS legally obscene (I haven't seen it yet), Studio suit lawyers would never open up their product to any such attack. Most importantly, after all the ranting and raving, the more important question is: "who can stop the MPAA"? Studios are merely producing a product, albeit more widespread than your average Joe Schmo with a camera and a dream. So long as they control the MPAA and bend it to their whims, and there are many, many other opportunities for free speech, it is not "censorship". It merely stinks. Coach Bob.
-
What kills the NC-17 films is the fact that they're practically boycotted by every major theater and video store chain. The rating doesn't drive the audience away, it just prevents the audience from seeing it. The idea of an "A" rating is great. If we cannot have that, though, maybe something can be done to increase the number of theaters to show NC-17 films. I live in Atlanta, which (from what I've heard) is a pretty big town. Trey Parker and Matt Stone say that audiences avoided that film because of the rating. That isn't true at all. There was absolutely no advertisement for that movie, since no stations wanted to runs ads for an NC-17 film. The film only showed in ONE THEATER for only one week!! The only reason I even knew about it was because I'm an avid South Park fan. And now that the film is on video, only one video chain has a copy of the film, and even they only have one copy (ironically, it's been checked out every time I've tried renting it). Showgirls was NC-17 and made about $15 million it's first weekend. It was the ONLY NC-17 to ever have had any publicity behind it. The reason it eventually flopped at the box office was because word quickly got out that the film was a piece of shit.
-
Who cares? I mean, who really cares? The average person, average meaning not one of us, doesn't really even have a good IDEA of what the ratings system means. All they see are letters and numbers. They know 'R' is 'bad' and 'G' is 'Good'. All the best movies used to be PG, now it's virtually un-heard of. Adding another rating will only serve their confusion. I agree with the idea of R being the highest rating. However, as far as censorship goes, I don't really care, because most of the BEST MOVIES EVER don't have lots of 'offensive' stuff in them. But, lastly, living in the Bible Belt, I can tell you first-hand, that if a ratings system (or 'censorship' as you call it) wasn't in place, people will be out for blood!
-
Why would renaming the "NC-17" rating to "A" make any difference? The problem is _not_ that movies are getting an NC-17 rating, it's the reaction of newspapers and theatres to that rating... Theatres won't show the movie and newspapers won't run adds. Why would that change just because the rating has a new name? There's only two real "solutions" and they both mean removing the choice from the locals... Either scrap any rating above "R" (The "X" rating is an anacronism anyway, porno movie houses have gone the way of drive-ins, replaced by video and the
Internet) so a theatre or newspaper would have to ban every R movie (unlikely) or pick and choose based upon other criteria. The other option is to force those theatres and newspapers to lift their NC-17 bans... Studios and distributors would have to refuse to provide films for those theatres which refused to show NC-17 movies. Theatres, studios and distributors would have to refuse to buy ads or provide anything else (ie: celebrity interviews) to newspapers which refused to run ads. This would need to be a joint effort by everyone involved, studios, filmakers, everyone so it's unlikely which means nothing will change until and unless the "stigma" of an
NC-17 rating gradually lessens... (A really huge $250 million dollar blockbuster of an NC-17 movie would really help too!)
-
Actually Harry doesn't want to replace NC-17 with A. The MPAA pulled that bullshit when it renamed X NC-17. There needs to be a seperate adults only classifaction, if you want a ratings system to head off censorship.
Now I have a serious problem with the lack of artistic merit as being benchmark. I think a more workable formula for the rating would be elements like penetration, cum shots, extreme gore. And make this rating 21 and over, while the other adult classifcation would be 18 and over.
Personally, I don't think Hollywood wants an adult rating (why X and NC-17 fail on the Hollywood level) because that means it has a turn away a ticket buyer. Hollywood wants all our money.
Shrug, hopefully this insanity goes awy soon. Currently, I'm enjoying a lot of recently restored movies that were censored in the 30-60s. I guess when I am old and grey, I'll be doing the same with current films. -
We already tried that with NC-17. Adding an A will result in exactly what happened with NC-17. Newspapers and shopping centers will instantly equate it with X, and that's the end of it. The while problem began when the MPAA allowed X to be applied to any movie without being submitted. Their reasoning, actually valid, was that no one wanted a higher rating than the board might issue, so why bother to look at all that pornography just to issue an X? The result was that pornographers quickly adopted the rating. To them it was a stamp of approval. Once that happened, newspapers immediately began refusing advertising not just for porno, but for any X-rated movie. Shopping centers and many blue-nose landlords quickly refused to lease space to any theater that ran any X-rated movie. These restrictions are still widespread today. When NC-17 came along, these policies were quickly amended to include the new offending category. If we add an A category, it will merely be more of the same, a big waste of time. The entire system, its implementation, and the way it is applied by the public, is so severely flawed that it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. There is an additional problem that no one seems to consider. The only difference between R and NC-17, is that (theoretically) any child can see an R movie if accompanied by a parent. He can't see an NC-17 under any circumstances. This is bad policy. Had EWS been rated NC-17, many parents might well want their sophisticated teenagers to see it in their company. The NC-17 rating removes this parental authority. Jack and his henchmen, in concert with theater owners, assume the role of parents. A friend of mine once dropped off her 13-year-old daughter and her friend of the same age to see Rain Main. The mother knew exactly what they were seeing. They were refused admission. I'm still trying to find out why Rain Man was rated R (same as Natural Born Killers) and what about it was so evil that 13-year-old girls couldn't see it.
-
Kill and Eat everyone under the age of 18. Think about it, it WOULD solve the problem! Or is that solution only befitting or the Irish? A truly "Swift" bunch they... BTW Stop blaming Canadians, after all we're the only country who can put out a tasteful movie about necrophelia (as opposed to over-hyped Toy commercials, "feel-good" World War 2 flicks, and *shudder* Baywatch)
-
He said that the MPAA offered suggestions on how to edit EWS to get an R rating, simply because they don't want an NC-17 movie to be successful. That couldn't be more untrue. The original cut of Boogie Nights was rated NC-17, and the MPAA actually lobbied the studio to keep it that way, because they, like most of the people who post here, want the uncensored version of movies to be the one seen by the masses. In other words, they want to have the NC-17 rating legitimized, and it's not going to happen as long as crap like "Showgirls" is the only thing released under that rating. I agree that the problem really rests with the theatre owners who flat-out refuse to show NC-17/unrated movies. So, everyone who reads this, ask all the theatres in your area if they have such a policy, and if they do, politely but firmly state that you object to it. Only then can we hope to have a viable adults-only rating. As far as the MPAA offering suggestions on how to edit films to get a certain rating, I believe that they will do that for any film, as an aid to the studios, so that they can attract whatever core audience that they're aiming for.
-
Harry, please! The word is definitely not spelled definately. (Unless you mean to do this on purpose.)
-
I agree wit the above that the only way to get rid of the MPAA is to blast through it (like the suggestion to release SW:THPM w/o a rating or the next Indy w/o a rating or a "For Mature Audiences Only") or set up their own competing system. I'm sad that Spielberg isn't more cocky to stand up for his films. I mean Poltergeist, Indy 2, and Saving PR were all re-edited. He's got the cash, why isn't he using his weight to at least preserve his own movies, if not other "weaker" directors movies, from the studios. Maybe each studio should have its own rating board....
Figure that the MPAA has to get funding from somewhere, why not cut them off from the cash flow by a little competition. -
Can they really categorize thousands of movies with the letter
-
The problem is no one in Hollywood has the balls to release films without an MPAA rating. The last one I can think of (in wide release was the now classic DAWN OF THE DEAD). If the studios were self rated then movie theaters would have no choice in the matter. As it stands the MPAA has a tight grip and have ALWAYS felt self righteous and as far as I'm concerned Kubrick died a coward for signing a contract to release an "R" film and not protesting (please correct me if I am wrong and my opinion might change). The Europeans get to see the film the way he wanted. I guess the Europeans are smarter just like the Education statistics show.
-
Actually, Baywatch was only popular BECAUSE of a Canadian, so you lefty pinko bastards don't get off that easy. And Alan Thicke? For the love of God, ALAN THICKE??!!??
-
I am in agreement with everyone who votes to scrap the ratings board! Why not? We don't have one for books! Why?
I think the idea of a standard for placing content warnings is wise, but it can still be left out if the artist decides to. Given a choice, I am sure they would not have a problem standing behind their art. Hell, they made it. -
You know what? This evening I was thinking about this whole mess with the MPAA and I realized something: they are not the problem and adding a new rating in-between R and NC-17/X is not the right solution. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the system we have for rating movies is everything it should be. Now, I'm not saying that occasionally, a movie might recieve an inappropriate rating, but that's going to happen as long as the MPAA is run by fallible human beings. It's just something we have to live with. Do we have to like it? Of course not! However, I think this whole business of blaming them for censoring movies is nonsense. What have they done wrong? Why is it censorship if the MPAA rates a movie NC-17? That's their job for godsakes!!! That's why the rating was created. I'm sure everyone here agrees that there has to be some categorical rating for "adult" films. I'm not talking pornos; I mean movies that kids should not see because it would be too much for them. This is what NC-17 was designed to do. The real problem lies not with the MPAA, rather with those in charge of DISTRIBUTING these films to the general public. We all know that an NC-17 rating means death at the box office, but how many of you have actually stopped to think about why this is? In fact, I'm sure many of you already know the answer and just don't realize it. The fact is, NC-17 films are treated differently by studios, theatre chains, and video chains. Once a film is tarnished with this horrible mark, many studios begin to distance themselves from the project. To paraphrase Senator Palpatine, "This is where their strength disappears." Either a studio will try to change the film to get an R rating or they will only give the film a limited release. Likewise, many theatres refuse to carry NC-17 rated movies because they either associate those films with smut and pornography, or because they just don't want to have to actually enforce the age policy. The same goes for video chains. In the end, we don't need another category to rate movies; we have all that we need. Also, we should not blame the MPAA for doing their job and rating real adult films with the designated rating for them. Harry and Mr. Ebert, your pointing your guns in the wrong direction!!! We must change the way the distributors of movies deal with NC-17 movies in order to make any kind of a change. Any other course of action is foolish and misguided.
-
I am a Canadian, and as one, we have a perfectly suitable ratings system. Our "R" rating is for 18 and over. Period. None of this guardian crap. I don't see what the big problem is. Secondly, and perhaps more troubling for us, I don't understand why we are subjected to the MPAA's version of EYES WIDE SHUT. We should get the unaltered version, as our "R" rating is suitable. I view American society as too "freedom of speech" to a fault. Not everything should be seen, especially by children. I just don't understand all the fuss. But one thing I will do, is boycott the film. I have waited 2 long years for this movie, and now I don't want to see it in protest. Screw Warner Bros., they are spineless, and Stanley would be rolling in his grave. I don't believe for a second that he approved these changes before his death. As a devout Kubrick fan, I will only see the unaltered version, and if that is never available, then I guess I will never see EYES WIDE SHUT.
-
Some of the most memorable dialogue ever written was devised to work around the censors. Let them try to censor our ideas, we'll just think of a different way to express them. For every rule they throw at us, we'll throw 10 ideas back that are just as horrifying to those MPAA bastards!
-
[I don't think html is accepted here. If that's the case, the tags are there so you can see where the paragraph breaks were supposed to go]
If the MPAA's true purpose were to educate the parents, it wouldn't be a rating system. That may be what it's original intent was, but it got distorted and turned into a control happy bunch of hogwash. MPAA is useless. It should be completely thrown out: baby with the bathwater and all.
Instead of ratings, movies should have descriptive cautionaries. An evaluation board would view each movie and stamp it with words. Said words would be required to be on all advertising for that movie in little tiny letters that require a magnifying glass to read.
Profanity - If there's a single cussword in it, it gets this description.
Excessive Profanity - For when there's more than ten cusswords in any given half hour.
Graphic Profanity - If more than ten cusswords are directed towards another character in the film in an abusive and hateful manner, it gets this description.
Violence - If there's a single fist punching a face, or any ihhumane act performed on one performer by another, it gets this description.
Excessive Violence - If there's more than ten violent acts performed on one performer by another in any given half hour, it gets this description.
Graphic Violence - For when the violence includes blood, severed limbs, teeth and bones hitting the camera lens, etc.
Nudity - If a single breast appears...
Excessive Nudity - For when naked bodies are present on the screen for more than five minutes, or for as much as ten minutes in any half hour of the film.
Graphic Nudity - For when naked bodies are actually performing acts of sexual gratification, or when the reproductive organs are plainly visible on the screen at any given time.
If any one scene of graphic violence or graphic nudity goes on for more than five minutes, the evaluation board just stamps it with FOR ADULTS ONLY which would be the same as X.
If one third or more of the movie contains violent behavior or scenes with nudity, it gets stamped with FOR ADULTS ONLY: same as an X.
If the movie does not get a cautionary description, it's the equivalent of a G and would get SUITABLE FOR ALL AUDIENCES stamped on it. If it gets any cautionary descriptions, it's the same as a PG. If any of the cautionaries are "excessive" or "graphic", it's like an "R".
Although I don't think this could be enforced, I'd also recommend this. For movies that are suitable for all audiences, or movies without "excessive" or "graphic" labels, there would be a difference in price between child and adult. For any other movies, it's the same price regardless of age. If a parent is bringing their child to a movie with mature themes, there's no reason to be paying the child price.
You will never see the MPAA or Jack Valenti accept such a logical proposal, because it would mean the end of the MPAA's power and influence.
-
I have no idea how films are rated in Canada. I don't know who rates them and what it is based on. It's a little different then in the States. We have G, PG, 14A, and 18A. And I've found that all films are almost always 1 rating below what they are in the U.S. South Park was rated 14A here (for like 3 days) then got changed to 18A. That confuses me. This happened with another movie...can't remember the name of hand. But movies are almost always 1 rating below the states rating, and I personally have no problem with that. I guess we're just more layed back here...
-
Let's face it, retarded parents bring their kids to inappropriate movies anyway, and anything above an "R" will freak the moronic populus. So just make "R" what "NC-17" was meant to be. No one gets into an "R" unless they're over 17. Then you can institute "PG-17," which is what all "R" stuff used to be. Only kids with a parent or legal guardian can get into "PG-17." That would work. *** Jack Valenti can suck me. I'm glad we have that TV ratings system. It certainly averts things like massive school executions... Congress and parental groups are a bunch of uninformed tools.
-
I would like to know when people got the ida that NC-17=Porn? When did the media make this assumption, and lead the public astray? I'll admit, I haven't watched porn for some time, but when I last saw it, they were still using X (or XXX) as a rating or unrated, but I have never seen an "adult" movie actually carry an NC-17. I have never head anyone, including those who are not movie or net friendly who thought NC-17 was for porn, but just another rating. If there are porn movies out there with NC-17, then that would legetamize the stigma, but as I said before, last time I was in an adult book store, none of the boxes had NC-17.
So people want to add a PG-17, which would stand for the same thing R does now, then make R truly "restricted"? Personally, I don't think we need another rating to confuse people more. If the public got confused that NC-17 was porn, then such a change would probably doom the new R. Most of the local theaters card for R movies at the booth and by the usher at the ticket line. Which meant local loosers protesting at the theaters. We get kids who get upset at the store I work at, becouse the rule is that if a CD has a Parantal Advisory, they must have an adult present to approve the purchase...on the grand occasion a clerk notices the advisory...
EWS could have tried to legitamise the NC-17 rating, but its sexaul obsesion topic wouldn't help. You want to legitamise NC-17, do so becouse of language and violance, not becouse of sexual conduct.
Rather then add new ratings, add letters after the rating for reasons, leaving the system more or less entact.
EWS as shot would then be R(L,SS) or whatever. SS being for "Strong Sexual content", while some (the edited version of EWS) may by just "S" for "Sexual content". RoboCop as originally shot (still in the days of X) would get R(L,SV) the S before a letter again standing for Strong. You use these letters on everything from PG-13 on up. With this, the MPAA would need to relax the guildlines some on R movies, so such films as EWS as shot would still get an R. The idea of ratings isn't censorship, it is to educate. If they feel it has strong sexual content, then rate it R but warn adults it isn't for kids. South Park would probably be R(SL,S,V), heck they could probably reserve the right to "Exsesivly Strong" and go (ESL, S, V).
Rather then confusing people, such a system would better help people understand why the movie got what it did. Which is what ratings are supposed to suggest. The fact NC-17 didn't work would be the media's fault... Though Showgirls and EWS are not the movies to use to try to legitamise it.
And I know there are lots of spelling errors... -
Instead of all this NC-17/R/A/M/X bullshit...we should have a YUIAGTKJWEHGLOVUBHLSAFD-13 rating...because its much better.
-
Come on, Harry... it's all so simple! This whole censorship mess is the result of parents doing a crappy job. There used to be a time when parents WOULDN'T take their kids to see R-rated movies, they'd hire a baby sitter. I went to see Payback, and this woman brough in four children with her, ages 3-10. Talk about scarring your kids for life! Now a days, parents don't give a sh*t. They'll dump their 12-year-olds off at the theater to see Matrix just to get them out of their hair for a few hours. The same damn thing happened with PG-13. Parents started to think it was OK to take their kids to any PG movie, until stuff like "Temple of Doom" came out that was a little too hairy for all ages kids (but still perfectly acceptable under a PG rating if parents used PG correctly). So, instead of parents putting forth the effort to figure out if a PG movie was suitable for their kids, they cried for a new, tougher PG rating! Problem solved - now they had to do much less parenting!
But parents just keep getting more and more careless. "PG-13? Can't be too much bad stuff in there... I can let my 11-year old see it." "R? It'll be alright as long as I'm there with them." "R? But it's a cartoon. I can just buy them tickets and drop them off while I shop." So not the MPAA, our childrens' NEW parents, have to make yet another NEW rating so parents don't have to do as much parenting. It's an endless, vicious cycle.
What really needs to happen is parents need to start RESPECTING the R rating. If your kids want to see Matrix, hire a babysitter one night and go see it yourself FIRST, then determine if it's right for your kids. Then we can have a cool, cutting-edge film like EWS get released UNCENSORED as an R film, and not have to worry about corrupting our youth. Btu parents aren't that responsible...
So maybe here's a solution... make parents get prrof that they have seen an R-rated film BEFORE they can take anyone under 17 in to see it. Like a proof-of-purchase, require a signed proof-of-viewing card to be presented to the box office when an adult tries to buy tickets for children to an R-rated film. Since parents are too lazy to do it themselves, just force them! There'd be an end to censorship in films, kids would be better-raised, parents might actually start caring what their kids see. It's a perfect solution. Elect me president, and I'll make it so. :-) -
As several people have pointed out, the letter ratings tell you NOTHING other than someone else's SUBJECTIVE view of who should or shouldn't see the movie. Yuck. Toss the whole scheme and provide an OBJECTIVE set of ratings on various types of possibly objectionable activity, such as violence, profanity, drug use, nudity, and sexual content. Each would get a rating from 0 to 10 to indicate how much (if any) is present. For example, on violence, 0 (none) would be something like "Mary Poppins", where a 10 (extremely graphic)would be equal the first 30 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan". Parents should take the time to review what might be objectionable to them before allowing their children to see the film.
-
Jul 16, 1999 8:58:48 AM CDT
Here's yet another reason why the MPAA is inept when it comes to
by w. leach
When THE WILD BUNCH was re-released theatrically in 1993, the MPAA intitially slapped it with an NC-17 rating. In 1969, when the controversial Western was released, Jack Valenti defended director Sam Peckinpah's original cut of the graphic film. Twenty four years later, this same man gave it the dreaded NC-17 rating, explaining "in the last decade, there has been a public outrage...and the judgment of the ratings board, which is comprised of parents, is that the degree, the intensity, and the persistence of violence is beyond the ken of young children..."
-
How reassuring it is to have a scapegoat, whether you're a Bible-thumping moralist laying the blame for the evils of society on the decadent Hollywood film industry which obviously wants to corrupt our youth, or an outraged movie purist laying the blame for the evils of censorship on the evil lazy parents who obviously want the MPAA to raise our children for us. (As is so patently obvious from every parent who's posted on this list.) Why, parents are just getting lazier and lazier, and just look at the results: now we have to put up with an Austin Powers version of EWS! We're shocked--shocked!--at the way the Film Industry allows a bunch of responsibility-skirting parents to push them around. If only parents had the parenting ethic of their forebears, why they'd charge right on down to their local multiplex and plunk down their $8.50 to review every movie their kid wanted to see before their kid went to see it, that's the way it was in the Good Old Days. Or better yet, parents should just get over their Victorian/Puritan prudery and realize that there's Nothing Wrong with Sex (parents obviously having all kinds of sexual hangups, which makes it rather a mystery that they somehow managed to become parents in the first place) and bring their eight-year-olds to Europe to see the uncensored version of EWS, what harm will it do them? REALITY CHECK! From a responsible parent's point of view, the ratings system (any ratings system--I take no position on what form that system should take) is simply a matter of reasonable disclosure. Just like the FDA says that Kellogg's has to tell me up front before I buy it about the ingredients and nutritional information of the cereal they want my kid to eat, I have a right to some kind of indication what sort of movie my kid wants to see -- without having to spring for my own ticket. I happen to think the ratings system should be more detailed and informative; and most film reviewers provide the reasonable service of summarizing whatever cautionary information parents are likely to want. But this is up to the local reviewer, so there's no standard. I've used SCREEN-IT, but lots of parents aren't online, and anyway SCREEN-IT gives so MUCH information that parents who might actually want to see the movie WITH their kid and who are spoiler-sensitive might not want to use it. In any case, for me personally it's a moot issue, since I'm sufficiently movie-savvy that a trailer alone is usually (not always) enough to tell me what I'm in for. But that's not the case for all responsible parents. Bottom line, some sort of ratings system is NECESSARY. But if it makes you feel better to blame me for the digital figures in the orgy scene of EWS, if you want a scapegoat and I work for you, then by all means be my guest. (BTW, smart money says EWS isn't worth the fuss. It's dreary and unerotic, with one emotional misstep after another.)
-
(This response is rated PG-13 by me.)Actually the primary points to Libertarianism are to release most of the restrictive government restraints. Primarily in legalizing ALL consensual crimes(for adults) and trying to get the federal government from sucking EVERYONE (not just the rich) dry. As for appealing to younger voters . . . I think you ought to check Jesse Ventura's positions on most issues. His "Reform Party" views are very similar to Libertarianism . . . and he got into office BECAUSE of the younger voters. (Sorry for my political side trip).
-
Aw crap! The Alan Thicke defense, we Canucks are screwed now. BTW by the time Pamy was doing Babewatch she was more American than Canadian (The same way that Darth Vader was "More machine than man, twisted and Eevel...").
-
I think your ratings system is dead on Harry....but how do you determine what is "artistic merit"? Movies' ratings are currently determined by a "board"..with no system quantifying system of judgement...just their own opinion...many directors/producers/writers claim their visions are "art" when in fact they are shlock...so the dilemma is how to fairly enforce the system in place. Any thoughts?
-
You don't have to pay the MPAA to get a rating of 'X', and you never had to. You can give your movie an X rating without running it by anyone. So, porno house would gladly slap it on their product, it boosted sales. NC-17 was created because X had started meaning "pornography." However, movies like "Showgirls" have used the rating essentially as their sales pitch, and it has, once again, become equated with smut. And we are back to square one. Once again, he MPAA is stuck. When smut comes their way, they have to throw it into the same catergory as "Kids." It needs a doorway, a means to seperate the smut from the art. What Harry and Ebert are suggesting is simply a way to distinguish the two, in the hopes that the movies houses wouldn't boycott the works of art as well as the smut. While you can't define when something has stopped being "art," I think the shock films make themselves pretty obvious. It's a good plan. It has my vote.
-
Jul 16, 1999 4:14:55 PM CDT
The question isn't blame. It's "What do we do about it?", and I
by alister
Fine, parents need to parent better. I'll concede that. And, yes, the MPAA has a few problems. I'll grant that one as well. Now, what do we do about? I've read one proposal about the MPAA, but I haven't heard a thing about parents..................................................................... Please, don't just tell me what parents should be doing; tell me how to *convince* them to do it. This is the first generation of parents who have spent their life without the Production Code, and that might be part of why they don't really care what their kids see. After all, if they've been raised with explicit movies, and they're okay, why should they give a damn? It doesn't really matter what kids watch, then, does it? (As with most things, however, I doubt it's that simple.) ....................................................................If those of you who are saying parents need to take their duties more seriously can tell me a way to convince them to do it, then I'll be interested. But don't just say what they need to do. You may as well say "There should be no poverty!"-- while it's very true, but it doesn't get us anywhere. The question is "How?"
-
As mentioned above, the NC-17 rating is the solution to many problems discussed here. Unfortunately (as mentioned above) it has been too closely linked with smut and pornography, forcing almost every film receiving an NC-17 to re-submit a 'cleaner' version. What if studios were not allowed to re-submit films receiving a PG-13, R, or NC-17 rating? I know several films produced recently that would be NC-17 if they were forced to keep their initial rating. This would fill the mainstream market with more NC-17 films, forcing theaters to exhibit them (if they want any type of financial benfit from them). Also, it would work to breakdown the image of NC-17 films being pornographic and unfit for public display. This may be an incredibly naive idea, but it seemed to make sense at the time of my typing this.
-
BillCable said the parents are to blame. Actually I think the kids are to blame. If it weren't for children, we wouldn't have to protect children from such horrors as dirty words and tanlines. Alister said the question isn't blame but what we do about it and he hasn't heard an answer yet. Clean the wax out yer ears, Alister. There's solutions in this TalkBack. It's just no one can agree on anything. "Keep the ratings and add another rating." "Scrap the ratings altogether." And I love the ones where people are in denial about how NC-17 has been turned into XXX. The ratings system DOESN'T WORK. It's been ruined by a number of interests who power lunched and manipulated it until it means nothing. Kevkrom pointed out that "the letter ratings tell you NOTHING other than someone else's SUBJECTIVE view" and he's right. If the movie industry, politicians, special interests groups, and other involved parties REALLY wanted a solution to this, they wouldn't have ever created the MPAA. They would have devised a logical system which was concrete and descriptive. Not a system that judged whether or not a movie was "suitable" but an objective and consistent system that described each movie on its own merits and insured an audience was educated in its movie going decision-making. They don't CARE. They WANT the controversy because it helps to perpetuate their own existence. Assistant Executive whatevers from a movie company can wine and dine other influential people in suits from the MPAA to try and convince them to change INSERT MOVIE TITLE HERE from a soft R to a hard PG-13. It's all for bargaining crap. You can't get rid of MPAA any more than you could get rid of the New York Stock Exchange. The people who have learned to USE the system to their advantage are the same ones who helped distort it into something that doesn't serve the parent. And THAT is why the MPAA is in EXISTENCE! To educate the parents and help them make informed choices. You can't do that with four categories especially when those categories are relative and malfunctioning. You're chasing the wind here folks. Even if everyone HERE could agree, there's no way you're going to convince Hollywood. You're accumulatively banging your head against the wall, and I've got to admit it's pretty laughable.
-
Jul 16, 1999 9:54:28 PM CDT
And someone tell Harry to quit winking at me! It's a little... c
by zach
I need a smoke.
-
What I meant to say was this: The MPAA ratings system does not work for parents. It works for corporate executives and people in the movie industry who make a living finding the grey areas between R and PG. It works for movie houses because by saying they don't play NC-17 they improve their public relations with vocal community leaders who want to look like they're cleaning up the community. It works for politicians that want to insure parents they are keeping those sleazy triple x movie theaters, video stores and strip joints out of the neighborhood. It works for the media, who can just say "ARNOLD SWARRZENNEGGER! TERMINATOR THREE! RATED R!" and pretend that they actually told you something. In fact the MPAA works for practically everyone except for parents. So of course we'll never see the end of the MPAA. The people who make money off of it think it works great!
-
We need to be clear about what Harry's trying to do with this proposal...it's *not* to better educate parents (although the committee bit would make it more trust-worthy). It's to keep away the quasi-censorship presented by movie theaters' boycott of NC-17. Most everyone agrees that a thermometer system would be best, where a film is rated according to its amount of violence, sex, drug use, language, et cetera. Perhaps I've become overly pescimistc, but I don't think that will ever happen in this country... Also, note that Ebert started by saying "If we are to have the MPAA system at all..." In other words, this is far from the best solution, but it's one of the few realistic ones. ..................................................................One more comment, this one specifically to Zach (three posts up). He's right, there have been plenty of ideas about the ratings system. And I have read them. I was trying to focus on parents' involvement with their children, and how solutions are very sparse around that subject.
-
I feel your pain.
But the fact is that your suggestion, even if successfully implemented (ei People accepted 'Adult' as a rating, not just another way to say 'X'.), it would prove to be a far harsher form of censorship than now currently exists. Go get a glass of water (or wine) and wash away that pain in your chest just long enough to look objectively at what you have just written. Do you see it now?
You not only ask the MPAA to judge the level of immoral and antisocial behavior presented in a movie, but also to judge what is art and what is not? Just how do you suppose that this will work? I cannot imagine a more horrid form of censorship than having a review board judge the 'value' of a work by some standard and then toss those unacceptable into the heap labeled pornography. By what standard will we judge that value: social, moral, philosophical, religious, lack of religious, political, monotary, or cinemagraphic? Better yet, by whose set of standards will we judge value: mine, yours, thiers? I cannot imagine how we could all come to agree on when the positive and constructive values of a movie outwiegh a negative and morally destructive portrayal. Yet, I think that we all _do_ agree that both cases can occur. In other words, thier is pornography having no redeeming value and which is likely to be detrimental to the viewer (especially a young one), and thier is art, which although it contains much objectionable material, presents it in such a way that the mature and thoughtful takes valuable insight into the human condition. However, to appoint some board of reviewers, especially a politically charged one, to say when a peice mets up to thier standards of art, and when it does not, is the height of lunacy. Do you really think that 'Hollywood', considering the low grade drek that the usually turn out, and how rarely an artist is able to buck the system and produce something visionairy, is going to do a good job in this role of judge? I will blame this sentiment on your grief, Harry, and not on your judgement, which is usually better than this (or I wouldn't stop by regularly to read).
I'm afraid that thier is no infalible system possible considering the fallibility of the components. On the other hand, what exactly are we really losing? Would 'Eyes Wide Shut' have been a sufficient monument to Kubricks carreer had it been completely uncensored? How many movies that have fought the fight with NC-17 would have been 'The Best Movie of the Year' had they not lost that fight or had to have made it? How many would have been even top ten? How many NC-17 movies (or R movies toned down to avoid the less favorable rating) can you in honor recommend to your readers? How much art are we really losing to censorship anyway? I would dare say that it is much less than what we lose to the suits in marketing and thier McMovie of the Year mentality. I realize that any loss is unacceptable, but in point of fact, every period of history loses some of its art, at least for a time. The best and bravest survives the prejudices of its time, the lesser, whether pornographic or not, does not. -
All of this hubbub becasue Kubrick made a titty film? This entire discussion is exceedingly bizarre and nears towards plain silly. The MPAA is no law, there's no soldiers to protect it. It's a marketing strategy plain and simple. Are we such a hapless, moronic society that we can't decide what our children should watch? Parents can always read a review of a movie and know their children's whereabouts. Besides, why shouldn't a parent be able to take their fourteen year old to a movie like "Eyes Wide Shut." It's not the most difficult philosophy in the world, and there are plenty of 14 and 15 year olds mature enough to handle a film like "Eyes Wide Shut." America doesn't need guardians, we only think we do.
-
Is it just me not understanding this, or are "R" and "NC-17" the same rating? "R" means "Restricted viewing for children under the age of 17", and "NC-17" means "No children under the age of 17 admitted". So, it seems that the two ratings are exactly the same, only one has our personal views on what's "more adult" in nature. A film with either rating won't allow entry to anyone under 17 without their parent(s) accompanying them, yes? So, what is the frappin point to having them both? Maybe someone can explain this.
-
Yes you do all this whing about the MPAA comes up every few years but what many people forget that this systems WORKS!!!!!Did you know that 97% of films get the rating the director/studio intended on THE FIRST TRY. So if we are to follow you young virle soso smart young people you must easily have a ratings system that can have a 98% or 99% or 100% approval (Also those old white men and women you guys despise so much give the 3% who did not get the rating they wanted on the second try...) Can you come up with a better system I doubt it. Aslo those of you are bitching about the altering of EWS Kurbirck was cpontractually obligated (i.e. he agreed to make a film) that had a R rating he also proposed the solution so my advice is to STOP BITCHING and learn how the industry acually works..
-
Did you know that despite all the R films released its the PG and G (Films that young gen Xrs seem to hate so much on this site) do MUCH better than than R or NC-17 if the two studio films SHOWGRILS and HENRY AND JUNE made money you would be seeing more NC-17 films but THEY DO NOT there has yet to be a Studio realesed film with an NC-17 rating that has made money..
Unless the studios are marketing films like EWS to the 12 and under set (What you mean they do that oh youre so paranoid right...I mean Iwatch R rated films and I still turned out OK...uhmmmm hummmmm... -
Can any one of yu who are bashing the old white men of the MPAA show me a film that has been hurt story wise/plot wise/narrivtive wise or technically by a MPAA rating can aby one or are we just trying to be rebels and look cool or rage against the macine wanna be's my attiude is that if you cut 30 seconds of gore or imput a character in front of a sex scene or take out a line of fuol language then most likely your film sucked to begin with yes i said right if you think EWS wont work case of 3 didgital charactyers insterted for 30 seconds then guess what the movie sucked and it sucked bigtime.....I watched syndicated versonss of films and the good ones still work still have power edited sothey can be shown at # in the afternoon..........If I have offended your liberal Time warner programed sensibilites please send all hate mail to: Bankofkev@hotmail.com and try to defend your point
-
For 12 years I've been a manager at a movie theater and in that time I witnessed the birth of the NC17 rating and was thrilled at the prospect that finally we in the USA would finally get to see films uncut like the good people of Europe. However after the disaster that was Showgirls, we haven't run another NC17 film since. Now with the current uproar surrounding EWS, South Park & American Pie the battle is about to be fought again. I for one don't see why the NC17 can't be used, but I also wouldn't object to some changes being made. I would like to see the current tv ratings system incorporated into the MPAA system. We get so many calls from clueless parents that don't have the slightest idea why a film is rated the way it is. Then those parents get pissed when we can't answer their questions. This way parents will get some sense of why EWS was rated the way it is. On the other hand the people at our home office aren't sure how to enforce the R rating as it is. They want to appear to enforce it to the outside world, however they still want to collect the almighty dollar. So now it looks as if we will require parents to sign a "waiver" absolving us of any responsibility if a parent wants to allow their child into an R rated film. Personally I'm totally against this. I feel that the films are rated the way they are & should as such be enforced, but then money talks.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Baz's THE GREAT GATSBY explodes with one helluva dazzling trailer! -- 171 total posts 154 posts
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 141 total posts 141 posts
- UPDATED!!! A Six-Pack Of New Character Posters For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Forecast A Lot Of Gotham Rain And Snow!! -- 265 total posts 129 posts
- Who Is The Voice Of Batman In WB's Animated Two Part THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS? -- 129 total posts 129 posts
- Cats Beware!! An ALF Movie May Soon Come Our Way... -- 126 total posts 126 posts
- Zach Galifianakis Is Ignatius J. Reilly? -- 81 total posts 81 posts
- AICN COMICS REVIEWS: INCREDIBLE HULK! DANGER CLUB! CLiNT 2.1! JAMES BOND! BATMAN INC.! AND MORE!!! -- 62 total posts 62 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day… the horror… the horror… -- 45 total posts 45 posts
- Quint has seen Andrew Dominik's crime thriller KILLING THEM SOFTLY starring Brad Pitt! Cannes 2012! -- 41 total posts 41 posts
- The Next Season Of DOCTOR WHO Was Delayed To Fall Just To Build Anticipation?? -- 68 total posts 38 posts