Cool News
The MPAA and a film called BLACK & WHITE
Hey folks, Harry here. Once again it seems that the MPAA's astounding arbitrary heel clicking has bothered another filmmaker. This time James Toback, who's TWO GIRLS AND A GUY was actually a pretty damn good film even in the unrated version that I saw, is having trouble with his film BLACK AND WHITE... but below you can check it out for yourself. You be the judge...
Last year, James Toback released Two Girls and a Guy into theatres at an R
rating. The notorious sex scene between Heather Graham and Robert Downey Jr.
had to be edited in order to save the film from the highly restrictive NC-17
rating. It seems that Toback has become the MPAA's whipping boy...
Black and White, the story of a group of privileged white New York City high
school teens who harbor a reckless fascination with uptown black hip-hop
culture, is his latest film, and again had been slapped with the dreaded
NC-17. One scene in particular had to be edited, in order for the film to be
deemed acceptable in the eyes of our moral compass, Jack Valenti. I've
included a link to a site that posts both versions of this scene, R and
NC-17, in both Real Video and Quicktime formats. I, as does the film's
producer, challenge you to watch both versions, and see if you can tell if
the difference is substantial. One has to question exactly why this scene,
which arguably is mild compared to other mainstream R releases in the past,
has been censored.
-
+ Expand All
-
Maybe it was too long for them?
-
My computer says I don't have enough memory to download those scenes. Dang it!
More bad news... more bad news..
Or maybe I'm just in a bad mood, hmm.. -
Gads, would you dopes please learn the meaning of the word "censored"? The filmmakers are entirely free to release the film with an NC-17 rating if they want to. That's not censorship. Why is that so hard to understand? The MPAA does not force anyone to cut anything. The choices belong completely to the filmmakers, and it always has.
-
You are correct any filmmaker is allowed the NC-17 rating it is the filmmakers choice. The MPAA does MAKE them cut out things for an R rating. If a filmaker did choose to go with the NC-17 rating the film would be black listed, no one would advertise it, hardley any theatres would show it, it has happened before and it would happen again. The NC-17 rating in a way is kind of like censorship because the director will want his movie to be seen not black listed.
-
Hmmmmm....as far as I could tell, the only thing they cut out was a second or two of the blonde girl giving the guy a handjob...and you couldn't even see his penis...which means, basically, they cut out 2 seconds of a persons' hand moving back and forth quickly in the air. Thank god for the MPAA...otherwise we might be subjected to horrors like people turning their necks, flexing their arms, or god forbid, STRETCHING onscreen!!
-
Blacklisting a film, refusal to advertise it, refusal to show it in a particular theater -- all of these things have absolutely nothing to do with the MPAA. It's the newspapers, networks, magazines that refuse to advertise and NC-17 film. It's a theater chain that refuses to show an NC-17 film. This whole Eyes Wide Shut/South Park ordeal, with critics were blasting the MPAA and poor Jack Valenti and the NC-17 rating, makes me nuts! It's not the MPAA's fault for making the NC-17 rating a "kiss of death," it's all these other factors that I mentioned above. Why don't they blast the prude advertisers and exhibitors instead, for making the NC-17 rating unacceptable?
Ratings are a guide for parents. Whenever I hear about studios cutting films and sending them over and over again to the MPAA for a lesser rating, I don't get upset at the MPAA; my anger is at the studio. Release the film with the rating it's given, rather than butchering a film! If it's a good movie (or a well-hyped movie), people - and more likely, the appropriate people - will come no matter what it's rated.
That any director would be "contractually obligated" to bring in a film with a certain rating is such a creatively stifling and abhorrent practice. I blame not the MPAA but the greedy studios and puritanical advertisers and exhibitors for making the NC-17 rating such a wicked taboo. -
Amazing. Absolutely amazing. I want to see those sort of things in a theater. I mean, c'mon, he's getting down and dirty with two filthy bitches. The MPAA never fails to dicourage me with their rating system, and I think that it's way too nit-picky. They have it for Toback, and it's obvious. Even in the masked version of Eye's Wide Shut there's more action.
-
the whole ratings business is voluntary. It's a clear cut case of "kill the messenger" the studios ask the MPAA, "what do you rate this film?" the MPAA gives it NC-17. Everyone shits their pants. Think about it for a second, the studio can release a film any way they want to. The distributers and advertisors (like someone above mentioned) don't have to blacklist the film just because it's NC-17. They just do. And waaaahh the NC-17 rating is associated with porn. If the studios would stop caving in and would release non-porn NC-17 films the association would become a lot weaker. BUT, it's a whole hell of a lot harder to scape goat a series of corporations that voluntarily refuse to release or advertise a film with a certain rating, then it is to single out the organization which gave the rating. So, like always, people (including the soft headed, egotist and hypocrite Roger Ebert) blame the MPAA for what is essentially not their fault. Show me one shred of evidence that shows the MPAA is responsible for creating the stigma associated with NC-17 (and no by evidence I do not mean "this sex film was given the rating while this violent film was not, or this independant film was given the rating while the major was not"), and not the distributers and theaters, and I'll be the first to hurl a tomato at Valenti. The MPAA cannot MAKE any studio cut a film. The studios cut the film to get a certain rating, and that's THEIR fault. If Roger Ebert gives my film a thumbs down, and I go back and recut it get rid of the negative thumbs down to get the positive press of a "thumbs up" whose fault is that? Roger Eberts?
-
Who wants to see this shit? Toback shot this film without a script! Its like a ship getting out of a harbour without a navigational system. It'll wind up a derelict! This movie will make a Don Jackson film look like "Citizen Kane"! Brooke Shields adlibbing her lines?! Are you out of your mind?!!! Mike Tyson "trying" to be Laurence Oliver?!!! This guy is a convicted rapist and a cannibal! Hope he didn't get the munchies on the set! Well, one things for sure, Robert Downey, Jr. won't be at the premiere!
-
Would you please learn the meaning
of the term "de facto"? -
OK, we have a guy humping like crazy against a tree with two chicks. One bares her butt; the other grabs and plays with her nipple. The blond starts whacking the guy off. And this is "a lot more mild than recent mainstream releases?" Give me a BREAK! Sorry, but the atmosphere toward sex scenes has been FAR more restrictive since the 1980s, and scenes like this one have NOT been seen in recent R-rated flicks -- including EYES WIDE SHUT, which had nudity, but (infamously) blocked all the sex. I think the "mild" quote has become something of a knee-jerk reaction in dealing with the MPAA -- "They're so much harder on us independent releases!" There's obviously truth to that, but in this case it's ridiculous to act ignorant of why they asked for the cut. (And hey, do you think the sleazy touch of having a voice whisper, "Daddy's little girl" in the background could've helped?)
-
MEMO TO: PETER BART, Editor of Variety
FROM: ACEDIAN
Peter, you appeared on Good Morning America on 5th, August and proceeded to let Jack Valenti have his way with you and your views. You did a disservice to the arguement that the current ratings system, long ago devised by Valenti under the his network of MiB's known as the Motion Picture Association of America. Peter, you basically could come up with no reasonable arguement as to why NC-17 should be scrapped for an "A" rating. You let Valenti throw you against the ropes with his more logical arguements and pleas to the parents of America, you were a losing Jake La Motta to Valenti's Sugar Ray Robinson, you played to lose and the cause championed by Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Roger Ebert and a slew of rabid critics was given a heckuva beating. Next time the opportunity comes up give Matt Stone a call and tell him to appear in your place, better yet, flash the batsignal to Roger Ebert as he has the most reasonable argument of all in this current version of the Great Ratings Debate. You owe it to yourself as much as to the cause of ratings bashing.
Now, it may sound as if I'm a fan of the current ratings system. Let me just say, I am not. I'm not a parent and, therefore, can find no reason why I should be kept from seeing pumping loins and dangling genitalia in Eyes Wide Shut. Eyes Wide Shut is turning into the "Crash" of Kubrick's much vaunted career, but it's the totem around which the armies of freedom now gather. The central arguement of the Great Ratings Debate is this: Should adults be restricted in what they see due to the constraints of the current ratings system. Simple. Yet it doesn't take into account the variables within the arguement that Valenti uses to his advantage. For every cry of, "the studio won't release NC-17 films because they cannot get advertising for them," Valenti replies without actually countering the argument, he simply says that it is economic forces that drive the studios to do this to filmmakers, not the ratings system which is merely designed for parents to be aware of what they're children will see in a theater. For every enraged, "I can't make an adult film for adults because it will be construed as porn," Valenti encourages that every filmmaker has the right to make the film they want, and that what transpires as far as cuts go are between the studio and the artists for the ratings system is simply designed to let parents know what their children are seeing. When Matt Stone argues that the ratings board is antiquated, that Valenti is a tool of the studio's lobbying efforts to Congress, that the ratings do not do their job because they don -
you took the words right out of my mouth (and made them sound a lot smarter) good column (even if it did take 5 minutes to read).
-
I hate Jack Valenti!
I hate Censorship!
We can see people blown up but we cant see simulated sex.
Hmmm!!? -
Hasn't Hollywood figured it out yet? The only reason a "filmmaker" uses the sexual content I viewed on their site is to make up for the lack of story and/or creativity of the movie itself. After watching this catastrophe, I was compelled to write an e-mail to the producer and ask one question...why???????? Give the audience a good film with an interesting story and well thought-out characters! Everyone seems to be scratching their head about the success of "The Sixth Sense," for example. Simple. Just find the truth of the story and the audience will respond. Obviously, the director of "Black and White," Toback, needs a few lessons on the meaning of talent.
-
Okay, the MPAA doesn't force anyone to edit their films, but they can control how a film is advertised? What gives them the right to do that? Can someone please explain this to me?
-
for making pretensious,self-indulgent,bullshite!
from the "pickup artist"to"2girls and a jailbait"he has made nothing but bad movies.he SHOULD'T be CENSORED!he should be shot along with all the other billions of HACKS that populate HOLLYWOOD!!! -
Is Jack Valenti ever going to die? He's like 800 and no one likes him.
-
Stewdog, the MPAA does not have that power... it's the "family newspaper" editors and publishers who dictate that NC-17 films (regardless of the actual content of the ad which is usually tasteful in order to appeal to a broad range of lowest-common denominator Americans) cannot be advertised in their papers. Theater owners won't show 'em because they don't make money since kids can't see 'em (the common denominator again), and the studios only care about making the almighty dollar (again and again, the most common denominator of them all)... so don't blame the MPAA when they do in fact offer a viable rating (NC17) that no one else has the cojones to embrace... the studios, theater owners and even the "family newspaper" publishers only want to embrace the Benjamins... in the end, like everything else in adult life you'll discover, it's all about MONEY.
Xian
p.s. for those who bag on Toback, get a camera (video, digital, film, whatever) and make your own damn movies... I don't think he's all that and a bag of Fritos, but he is MAKING movies, and (heh heh) you're not... so don't bitch. :) -
i know i'm gonna get abuse for this but maybe you should change uor rating system. for reasons that don't actually make too much sense, americans won't watch nc17 films. and you can only show so much in a system that allows minors to watch adult fiilms if they are with an adult.
for those that don't know, heres a comparison with the btitish ststem.. u-u, pg-pg, 12-pg13, 15-r
18-r/ 18-nc.17. you see how the things that you worry about 13 year olds seeing and hearing aren't the things you worry about 15+year olds seeing. if you raise the minimum age for r-rated movies, films like "eyes wide shut" won't by shamelessly altered or cut, and those people who think they can't watch a film because of the nc-17 thing won't be put off....either way you have to do something soon or the people who like to blame movies for killings rather than self deluded lunatics with easy access to james cameron level weapons, will have us all watching george of the jungle disney cartoons, and films no scarrier, or more provocative than the "mummy". -
Cyclonus, "the times they are a-changin'" Clockwork was made at the height of the sexual revolution and was given an X rating originally (1972) the rating was changed years later for subsequent re-releases and video in the early 80's when folks at the MPAA were currently decrying the rash of slasher films (see they (the average, ordinary parents and community leaders who make up the MPAA) do change with the times: sometimes it's violence they abhor, sometimes sex) and were out to curtail violent fare geared toward teenagers (who, after all watched slasher films in the 80's??). If Clockwork's rating came up for reappraisal today it would probably be changed from X to NC-17, but since there was no NC-17 at the time of its reappraisal they gave it a very strong "R" (this based on Kubrick's reputation as an artist of integrity).
So, you see, there is a madness to the method and a method to the madness... Xian -
Who is at fault when it comes to the tabboo nature of NC-17 and it's restrictiveness? I think focusing on the studios/newspapers/theatre owners is the responsible thing to do, if not most cynical, but I don't believe the MPAA should be completely without blame. By de facto, by exercising this power as if legally constituted, by using an influence that is all too obvious to them and us in order to shield content from the eyes of children, they sour artistic vision. Who is satisfied with a film that has clearly been altered to appease a ratings board? My stomach is turned by Valenti's argument that an R rating allows parents to determine if content is suitable for their young ones. What makes parents incapable of using that same judgement when viewing films of decidedly stronger content? Why doesn't Valenti allow parents to determine if an "NC-17" rated film is suitable for their mature 15 year old? Instead of being a SUGGESTION to parents, this rating is purely a RESTRICTION. If parents aren't even allowed to determine the suitability of these films, of course newspapers are going to deny advertisement space. Of course theatre owners are going to black list the picture. Of course studios are going to shy away from keeping the artistic vision of their movies from becoming watered down.
Put the power of choice back into the hands of parents. Disolve the MPAA NC-17 rating, and give us something non-restrictive.
I want my films straight up, no chaser.
-
Will someone, ANYONE, please explain to me how the "artistic integrity" -- and I use that phrase in its loosest possible way -- of this scene was damaged by the cuts the MPAA suggested? Is someone in the theater now not going to understand that there are three people having sex in Central Park? I'm sure this is a pivotal scene in the film, and each second lost from it MUST ruin the ending or something. Face it folks, this is just more hype. Matt and Trey had something a little more legitimate to gripe about, as did the caretakers of Eyes Wide Shut. This scene is a meaningless piece of titillating fluff, and the filmmakers are obviously trying to generate a little Web "controversy" to boost their box office returns. Shame on anyone who thinks this is legit. Shame on Harry, especially, for allowing himself to be a tool of this hype. You claim you can see through this stuff, Harry. So why are you mentioning this at all?
-
I have no affiliation with Palm Pictures, the film's Producer, James Toback, or the site at which these clips were posted. I submitted this story to Harry, simply to find out reader reaction pertaining to Black and White's censorship, and if the deleted seconds in question were graphic/offensive enough to merit an NC-17 rating. Please refrain from invalid accusations in the future. I'm as much a stranger to Harry, and to those involved with this picture, as you.
-
im no jack valenti fan either but either my screen is too small or im missing something- i didnt see much difference. perhaps one girl at the end with the other??? both depicted 2 girls and a guy fairly graphically....
-
To all those vigorously defending the Old Man- please pull your heads out of the sand. The MPAA is, was, and always will be a POLITICAL organization first and foremost, a tool (useful or not) or parents second. Valenti has been whining far and wide recently about how his little clique exists to defend the rights of artists against the Evil Forces in Washington as well as protect parents from (I guess) the Evil Forces in Hollywood. Well then, if that's his mission, riddle me this Batman: why does the MPAA suggest cuts to a film at all? When did they become film editors? They're not supposed to, as I understand the way the organization was formed, but they do it time and again. Even as far back as Midnight Cowboy- once the film was a success with its X rating the MPAA asked the producers to make a totally insignificant cut just so a special R-rated version could be released. (Does this situation sound at all familiar to those of you having difficulty spotting the difference in the two clips above?) The MPAA does this not to help parents but to cover its ass. This has nothing to do with the studios cowardice and everything to do with the MPAA's hypocrisy. As has been pointed out, there is no real difference between the two Black & White clips. So why does one warrant an NC-17 and the other only an R? Is the margin between the two ratings really so tiny? Can you really point to the exact frame in which a film crosses the line? Or is it that the appearance of the MPAA doing something is more important than the reality? I agree that Valenti and the MPAA were white knights for Hollywood back in the day. But their time has come and gone, and at the very least the system must be adjusted if not outright transformed. First change the ratings system, then get the studios to support it. And a cosmetic extra letter isn't the answer. The very philosophy behind the organization needs to change.
-
Man that was some funny ass shit. Seriously!
And on a side note-- Bijou Phillips is the jacker and Pras is the jackee, I believe. And on another note-- I wonder what its like to run a movie theater in Columbine. Man I bet that job is more stressful than underwater welding. -
"Please refrain from invalid accusations in the future." I don't see that Pilcrow made any accusations. He did imply, and I think legitimately, that by reporting this story as a case of egregious censorship (which it ISN'T) that you are playing into the hands of the marketing men who will use any angle whatsoever to promote their movie. Your motive may have been pure, but the outcome is free advertising for James Toback on a non-issue. I am not saying that censorship is a non-issue, only that in this instance the artistic integrity of the whole was not compromised. As a personal aside, I doubt the integrity of anyone who would hire non-actors like Brooke Shields and Mike Tyson in a film, anyway. Brooke might be pretty to look at, but what is the excuse for Mike? The only excuse is for the sensationalism of having a convicted racist/cannibal thug in your picture. Having said that, the film might be enjoyable, but "artistic integrity" isn't something that James Toback can claim. And yes, that is an accusation, or at least the vocalisation of a strong opinion. Mike Tyson in a movie with artistic integrity? Puh-leese!
-
With all the hubbub, maybe this is Toback's stab at a Dogma95 film... then again, I don't really care... As for the MPAA bashing... heck, bash away. They are an archaic organization, but until someone comes up with something better in this land of reactionary politicos and right-wing theocratic zealots, I'd rather have Jack the Aged giving editing advice than, say... Bob Barr, Robert Reed, Joe Lieberman, or even, William Jefferson Clinton... other considerations: if your theater just won't show or advertise unrated or NC17 fare, move to a BIG city where no one cares about so-called moral values and money talks. Xian
-
I'm 16 what i just saw was intresting to say the least! I do see a need to maybe cut half a second out of that opus. I believe that a story such as Black an White would have a scene of facination but well it tells part of a story so LEAVE IT DAMNITT!! I cant see it a theater anyway. What message could this tell my fucked-up generation anyway? Oh dont go into the forrst you might be persuaded to have sex there. boohoohoo out.
-
If the movie sucks and this guy is a convicted rapist,what the motha-f_ck is he doing in the buiseness he should have his nuts straped to a car battery. I do see the point to nc-17 the whop of crap, but it was intense, maybe a little to intence for a godamn rapist to do. out.
-
The only thing that I could tell was removed from the scene was the handjob. And for all we know the girl was just trying to shake out of her jacket since we didn't see her hand. So why was this scene cut when in Blade we see a girl bobbing her head up and down on a guy's lap right at the beginning? And in The Devil's Advocate Keanu apparently gets a little Lewinsky from his wife (or was it the devil girl?) in the apartment but that was ok. Later on in the movie Al Pacino gets the same thing in a restaurant. So we can't see a girl jerking a guy off in a park, but it's perfectly acceptable for a waitress to blow the Prince of Darkness in public? Maybe there's another side to this. I thought Blade and The Devil's Advocate were great, Faustian fellatio notwithstanding. What if, now bear with me here because I'm about to admit the possibilty that an independent film could be anything less than a masterpiece *GASP*, but perhaps the MPAA thought the scenes in Blade and Devil's Advocate were appropriate in the context that vampires and Satan are so driven by their desires that what's right takes a backseat to what feels good, thus lending a bit more credence to the notion that they be defeated lest they end all life as we know it to get their rocks off? And maybe (just maybe) Black and White is just another meaningless film about kids and sex, which seems to be the latest trend (ex: She's All That, Can't Hardly Wait, American Pie, you get the idea). The way I see it, you really only need one girl for a handjob, so maybe in his next movie Toback could just hire one girl for the gratuitous sex and use the money he saves to buy a script. Even if it's a cheap script it's better than (according to rumor) Mike "ears pierced while U box" Tyson and Brooke "Blue Lagoon was my high-water mark" Shields ad-libbing their lines. Although in defense of Mike, you must be a good actor if you work for Don King.
-
Please learn the meaning of "put the blame where it belongs". And also "stick it in your ear."
-
Regardless of the news-writer's involvement in the situation, this has web hype written all over it. Just look at the clips... Both end with a big bold "Black and White". And there's no rationale for the fuss behind it either. 2 seconds of a scene that's already steamy enough to convey the point? *** If you guys really wanna douse the MPAA, you gotta start calling things on both sides of the coin. Start citing stuff that's getting R-ratings that *should get an NC-17 rating. Geez... You just sound like a bunch of bitchy whiners. The reason that the MPAA guys are winning the fight is because (even though they might be a little inconsistent) they've got a system that's a little better thought out and matured then some squirrely graduates' cartoon show. I agree with all the above posters who say that it's not the fault of the MPAA so much as the media (and even they aren't censoring anything). The MPAA protects filmmakers from censorship... And if you don't understand that, grab a film history textbook and read-up. *** You know, it's like Harry said a while ago. If the film makers want to get over this, they should just say yes to NC-17 and onslaught the market. It'll "change" the way people look at the rating. ::thinking outloud:: The thing is, I prolly wouldn't go to see an NC-17 movie anyway (unless it became really acclaimed), cuz I really don't want to see NC-17 level of stuff on screen. And the last thing I want is to be tricked into thinking I'm going to see a rated R movie when it's an NC-17 movie. I like the levels the way they are, and don't want them anymore convoluted. A two second handjob won't be missed by me. *** Alright... I suppose I'm done ranting.
-
To all those seeking to redirect blame in this case:
Saying "Oh, it's not the MPAA's fault, it's the studios" or "it's not the studios, it's the theater owners" misses the whole point. *Everyone* involved in the system is to blame for the system. They all support the status quo in one way or another. The problem is that since no one group is in charge, no one is held fully accountable for the results.
Think about it. The MPAA sets the ratings, but has no control over the way in which the theater owners interpret them. The theater owners feel the need to respond in certain ways based on the ratings, but they have no say in how those ratings are determined. The studios ultimately control the content, but have no power over either the ratings or the response to those ratings.
As long as each group can continue to sidestep the blame, nothing is likely to change. The studios may scream and whine about 'artistic integrity,' but the truth is that they don't really care, as long as they keep making money. They will continue to slice 'n dice movies whenever the MPAA asks, because in the end it only leads to more publicity.
The MPAA, meanwhile, will continue to advance their authority for the simple reason that they can. Has anyone ever heard of a bureaucratic entity that willingly reduced its power and influence? Didn't think so.
Finally, the theater owners and media outlets will continue to go along with this because it saves them from having to make real decisions. As long as they mindlessly follow standards based on the ratings, they avoid the risk of blame from people who are offended by a particular film.
I'm not sure how any of this is going to change without a concerted public outcry. And despite the opinions of the majority of AICN's readers, most of the time the public couldn't care less. What reactions we do see are mostly of the knee-jerk variety, as in the Littleton case. If there is any change soon, I expect it to be toward tighter restrictions (and more cutting). Things are probably going get a whole lot worse before they get better.
-
What exactly does the MPAA allow in an R-rated film that they don't in NC-17? There are certain things that separate PG from PG-13 and PG-13 from R. For instance, any drug use automatically merits a PG-13. Any sexual nudity gets an R. But it seems that you just hand a movie in, and if they feel like it they give you an NC-17. There aren't really any rules that make it that way. It's like playing Kino at a casino. You pick your numbers, and they tell you if you won or not. Why should we trust them? How can they back it up? They never cite specific things that need to be cut out. They just tell the filmmaker to edit it again. Are there any guidelines to tell the difference between the two or is the rating completely arbitrary?
-
Why don't they just do what Hitchcock did with 'Psycho'? When the ratings board wanted cuts (sorry) made to the shower scene, he waited a few days, and resubmitted it without making any cuts. The film board approved it. Too bad Aicn wasn't around back then; they really would have taken up the cause for the Master, wouldn't they? By the way isn't having Mike Tyson in your movie enough cheap publicity?
-
A few quotes right off the MPAA website (www.mpaa.org): *** The producer/distributor of a film has the right under the rules to inquire as to the "why" of the rating applied. The producer/distributor also has the right, based on the reasons for the rating, to edit the film - if that is the choice of the producer/distributor - and come back to the Board to try for a less severe rating. The reedited film is brought back to the Board and the process goes forward again. (So they do give a reason why, Lester) *** A producer/distributor who for any reason is displeased with a rating can appeal the decision to the Rating Appeals Board, which sits as the final arbiter of ratings. (read the whole process at the site) *** To my knowledge, in none of the cases that everyone is up in arms about has the issue been brought to the Ratings Appeals Board. So, why should we care? If you agree to cut something out of your film, than it's not even close to censorship. If you don't even *fight for the integrity of your piece, then how can you call yourself censored. It's sick. If you're going to let yourself be slapped around, don't whine about it, I say. If the late Stanley Kubrick were here, he'd prolly just tell everyone to sit back for a second and relax... It's really too bad he died.
-
But that's one of my points. If there are no hard and fast guidelines as to what constitues an NC-17, if the board is made up of fallible humans, if there are plenty of examples of directors (like Hitchcock) making end runs around the system and films (like Midnight Cowboy) that the board simply screwed up on... then doesn't that show the system to be a failure? Hollywood needs to get off its ass and come up with a workable system NOW before Valenti's power base in Washington erodes to the point where he can't defend the board anymore. If I can spot these kinds of glaring errors in the system, eventually so will the idiots in DC. And once again: Valenti DEFENDED the rights of artists; past tense. Way past tense. He does so no longer. Now all he does is clutch his dwindling political clout possessively to his chest and mutter about his 'precious'.
-
Where can I get an application to join the ratings board at the "mpaa"? The only place I would get to see the directors cut of every movie, ever made, for free.
-
Thanks a lot, BraveNewSquirrel. That site explained a lot of things I was wondering about.
-
Please release Episode II unrated. We need a filmmaker with your clout (and sure-thing financial success probablity) to bypass the MPAA's stranglehold over American cinema. There's no way the theaters would not screen your movie (even if it were unrated) because they know it would cost them millions. Until someone does this, Jack Valenti will forever control what we see and what we dont.
-
"You don't have to show so much gratuitous nudity."
Well guess what, assholes? You don't have to NOT show so much gratuitous nudity either.
Maybe we should abandon film and go with books on tape instead! Most things don't HAVE to be shown, but they are, because it's a FILM!
To say that there is too much nudity is just more of the Victorian notion that the human body is ugly, something to be looked upon with shame.
People like that make me sick.
You should all be ashamed, not someone who takes his/her clothes off in a movie, or a director who tells them to, or a writer who scripts a sex scene.
Tell the story honestly, don't hide the nudity behind things, or in other ways obscure it...who the hell cares?
-Di -
The MPAA exists to keep governement off the studios backs. Not the filmmakers backs. It is the studios' lobby. The studios pay the MPAA's bills. I would personally love to see more filmmakers stand up against the MPAA, at least make their opinions public to try and force a serious change. Paul Thomas Anderson to Spike Lee to Tom Cruise (in memory of Kubrick). I myself come from the place of a filmmaker. Whether you like the films I help make or not isn't the issue. What is at stake is something much more important - the freedom of the artist. Right now, we live in a country where there is no viable means of distributing mature films to mature people. That is just sad. While it might be an effective lobby in some respects, in the ratings area the MPAA has shown itself, if nothing else, to be the enemy of the filmmaker. When the artist is censored, society loses. Maybe Ebert is right, maybe the suggestions I made in Variety would work, maybe there does exist a better solution. So why not have a committee made up of studio heads, artists, teachers, and parents get together and help the MPAA fix this system? It could meet every four years to update the system with the times. Why not? Because the MPAA has no suggestion box. They have no way of incorporating the criticisms of the people it supposedly serves: the people of America. They don't need your help. You see, they know all. In centuries long ago, rich people would gather secretly and decide what was good for everybody else. Democracy and liberty have made that mode of governement almost obsolete. Still a few holdouts remain. Most notably is the International Olympic Committee. Indeed, Jack Valenti is Hollywood's answer to the autocratic excess of the IOC's Samaranch. The MPAA lack of accountability insures its eventual demise. It's natural law that an agent must respond to enviromental changes or die. We need a ratings system that works for both parents AND filmmakers. I believe this is an important fight for lovers of film and defenders of the first amendment. Right now, the big boys (studios) write the rules that everyone has to play by. I have produced a studio R-rated movie (South Park) and an independent NC-17 rated movie (Orgazmo). I know how the MPAA treats you differently when you are a studio filmmaker and it is truly frightening. It's common knowledge around Hollywood that the MPAA gives more breaks to studio films. They pay the bills. As a web-site for lovers of film, it is sucks to see some people defend the current ratings system. Hundreds of films are butchered every year. Something is very wrong.
-
Let's get one thing straight -- I'M not the one who is assigning blame. YOU are. And if you think the issue is a simple as "The choices belong completely to the filmmakers", you are sorely mistaken. First of all, learn the difference between the filmmakers and the studio. Secondly, a choice made under duress is not a free choice. If the studios do not make cuts, they are virtually assured of losing money on their investment. So their "choice" is either to make cuts or go bankrupt. Not much of a choice, is it? Sort of like, "Give me all your money or I'll shoot you." A better rating system could improve the situation greatly. But Jack Valenti is either too myopic or too stubborn to admit that his present system is anything less than perfect. I don't blame the MPAA for creating the problem, but I do blame them for refusing to exercise their power to fix it.
-
If you are a parent, I think you have the right to know what your child is seeing before they see it. But many parents just blindly follow the ratings, not realizing their judgment is different than others. I found a good site that is an alternative (and no, I am not affiliated with this site in any way). www.kids-in-mind.com
This site has every instance of anything objectionable, including a F*ck count, a list of all sexual references, etc. Parents should either use this, or just see the damn film themselves.
-15 year old -
The MPAA as it stands today is an abomination. With no guidelines as to what exact content determines a film's eventual rating, filmmakers are forced to play a futile guessing game with the MPAA. A filmmaker may make a film that they believe is an 'R' based on what has been granted that rating in the past only to be told that their film is actually, for whatever capricious reason, an NC-17. There's absolutely no rhyme or reason to the MPAA's determinations. They're based literally on nothing more than the collective whims of its members. This is an autocratic organization that handily averts every criticism towards itself by hiding behind the pretense that they're providing some kind of service to the Concerned Parents of America - which, by the way, is a total crock. If an 'R' rating is meant to designate a film that can only be seen by a person under 17 if they're accompanied by a parental guardian, then the only function of the MPAA is to catalog that content and let the parents decide. By forcing filmmakers to make cuts in their films, the MPAA is in effect pre-empting the decisions of parents and adult filmgoers. We can decide what's acceptable for us but only after the MPAA has already had their say. It's like being handed a book to read with pages removed and select words blacked out with marker. That - by any definition - is censorship.
-
Lets stop the fussin and a feudin. I mean Harry put it best himself when he asked us to see if there was any noticeable difference between the NC-17 and R version. I think we will all agree there is barely a noticeable difference between either. So, the makers of Black and White have to edit out practically nothing and they get an R rating. Isnt that a good thing? It looks the same but the rating is better for ma and pa. The real work starts at home. I showed my niece Half Baked because she was scared to go to sleep and it was the only thing around. The next day she asked me if drugs were fun. I told her that I thought they were until I found myself laying in a puddle of my own vomit without enough strength to hold my head above the toilet and I was afraid to close my eyes because I thought I would die if I did. She called me a moron and realized drugs arent so much fun. We get ideas from movies but its what we learn in life that influences our ideas.
-
I don't want film critics and I don't want ratings. I want a system established that looks at a movie and, without ruining the movie for me, tell me what's in it. Is there nudity yes or no? Do bodies just get stabbed or do we see heads exploding? Is there profantiy? Is the film tasteful or sophomoric? What kind of person would this film appeal to the most? I don't want a ratings system. It's completely worthless to me. I don't see how MPAA is useful except as a dodge and a smokescreen. Parents can pretend they've done their homework. "Oh it's an R rated movie. That means my kid shouldn't see it." Case closed. It's stupid. Studios can pretend they care about the whole sensitive subject matter for kids issue by using MPAA when really they don't give a crap. They know there are parents who will drag their kids to see movies the parents really want to see anyway, or the kids will drag their parents (i.e. South Park) and the MPAA largely just shuts up conservative fundamentalists who made this an issue in the first place. It's not censorship. It's a dodge. It's a smokescreen. The reason movie houses and newspapers and television stations won't advertise NC-17 movies is because the vocal minority conservative fundamentalists will boycott any commercial organization that does. They're organized and they're the squeaky wheel. They successfully killed adult "X" material and they're doing the same thing with NC-17. The NC-17 was designed as an alternative to get around what religious zealots did to X and the religious zealots turned the alternative against itself. NC-17 is now just as bad as X, and if you create an "A"dult rating, the same thing will happen. There is no solution. Convince morally-centered people who wish to force everyone else to their closedminded view of sex and "sinful thoughts" to shut the hell up. That's the solution. Or get Hollywood to stop listening to conservative zealots who believe censorship is acceptable.
-
Look what I found. The ValentiCreature was in the Kennedy motorcade. Oswald had an itchy trigger finger and shot the wrong guy.
http://www.mpaa.org/about/jack/index.htm -
You think that making a director contractually obligated to a studio to deliver a certain rating is abhorrent. To a dgree I can agree with you. But there is a flwa in your argument. Should the studio give the director carte blanche to make a film however he envisions it. Should a director be allowed to show Mickey Mouse screwing Minnie, just because it "his" vision of the cartoon? Directors are hired, just like Michaelangelo was hired to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Did Michaelangelo have the right or artistic license to paint graphic sex scenes on the ceiling, or did he understand that the motif was to be a bit less revealing? When you hire yourself out you do what the money people tell you to do, or walk.
-
Do you really think that this director gives a shit about 1 brief second of film? Well, he doesn't and he and the movie studio need all the free publicity they can get. I am no prude, and don't have an issue with the sex, but I do have a major fucking problem with a guy pointing a gun a three kids walking in the woods. Ya, we need to see that. Besides, Bijou Phillips is box office poison.
-
Okay everyone, stop posting. You might upset The King of Pluto. How ironic that in a Talk Back about censorship some one should tell another to NOT post and voice their opinion. :)
-
Aug 29, 1999 8:49:51 PM CDT
"It is sucks to see people defending the current rating system"
by bravenewsquirrel
"it is sucks to see some people defend the current ratings system. Hundreds of films are butchered every year." Films are butchered for length interests too (see Kevin Smith and Mallrats or Dogma). But we can't go around and burn down the Sesame Street sets because of that. There are rules that as a filmmaker you accept as the rules. You can push the rules all you want, but you have to realize that you *are pushing the rules. The ratings system is one of these sets of rules. Without a rating system, new unofficial rating systems will pop-up (run by the critics, religious groups, or even the theater owners), which all seem good until somebody loses an eye. If the unofficial rating-givers don't like some agenda or philosophy in a film, they can boost its rating to discourage people from seeing. An MPAA type system which is contestable (Ratings Appeal Board) prevents *ideas from causing a film to get higher ratings. And that's what people seem to be missing here. It's the ideas that need to be protected, not the handjobs or the visibility of orgies or the decapitated heads or the language or whatever. Until I hear of *true censorship in the MPAA, I'm going to support it, because for me (a person over 17 who will go to any movie I want to see) it works fine. The public's outlook on NC-17 is not the MPAA's fault; you can add more categories, but there's a good chance that instead of broadening the boundaries it will only narrow them. My suggestion would to be this: Quit whining and start a new MPAA. If you're so worried about the integrity of the art form than DO SOMETHING! Get Roger and Harry and Matt and Trey and some conservative types and some studio heads and some teachers and whoever together and figure something out and get it launched. If it works, it'll usurp the MPAA . If it doesn't than we still have a system that prevents censorship, even if it isn't perfect. *** I dunno. At this point, the conversation will probably only get somewhere with a more realtime exchange of ideas and arguments. I'm plenty open for discussion on the matter.
-
reductio ad absurdum. Q.E.D.
-
"If you're so worried about the integrity of the art form than DO SOMETHING! Get Roger and Harry and Matt and Trey and..." Um, didja notice the name of the person whose post you just replied to?
-
I've been reading lots of stuff about the MPAA recently and I gotta say: you guys have nothing to worry about with your MPAA pussies... what you want to look at is the BBFC, or British Board of Film Censorship. These are, in my humble opinion, some of the lamest fucks on the face of the earth.
Take Kung-Fu flicks for example: Bruce Lee's Enter The Dragon in particular. Unless you have an imported pirate copy of this gem, you ain't gonna see the full version in the UK. Whole scenes are sliced because of "nunchukas" (you know, those bits of wood connected with a chain that Brucie boy does all those cool tricks with). Nunchuks are banned everywhere in the UK, not just in the movies, but they tend to take the whole thing a bit far. No nunchuks in any movie (eg: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - which, incidentally, they renamed "Hero" turtles just in case anyone watched green maniacs in rubber suits and decided to become a ninja just like em), ever.
But wait, did I say you wouldn't be able to see certain scenes in Enter the Dragon? My mistake. You won't even be able to see the original poster. It was deemed unsitable and so they paid some fool to (badly) draw a stick over the original artwork so that people didn't see the nunchuks.
Did I say that you couldn't even see the original poster? My mistake. You can't even see the poster by mistake. Get this: The BBFC cut five minutes out of A TOTALLY DIFFERENT FILM (I forget which one) because the characters were stood at a bus-stop, which happened to have the original poster for Enter the Dragon in the background. So there you go. Overkill Brit style. -
The film review board in Britain has a thing against the martial arts, don't they? I seem to recall them forcing the makers of the computer game 'Shadow Warrior' to replace the shurikens with darts. This because some kids got hurt using home-made shurikens several years earlier. Lucky for English people, the film board didn't force the makers of the game to replace the Uzis, rail guns, rocket launchers, shotguns, nuclear bombs, blood, flying body parts, and foul language with something a little more presentable.
-
I'm not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of the MPAA and movie industry, but I do know that this is all part of some deeper problems. There would be no real need for the MPAA or censorship in general if parents actually took some interest in raising their kids themselves instead of relying on the media to do all the work for them. The TV is practiclly a babysitter. If parents raise children properly, then there shouldn't be any worry about their kid seeng some boobs, or a gunfight in a movie. As a society, we shouldn't have to worry about children becoming maladjusted monsters just from what they see in film, because in general they don't. So, this actually is less about protecting our children than it is about the predjeduces of religion against sex. And yes, don't kid yourselves, that's what this is about-- sex. You can blow off as many heads and say "fuck" as many times as you like, but as soon as there is sex and nudity in a film, it becomes an issue. Society has a tendency to view sexuality as something dirty and taboo, something to protect out children from, when it should be viewed as a wonderful and powerful expression of love. In my opinion this is a direct result of opressive and mysogynistic religions (i.e. christianity, islam), but I digress from the point. Until there is finally a true openess about sexuality in our society, problems like censorship will always manifest themselves.
-
Some excellent points, Matt, and if you're who you claim you are, congrats on making one of this summer's funniest movies. Yes, the MPAA does treat indies more harshly than studio films, but it also goes a step further, treating certain genres more harshly than others. Anything that smacks of sex or violence as a theme tends to get harsher treatment. Such is the case with Showgirls, Nightmare on Elm Street, Robocop, and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (a film the MPAA found so disturbing that when MacNaughton asked them what he could cut for an "R" they told him, "Nothing. It's the tone of the film." Like any other beauracracy, the MPAA kneejerks in response to any public outcry. Yet this is only part of the reason we lack a means to distribute "mature films to mature audiences." I, too, am tired of having the teeth kicked out of films to mollify some concerned parent unwilling or unable to monitor a child's activities. NC-17 was supposed to be the answer to that problem, but the usual crowd of moral police railed against the evils of pornography, the theaters didn't want to be in the business of keeping kids away from the films (a responsibility they routinely abdicate with R films), and the studios saw the potential erosion of their precious profits if a film was tarred with an NC-17. The failure of Showgirls had a lot to do with this, but let's be honest here: Showgirls flopped because it was a laughably terrible movie, not because of its rating. In fact, the NC-17 probably gave it more exposure than it otherwise would have had, the curiosity factor filling a fair number of seats despite the bad reviews. The way to reverse this is not to overthrow the MPAA or substitute another system for the one we have. Instead, we need distributors who will stand behind quality NC-17 product and fight to get every possible penny out of the theatrical run. The suggestion that Lucas release an NC-17 Episode 2 is dead on (even though I wouldn't want to sit through a Jar Jar/Amidala love scene--that alone is sure to snag an NC-17). As The Sixth Sense has shown in its four weeks at #1, people will go to see a good movie. The same applies to a film with any rating, of any genre. Quality counts for more than anything else. And it's likely going to be up to the indies to break in that NC-17 rating, as the studios, obsessed with profit as they are, remain terrified of it.
-
I hear you guys say a lot that the independant films get rated NC-17 hand-over fist. Well, maybe that's because they cram as much profanity as possible into a 2 hour slot! Face it, indies have FOUL mouths! Why can't these low-budget directors make CLEAN movies? Why must they ALWAYS be swearing sex fests? I know this sounds a little right-wing, and I assure you, I'm not, but have you ever seen a PG-13 rated Indie film? The closest (and best as well) was probably El Mariachi. A little violence, not much else. I think the trick is, these low-bug people put all that (profanity) stuff in so people (namely younger ones) will think "Oh, ah! This is COOL! He he, look what I'm watching! Wow! Did you hear what HE said?" Kinda like with Blair Witch being such a LAZY film, swearing in an indie is EASY. Anyone can swear. Not just anyone can set up stories, action, and theme AS PER "El Mariachi". I'm not saying movies shouldn't swear, in fact, back around 95-96, when all the big movies were SWEAR-LESS (did anyone else notice?) I thought it was really lame. But they don't need to just LAY on the profanity. Hey! Here's an idea. Lay off the swearing, and you could get a few more tit shots in! Huh? There ya go!
-
While I'm on a rant about the BBFC, you probably ought to hear about the fun we had with Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Bleeped Me. At least, that's what it was called in certain cinemas over here. Yes, "shag" is a rude word, like we didn't already know. It's also a dance, as seen in dance-orientated movie "Shag" starring Bridget Fonda. No title change necessary there then, it's clearly about dancing and no danger of offending anyone.... I remember the time I spent in Georgia a few years ago. My family and I spent several long hours wetting ourselves laughing at a billboard promoting "SHAG FM". Is there a point? God no, what would that achieve?
-
A lot of you folks here at AICN have a negative position when it comes to me -Jack Valenti. The only reason I instituted the MPAA was so parents had the chance to know what type of content a film had before they would allow their childrens to see it. I see alot of negative comments directed at me and if anyone would like to support their argument,please e-mail me. God bless and good movie watching.
-
Besides the fact that you are not
the real Jack Valenti, rest
assured that I *have* e-mailed
the real Jack Valenti, who
responded with deafening silence. -
Something that seems to escape many of you who post is the cold, hard fact that movies are a mixture of art and commerce. If you're a producer or a studio putting up millions of dollars for a director to make a film, you want some kind of a return, and since it's your money, you're entitled to have an opinion about elements of the film that may kill its box office hopes. That doesn't make you evil, you just have different priorities. A lot of artists seem to have this feeling that having some skill or just having a good idea entitles you to a voice that must be heard by everyone, everywhere. That doesn't make you evil, just misguided. If have millions and want to flush them down the toilet to "protect your vision and send your message," by all means do so. If you want to speak your mind on the cheap and keep your vision or ideas purely yours, become a novelist or internet wordsmith. But the truth is that those protesting loudest at any kind of "interference" from the MPAA or studios, are the folks that would and do take the big fat checks without returning on the investment. Let's see more filmmakers pony up their own cash for everything (including marketing) and I'll be more inclined to listen, until then, they're talking on someone else's dime. And by the way, folks, we're talking MOVIES here, not foregin policy, the weather's fine here with ordinary mortals, come down from the high horses.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 193 total posts 192 posts
- Who Is The Voice Of Batman In WB's Animated Two Part THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS? -- 142 total posts 142 posts
- Cats Beware!! An ALF Movie May Soon Come Our Way... -- 137 total posts 136 posts
- THE DARK KNIGHT RISES TV Spot Has New Footage And Dialogue! UPDATED To Add Second Spot! -- 111 total posts 111 posts
- UPDATED!!! A Six-Pack Of New Character Posters For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Forecast A Lot Of Gotham Rain And Snow!! -- 268 total posts 93 posts
- Baz's THE GREAT GATSBY explodes with one helluva dazzling trailer! -- 184 total posts 81 posts
- AICN COMICS REVIEWS: INCREDIBLE HULK! DANGER CLUB! CLiNT 2.1! JAMES BOND! BATMAN INC.! AND MORE!!! -- 64 total posts 64 posts
- Zach Galifianakis Is Ignatius J. Reilly? -- 84 total posts 63 posts
- Gary Oldman Joins The ROBOCOP Remake! -- 60 total posts 60 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day… the horror… the horror… -- 47 total posts 47 posts