Alright folks, let's keep this ball of love rolling at the MPAA. It seems that the MPAA has become a little confused. You see I know and you know that a lot of kids and older teens often times get into R rated films without supervision, but this really isn't the fault of the filmmakers. It's a fault of the theaters for not really enforcing the MPAA code. So... What can they do? Well they could make a lot of R-rated fare NC-17. Now the problem I have with this is an NC-17 film is looked upon as pornography. A medium lacking in artistic merit, the very bane of human existence according to... well to a lot of people.
Now, the concept of a ratings board at face value is a good concept. They rate films, allow parents an easy to follow set of letters to instantly pre-judge a film by. It's not meant to be a tool of censorship.
But, the NC-17 rating instantly causes censorship. Why? Because of the financial loss it instantly forces upon a production. Many newspapers and theaters and video rental stores will not carry an NC-17 or UnRated film. Limiting its distribution, forcing the studios and the filmmakers to take out the scissors and cut out the 'offending material'.
This forces self-censorship for the sake of financial survival. So in EYES WIDE SHUT here in America, home of the free, we will have CGI objects inserted to keep the offending inches from our eyes. So... What can the studios do?
Well in a dreamworld of happy thoughts, they would simply cease to take ANY film to the MPAA at all. Everything from TARZAN to INSPECTOR GADGET on up to films like EYES WIDE SHUT and STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE. You see, as long as it's the 'dirty films' being released unrated, theaters and newspapers and television stations can justify punishing the unrated enmasse, but when it's the entire film industry standing as a single force. Well... Like television, theaters and newspapers wouldn't run those films... Rated or UnRated.
Where would this leave parents? Well, for one they'd have to stop letting a group of anonymous judges of society make decisions for them. They might have to begin seeing EVERY film with their kids. Or seeing the film themselves in advance. JAWS was PG back when it was released, I saw it first run, but MANY of my fellow pre-teen friends did not. Why? Because my parents saw the film with me, and the other kids were kept under thumb. Because their parents RAISED them, and my parents took a different tact. To each their own.
Is the ratings board really needed now? I mean, any parent that watched commercials knew that THE MATRIX was really really violent. Did they need that R to tell them that? A series of letters. We're supposed to allow letters from an organization that we really know next to nothing about, determine how we raise our children?
Of course, the studios never will have the cajones to just extend the middle finger to the MPAA and let all their films go out to theaters unrated. They've become used to those letters. It's 'part of the process'.
I know that in the wake of violence attributed to films this seems like the exact wrong sort of thing to do, but ya know. Parents gripe about HOLLYWOOD raising their children, well... to the same degree the MPAA is raising our kids. If the MPAA was dissolved parents would have to... take notice. They'd have to become an active participant in the raising of their children again. Not just sending them to the mall with $15 and the order to be home by 8pm.
I know I don't trust the folks at the MPAA. Here's a pair of letters I received today in wake of the story I ran yesterday, and... well, I'm conducting a bit of a roundtable discussion here on the MPAA. You folks in talkback... Don't yell and scream and cuss and hollar, TALK about the issue of what to do. Is the rating system broken? Should everyone be carded going into the individual auditoriums? Are kids inherently older younger today, and should be allowed to see R-rated fair unsupervised? What doesn't a 13 year old not know about that an 18 year old does? Does a vagina or penis on screen cause violence against men or women? Is intercourse a verboten act that should be allowed only for 18 year olds to know about? What is the age at which a child should be allowed to witness an on-screen murder? And are all of these questions meant for a CASE BY CASE basis determined by individual parental units? Well.... here's the two letters, and I look forward to a mature and intelligent talk back (well, I can wish can't I?)
Hard on the heels of the "Sleepy Hollow" controversy, here's another example of towering hypocrisy from our self-appointed moral guardians.
Filmmaker Colette Burson made a movie that was a hit here at the Seattle International Film Festival. It's a teen sex comedy, which may seem sort of unnecessary these days, but with an important difference: It's about girls.
Yes, that's right, it's a teen sex comedy where females are the heroes, and provide the film's perspective. The premise: Three teen girls wander Manhattan, looking not just for sex, but also for... well, here's the title: "Coming Soon." You figure it out.
Long story short: Burson expected to get a PG-13, at worst; her film contains no nudity and no violence. Unfortunately, and unexpectedly, she got an NC-17. D'ohh!
Sample quote from the ratings people: "It's our job to judge for parents who haven't seen the movie, and if parents have a double standard, it's good for us to think that way also."
She is, at present, without a domestic distributor; the NC-17 is a huge albatross. (Fox picked up the international.) She doesn't even know what she can cut to get the R, because she doesn't understand the rationale; the film's content is far less graphic than, say, "Porky's," which easily secured an R (and, perhaps not coincidentally, is about guys). In addition, the studios are hypocritically looking for a more male perspective, even after the success of "Clueless."
Basically, it's an all-around ugly story, one that every serious film person should be made aware of. The full text of the article in the "Seattle Weekly" can be found at the below link:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/9927/film-fetzer.shtml
(The article has a couple of factual inaccuracies, including an annoying substitution of NPAA for MPAA, but it's still very illuminating, and well worth reading.)
I know the ratings people think they're doing society a favor, and maybe they are, when they stick to the limitations of the brain-dead mainstream. But their chokehold on the industry is so tight, and they're going so far beyond their mandate by holding themselves up as the arbiters of taste and morality for the society as a whole, that...
Okay, look: Examples like the "Sleepy Hollow" poster issue you've been covering, plus the "Coming Soon" story summarized above, coupled with the myriad other instances of double-standard big-name ass-kissing -- all of this demonstrates that either (1) the ratings board has either far outlived its usefulness, or (2) our culture is a whole lot more fucked up than anyone wants to admit, or (3) both.
Bottom line: "Coming Soon" is about three teenage girls who talk frankly about sex, and it gets an NC-17. If it had been about three supermodels who alternate suntanning nude with chainsawing people's heads off, it would have gotten an R. Does that make sense to you? It didn't to me, until I remembered that yo-yos like Orrin Hatch are more common in this country than most people realize.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy the story. Peace.
...Cervaise
And now for the second letter!
Just read your item about the SLEEPY HOLLOW "headless horseman" poster
artwork being nixed by the MPAA.
You're missing a broader issue here.
The MPAA is not targeting SLEEPY HOLLOW specifically, or even SOUTH PARK.
In a recent interview (sorry, don't remember which one), Trey Parker and
Matt Stone said that they chose the full title SOUTH PARK: BIGGER, LONGER
AND UNCUT only after the MPAA rejected their original working title,
SOUTH PARK: ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE. The reason? The MPAA's current
policy is that no matter what the movie itself is rated, movie titles and
ads must be completely G-rated. As a result, the MPAA no longer allows
the word "hell" in a movie title or ad!
Now, just like you can come up with a whole list of "decapitation"
counterexamples, it's even easier to find past "hell" counterexamples.
Type "hell" into the search engine at imdb.com -- 328 movies, 17 tv
movies, 4 direct-to-video movies and even 5 tv series titles (6 if you
count ONE LIFE TO LIVE which is inexplicably included). The most recent
movie titles include HELL FOR LEATHER (1998), HELL GIG (1999), HELL
MOUNTAIN (1998), TO HELL WITH LOVE (1998), ONE HELL OF A GUY (1998),
FROM HELL (1999), MATO GROSSO (1999), BLACK AS HELL, STRONG AS DEATH,
SWEET AS LOVE (1998), SPRINGTIME IN HELL (1999), GO TO HELL (1999),
and SOUTH OF HEAVEN, WEST OF HELL (1999).
Interestingly, there is no movie "in the pipeline" (for release in
the next few years) using the word "hell" in its title. Even SOUTH
PARK, which can use "hell" freely in its show on Comedy Central, has
not used the word in any of its many movie ads (even when showing the
devil and Saddam Hussein in bed together!). So, while not exactly
proof of the MPAA's supposed new policy, there is no evidence against
it either. I tend to believe it.
If the MPAA ratings system is ever going to be of any real use to parents,
it should be upgraded to include the REASON for the rating. Look at any
TV-GUIDE or other movie-listing newspaper or magazine, where "R (L GV)" or
"R (A S N)" carry actual meaning. Even the cable movie channels like HBO
list the rating reasons. Why doesn't the MPAA?
Accountability. Objectivity. It's long been obvious that the MPAA,
answerable to noone, can pretty much do whatever it wants. This is just
the latest in a long string of senseless behavior. As the whole "ratings"
system becomes increasingly meaningless, I hope to see filmmakers become
more willing to release their work "unrated". Or maybe self-rated.
I see no problem with a SLEEPY HOLLOW poster, "headless horseman" intact
(so to speak), bearing the text "This film has not been rated by the MPAA,
but is studio-rated R (A L V BN)."
Harry, Moriarty, what do you think?
-- Archer
