|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006)
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-01-2007 12:15 PM
quote: Greg Anderson
Beginning in the late 1960s, it did allow filmmakers to shoot whatever they wanted and eliminated any real system of local or national, government censorship boards.
40 years have passed and since then, particularly starting in 1990 when the NC-17 rating was first introduced, the MPAA ratings system has turned into a tool for Hollywood studios to collude together and keep indie releases held at a commercial disadvantage.
The ratings system also doesn't make sense for the galling inconsistencies between one film to the next. The people who rate the films have no qualification for doing so and their names are kept secret -largely to avoid accountability for their retarded decisions. I think there's already enough evidence for the MPAA to get sued by a variety of different groups and even brought up on Anti-Trust charges of collusion by the Dept. of Justice.
The MPAA is far more preoccupied with censoring sex than it is with violence. The United States has far more murders and other acts of violence than any other nation on the planet. Simple logic would suggest doing more to treat violent content harshly in the ratings process would be better for the general public and all those sensitive parents.
Ultimately, the ratings system fails because it is not independent from movie studio influence.
quote: Greg Anderson
Now, you'll argue that the rating system is, in effect, its own form of censorship. Fair enough... If you want a movie to have increased box office potential. But Free Speech doesn't guarantee commercial success. And Hollywood studios have lost the power to suppress the indie filmmakers. Note that This Film Is Not Yet Rated was shown on a channel which comes into my parents' satellite box. And, while they're not activists about their viewing habits, I'm sure that if I'd gone over to watch it on their TV last night they'd be surprised to know they're paying to receive such explicit material.
That sounds like the sort of thing Jack Valenti would say.
First, there's nothing pornographic at all in This Film Is Not Yet Rated.
Second, the show (as well as the two movies shown before and after it) were rated TV-MA. That's warning enough for anyone who just can't handle the level of simulated, not explicit sex and violence.
Third, every TV set comes with controls to change the channel. Many new ones have features to block out channels.
On the censorship of movies themselves, exactly how is it fair for a viewer such as myself to have my choices of movies limited just because some other parents elsewhere have a problem with that kind of movie. If a serious indie film gets hit with a NC-17 rating, I get to wait for that movie to come out on DVD and hope the local Hastings video store will carry it for rent. Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video don't rent NC-17 rated movies.
quote: Greg Anderson
The filmmaker (video maker?) talks to a lot of people who've had "unfair" dealings with the MPAA. But all of those people, near as I can tell, were trying to push the envelope... to work in that area which teeters between the R and NC-17 ratings without going "too far." Then they whine about getting an NC-17 rating. Why am I not crying along with them? They complain that, with an NC-17 rating, they won't have commercial success. Again, they're working in the indie realm where filmmakers are often proud that "commercial success" is an oxymoron. They made their beds. Now they're complaining that they can't sleep comfortably.
Greg, you apparently missed the fact the NC-17 rating equals no TV ads, no newspaper ads and no movie theater bookings in many areas of the country. Many advertising outlets simply treat any NC-17 rated movie as if it were hardcore pornography when very often those NC-17 rated indie films are no worse than many R-rated major Hollywood releases.
quote: Greg Anderson
Millions of Americans have dealt with the MPAA on an ongoing basis. The movie seems to ignore them.
I don't agree with that. However, the MPAA regularly insults the intelligence of the American public.
quote: Greg Anderson
Meanwhile, the indie filmmakers seem to want kids to see more of what might be called "adult material."
That's absolutely wrong. Indie filmmakers aren't making porn. The charge they want it put in front of kids is crazy. What they want is the unfairness regarding their NOT-porn material to stop. If their movie gets rated NC-17 it absolutely is a commercial death sentence. Many TV stations and newspapers refuse to run any ads for NC-17 rated shows. Many movie theater chains refuse to book any NC-17 rated shows.
I'll also repeat again the very real fact that many major Hollywood studio releases will get an "R" for airing the same kind of thing that gets an indie feature a "NC-17."
The NC-17 rating is just bullshit. The rating's original intention when it was created back in 1990 was to separate challenging dramatic movies for mature audiences apart from porn. The MPAA sidestepped that and allowed some pornographers to use the NC-17. Then Jack Valenti vomited out his justification for not separating porn, "I can't get into making 'artistic' decisions."
Anyone who can't tell the difference between a hardcore porn video and a real movie just for adults is a freaking idiot. Simple as that. The difference between porn and serious adult movies is PHYSICAL not artistic.
The NC-17 rating will never be fair to indie films until it is applied consistently, fairly and absolutely separate from porn. The rating will also not be fair as long as movie theater chains, TV station and newspapers refuse to carry ads for these non-porn movies.
quote: Greg Anderson
It's all well and good that we, as adults, can complain about inconsistencies in the ratings, but who's really talking about kids anymore?
First, it is the parents job to raise their kids -not the job of everyone else. It's not the job of teachers. It's not the job of grand parents. And it's certainly not the job of people who didn't choose to have kids either.
Somehow that got twisted around where irresponsible parents who refuse to properly discipline wayward kids make it the fault of every one else around them for how badly their kids are turning out. There's a lot of people having children who have absolutely no business being parents at all. They don't feel like putting in the time and work it really takes to raise their kids.
And that gets to the real problem. Many parents don't want to spend the time it takes to educate their kids to have mature and responsible attitudes when being confronted with sexual or violent content.
Kids aren't stupid. The subject matter for sex and violence is everywhere. Bleep out a curse word and any idiot no matter how young can fill in the blank. It's easier than playing Wheel of Fortune. Lots of daytime TV shows, be it a soap opera or some talk show has all sorts of inferences to sex or even violence. The violent content is especially widespread with the current war and all sorts of "if it bleeds it leads" content on news programs.
All of this stuff gets back to the sick, American compulsion where people blame their own mistakes on some external cause. My kid turned into a criminal, it's the fault of movies and video games. No, parent-guy, it's your fault your kid grew up to be a criminal. You were too busy doing your own thing rather than making that child your top priority.
Many parents out there wound up as parents by accident because they were just looking to get laid and didn't figure the role would have such widespread duties. When someone brings a child into the world, that kid becomes the #1 priority in their life and all other considerations are far less important. Many parents don't see it like that and don't live it that way. That's why their kids grow up screwed up. Blaming Hollywood or video games or rap music is just a cop out.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-14-2007 09:08 AM
I seem to remember that, when the NC-17 rating was invented, it was supposed to allow "Adult" movies to hit the mainstream without the stigma of the X rating. It didn't take long, however, before the theatres and advertisers decided to treat it EXACTLY like an X rating. For the past several years, Roger Ebert has advocated an "A" rating to distinguish "Adult" films from pornography. But I can't see how a new rating would change anything. It would just be another replacement for X in the eyes of theatre owners and newspapers, and it would soon carry the same stigma.
In this movie, everyone who gets an NC-17 rating on their movie complains about it. To make them happy and be "fair," we'd have to declare that everything you can't show in a PG-13 movie should be rated R and there shouldn't be any rating "stronger" than that. If that happened, I guarantee that some opportunistic politicians would begin hearings and they would threaten censorship. The MPAA would be reduced to a puppet of Washington (instead of the major studios) and their tyranny would be far more disturbing than anything the MPAA has ever done!
The market seems to have dictated our current situation. If theatre owners and audiences really wanted stronger-than-R-rated material to be readily available in "middle-American" multiplexes, it would happen.
As it stands (thanks to this movie) the MPAA will adopt practices that should be more fair. But if that just means that, for all practical purposes, anything goes in R-rated movies, the backlash will be devastating.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-14-2007 12:24 PM
quote: Greg Anderson
I seem to remember that, when the NC-17 rating was invented, it was supposed to allow "Adult" movies to hit the mainstream without the stigma of the X rating. It didn't take long, however, before the theatres and advertisers decided to treat it EXACTLY like an X rating.
That's because Jack Valenti stupidly refused to use the NC-17 rating to draw a clear line between hardcore porn and serious adults-only movies. That caused TV stations and newspapers to refuse ads for NC-17 rated movies. Certain movie theater chains adopted policies against booking movies with such ratings.
quote: Greg Anderson
Roger Ebert has advocated an "A" rating to distinguish "Adult" films from pornography. But I can't see how a new rating would change anything. It would just be another replacement for X in the eyes of theatre owners and newspapers, and it would soon carry the same stigma.
Here's how the "NC-17" rating (or Ebert's "A" rating) should be working:
1. Absolutely no pornographers should be allowed to use it. They have the "X". Any retard can tell the difference between a porn movie with actual, not simulated, sex scenes.
2. TV and newspapers should not be allowed to deny ad placement for a non-porn adult-rated movie. Every ad campaign I've seen for such movies looks pretty much like any other R-rated movie. Theater chains should not have a policy against booking such movies.
3. The standards should be applied consistently. Right now they are not. Many indie films with content honestly in only "R" territory often get slammed with the NC-17 commercial death sentence whereas many releases from major studios have to go a lot farther to get tagged with the rating. The major studios are colluding with the MPAA to keep the product from other movie distributors held at a serious disadvantage. The Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission should be looking into this on grounds of anti-trust law violations.
quote: Greg Anderson
The market seems to have dictated our current situation. If theatre owners and audiences really wanted stronger-than-R-rated material to be readily available in "middle-American" multiplexes, it would happen.
That's incorrect. The MPAA and major movie studios have created the current situation on their own with their arguably illegal, monopolistic policies.
TV stations, newspapers and movie theater circuits are covering their asses in avoiding any NC-17 movie advertising or booking. The MPAA refuses to be clear on just what kinds of movies can or cannot get a NC-17 rating. Theater chains have no choice but to act in a preemptive manner to avoid the political firestorm that would occur if they accidentally booked a porn movie into their theaters.
If there was a clear, hard line drawn between porn and serious movies for adults, then the theater chains and various advertising outlets would feel much safer in booking such movies.
quote: Greg Anderson
As it stands (thanks to this movie) the MPAA will adopt practices that should be more fair. But if that just means that, for all practical purposes, anything goes in R-rated movies, the backlash will be devastating.
No one is calling for an "anything goes" policy within the bounds of the R-rating.
However, I've seen a lot of indie films which have been hit by the NC-17 that really had nothing worse than a typical R-rated movie from a major Hollywood studio. The rating standards are very inconsistent.
If the MPAA gets its act together (or the system is entirely revamped), audiences will only benefit from having a greater choice of movies to see. A lot of indie films getting the NC-17 rating really don't deserve it.
quote: Mike Schindler
I've always had problems with this, because it seems like they'd be crossing the line by judging the artistic merit of the movies instead just the content. Also, it woud feed into the perception that violence is bad, but sex is really bad. That's just scary.
Sorry, but that condition is already very present in our society and the MPAA's ratings policy.
Americans are much more tolerant of violence than sex in entertainment. That's not only true in movies, the same conditions are present in television shows, video games and even music. It's very rare for a movie to get hit with the NC-17 for violent content. It's a lot more common for the same rating to be applied to movies with simulated sexual content. Something as little as a head shot of an actress acting like she's having an orgasm will get an indie movie hit with the NC-17.
Also, how exactly is it "crossing the line on judging artistic merit" to draw a clear line between a serious movie and porn? It's an easy difference to call. The difference is physical. Not artistic.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-14-2007 02:29 PM
quote: Mike Schindler
Differentiating between "serious movie" and "porn" is the problem. How do you do that?
C'mon, Mike. You can't pretend to be that stupid.
In one movie the people are ACTING like they're having sex. In another movie the people really are having sex. They're not acting. They really are screwing in front of the camera. It is that simple. That's the most simple, defining difference between hardcore pornography and everything else.
I would hand out an X rating to any show that features actual footage of penises (or other objects) penetrating various body orifices, shots of actual oral copulation and footage of actual ejaculation. These are scenes you don't normally find in dramatic movies where actors are merely pretending to have sex.
A handful of movies have crossed the line and showed explicit penetration and even ejaculation. I would consider giving them a X rating as well, just to be consistent on the rule.
Most of those movies were made in Europe, although I can think of one American movie with at least one truly explicit scene. The Brown Bunny featured a scene where Chloë Sevigny performed oral sex on Vincent Gallo. I've never seen the movie for myself and understand a different cut of the movie was shown at the Cannes Film Festival in 2003 versus what ended up being released into the theaters. Many at the Cannes festival hated the movie; even Roger Ebert called it "the worst in the history of Cannes." Ebert wound up giving the re-edited version a positive review. The film was still released as "unrated" here in the United States, but I don't know if the oral sex scene survived the cut.
Now, when it comes to acts of penetration, I do think it is a little funny how our society is reviled and disgusted by a scene of sexual penetration whereas a scene where a spear or sword penetrates a person's guts and comes out of their back seems to be a little more palatable.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic