MPAA / Ratings thread

Based on finally catching that Kirby Dick documentary about the MPAA process. (I think it had great sound criticisms of the process, but some of the arguments about "censorship" and "transparency" or the presence of religious representatives seemed ... a bit off and occasionally annoying.)

What are your thoughts on the process? (Or the documentary?) How do you feel about the ratings system?

Still didn't see that doc.

movies you cant believe are g/pg/pg-13

I think some day people will look back on the MPAA with the same nostalgic curiousity that Cinema Paradiso has for the Catholic censors who snipped out all the kissing scenes from Hollywood movies.

The documentary left me with ... four conclusions, really:

1. the system is obviously a bit screwy and silly and power-consolidating

2. it's still perfectly legitimate, and all the gripes about censorship are a bit silly too; it's not a public/legal measure, it's a private institution signaling to distributors and theaters what they can show with without getting complaints (and if they want to have a representative of the Catholic church on their appeals board, well, sure: that's who complains!)

3. the real underlying gripe is that filmmakers are economically dependent on a small and ever-consolidating industry to distribute their work; that's the only reason the board feels like some kind of "public" censorship

4. if enough people in the industry were seriously discontent with the results, one solution might be to create a parallel rating board, with clearer standards and more transparent processes, and keep at it with some small number of films until some point at which it felt legitimate -- some point where you could legitimately say to less hidebound theaters and distributors that some controversial film got an NC-17 from the MPAA for screwy reasons, but has the R-equivalent approval of some other familiar entity that's known to make credible decisions about such things. (I'm not even sure this would be so difficult; surely there are plenty of people in the industry, some with plenty of money, who'd be pleased to help create some kind of competing arthouse/indie system, right?)

(correction: clergymen are not on their appeals board, they are silent observers of the appeals process, apparently -- essentially to make major church groups a partner in the rating system's legitimacy)

it's crazy how many kids are at R rated movies in NY and philly, at all hours

the only important factor for me:

NC-17 was supposed to make adult (non-porn) films commercially viable. Instead, it became the new X. Americans still can't see such films in chain theaters; I believe it's alone among 'Western democracies' in this regard.

^that is, America

Things like on-demand cable and DVDs by mail should really eat into this, though, right? There are steadily more non-theater ways to distribute an NC-17 film, at least. I don't know that that's any huge comfort to filmmakers that get smacked with them, but it's something.

I was really surprised to learn that But I'm a Cheerleader was originally flirting with an NC-17 -- I actually would have assumed that movie would be PG-13.

that doc deals w/ gay sex being rated more severely than str8 sex, yes?

yeah, I am concerned w/ theater showings.

Making "major church groups a partner in the rating system's legitimacy" results in "gay-themed movies get stricter ratings" SHOCKER FILM AT 11.

thank you, puritans

and Pancakes, thx for enlightenment

Yeah, Morbz, it makes a very clear case for that.

Pancakes, I don't think those two things line up as cause and effect, exactly. I think the rating's board role is pretty much to telegraph to everyone what is or is not going to upset vocal portions of the public -- in that sense their stricter ratings about gay sex are probably technically "accurate," in that they reflect an actual anti-gay streak in the public that would make people bitch and moan about the movies showing in town. The bringing clergymen into the appeals process ... this seems less to get ongoing input, and more so the churches involved can't question the board's legitimacy, because some representative has seen its hidden workings thus far. They can't as easily turn around and act like the ratings aren't credible if they're already implicated in the process.

I dunno, I did find this a fascinating point in thinking about it -- that filmmakers would point out things that seemed irrational about the mystical rating standards used, and also question whether the raters and boards really reflected mainstream American standards. But in a lot of instances, it actually does seem like the ratings reflect the screwy/"irrational" standards of ... well, the sort of Americans who care about movie content -- e.g., being Puritanical about sex but okay with violence does seem like an accurate reflection of what lots of people are okay with their kids seeing.

the movie covers the contradiction thoroughly, but watching the staggering amount of war carnage in Rambo while a toddler babbled in the theatre, it was amazing to think that if they suddenly cut to william h. macy laying his head next to maria bello's dragstrip THEN the kid wouldn't be allowed in.

That middle paragraph doesn't read quite the way I want it to. I guess what I'm saying is that the system seems totally illegitimate as any sensible way of making fair distinctions about the content of a film, in terms of maturity or morality. But, weirdly enough, it does seem to do an okay job of indicating the things about films that would get theaters or distributors a bunch of loud moralistic complaining from loud moralistic complaint groups.

Sorry, was just amused that nabisco was both rather blase about who is on the various MPAA bodies and what exactly they do, and simultaneously surprised that they'd give the pro-lesbian movie a harsh rating. You can have it one way or the other, but not both.

xpost

I think the rating's board role is pretty much to telegraph to everyone what is or is not going to upset vocal portions of the public

See, I don't think they need to "rate" the movies at all with their vague references to "adult themes" or what have you. Just tell people outright: "This movie contains homosexuality, decapitations, dismemberment, naked ladies" or whatever, and moviegoers can decide to see it or not on that basis. Not on whether it's PG, PG-13, or R, and the nebulous content standards to which those letters apply. Then, knowing upfront what kinds of things they're going to see, there will be no basis on which to complain.

And, honestly, despite maybe letter from a few cranks and complaints from the professional culture warriors like Brett Bozell, the only movies that really seem to engender "a bunch of loud moralistic complaining from loud moralistic complaint groups" on any significant level are ones that are perceived as anti-religious, no matter who is on the ratings board. The combined furor over "Priest," "Dogma," "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Life of Brian" probably dwarf that of every other movie ever released.

Basically, I guess my point is Death To America.

but "contains homosexuality"? Is it Fried Green Tomatoes or Blowjob?

The descrips that appear on ads & posters next to the ratings are silly. "Action violence"! (ie, the kind that looks fun)

(I shouldn't say "weirdly enough" because that's not weird -- that's really the point, just covered under a bunch of phony and tarted up impartial standards and ideas of some actual content-related scale.)

xpost -- Herman, I'm not like horrifically shocked at the Cheerleader ruling -- I mentioned it because it was funny to me that my experience of it was as like a cartoonish PG-13 comedy, so the NC-17 seems particularly amusing. (It's just a funny split between form and perceived content, basically.) BTW what the clergymen do, per the documentary, anyway, is to silently observe, like I said; they're not "part" of the ratings system, they're more there to legitimize it to the church bodies.

^ and they're only involved in appeals, apparently

lol, when did they start adding shit like "western violence" and "gangster violence" and "fantasy violence"?

See, I don't think they need to "rate" the movies at all with their vague references to "adult themes" or what have you. Just tell people outright: "This movie contains homosexuality, decapitations, dismemberment, naked ladies" or whatever, and moviegoers can decide to see it or not on that basis. Not on whether it's PG, PG-13, or R, and the nebulous content standards to which those letters apply. Then, knowing upfront what kinds of things they're going to see, there will be no basis on which to complain.

― lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, March 19, 2009 4:01 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

1) ratings tend to contain that info "rated r for violence, harsh language, drug use, etc"

2) that doesnt really change anything--the problem here isnt with the ratings themselves or the rating board, its with the distribution mechanisms available to films. say "this film contains gay dudes & a big fat dick" and just as few theaters will show it.

ie i dont know what problem you think youre solving there

I guess some people did get pissy when the "Black Christmas" remake was released on Christmas Day, but that might have just been Bill Donohue and his cadre of professional scolds. In either case, they are not the audience for "Black Christmas" anyway, so screw them.

nabisco, I find it interesting though -- since you're always pointing out that what matters about religion in the USA is not abstract theology but how people live it out culturally, don't you think the actual participating board members are probably sufficiently "religious" in that respect that the presence of the clergy is redundant at best?

1) ratings tend to contain that info "rated r for violence, harsh language, drug use, etc"

Yes, but what's "harsh language?" George Carlin's 7 dirty words? Less? More? What's "violence?" The Rocky movies are "violent," so are the Saw movies. Two very different things. Just tell people upfront MOVIE INCLUDES ARMS BEING RIPPED OFF.

Yeah, you're right, it wouldn't solve anything along the distribution/promotion/advertising lines, but would at least get people to STFU about ratings and content.

I really hope the box on Hunger's poster says "Irish starvation"

Well, no, not exactly. I think the board would be equally as sensitive to religious morality whether or not two clergymen sat in on appeals, yes -- the whole purpose of the ratings system is to quash public criticisms from directions like that. I don't think their presence is redundant, though, because (like I said) their presence is an observer's presence. I.e., they have set up this ridiculously secretive process for assigning ratings, but in order for that process to accomplish its goal, it has to be taken seriously by major religious groups. So you co-opt them -- stick a couple of representatives in the room in lay clothes, don't let them talk, and they say OK, we've seen your process and you've kowtowed to our concerns a bit and ... now we can't question the credibility of your decisions. If the true end goal of the rating system is to forestall criticism and calls for something to be done about these movies these days, that seems like exactly the kind of step they'd take, right?

I mean, even if it's not strictly observational, and they advise and consent, well ... much of what the rating is doing is saying "dear theater: church groups aren't going to get on your ass if teenagers see this," right? The idea that it's for parents to make more informed decisions strikes me as a fig leaf to cover up that original purpose -- an industry self-regulating to avoid criticism or calls for intervention.

or rather, "dear theater: we certify that this film is X% safe in terms of moralistic or Puritanical parents, mainstream religious sentiment, worst-case community standards, etc. etc. etc."

Yeah, but generally speaking, church groups are STILL the ones that get up the theaters' (and the studios') asses about movies, and they're pretty much the only ones! (Speaking broadly, and counting stuff like the Catholic League as "church groups.") So why even bother involving the clergy at all? It doesn't seem to stop anyone from complaining.

There's a difference between complaining about the films and complaining about the rating system, though, right? I mean, for one thing, they'd have latitude to do a lot more complaining if they felt they were completely shut out of the process -- and, probably more importantly, they wouldn't just be complaining about the content of the films, they would be undermining the actual legitimacy of the rating process. And of course the MPAA isn't concerned with the reception of a given film, they're concerned with everyone viewing the rating system as something functional and sufficient.

Eh, this is just one of my hobbyhorses, privileging religious opinion over all other opinion. I mean, GLBT people have just as much cause to be concerned about the content of films, as do black people, as do women, as do a lot of other groups, but we don't hear about the observers from ACT-UP or the NAACP or NOW on the ratings appeals board.

I totally agree with that

Because the ratings board evolved out of a historical context where the largest, most vocal opposition to immoral movies was religious. The creation of the ratings board actually took power away from the religious groups, back when there was a censor and the Hayes code.

I agree with Mr. Hackman about how it should be. The current system is still stuck in the 50s/early 60s.

It is entertaining now that they have to list the reasons for the ratings, one of which is "excessive slime."

And of course the MPAA isn't concerned with the reception of a given film, they're concerned with everyone viewing the rating system as something functional and sufficient.

Basically, the film industry wants to continue being able to regulate itself, as opposed to having government step in.

Exactly -- which is why I sort of like the idea of some other arts entity trying to offer a more objective and transparent ratings scheme, at least for some small number of films. (But of course it seems like one major reason this doesn't happen is that not that many people are sufficiently discontent with the MPAA's scheme; it's silly and easily criticized but it does seem to have balanced competing interests well enough to make itself incredibly sustainable!)

I think what would change things - apart from government taking an interest and forcing it to change - is, what was mentioned upthread, a sufficient increase in non-theatrical distribution. Things definitely seem headed in that direction.

Another issue is the smaller number of films that do receive theatrical distribution. The ones that do, generally have to be concerned with "playing in Peoria" in order to be profitable. I think the issue is that there are so many gatekeepers in the chain before a film would even have a reason to go to the ratings board.

Basically, the most likely thing I can see happening is the equivalent of what happened/is happening with television, where the strict standards were implemented when television was just broadcast. Cable television - because it was subscriber-based - was not subject to the same standards, and especially since cable got into the production business (shows like The Wire, Dexter, L Word, et al.), network television is at a disadvantage because of it.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/dodd-mpaa/

Former Sen. Chris Dodd is the new head of the MPAA. Hrmmm...okay?

Dodd said piracy would be a chief concern.

“Protecting this great American export will be my highest priority,” he said in a statement.

He sat on the Foreign Relations Committee, headed the Banking Committee, and co-authored the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Among other things, he attempted to filibuster the legislation that immunized telecom companies from lawsuits over the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

As head of the MPAA, he’s likely to be a little less friendly to the average netizen. The MPAA has lobbied hard for the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

It has pushed for the government to shutter websites suspected of hosting infringing material, and is responsible for using the American legal system to sue U.S.-based torrent search engines out of existence. A case against Canadian-based Isohunt is pending.

MPAA is also responsible for blocking distribution of RealNetworks’ DVD-copying software.