A documentary on the MPAA ratings process, this is a pretty good movie. They hire a PI to discover the identities of the secret ratings board (and semi-secret appeals board), there's interviews with many of the more interesting filmmakers (Waters, Smith, Stone, etc), and the film about the ratings system is itself put through the ratings process to see what happens. Nothing monumental to anyone outside the industry or not obsessed with movies, but for a filmophile or someone overly concerned with censorship issues it'll be a fun watch.
The most interesting part to me was in the special features. Turns out the MPAA - the movie industry equivalent of the RIAA - made an illegal copy of his movie during the ratings process. Hypocrits.
Edited By TPRJones on 1176174194
This Film is Not Yet Rated
Well, it kills my little anarchistic heart to say it, but as things stand right now it would be better if the government did it. Because then it would be a more open process with oversight of some sort. But rather than have that I'd prefer to see the MPAA open up the process more. I leanred a LOT about it from this film (and online reading I did to back it up), and it's a completely secret process with secret raters and the MPAA doesn't tell you what gives what rating. Well, they didn't before this movie came out. Since this documentary was released, they've opened up the process a bit and finally handed out some guidelines as to what makes a G, PG, & R movie.
Plus, as it stands now the government may not be involved but the churches are. Since the 1960s there's been an Episcipalian minister and a Catholic priest involved in the process to represent the interests of God. What the hell are they doing there?
Plus, as it stands now the government may not be involved but the churches are. Since the 1960s there's been an Episcipalian minister and a Catholic priest involved in the process to represent the interests of God. What the hell are they doing there?
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
I'm listening to the commentary now, and they're discussing those topics, like "If there was no MPAA the government would do it" and that sort of thing. Pretty good discussion, with some strong arguements so far (I'm 30 minutes into it). If you snag this film and find it interesting, be sure to do the commentary, too. It's also intersting to listen to the PI discusssing some of her tactics about how to go about getting info from people and do PI stuff, too.
You won't find it at Blockbuster, though, since it couldn't get an R rating they don't carry it. Nor could you see it in any major theater chain; they wouldn't show it. But that's not censorship, right?
Thank goodness for Netflix and their unchristianly willingness to stock unrated and NC-17 films.
Edited By TPRJones on 1176175365
You won't find it at Blockbuster, though, since it couldn't get an R rating they don't carry it. Nor could you see it in any major theater chain; they wouldn't show it. But that's not censorship, right?
Thank goodness for Netflix and their unchristianly willingness to stock unrated and NC-17 films.
Edited By TPRJones on 1176175365
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
That's a false dichotomy. I dont' think those are the only choices.GORDON wrote:Well, you either let the industry regulate itself and you get the MPAA, or you let government regulate it and you get the TSA.
Which is worse?
At least if the government did it, someone could challenge to the SCOTUS to have it thrown out.
It's not me, it's someone else.
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8121
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
Ideally they'd dump the arbitrary G, PG, PG-13, and R and just do what they do on television: descriptive warnings. Like "This movie contains strong language, nudity, violence, and existensialism, and may not be suitable for viewers under the age of 13." Let parents decide what is good for their kids instead of some secret religious cabal.
The real problem is the line between R and NC-17, because that's the line between getting production money and not, and between getting to be at Blockbuster or in most theaters or not. And it's a very arbitrary line. A man and a woman in a sex scene could be rated R, but make exactly the same scene with two men and it's now NC-17. Or (and this is recent, not ancient history, see the deleted scenes on the DVD) a black man and a black woman, instead of white, and now it's NC-17 instead of R. Or even more interestingly, you can show a woman hating sex or in pain during sex or being raped, but the same scene filmed the same way with the only change being that she enjoys the sex, and suddenly it's too obscene. The MPAA has been confronted with these sorts of things, and they're stance is "we don't create moral restrictions, we just enforce what the public wants" or some shit like that.
The G, PG, and PG-13 ratings may have some value, but the line between R and NC-17 is simple blatant censorship, nothing more.
The real problem is the line between R and NC-17, because that's the line between getting production money and not, and between getting to be at Blockbuster or in most theaters or not. And it's a very arbitrary line. A man and a woman in a sex scene could be rated R, but make exactly the same scene with two men and it's now NC-17. Or (and this is recent, not ancient history, see the deleted scenes on the DVD) a black man and a black woman, instead of white, and now it's NC-17 instead of R. Or even more interestingly, you can show a woman hating sex or in pain during sex or being raped, but the same scene filmed the same way with the only change being that she enjoys the sex, and suddenly it's too obscene. The MPAA has been confronted with these sorts of things, and they're stance is "we don't create moral restrictions, we just enforce what the public wants" or some shit like that.
The G, PG, and PG-13 ratings may have some value, but the line between R and NC-17 is simple blatant censorship, nothing more.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8121
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
Yeah, that one's featured here. They intentionally filmed and put in four minutes of stuff they didn't even want that went as far across the line as they could imagine so that the ratings board could tell them to cut it down to what they really wanted. This is a fairly common tactic.
"No no, Mr. MPAA, don't throw me in that briar patch."
Stone also tells the story about the title of the South Park movie. They wanted to call it "South Park: All Hell Cuts Loose", but you can't put Hell in a title. So they called it "Bigger, Longer, and Uncut" and that got buy the board. Two weeks later the board called them back and said "yeah, we just realized what that means and no you can't call it that" but they were all "sorry, already printed everything and we've got your approval here, nyahh, nyahh, nyahh nyahh nyaah!"
Edited By TPRJones on 1176221574
"No no, Mr. MPAA, don't throw me in that briar patch."
Stone also tells the story about the title of the South Park movie. They wanted to call it "South Park: All Hell Cuts Loose", but you can't put Hell in a title. So they called it "Bigger, Longer, and Uncut" and that got buy the board. Two weeks later the board called them back and said "yeah, we just realized what that means and no you can't call it that" but they were all "sorry, already printed everything and we've got your approval here, nyahh, nyahh, nyahh nyahh nyaah!"
Edited By TPRJones on 1176221574
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"