Terrific Essay re: the MPAA

[pdjennings]

The Motion Picture Association of America: The Controversy Rages On
By Dustin Putman , April 25, 2001

Since 1968, the vast majority of major studio motion pictures have been released with a rating brandished on them. These ratings, made and approved by the Motion Picture Association of America, are supposed to act as guidelines for parents, who want to know what possible offending material is in the movies that they are considering letting their children watch. The original MPAA ratings--G (General Audiences), PG (Parental Guidance Suggested), and R (Restricted)--have had a couple additions over the years, with PG-13 (Parents Strongly Cautioned) being created in late-1984, and NC-17 (No Children Under 17 Permitted) in 1990. While the purpose of MPAA ratings began innocently enough, they have become notably more strict over the years, with the organization acting as rigid advocates out to 'save' the youth of America, fearing that films actually have the power to warp and destroy the minds of children. Today, theater chains are asked by the MPAA to cut down so much on the ratings that even the direct permission of the parent is not good enough to allow them to view a movie. What once was supposed to simply be a guideline to the material in any given movie has now become a ludicrously harsh crusade that gives the MPAA power to overrule the real guardians of children: the parents.

What makes the Motion Picture Association of America so controversial is their confused inconsistencies and contradictory nature, particularly in dealing with the R ('Children 17 and Under Require a Parent or Adult Guardian') and NC-17 ratings ('No One Under 17 Permitted'). NC-17, originally supposed to be a kosher rating that would act as a way for studio films to receive what is more or less akin to the much-maligned X-rating, has since fallen through the cracks, used very sporadically and with many theater chains barred from showing any movie carrying this rating. Because of this, major motion pictures from the large studios (20th Century Fox, Universal, Paramount, Columbia, etc.) are required by law to receive an R-rating, no matter what. The problem with this is that, in their voyage to theater screens, some movies are forced to compromise their creative vision for the sake of a measly rating that holds no real power after their theatrical releases.

One such example is the late Stanley Kubrick's 1999 drama, "Eyes Wide Shut," starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. In order to get an R rating in the United States, the offending scene, in which Cruise journeys through an orgy occurring in a mansion, was 'digitally altered to strategically place figures over much of the offending material' (Steve Gorman). This 65-second sequence was released in all other countries in its original form, but in the U.S.--where Hollywood is located(!)--Kubrick, who ultimately died before its release, left a final movie that will probably never be seen here in the way he meant for it to be seen. Making this whole controversy all the more ridiculous is that the figures that obscure the sexual acts do just that--obscure them, but not completely hide what is occurring. Watching the movie, it is so evident what is going on behind the digital figures that it deeply cheapens the integrity of the MPAA. Upon the release of the film, critics argued that "Eyes Wide Shut" was made for adults, to begin with, and that an NC-17 would have made perfect sense. Of the MPAA, one New York critic stated, 'The fundamental issue underlying this controversy is that the Classification and Ratings Administration of the Motion Picture Assn. of America (MPAA) is out of control. It has become a punitive and restrictive force, effectively trampling the freedom of American filmmakers' (Gorman).

If the MPAA had clearly stated rules about what gives a movie a certain rating, it would work more successfully. Unfortunately, the MPAA, headed by President Jack Valenti, constantly play favorites to certain filmmakers and their work. For example, 1998's World War II drama, "Saving Private Ryan," included one of the most realistic and graphic depictions of war ever put on film. The movie was far more gory and violent than any slasher film. Because Steven Spielberg, arguably the most successful and popular filmmaker working today, directed it, "Saving Private Ryan" received an R rating without a single cut. As many criticized at the time of its release, had the very same film been directed by someone making their filmmaking debut, it would have been stamped an NC-17 and gotten at least several minutes sliced off the running time. It is fairly safe to say that Steven Spielberg, unlike the majority of directors, has never had a problem getting the rating he has wanted from the MPAA.

Also inconsistent with the MPAA is their leniency of comedies, when the same material in a drama would be chastised immediately. Such examples of this have been last year's horror spoof, "Scary Movie," which included graphic sex and male nudity, and the recent Tom Green comedy, "Freddy Got Fingered," which features simulated sex involving humans and animals, bestiality, and other perverse humor. "Scary Movie" and "Freddy Got Fingered" are so extreme in their subject matter that, given the strictness of the MPAA, it can only be hypothesized that they have no problem showing penises (some erect), scrotums, and ejaculations as long as it is done in a comedic way, rather than for a serious, dramatic purpose. So, while "Scary Movie" and "Freddy Got Fingered" get R-ratings, "Eyes Wide Shut" receives an NC-17 for visuals that were not nearly as extreme.

Furthermore, an innocent, light-hearted motion picture such as last year's "Billy Elliot," which has some profanity, but no violence, nudity, or sex, and realistically portrays the life of an 11-year-old, gets an R--the very same rating as those movies that show girls being shot to the ceiling in an explosion of semen ("Scary Movie"), or a man masturbating a horse, and later an elephant ("Freddy Got Fingered").

While theaters can be strict moderators of who gets in to R-rated movies, none of them are perfect in upholding the rating. In my personal experiences of going to the Hoyts Cinemas theaters in Frederick, I have witnessed children clearly under 17 buying tickets for PG-13 movies and then slipping into the R-rated theater undetected. Moreover, once a film ends its theatrical release and goes to video, any person of any age can rent and watch them in the privacy of their own homes. Ultimately, the MPAA overspends a whole lot of time and energy into movie ratings that, frankly, are not very important, and do not make much of a difference. After all, an average 15-year-old's life would easily be rated NC-17.

© Copyright 2001 by Dustin Putman

---

::: APPLAUDES :::

------------------
{ My Collection }

[This message has been edited by pdjennings (edited 04-26-2001).]

[Chris in OC]

I agree with the thought that the ratings have become too much of a force. The original idea of guidelines makes much more sense and is the way they should still be handled.

However, I think that Putnam is mistaken about the legal issue. It may be that some cities bar the showing of NC-17 films, but the major chains' refusal to show them is largely a corporate decision to protect their own image. And I doubt seriously that any studio is barred by law from making an NC-17 film; here again, their decisions are driven by business. If they can't get theater chains to show NC-17 films, they simply won't make them. It's true that producers and directors are usually required to return a film with a given rating, but that requirement is part of their contract, not legal statutes.

BTW, the original ratings were G (general), M (mature), R (restricted) and X (adult). And it's worth noting that Midnight Cowboy originally received an X rating, which it carried into release. The rating was "upgraded" to R several years later.

[chlngr1970]

WOW...that was a really good post. I have to agree with some of what you said about the millitant status of the MPAA. I don't believe the SPR thing happened quite that way tho...

I would like to believe that they looked at the film overall and realised that in the context, it wasn't over the top, as compared to other films out there. True it was violent, and extream in nature, but then again, so is war. I believes they took that into consideration when giving the rating it got.

IMHO

j

------------------
Co-Moderator
Software Forum
~Rather than question the wisdom, question your own lack of understanding!~
My DVD Tracker page

[1138]

I whole heartedly agree that their rating system is inconsistent and often illogical. I saw Tom Green on Dennis Miller Live and he talked about how they put the 'jacking-off-a-horse" scene into themovie because they wanted to have a scene with Tom sucking on a cow's utter. They figured they'd never get the cow scene in so they made the horse scene so they could remove it and keep the cow scene. Guess what? Horse scene got the OK. The same thing happened with South Park. They'd get scenes rejected that they felt did not merit rejection. So they'd make up other grotesque scenes that had no chance of gfetting approved just to make the MPAA have to endure them. Not only did they endure them, they approved them. The MPAA does a piss poor job and it's time they either improved or got 'fired'.

------------------
1138 - DVD File Forum Greeter
Odo: You'd shoot a man in the back?!
Garak: It's the safest way, isn't it?

[Lucretia]

It has always been my opionion that the primary role of the MPAA and other ratings system should be as a guidline to parents or guardians.

When I was growing up, my mom used to take us to R rated movies like Bladerunner, Altered States, Moscow on the Hudson, Runaway Train, American Werewolf in London, whatever we went to, because she knew we a) really wanted to see it and b) could deal with it.

But most importantly, she went with us, even though she worked full time and had three kids and a husband and a house to take care of. She sat there through the movie with us, even the scary and gross ones, lol, and talked about them with us afterwards, and we all had a good time, with my mom there. It was great fun, and some of the best times I remember from my childhood.

She went to pretty much everything with us, and still does. For the record, she's about 65ish now and her favorite current movie stars are Ahnold and Jackie Chan. I think I brought her up pretty well!!!

But I digress...

My point I'm blathering on to make here is, if more people paid attention to what their kids were doing, and took an active role in viewing and reading and listening to what they were doing, things would be better. I know what I'm talking about, as I used to work in an arcade in a nice upper-middle-class neighborhood where parents would dump their kids off with $200 at 6pm and say, literally, 'I don't want to see you for the rest of the night'.

We can't expect theatre owners, movie makers, or even the outmoded MPAA to be baby-sitters. Nor should people want to, I don't think.

Is the ratings system silly? You bet. Is it seriously skewed in the way they pass out ratings, as can be seen in the way Billy Elliot and Freddy Got Fingered got the same rating? Certainly. It needs a serious overhaul. But for it to be effective, parents need to start paying attention to it and enforcing it at home.



Anyway, that's my two cents.

Lucretia

My Collection

It's the most important invention since man sawed off the end of a log and invented the wheel!

[Mark 27]

I would be very careful saying the MPAA should be "fired" right know. You just might your wish and your worst nightmare.

I agree that the MPAA is certainly inefficient and unfair in their ratings system (nearly 15 minutes of graphic sex and nudity in Basic Instinct gets an R while one 15 SECOND scene in Requiem for a Dream gets NC-17) but I think that the real bad guys here are the politicians that pushed theater chains and rental stores to stop releaseing certain films. If the ratings system is used only as a parental guideline then who cares if Billy Elliot gets the same rating as Scary Movie? It doesn't stop anybody from seeing either film. But when the Government uses Macarthyistic tactics that target the purse strings of studios and retailers in order to keep films from being advertised or even released, there by letting the Government control the content of films without challenging the First Amendment, then we have problems.

This is exactly what happened to the NC-17 rating. It was a legitiment MPAA rating that would allow directors more artistic freedom and let parents know that the movie was not meant for kids. However the polictial pressure started almost instantly and soon Blockbuster refused to rent NC-17 rated movies (although many unrated staight to video T&A films where seen on their shelves) then Target stores refused to sell them, and finally many advertising outlets joined the unofficial ban on NC-17 rated films insureing that they would not be properly marketed. This forced studios to stop releasing NC-17 rated films.

Now the same thing could happen to R rated films. Senator Liberman and Sentor Clinton have co-sponsored a Bill that if passed would effectively declare R rated movies a "dangerous product" and allow the Federal Trade Commision to regulate the studio's marketing of such films, just like they do with tobacco and alcohol. The idea behind this is supposedly to stop studio's from "targeting childeren" with advertisement of adult material. The main problem with this Bill however is that it considers commercials during prime time sitcoms as targeting childeren!

Prime time programing is an open venue that kids may or may not be watching. Therfore cannot be considered as tageting kids for anything. If this broad of a standard is to be used then anything from reviews by Roger Ebert to posters in the theater lobby can be considered as targeting childeren. If this takes place then studios will lose their ability to market R rated films to even a greater extent than NC-17, because advertising an NC-17 movie does not violate Federal Law but under this Bill advertising an R rated film would. This would leave the studios with only two options: stop making R rated films or abandon the MPAA altogether.

However before people start cheering the possibility of dropping the MPAA you should know there is a prvosion that would allow the Goverment to set up their own Federally mandated ratings system which would mean all movies would be required by law to be submited to the Goverment for approvoal before release. I don't know about you but I would rather take my chances with the MPAA. After all, without the polictial pressure it is still only a voluntary guideline.

[saraswati]

i don't agree that the government is going to take away adults' freedom to watch or make graphic films. this isn't because i'm a good patriotic american, it's because i know why politicians love the movie/music issue so much. it's something middle-aged parents care about, it's high profile, yet they'll never accomplish anything. they can keep using it as an issue forever, they can keep writing bills, they can keep issuing warnings to the studios, theaters, and stores. but it will never accomplish anything, because many of their ideas are highly unconstitutional. a law to restrict r-rated films in the same way that alcohol and cigarettes are restricted would last about 30 seconds before a coalition of high-profile directors took it to the supreme court and the law was declared unconstitutional. it's pretty much illegal for the US government to put restrictions on what people can and cannot see. they can pressure the studios, but ultimately, it's the money that talks more than the politicians, because the studio heads know that the government can't do much about it. the only "censorship" of popular art that has been governmentally sanctioned in recent times is the CD explicit lyrics labels, which still leave the decision in the hands of the parent.

the reason the studios don't like to release NC-17 movies isn't because they're "trashy" or pornographic. it's because the main audience for theatrically released films is teenagers. teenagers go to the movies because there isn't much else to do if you're under 21 in middle america. the NC-17 rating eliminates that target age group. so the studios don't want it. they stipulate ratings in the director's contract. they want at R, because it allows for a degree of T&A, but the teens can still get in. this is why the major studios won't accept an NC-17, not because they're too moralistic. besides, if a movie is a feared NC-17 and it is budgeted low enough, the studio can go the unrated route. art houses will show the movie, so it'll do a tad of business. video stores will still buy unrated videos, so they can make some of the money back with rentals.

it really has nothing to do with the "morals" of hollywood or blockbuster, or politicians. the government is never going to get away with censoring movies, regardless of how politicians continue to threaten and beg for the benefit of soccer moms.

------------------
"Crap, lousy ceiling!"

[egman]

I agree with many of the points posters have made. The MPAA most certainly needs to change how they do things.

I also have to agree that a rating will not stop someone from watching that particular film. But the stigma that NC-17 films and even R rated films are getting now through the constant watch dogging of the government may cause producers and studios to be hesitant on taking chances with ediger material.

Another case I have seen lately is filmmakers scaling down obvious no-no's like nudity and swearing to make rating to include a broader audience. Artist should not have to adjust the choices they make inorder to guarentee some monetary gain. Maybe I'm an idealist but I think is ultimately art and not commerce. But I guess that could be the topic for another thread.

[Mark 27]

Quote:
- a law to restrict r-rated films in the same way that alcohol and cigarettes are restricted would last about 30 seconds before a coalition of high-profile directors took it to the supreme court and the law was declared unconstitutional. it's pretty much illegal for the US government to put restrictions on what people can and cannot see. they can pressure the studios, but ultimately, it's the money that talks -


saraswati,
I agree with you 100%, however this Bill I mentioned does NOT regulate the film itself only how the studios market it. Also no real laws are being passed here, the Bill simply allows the FTC to fine studios if they feel they have targeted children in their advertising of R rated movies. As you said in the end money talks and the only thing this Bill attacks is the studio's money. If studios can't market an R rated movie without fear of Government fines then they will stop releasing films with an R rating.

Quote:
- the reason the studios don't like to release NC-17 movies isn't because they're "trashy" or pornographic. it's because the main audience for theatrically released films is teenagers. teenagers go to the movies because there isn't much else to do if you're under 21 in middle america. the NC-17 rating eliminates that target age group. so the studios don't want it -

I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. The NC-17 rating does not have any legal mandate so it cannot stop teenagers from seeing it. It simply means the MPAA recomends no children under 17 see it. Besides R movies are targeted to the 17 and up age group anyway, this is why all big summer blockbusters have a PG-13 slapped on them. They know that most people under 17 won't pay to see R movies. So R's and NC-17's have the same target audience. The same people who went to see the R version John Woo's Face/Off would have gone to see the un-cut NC-17 version if it was shown in the same theater, probably even more people. The real reason studio's won't release NC-17's is because no major theater chain will show them, and none of the major advertising markets will advertise them. (Which is exactly what this Bill hope to accopmlish with the R rating)

Quote:
- video stores will still buy unrated videos, so they can make some of the money back with rentals. -

Blockbuster will rent unrated films yes, but not if they originaly had an NC-17 rating. Requiem for a Dream is unrated but Blockbuster refuses to carry a un-cut version of this movie.

By the way, some studio's do bow to policial pressure. Look at Warner Brothers, they refuse to release an unrated version of Eyes Wide Shut even though there is a huge market for one. They have released to un-cut version in Europe but have banned it in America, and not just in the US either but anywhere in the entire North American Continent. Not too long ago a Canadian cable channel started showing the un-cut version and WB sued to make them stop. This has nothing to do with target age group's and everything to do with getting politicians and special intrest groups off their back.