Another Ebert rant about the MPAA (1 Viewer)

[Jason Seaver]

Why would it be worse if we got to elect those who would rate the movies?

Because then the ratings system could have the force of law, and no matter how good you make a ratings system, there will always be borderline cases. The worst case scenario is that a Federal MPAA acts pretty much the same, only now the theater, rental store, or parent who lets a 16-year-old kid watch Almost Famous unsupervised could now be committing a crime. Sure, it's probably only a misdemeanor if it's reported, but maybe not. Having the ratings system be internal and voluntary allows for some wiggle room when the system inevitably falls short.

 

[TheLongshot]

I'm among the group that thinks that Almost Famous was unfairly rated. I can't think of a better PG13 candidate. So its got a few extra f-sharps, SO WHAT? Why the hell does a film like Austin Powers 2, which shows the hero drinking a stool sample, get a 13 rating?? Last time I checked, coprophagy wasn't high on anyone's list of morally correct habits!

Well, there is also the brief nudity and the implied drug use (including an OD) as well, but I still find it acceptable for a PG-13 movie.

I'm not saying that I don't want the MPAA doing this, BTW. I just want Jack Valenti to recognise that there are flaws in his system, and attempt to improve them.

Also, I don't want the government telling me what I should or shouldn't watch. There are enough people who want to legislate morality in the government, I don't need another reason. Considering that the British government actually edits films themselves to fit ratings standards, it doesn't actually make me feel good about it.

Jason

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Kristian said re: Whale Rider:

Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention, but I never noticed the "marijuana pipe" Roger Ebert mentioned.

Her uncle and his girlfriend are outside when she arrives to have him show some of the moves with the stick. It is plainly apparent that they have been smoking pot, and we see him (I think) hide the pipe.

 

[Malcolm R]

I'm surprised "28 Days Later" didn't get an NC-17.

[MPAA Board Member] Oh. My. God. (points at screen) A willy! *swoon* (falls over in a faint) [/MPAA Board Member]
:rolleyes

 

[TommyT]

If you're talking about our representatives &/or senators then I would rail strongly against that & tell you to do your homework before coming to this conclusion. Most of our elected officials come off as (or simply are) self-centered & don't pay attention to the opinions of their employers, namely us, the population of that elects them. An example would be the 'campaign' by Jesse Helms (North Carolina) in the mid-90s to eliminate funding to the National Endowment of the Arts & Humanities. He was part of a powerful constituency that feels that the arts & humanities are illegitimate next to others fields of study like history, economics, medicine, science, fields of study considered more beneficial to society, esp those that make money! When funding is cut in school systems what gets the axe first? Inevitably it's art, music, literature, the library budget.

If the gov't were to take over the ratings syst then we'd never get to see films like Schindler's List, Pulp Fiction, Requiem for a Dream or any other film that has been challenged or controversial or that hasn't been 'sanitized'. Everything we see after that could be cookie-cutter garbage that does not depict the problems of society WHICH DO EXIST. Those who challenge films & books would rather live in a state of denial where societal issues aren't exposed & in the arts.

 

[MickeS]

How do you know that? It's all about HOW the ratings would be determined, not who does it. If the ratings are determined based on the welfare of the child ONLY (as they should be IMO), then we wouldn't have that problem. If they're determined based on some kind of moral code or that they have to "benefit society" or whatever, then we might be in trouble. But you're not talking about ratings then, but about censorship which is something different.

Plus, if the ratings could be appealed in court, there'd be additional protection of the freedom of speech. I believe a public ratings system could be more beneficial than the current system, IF implemented right.

 

[Ricardo C]

Micke, have you ever read up on what things were like before the MPAA was created? It was not a pretty picture (no pun intended). Why on Earth would anyone want to revisit those days?

 

[TommyT]

EXACTLY!! Thank you!

The MPAA claims that the current syst protects children but it DOESN'T in the least! I once went to see a matinee showing of Starship Troopers & there were 6 fathers with 6 kids, none of them over the age of 12, in the theatre. I see similar situations today. If parents want to allow their kids to see R-rated films they will. If that is their choice as a parent then so be it, I'm not a parent myself but I still recognize the responsibility a parent has to protect their child.

Child welfare is really an issue that needs to be left to parents because they are the primary influence in a kid's life. Now, where this becomes a problem is with parents who don't care about the welfare of their child.

The point I was trying to make was that if the govt is allowed to hand out ratings for films they can set unreasonable standards (and they WOULD) as to what gets a PG, R, NC, etc. In that sense directors would be forced to remove portions of their films thereby santizing them for the public. NOT GOOD.

 

[Dave Poehlman]

There are too many gray areas in the MPAA system. And they made things even "grayer" by introducing the PG-13.

There's something wrong with a system when films are being edited for content just so they will fit into a rating category. ie: a nude scene deleted to avoid an "R" rating. When a director's intention is altered to appease the MPAA, that's a little twisted to me.

This paragraph from their website cracks me up:

HOW THE RATINGS ARE DECIDED

The ratings are decided by a full-time Rating Board located in Los Angeles. There are 8-13 members of the Board who serve for perods of varying length. They work for the Classification and Rating Administration, which is funded by fees charged to producers/distributors for the rating of their films. The MPAA President chooses the Chairman of the Rating Board, thereby insulating the Board from industry or other group pressure. No one in the movie industry has the authority or the power to push the Board in any direction or otherwise influence it. One of the highest accolades to be conferred on the rating system is that from its birth in 1968 to this hour, there has never been even the slightest jot of evidence that the rating system has ever deliberately fudged a decision or bowed to pressure. The Rating Board has always conducted itself at the highest level of integrity. That is a large, honorable, and valuable asset.

The fact that they make a point of saying they've never fudged a decision or bowed to pressure makes them sound even less credible to me.

I don't think parents should put a lot of weight on MPAA ratings.. but, I do think parents are ultimately responsible for screening films for their children's viewing. That's why we need critics like Ebert who will stand up and say if a film is okay for kids or not. Unfortunately, there are parents who completely lack the common sense to listen to anyone and will take their 6yr old to see "Hannibal".

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Ok then, what if we scrapped the MPAA completely?

The studios already know exactly what is in their films. A Disney flick would probably be a 'G', and Disney wouldn't have to say anything about it, unless say, it might not be appropriate for kids under 6.

If a film comes out that has 2 instances of drug use. They would publish that with any commercials & ads for it, so everybody would know.

So, if you were 14 and wanted to see a certain film, both the children and their parents (who should really have the last word on this) would know what was in it. If a family had lost a member due to drug use had a child that wanted to see a certain film, he/she would already know that drugs were bad, and it would not sway the child's opinion of drugs.

Ther are some families that probably all run around nude in their houses too, so brief nudity wouldn't be a problem there, but at any rate, the studios can just release their info, and WE can judge it.

As for Almost Famous, the rating was all wrong IMO too. It was almost a documentary, and it happened so long ago.

Glenn

 

[Ashley Seymour]

It depends on which government it is of course... you might be right that the current government couldn't be trusted to make an unbiased judgment that would not take into consideration commercial interests.


I believe a public ratings system could be more beneficial than the current system, IF implemented right.

Since the present party is pretty much distrusted to run the system free of commercial interests, then that only leaves the "other" party to use their infinite wisdom to tell us all what is right and good. And who better to run such a politically correct government agency than old Roger Ebert himself?

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Those advocating a public system, look at the UK or Germany or Australia or any off the other countries that have doen this. It never turnss out well. The government will make arbitrary ruels and there's nothing that can be doen about it. The private systems can be replaced if they go to far overboard. this is pretty much what happened to videogames.

 

[Chris Dugger]

Director's are not forced by the MPAA to cut for a rating....

The studio's force the cut's to get TO a specific rating...

Be clear on that...

Dugger

 

[MickeS]

No, I haven't. What were things like? And why would the only alternative be to go back to those days?

 

[Malcolm R]

Blame the exhibitors and newspapers who have decided that the "NC-17" signifies a product to be banned from their auditoriums and pages instead of treating it like every other MPAA-rated movie.

At least from the exhibitors' perspective, it can be rationalized as a business decision. Given that a large percentage of moviegoers are teens, it makes little sense to give space to a film at which no teens are allowed, period, even if with a guardian. Art houses that specialize in adult-leaning dramatic titles would be the exception, but they still seem to have the same qualms about NC-17.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I don't know as boutique houses have the same qualms about NC-17; I think it's more likely that the unrated films that play there simply have no use for the MPAA to begin with. Studios pay for the privelege of having an MPAA rating slapped onto their films, and I imagine Kino, Strand, Zeitgeist, etc. are looking at thin enough margins without that expense. Their customers (boutique cinemas) aren't really hung up on ratings the same way multiplex chains are, so why go to the effort?

 

[TommyT]

Rationalized? It already IS a biz decision & a bad one at that, because box office receipts are more important than the art form itself AND who gets to see what film. Indeed, a large percentage of moviegoers are teens BUT (& this is esp true of the area I live in) it's a bad business practice to shut out those of us who actually like some intelligence in the films we see. Happens everyday at the mall complex here; the films screened there are nothing but popular tripe with the occasional worthwhile choice thrown in just to say that they are paying attention to the needs of the avant-garde moviegoer. The last example they had was 28 Days Later... which I saw there only because it was the only theatre within 50 mi that was screening it. I may see something there once a year but I rarely go there because the tripe they carry (2 Fast 2 Furious, Legally Blonde 2, Bad Boys II) are stuff that I wouldn't go to for free or that I can see at another complex nearby that charges less for admission.

The problem with the public's opinion of the NC17 rating is that they're unfairly equating it with pornography OR the suggestion of porn or hardcore violence or language. Its not the same sort of thing that happened to the X, which was stigmatized by the adult film industry in the 70s.

Does everyone here know about the controversy surrounding Clerks? In 1994 the Board tried to rate it NC17; a film with virtually no nudity, mild violence. The only thing that the film had was language & it was the kind that most teenagers have already heard by the time they've reached the age of 17. While I probably wouldn't want my kid to see that film until I felt he/she was mature enough to understand it, it still did not deserve an NC.

 

[John_Berger]

What also sucks about the whole rating systems is that it's completely voluntary on the part of the theaters. No theater is obligated to follow the MPAA guidelines (although I used to love when some idiot customers would say that to not honor the MPAA ratings was breaking federal law). Unfortunately, the theaters have it hanging over their heads that if they don't enforce the ratings and that gets back to the MPAA, they might force the distributors to not give certain movies to that theater or possibly the entire chain "just to set an example".

Because of that, theaters are effectively strong-armed to follow to bidding of the MPAA under pain of exclusion. Just more proof that the MPAA needs to be massively overhauled or obliterated completely.