How the MPAA really works. (Read this article!) (1 Viewer)

[Jan Strnad]

Quick comments:

Trying to categorize films according to ages is dumb and futile. People are different, kids mature at different rates.

Before you call for the abolishment of the MPAA, think about what is going to replace it. Whatever it is, it could be much worse.

The future of uncut, mature films is home theater.

Jan

 

[Francois Caron]

How about side-stepping the MPAA altogether?

This will take some work. You would first need to generate a list of local newspapers that would agree to carry advertising for unrated movies. Then you'd need to generate a list of movie theaters that would agree to present unrated movies. Combine the two lists together and you'd now have an effective advertising and distribution network for MPAA-free releases.

What bothers me the most is that the MPAA appears to control everything we watch in the movie theaters and to a certain extent in our own homes, not only in the United States, but also on the whole planet. How can a country like the USA that prides itself on its citizens' right to freedom of speech have so many businesses totally afraid over the flakey opinions of a single organization? The MPAA is not a government agency and Jack Valenti is not an elected official. Yet they both have the ability to instill fear in the entertainment industry to the point where your career can thrive or be destroyed by the careful application of a couple of letters on one of your movies.

The article simply repeats what I've been hearing for years by individual filmmakers such as Lloyd Kaufman for example. And it still surprises me that after all these years, no one has ever accused the MPAA of violating their civil rights by imposing their point of view on the entire population.

Anyway, enough venting for now. My blood pressure is starting to rise again...

 

[Michael Ballack]

The only good thing about having the MPAA, is that the government would try to regulate it if the MPAA didn't. I think that would be worse.

I worked at Loews Theaters for a short period of time this spring. They carried the unrated Y Tu Mama Tambien. We had one situation where we couldn't let in a Hispanic family with there kids because of a policy not letting kids under 17 into an unrated film. I just thought that was ridiculous. Some kid can see heads torn off in a movie like Blade, but can't see sex portrayed in a more realistic manner than American Pie? It's such a hypocritical society.

 

[Roberto Carlo]

And it still surprises me that after all these years, no one has ever accused the MPAA of violating their civil rights by imposing their point of view on the entire population.

They're not imposing their point of view. They're saying "in our opinion, this movie is suitable for all audiences" or "is best seen only by people over the age of 17," etc. If you want to see a film, you can still see it. It may be harder, but, in most instances, it's still possible. The ratings system is voluntary. I know, not being rated greatly reduces -- actually eliminates -- the film's chance of commercial success, but if a film maker feels that strongly about his vision, he can or should forgo what he considers to be intolerable interference with his artistic vision and those who agree with him should seek out and support his work.

I'm not a fan of the MPAA and I decry the hypocrisy and politics described in the article that occasioned this thread. But, as an ancient flatulent, especially by HTF standards, my experience with the ratings is that they are, IMO, not restrictive enough. For every film that that I think got an "R" when it should have been a "PG-13" and had to make "unacceptable compromises" to avoid an "NC-17" (total: next to none), there are lots of films that probably deserved a more restrictive rating that they got. Of course, YMMV. But if you'll forgive my saying so, my middle-class suburban parental perspective is probably what distributors and theaters are concerned about.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I'd like to organize a "One-Day Nationwide" picket of Blockbuster Video. I'd print up all my personal gripes about the chain's practices and try to enlighten my fellow movie-lovers about their sickening practices.

Then again, I'm a lazy weiner...

 

[MickeS]

The government already ARE regulating it. Have you missed the countless hearings about age restrictions or about how studios market movies to children/teenagers? I'd almost prefer that the government did outright regulate it, than have them say "Do what we say, or else..." which is how it's now. ALMOSt, since I know what it's like when the government censors movies (they did this in Sweden, still do but to a much smaller degree)), and it's NOT better than here if the government currently decides to crack down on sex and violence in movies.

The main problem isn't the ratings, the main problem is the theater owners who are too chickenish to show NC-17 movies. Yes, they couldn't get the teenagers and children into the theater and might lose a few bucks, but looking at the movies who have been threatened with NC-17 only to be recut to R, they're not exactly teenage favorites anyway.

/Mike

 

[Derek Miner]

the MPAA appears to control everything we watch in the movie theaters and to a certain extent in our own homes, not only in the United States, but also on the whole planet.

I'm not here to defend the MPAA, but that statement seems much too alarmist. Just think who they're holding at bay - religious and government organizations. I'd venture that the MPAA is fairly tame compared to what came before and would could replace it.
Submission to the MPAA is not mandatory. If a studio funds your film, then the studio may require you submit the film. If not, you are certainly welcome to release a film with no rating. If someone lives in a large enough market, there should be no problem finding a location that will screen an unrated film. This is not a perfect solution, of course.
But as I said before, home video is changing this whole paradigm anyway.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

The main problem isn't the ratings, the main problem is the theater owners who are too chickenish to show NC-17 movies. Yes, they couldn't get the teenagers and children into the theater and might lose a few bucks, but looking at the movies who have been threatened with NC-17 only to be recut to R, they're not exactly teenage favorites anyway.

Not exactly. Many theatres don't want to run NC-17 films because they can't take out ads for them in many local newspapers or on radio/TV. Also, many local towns have ordinances that prohibited "X" rated films from being shown theatrically, many of those ordinances have been modified to include "NC-17", since the MPAA was foolish enough to call NC-17 a replacement for the X-rating. We've shown some NC-17 films at the theatres I work with, but not in the rural areas.

 

[Will_B]

In Boston, films without ratings, or with NC17 ratings, are freely advertised. Is there some hick town somewhere that won't allow it? I've heard that is a concern, but where is this place?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Several rural counties in New Jersey have had newspapers that wouldn't take ads for NC-17 films. Those same towns generally won't allow X-rated films in video stores or X/NC-17 in theatres.

Films without ratings are usually not a problem.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Considering that blasphemy is subjective, it doesn't belong in any national rating system.

 

[Andy Olivera]

Yes, they couldn't get the teenagers and children into the theater and might lose a few bucks, but looking at the movies who have been threatened with NC-17 only to be recut to R, they're not exactly teenage favorites anyway.

The horror genre is an NC-17 magnet(whether the films deserve it or not). It's also a genre that generates a good portion of its income from teenage viewers...

 

[Brian Ford]

The MPAA reminds me of the comic code. An old organization that just is useless anymore. I am surprised the studios have just not banned the MPAA like Marvel and so many other comic publishers have. The studios worry about the distributors, but if enough studios cut the MPAA out, the distributors would HAVE to show the movies or go out of business.

I think an accurate system of how mature/offensive/cool a film is works, but keeping others from watching them and throwing creators around is just terrible.

On that note, hey MPAA, when are you going to rate Ballistic : Ecks vs. Sever?

 

[Damin J Toell]

but if enough studios cut the MPAA out, the distributors would HAVE to show the movies or go out of business.

And if enough exhibitors refused to show unrated movies in enough markets, the studios would have to get the films rated or go out of business.

The ratings system exists because the market (studios, exhibitors, viewers) wants it to exist. If it didn't exist, there would be extensive action by Congress and/or the FTC to remedy the situation. The MPAA's ratings board is far from perfect, but it's also much better than a Congressman or FTC administrator having the power to declare what does and does not play.

While HTFers regularly post their dislike of the system for being too restrictive, the MPAA receives constant pressure from various organizations for not being restrictive enough. For better or worse, America is not yet ready to go without a ratings system.

DJ

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Huh? Who would sue over what now? The MPAA currently has no standard "blasphemy" content descriptor, and they've never been sued for "being anti-religion" (which isn't a claim that can be heard in any court I know of, anyway).

Holy Crap! Heres just the thing i was looking for! A perfectly good lawsuit to file! Since I'm an ordained minister (ULC 'natch) I feel it is my obligation to sue the MPAA for failing to warn parents and concerned God-fearing citizens against the immoral machine that is Hollywood.
I believe $50,000,000.00 in punitive damages, plus the mandatory adoption of QRP ratings (Questionable religious purveyence) will do nicely. Then the world will be able to enjoy (or not enjoy as the case may be) such films as DOGMA, The Last Temptation of Christ, and Harry Potter without the hassel of having to wade-through angry, militant protestors outside the theater.
Ps. This is sarcasm. Kinda. I probably wont actually do it, but somebody will. Then I will kick myself for not actually suing the MPAA. Then I will become depressed. Very depressed. Fifty million dollars depressed.:frowning:

 

[Malcolm R]

Odd thing.

I just noticed on the back of Stephen King's 'Rose Red' that it has been rated PG-13 by the MPAA.

Why would they even have submitted this film to the MPAA? It's a television production which has already aired on regular network stations. Why pay the money to have the MPAA review it just so you can have a rating on your video box? I thought TV had it's own rating system?

This is getting out of hand if the MPAA is now going to begin rating TV shows.

 

[Damin J Toell]

This is getting out of hand if the MPAA is now going to begin rating TV shows.

Nothing is "getting out of hand." Films are submitted to the MPAA on a voluntary basis. This isn't the first time that a TV movie or miniseries was rated voluntarily by the MPAA (heck, the Salem's Lot TV miniseries was rated in 1981), and it won't be the last. There's no need for sounding alarms.
DJ

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Billy Elliot 15

WHY? Because there's some gay innuendo? Low Low PG rating is that I would give it

And what would replace the MPAA? How about nothing? Or at least an organization that has SPECIFIC GUIDELINES on what constitutes a rating, AND the rules need to be changed so that it's impossible to get an R for languge. Did you know Clerks almost got an NC-17? WHY?

 

[Chuck Anstey]

It seems every time this topic gets started, almost everyone asks for a solution that gives them the side-effects they think will happen, rather than trying to fix the actual problem. The only way to fix a problem is to first understand what the problem is and who is creating it and it isn't the MPAA. Don't blindly believe an action that has corrolated side-effects is the root cause of those side-effects.

I am quoting a list of major side-effects someone posted that posters here bitch about.

whether or not the movie is successful, ultimately determining what kind of films get made in the future.

Bitch to the movie going public who generally watch movies they like (even if they are brain-dead garbage) and tell them to go to the "good" movies instead.

There hasn't been one complaint here that has anything to do with a problem with the MPAA. They are consistent with their ratings about different subject material even if you completely disagree with the weighting.


Chuck Anstey

 

[John_Berger]

Chuck, are you in a "bitch"y mood today?