Thomson on ratings
The MPAA’s rating system “is a racket, a way of saving face and assuaging public morality while making as much money as possible by showing sex and violence to cinema audiences,” writes David Thomson in the 8.27 Independent. It’s a piece worth reading because Thomson sums it all up very neatly.
“In practice, the MPPA has viewing panels that see a film, make their suggestion and then ‘negotiate’ with the filmmakers over what can and cannot be included. To this extent, the system is rigged. An NC-17 rating is still a killer because in the sedated and religious parts of America, an NC-17 film will not be shown, or even advertised. In other words, the provision for adult entertainment — and I don’t mean pornography, I mean material and ideas only for adults — is denied by the censoriousness of certain communities.
“In short, an NC-17 cannot make money, and so most production contracts require the director to deliver an R-rated picture. [And] independent films — in their nature,more dangerous, more subversive and less viable — do not get the same kind of treatment” — i.e., liberal and/or extended negotiations. “So the racket is that the ratings have ended up re-enforcing the commercial mainstream.”
Funny, when I think of “sedated” people, I immediately think of the Upper West Side of Manhattan, or San Francisco.
They all think, look, and act the same, and are completely intolerant and vocally hostile to anyone who would dare think other than they do. Isn’t this a pretty “sedated” group of people?
nyc…i think you can take that model and generally apply to just about anywhere. people are usually fairly intolerant no matter what mode of thinking they believe themselves to be.
where’s the link? Sounds like he scores a few hits.
For those interested in a history of the movie ratings, you might want to check this out (especially pages 270-273):
http://law.vanderbilt.edu/jetl//archive/vol6no2/ColinMiller-AWolfinSheepsClothing.pdf
Travisb, I know. I just wanted to say something snarky to start my morning off right.
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film/features/article1222160.ece
I don’t know, Colin. Not allowing child molesters and rapists to watch X rated movies seems pretty sensible to me. I’m not too concerned, although defending child molesters is the Left’s forte, I’ll admit.
NYCBusybody, I have no problems with prisons preventing prisoners from watching movies with questionable content. I also have no problem with the legislature passing laws requiring prisons to prevent prisoners from watching movies with questionable content.
My sole problem is that the government (or prisons) should not rely solely on the MPAA ratings in making those decisions. As I noted in that article, and as the excerpted quotations above indicate, the MPAA ratings are full of sound and fury, indicating nothing.
My primary issue with the MPAA is that they have not really changed anything with the NC-17 rating. As Thomson suggests (and Wells fails to mention), the problem is not just with the NC-17 but with the R, which makes it OK for any child of any age to see a film with a parent. Films that have no business being seen by children get nicked by a frame here and a second here to pass muster by the board. But what about the PG-13 horror films? Just because they don’t have gore doesn’t mean that they won’t scar children. I am all for a rating system like what exists in other countries where there are multiple levels of R that keep out children under certain ages entirely. I saw Sin City in a theatre with a five year old who was scared to death because his dad wanted to see it…it was ridiculous. While I am looking forward to Kirby’s film, I hope that the repercussions are not a more permissive society in terms of allowing children to see all sorts of brutality and depravity.
I’m also curious if anyone really thinks this is all that important in the days of multiple-version DVDs and four month DVD windows.
“The MPAA’s rating system “is a racket, a way of saving face and assuaging public morality while making as much money as possible by showing sex and violence to cinema audiences,”"
Not that I don’t see that Thompson is building to a larger point here, but… what exactly is the problem there? In that respect, the MPAA is serving precisely the function it or any other industry “self-policing” entity should: Distracting and assuaging protestors and feds in order to allow it’s industry/company the most freedom of movement possible.
The trouble with the MPAA isn’t the mission, it’s the makeup. It’s role is to run defense on the PC-drones and religious-nutballs who protest about sex and violence (and the elected officials who pander to both), to soothe them into thinking that their moronic “opinions” actually count while allowing the studios/filmmakers to do what the wish with their films. Trouble is, the modern MPAA seems overly-stuffed with people who don’t get it… they seem to think that they actually ARE supposed to be concerned gaurdians of public morality when they’re really just supposed to act like it.
What the MPAA needs is to be re-staffed entirely by younger members who “get it,” who understand that their job is to deflect the crazies to HELP less-censored films get into the marketplace, not the other way around.
In related news, the filmmakers for This Film is Not Yet Rated will be at the L.A. Nuart premiere this Friday.
NYC: “I don’t know, Colin. Not allowing child molesters and rapists to watch X rated movies seems pretty sensible to me.”
Yeah, they need their energy for war crimes at Abu Ghraib.
BTW, to my mind the ideal situation would be as follows:
Strip the MPAA ratings of all “authority,” make them strictly advisory and turn enforcement 100% over to the theater managers: They decide who gets into what rating under what circumstances. Some would be more lenient, others would be more strict, parents could choose which theaters they patronize accordingly. And since, innevitably, the more-lenient theaters would see more business, encouraging others to act accordingly, and the free market would take care of everything.
Of course, to make this work, you’d need to convince idiot litigious liberals that the government intruding on private industry is usually a bad idea AND convince idiot religious conservatives that Brent Bozell isn’t worth listening to. And like EITHER of those’ll ever happen…
Have you ever read the C.A.P. (Christian Analysis Project) reviews, MovieBob? They’re HORRIFYING. Like, I think Mary Poppins got major points taken off because “the children talked back to their parents”.
Equally horrifying are the World Socialist Web Site movie reviews, especially by David Walsh. He cannot and will not enjoy a movie if it is not primarily focused on showing how capital exploits labor. I wonder if these people laugh, but I suppose laughing is a bourgeois distraction from the evil empire of patriarchal capitalist pigs.
I like David Thomson on film a lot, but when I hear him blather (in his British accent) about “the religious and sedated” parts of America, I’m kind of curious to know just how many states he’s actually visited.
Yes, because as we all know, British secular and socialist-democratic society is such a treasure trove of magic.
(A poll last week showed 20% of British citizens would emigrate immediately if they could, mostly because of punishingly high taxes). That’s a HUGE percentage for a developed Western country.
Rule Brittania!
NYC: “Yes, because as we all know, British secular and socialist-democratic society is such a treasure trove of magic.”
It’s nice to know you have such high respect for a member of the coalition of the “willing”.
“(A poll last week showed 20% of British citizens would emigrate immediately if they could, mostly because of punishingly high taxes). That’s a HUGE percentage for a developed Western country.”
If 80% of the Brits still like living there, I don’t see how it’s a huge percentage.
Moviebob: “Of course, to make this work, you’d need to convince idiot litigious liberals that the government intruding on private industry is usually a bad idea”
It’s not liberals who got upset over a nipple slip and who rigged reconstruction in Iraq and New Orleans for their cronies.
I like David Thomson on film a lot, but when I hear him blather (in his British accent) about “the religious and sedated” parts of America, I’m kind of curious to know just how many states he’s actually visited.
“It’s not liberals who got upset over a nipple slip and who rigged reconstruction in Iraq and New Orleans for their cronies.”
No, but they are the ones who tend to come out the most-strongly for government-pressured censorship in film, TV, music, video-games, comics, etcl which is what we’re talking about here
I’m not playing sides here, the “left” and “right” can both cram it with walnuts as far as I’m concerned. But the facts are the facts. The most frequently-heard political voices supporting censorship or “regulation” in this realm are Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Of those three, only ONE is a Republican and is also the least “zealous” on the issue.
The “left” is full of people who want to take away your gun, smokes and fatty food; the “right” is full of people who want to take away your ‘obscene’ DVDs, books and CDs. BOTH tracks should be resisted as strongly as possible.
Not to nit pick but it was 10% of brits that want to leave because of high taxes. I will scan and email the headline if you want.
Thanks to Nouvelle Vague for posting the link.
As soon as I read half the first sentence on the first post here I knew it was Busybody. I believe Thompson has a good point, despite him commiting the crime of being British, if that is the case, and despite his lack of insight in calling the strongly religious sedated rather than hysterical. As a follower of Steven Spielberg I have seen several instances of him in negotiations with the MPAA, which is absurd, especially if filmmakers of lesser stature are allowed less leniance. As for this being solvable by letting the “free” market simply run its course, it is money that is behind leniance on these issues, an as such a result of success in the marketplace.
MAGGA:
“As for this being solvable by letting the “free” market simply run its course, it is money that is behind leniance on these issues, an as such a result of success in the marketplace.”
I’m all for any filmmaker, Mr. Spielberg or otherwise, using whatever means or clout at their disposal to wrest the rating they desire from the absurdly clueless MPAA. But so we’re clear, that’s NOT the free market. That internal-industry politics, lubricated by finance. Important distinction.
The ideal “free market” solution to the movie ratings problem would be to make enforcement of MPAA ratings entirely the decision of the individual theatre owners (or chains where applicable.)
Since there has been ZERO scientific evidence that the watching of notably violent/sexual films has ANY provable harmful effects (unlike, say, tobacco or alcohol,) there’s not a shred of legal (OR moral, if you wanna go there) rationale for them to be “regulated” by anyone other than the merchants who sell the tickets or the consumers who buy them. Allowing theater managers to decide what ages can see what movies, GUIDED (not bound) by the MPAA ratings, would be the best deal all around.
That the innevitable outcome of such a policy would be that nearly all theater’s that DIDN’T have an ultra-lenient policy on admission would go belly-up very quickly, thus putting to lie the religious conservatives B.S. assertion that Americans are clamoring for “family friendly” censorship would be… well, just a BONUS, really
MovieBob, I stand coorected on your point