Censorship: Thoughts On The MPAA

[nykvist_fan]

With the second wind of the NC-17 rating, what are your thoughts on the ratings system in general.

 

If The Passion is awarded an R rating, yet recent horror films are NC-17 for violence (Haute Tension), is this decision the final proof required to define the double standard of the establishment?

 

Why exactly is it that this american organization finds little wrong with endless gun violence in films, but are so enraged at the sight of a penis? And, speaking of it, Vincent Gallo's Cannes favorite (:D), The Brown Bunny shows Chloe Sevginy giving a real, honest to goodness blow-job. Why are people so shocked? Is it christian conservatism? Intellectual fascism?

 

Remember: Submission to censorship establishes a criterion; a definition of form capitalized to autocratic ends. (In other words, the domino theory)

 

Important to remember: the U.S is but one of many with objections to these matters

 

Opinions welcome.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's partly a cultural thing. I remember when "Empire Strikes Back" got censored or banned in Sweden or somewhere like that for the violence! America has always been squeamish about sex, especially realistic sex.

 

I don't see away around the MPAA because without a rating, some newspapers and other outlets won't run your adds, and a movie that can't advertize itself is dead at the box office.

 

I'm sure the logic with "The Passion", which I partially agree with, is that violence used for exploitation purposes, like for mere entertainment, is different than violence used for making an artistic statement. Of course, graphic violence used realistically in a drama, being applied to characters you feel emotional commitment to, will be MORE grueling to watch than cartoon violence like in a horror film, so it seems backwards to warn people more about the cartoony violence! But then, you don't want to put the artists in the position of being punished for using violence in a non-exploitative way.

 

On the other hand, "The Passion" was so overly violent as to be repetitive and and self-defeating -- if the point of the Passion story is to show the human vulnerability of Christ, then why have him take on more punishment than a human could take. He'd have to be Superman just to have lasted the first fifteen minutes of the movie. But I digress...

[John Pytlak RIP]

Information about film ratings:

 

http://www.filmratings.com

 

http://www.mpaa.org/home.htm

[nykvist_fan]

As far as censorship being a singularly american phenomenon, we recognize the idiocy of that statement. I recently read about a video game called Manhunt being banned in New Zeland for explicit violence, while Peter Jackson's early gorefests render this title tame, they were never banned. Rarely it is that films (Irreversible and A Clockwork Orange) turned notorious reactions to their films into respectable box office.

 

I see no difference in any violence, regardless of the message. Is not religious-oriented violence exploitative, as well?

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see a connection between a police state and privately owned newspapers deciding not to run adds for unrated material (I didn't say NC-17 rated material -- some do, some don't -- I mean skipping the MPAA altogether.)

 

That is self-censorship, not government censorship (and it's arguable whether a rating is censorship since the film will be shown to the public). The whole idea behind the MPAA was to circumvent any government control over the ratings system, just like the Breen (Production) Code used by the studios in the 1930's to 1960's was designed to avoid government legislation to control content. Now one could say "what's the difference?" but there IS a difference between the two. You think the MPAA is bad, imagine the rating system if publically-elected congressmen were deciding them. There would be no motivation for them to accomodate risky material. They'd play it really safe.

 

And yes, of course there's a difference between sex and violence when used in an artistic context rather than an exploitative and pornographic context. It's just that sometimes it's a hard line to draw and there is always someone who has to draw it. Showing violence to demonstrate how dangerous WW2 was or how people died in Nazi concentration camps is different than using violence to entertain teenagers who like to see blood and guts thrown all over the screen.

 

Hey, I'm not saying that the MPAA always makes the same decisions that I would make, but then, I don't expect a group of people to make the same decisions I would make. Americans traditionally have a greater tolerance for violence than realistic sex and the MPAA reflects that cultural bias. What, you expect the board members to be more enlightened than the population in general? Remember, these are advisory ratings for the public, so they are trying to reflect what they think the public wants to be warned about, and like I said, Americans are squeamish about realistic portrayal of sex. The MPAA isn't going to change that. If you have a problem with American culture, fine, but don't expect a ratings organization to lead the people to a more mature viewpoint on sex!

 

I don't get what the fuss is about the ratings for "The Passion" versus "Brown Bunny" - do you think it really makes a difference? People wanted to see "The Passion" despite the R rating and probably few people are going to want to see "Brown Bunny" even if it got a "G" rating. Despite all the horrible reviews, some company is actually going to distribute the film and the public will get the chance (if they want to) to see it -- so exactly how is the film being censored? Telling people that it has a lot of strong sex scenes by giving it an NC-17 rating is a form of censorship, denying the film the wide audience it deserves? For all you know, it may help the movie if people perceive it to be racy.

 

America, for better or worse, is not European.

[nykvist_fan]

I must clarify my original statement: By using the term "Police State," I was referring to a kind of intellectual police, not a government body. I lived in the U.S for a few years as a graduate student at Harvard University, and I was shocked to find such tolerance and open discussion. As a frenchman, the general secondhand concensus was "the fascist americans," which, after one month in country, I found to be rubbish.

 

The subject of my masters thesis was sexuality and Violence in Cinema: censorship in America and abroad. After a year of solid research, calling producers, directors, writers and politicians, I was unsatisfied with the

simple response: this is how it is. Perhaps my logic is flawed. Perhaps

there is no solution.

[Max Jacoby]

I think the ratings on 'Eyes Wide Shut' are a good example:

 

US: R (& digital silhouettes during orgy scene)

UK: 18

France: U

 

The US and on a lesser level the UK definitely have problems with nudity.

 

As far as I know the one country where there is no censorship is Belgium. In Luxembourg every movie gets released first without censorship. Only if there is a public outcry at a movie does the censorship board come together to hava a look at it. Of course that NEVER happens, so one could argue that there isn't really censorship either.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Random thought-musings:

 

Computer games have been portraying violence for years, but only recently as the graphics get even slightly realistic have they started to rate them.

 

Animation, particularly Japanese anime, gets rated with the rest of them. "Akira" is a 15, but it's as obvious as a computer game that nobody's actually physically involved.

 

I think that consenting adults should be able to watch whatever they like, censorship-free. Anything else is a nanny state.

 

Phil

[DanStewart]

I don't have a problem with any ratings system.

 

But digitally 'blacking out' parts of the film is really hardcore. I wouldn't mind so much if there was a second or two of colour bars and ref tone to let everyone know they're not being allowed to watch the proper version. Doing it in this insidious way is very worrying.

 

I was watching The Royal Tennenbaums the other day on a digital sattelite subscription channel (not subject to the rules governing free TV broadcasting) and they cut the scene where Gene Hackman is racist to Danny Glover. Just skipped the scene - but left in the reconciliation stuff later in the movie. I've seen this movie about 10 times but my friend who was watching it for the first time would never have known, he'd just have thought there was a plot hole.

 

I think people should at least know what's going on. The ratings board people all see the uncensored versions of everything and survive ok. By their own logic we should lock them up in case they freak out or something.

[David Mullen ASC]

A rating system is a little different than a censorship system, although ratings can cause a filmmaker or studio to go back and re-edit a movie to get the rating they want, which is a form of self-censorship.

 

But ratings boards are unavoidable in the U.S. In fact, the MPAA helped eliminate or reduce the multiple ratings boards that existed regionally in the past. Remember the Catholic League of Decency? Even today, newspapers offer their own ratings as a guide to parents. The internet is full of ratings boards for various organizations.

 

Note that everytime their is a public outcry against indecency in movies, and Congress threatens to pass legislation to control content, Jack Valenti flies over to Washington and sweet-talks them into letting the industry police itself. I have a lot of problems with Valenti and the MPAA, but it would be a lot worse if Congress was deciding how movies should be rated. And I'm a liberal who believes in government regulation of industry! But we're not talking about toxic chemicals being dumped into rivers, we're talking about artistic expression (some conservatives might say it's the later that needs to be regulated, not the former...)

 

I just think Americans will always be a little behind Europe when it comes to sexuality in art. Call it our Puritan heritage if you must.

 

Whenever you combine popular art with high commerce, you will have industry-imposed controls over artistic expression in order to maintain control over the marketplace. It's the pact you make with the devil for being part of the system - taking studio money, spending large amounts on advertising, and then distributing your work to a wide audience. You can't have all of that money involved, and try to reach such a wide audience to recoup that money, and have unlimited freedom to say whatever you want. You have to form some sort of private-public partnership unfortunately just to play that game.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I think a more proper question would be why do independent films have a harder time at the ratings board than Hollywood productions? I've very often heard that Hollywood pictures get a rating lower than an indie movie, it seems to almost be a rule. Perhaps the MPAA has political reasons for this?

 

- G.

[nykvist_fan]

I wonder if independent films are targeted more vindictivly by the MPAA, but I've never found that connection as far as the hard numbers are concerned.

 

Regarding the Wes Anderson film, I had the understanding that only Network could edit a film; I thought, on Cable or Sat, anything goes.

[Jason Maeda]

this is a really interesting thread...i've thought a lot about this issue without being able to come to an opinion.

 

that's also intersting about the wes anderson thing. comedy central broadcasts dave chappelle saying the word "nigger" about fifty times a day whereas in the film, unless i'm mistaken, what's his name just calls danny glover "coltrane". anyway the whole thing is stupid, people say "white trash" all the time on the networks, and that's every bit as racist as any other derogatory term. probably more so since it actually specifies the race of the target.

 

i really agree with david on a couple of issues here, especially the idea that the mpaa is a good alternative, if not perfect, to governmental control.

 

jk

[David Mullen ASC]

It seems obvious that indie films, which tend to be edgier and less mainstream, are going to have a harder time with ratings boards. The film I just shot has male nudity, partially visible male masturbation, some very nasty implied violence, and bad language including the "n" word. Whether all that survives the edit is another matter, but the point is that it's not the stuff of typical studio productions.

 

I was more surprised that "D.E.B.S." had some issues with the ratings board. The film is pure popcorn, but just because it has two young women falling in love and going to bed, it was going to get an "R" -- but I believe in the last minute it got a "PG-13", which is sort of a first for a film with a lesbian love scene. On the other hand, like I said, the film is so light and fluffy by design that I'm surprised it was such an issue.

[Matt Pacini]

The thing you have to remember is, the MPAA use a handfull of "typical Americans" to watch these movies and make their own judgements, so it's really a subjective thing, based on the opinions of a pretty small group of individuals, consisting of housewives, schoolteachers, etc.

There's not some scientific method here, folks, so it's gonna be a ragged process, and that's one reason we're many times left scractching our heads as to why one film gets an NC17 and another gets an R.

 

And I agree with David, this is not censorship.

 

It's really a guide to parents, and yeah, to keep the government watchdogs at bay, and let's not forget, it was Clinton who called to Washington, producers, studio executives and network execs a few years ago, to warn them that if they didn't clean up their act, that they would be forced to.

So it's not just the conservatives who are going overboard in the censorship arena, and I think it's naive and dangerous for artists to pretend that only one side of the political spectrum in this country is against them.

Anyway...

Censorship is when the government bans something, and I hope this isn't considered a cheap shot, but the French ban American films all the time by putting a ration on how many can screen in France, for the sole reason that the French government thinks we're corrupting their culture.

So the French casting insults about the US censoring and being fascists is quite laughable.

To be truly censored in the US, your film has to show bestiality, child porn, etc.

Other than that, pretty much anything goes.

They just slap an NC17 rating on it, and from what I've heard about Brown Bunny, this is the only thing that is going to get people to see the film, so like David said, it's not going to hurt that film at all.

 

Matt Pacini

[nykvist_fan]

MattPacini has a good signature, but this is an international forum to discuss film ratings and censorship, so my french citizenship is quite meaningless. It is never polite to discuss politics on a film board, but reactionary thought is the mother of conflict in political discourse. It also makes me sick that my own people had dealings with that Pig, Hussein. And what is this "Fox News?"

[Jason Maeda]

about tv, but interesting:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/arts/tel...ion/18ROBS.html

 

jk :ph34r:

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Fox News is a US current affairs broadcaster based in New York which recently achieved notoriety in the UK after its presenter John Gibson made repeated, highly inflammatory comments concerning the BBC's coverage of the war in Iraq during the opinion piece "My Word", which was syndicated around the world.

 

It is part of NewsCorp, owned by Rupert Murdoch. I think that's all we need to say on the matter, really, but if you want to find out more, you might try a Google search on the words "Fox News are the most excruciating bunch of far-right imbeciles since Margaret Thatcher, and that's saying something."

 

Phil

[Matthew McDermott]

Going back to "The Royal Tennenbaums", a tangent to this discussion is films being cut differently for video distribution. For example, the Blockbuster version of "Requiem For A Dream" had the sex club scene cut. If you hadn't seen the film in theatrical release (or as I originally saw it, on a Virgin Atlantic flight from London to New York--now there's a cultural difference...) you'd have never known the scene existed. Now this was undoubtably done with the filmmaker's consent as Blockbuster is such a huge distribution outlet that they can command such changes, but there's also the company in the US (whose name unfortunately escapes me...) that has been deleting sections of films that they find objectionable to their conservative Christian sentiment and renting them at their stores--without any consent from the filmmakers whatsoever.

[nykvist_fan]

Regarding the Fox News situation, I was aware of John Gibson's comments, but unaware as to what company he worked for, as I do not own a television. I read 4 newspapers everyday in four different langauges, but I haven't owned the old "idiot box" in over 10 years.

[Jason Maeda]

let's also remember that businesses have rights as well, and if anyone wants to show their art intact, they can build their own chain of theaters, pay for the prints and shipping, advertise...etc...

 

jk :ph34r:

[Matthew McDermott]

"let's also remember that businesses have rights as well, and if anyone wants to show their art intact, they can build their own chain of theaters, pay for the prints and shipping, advertise...etc..."

 

While it is true that businesses have rights to sell whatever they choose, I certainly don't think excising "objectionable" parts of a film without the creator's consent and then profitting from it falls under any reasonable sense of fair use. If a local church group made "clean" dubs of one of my films for its members' private viewing then I wouldn't have an objection (well I would, but wouldn't act upon it...) but the second they sold or rented the copies I would legally object.

[Jason Maeda]

you don't get what you want in life...you get what you negotiate.

 

jk :ph34r:

[Bill DiPietra]

you don't get what you want in life...you get what you negotiate.

 

jk :ph34r:

Exactly. Never be under the misconception that film is not a business.

[nykvist_fan]

I believe it was Jean Cocteau who said filmmaking will never be an art until its materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper. As always, the bottom line is the bottom line. I think DV is beginning to illustrate that point.

 

I must have hit a nerve?