Jump to content

Censorship, take two


nykvist_fan
 Share

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most pleased to see this discussion reincarnated. The MPAA is quite a splendid idea as it prevents government interference. It is my feeling that the MPAA should split the R rating into 2 seperate, yet official distinctions: the R1 and R2 (this is what we get at when we call a film Hard R)

 

The Soft R covers violence and excessive profanity; the Hard R denotes full-frontal male and female nudity and heavily simulated sexual acts.The NC-17 should be revamped to cover acts of visible penetration and real violence, unless a strong intellectual argument can be made, as in the case of documentary.

 

The MPAA should not allow overtly religious persons to cast a vote on ratings, and should select from only the most educated among society: Professors, doctors, lawyers, filmmakers, playwrights, actors and so on. An arts council with equal intellectual representation, guided only by the Socratic method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NC-17 has, of course, acquired less of an associated stigma in recent times. It has evolved into an effective marketing campaign. I met Lars Von Trier, and he explained to me that he wanted Dogville to get an NC-17, and purposefully included the scene of the infant being shot to that end. It didn't work. This, ironically, may be a positive sign. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Since we're back at it:

 

Where on earth was this 'graphic sex scene' in '21 Grams'?????

Glad to see this thread back.

 

Okay...here you go:

 

What I meant by "graphic" sex scene were the emotions involved in the scene. I was not referring to anything with regard to the physicality of the actors involved.

 

When she is laying on the bed having sex with Sean Penn, I remember her crying of at the very least, distressed. I seem to remember the camera moving up and down her body as well, almost to physically show the lack of pleasure she feels at that moment. Her character is fully revealed and it felt emotionally graphic to me.

 

But I guess you're talking about how much of the body is shown in a scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
The MPAA should not allow overtly religious persons to cast a vote on ratings, and should select from only the most educated among society: Professors, doctors, lawyers, filmmakers, playwrights, actors and all other applicable persons.

 

Hope this helps.

That is very interesting and well thought out. Quite Platonic. :)

 

I can't say much about the MPAA, but I think the whole NC-17 rating has lost that "forbidden" feeling. And there hasn't been an NC-17 film that I've had any interest in seeing for a long time. I really don't pay attention to the ratings anymore. If it looks good, I'll watch it. That about covers it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Puritanism is a myth.

 

The process may change, but the mechanism isn't going anywhere fast. If memory serves, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe was the first R-rated film, based soley on the content of its language, which, even by modern network standards, is amazingly tame. Today, the language issue is nonexistant. That film would get a PG at best today, maybe a PG-13. So evolution does exist in these bodies, but sexuality is the primary issue that we are addressing, is it not? We are trying to get at what the evil of nudity or simulated (or real) sex is, and how that evil outdistances the taking of a life, or a maiming. No one on this board is more offended by a vagina than torture or murder, so what is the problem? To address this as an issue of puritanism, it seems, is a glorious way of removing one's self from cultural accountability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cannot discuss the MPAA without discussing the American mindset, which, if anything, is admirable both in its foresight and lust for civil disobedience. Look at the Bill of Rights: aern't people guarenteed the "pursuit of happiness?" If I wish to pursue my happiness by watching a an NC-17, but I am 16 years old, then you have a conflict of the direst kind. Of course, the MPAA is not subject to said article of the constitution, as are not 14 year olds who wish to smoke, and 20 year olds who wish to drink. The Constitution is the greatest peice of practical literature ever written, but Ageism is not addressed at all.

 

Both in my own country and everywhere else I have been, there is a fundamental recognition of "minors" as being intellectually inferior, which is plain nonsense. The R-rating should be the top, because, if a parent wishes to take a child to an NC-17, and the MPAA's rules do not allow that parent to make the desicision for their own child, then it is a bastard of an organization, and people should not submit to the ghastly rating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind if I jump in?

 

Ingmar is correct in the aspect that a parent should never be deprived to make a choice for their child unless it is physically harmful, which is where legislation concerning smoke and drink come into play, but the MPAA cannot be allowed to exercise this level of intellectual authoritarianism, and decide for real people their freedoms to move about. This is why I have always said that the MPAA be abolioshed, as it is a slap in the face to all self-respecting people. Personally, I attempted to take my 17 year old cousin to see The Dreamers, and the witch at the box office would not let him in. I was standing there like a schmuck, arguing with her about "it says 'no one under 17 admitted,' doesn't it?" And she said that it was 18, and that I am not allowed to take him to see the film. Now, understandably, I didn't want to give a bad impression to the kid, but I called up and left a very strong message on the box-office awnsering machine.

 

They would let him see Jesus get murdered, but Eva Green's vagina is off-limits?

 

Why?

 

P.S: Are you Jewish, Ingmar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The odd thing is, if your cousin were to stroll into Borders and pick up a copy, no one would care how old he was. I wholeheartedly agree that the MPAA has no right to make desicisions for parents. It reeks of moral superiority, and I don't like it one bit. If they told me that I could not bring my little brother to a reading of Nabokov's Lolita, I would have a heart attack.

 

Yes, I am, in fact, a Jew. But I still enjoy Lethal Weapon :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're making the worst mistake in politics: telling the truth. But, if we are going to have a censorship board, it should be the definition of secularism. I don't want religious matters contradicting the distribution of art. It would be a most disgusting display of authoritarian majoritarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is little to be gained by roding down this road, so lets forget about it. I hope to have the last word on this by saying that it is like the difference between antibiotics and snake-oil. If there is a scientific method applied to this issue, we find that there is no conclusive proof that depicted violence or sex inspires such acts in the hearts of children or teenagers, so there is no standard other than a moral standard for banning it. The MPAA is a theocracy.

 

Someone please remind me why the Passion won an R, and A Clockwork Orange received an X? I rest my case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is fastly becoming an interesting dialouge. There is no logical explanation for The Passion rating decision other than that it caters to the majority faith. I challenge anyone to construct a proof stating exactly why this film deserves an R any more than Kubrick's film and not invoke religious matters. It is like a square circle; it does not, and can not exist in the real world. We know the truth, and all thinking people know this truth. I don't give a toss about Mel Gibson or his father, but I was sickened by this hipocracy. My father survived Auschwitz, you think he couldn't handle a movie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marxism would be in direct opposition to the MPAA because it is a privatized board, and, in Marxism, there is nothing greater than the state. This is why marraige and religion are two things forbidden. They would absorb it as part of the state, and we don't want that. Remember the sexual revolution in Cuba? There would be no anti-Marxist ideology, no homosexuality. It doesn't work. You are making the classic mistake of associating american champaigne Marxism practiced by rich people (ala Susan Sarandon), and real Marxism like that which exists in Cuba.

 

Comminism is not the anwser to censorship, because it is a form of censorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Clean Slate Video

Serious Gear

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Alarian Gear by RAW

FJS International

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...