Jump to content

Censorship, take two


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So anything up to penetration or actual contact is acceptable. In Ken Park, there is an actual masturbation and ejaculation scene, and I found that to be way out there. I don't see that as art, but the definition of art (not unlike the definition of is) is subjective. We can't get into aesthetic and topical critera for art. That would take up several GB by the time we got finished. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yeah, the reason is 30 years passed between those films.


There's no doubt whatsoever, that if Passion had been made in the 70's, it would have received an X as well.


And let's remember that up until recently, Clockwork was completely banned in "enlightened" liberal England, while here in the "fascist" US, it's been available since it was released.


Let's remind ourselves, the MPAA does not enforce anything.

They are not a government agency, therefore they do not send out people with guns when someone does something wrong.

They don't forbid or allow anything, they just put a sticker on it so people can do what they want with that information.

Putting that responsibility onto some other organization (Marxists or whatever) is not in any way going to make the results of their opinion more agreeable to the public, it will just shift which sector of the public agrees or disagrees with their opinions, and that's why it sounds like a good idea to you guys;

You want everything in the world to go your way, even if it means other people are slighted and/or marginalized or even blatantly victimized by it (in the case of Marxism).


Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Welcome, Matt.


We are attempting to find a political system that would theoretically aid the ratings process. It is clear that Marxism doesn't work.


Now, onto the parliamentary system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MPAA is logically flawed, ergo I have no respect for it or its decree.


The question is: what do we find acceptable as artists?


And, is it right that some newspapers refuse to run ads for NC-17 films?


I cannot see what could possibly be wrong with running the ads?


Especially when one sees the film in question reviewed in that specific issue.


Of course, the papers that refuse to run those ads are the same who hoot about the latest action film in the following manner:


"A rocking, action-packed, smokin' ride that will knock your socks off, dude"


Need I say more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to the FCC? Especially with Michael Powell in charge. They were talking about fining news programs some time back for "indecent content." A disease is spreading across our country.


That is the logical extent of the dictatorship, not democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member



Just out of interest, the BBFC actually doesn't enforce ratings for cinematic exhibition. That's down to local authorities in the UK, which do generally just blindly follow whatever the BBFC does, but it means that when you have something controversial like "Crash" it can be banned in one area but not another. And really that's "effectively" banned - the local authorities can remove an individual cinema's licence to show the film, but there are still legal ways to show it.


This de-facto censorship is probably even more insidious than outright government control, and harder to fight since it's actually nothing more than a custom.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a greater purpose to the MPAA? To protect the children? The same children who cannot speak english and purchase rap albums in the store at 12 years old? At this point, forget about NC-17. Not a 12 year old in the country gives a single damn about art. They want Jackass and Eminem. They will not be saved.


Eddie: what's dead is dead. Forget about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't have that big a problem with the MPAA, in concept.


Sure, I disagree with LOTS of their opinions and I'm left scratching my head just like the rest of you, about how they can give one movie an R (or even a PG), and another an NC-17, but really, their purpose isn't as an official, acting agency with any authority, therefore the word "censorship" does not apply.


The purpose of hte MPAA, is to say "hey, moms & dads out there, we hired a bunch of moms & dads just like you to watch these films, and here's what they think is, or is not, appropriate for your kids to watch when they go to the movies."

That process is inherently subjective, and it was never their stated intent to rate movies to satisfy the artists. They perform a service to the public, not the artist.

It's not SUPPOSED to be just another device to be used for marketing purposes by the industry, which is exactly what it would end up being if it were "tweaked" to put the artists concerns first, because in this case, artist = Studio PR machine.


I don't have a problem with the MPAA doing their thing.

Everyone acts like they're some official organization that bans films, and they don't.


Now I DO have a problem with newspapers and TV (all media, actually) not running ads for NC-17 films, especially since most media outlets in the country see themselves as "enlightened" organs of truth.

I want to know why you guys are railing against the MPAA, and not the media?

Could it be because one is seen as an "evil" conservative organization, and one is a liberal organization, therefore protected from criticism?


It's not the ratings that are the problem, it's what's done with the information, and the media are the ones who cause the ratings to be a problem.

It's THEM who are censoring, if anyone is.


TV will show actual footage of someone being shot in the head, but won't run an NC-17 ad, and w'ere casting insults at the MPAA???


Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree in full. I never heard the end of the controversy about The Dreamers, and when I watched it, I thought: "it's just a boring film with some shots of some guys schmecke, and a vagina. What was I all worked up about?"


The filmmaker has not harnessed sexuality and brought it as a part of the art, instead leaving us cold on our seats while mechanical humping fills the screen. But the MPAA doesn't care about context (unless its jesus; you know its true), and that is irresponsible.


They say that x and y equal an automatic NC-17, and, therefore, have prevented any individualistic interpertation, save the appeals board, but cancer spreads quickly to all the limbs, so, alas, it is of no use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Could it be because one is seen as an "evil" conservative organization, and one is a liberal organization, therefore protected from criticism?

Again with this? We all know your views Matt, you don't have to keep repeating yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The design of the first part of your argument does not hold water. The average teenager is intellectually inferior. Give MTV a shot for a few hours and try to keep a straight face when you re-read your quote.


I don't want to launch into a rant onto contemporary culture, but it seems quite idiotic to defend the virtue of a generation that is the very definition of apathy. They have no interest in politics, their mathematical skills are rock-bottom, they listen to that rap music (which, no one can doubt is a medium that glorifies drug

use, violence against women, violence against pregnant women, distain for our fellow citizens, fast and loose ethical standards, and, my personal favorite, murdering police officers)


Today, one is exiled from the community if they even display a desire to speak proper english (or french, or german, or whatever) and become a productive member of the mature community.


So, the overwhelming question is, why even bother to save the little meshuganas?


That a parent is not allowed to make that decision for themselves is a travesty; whether or not the parent will, that's the hard part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc



Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products


Cinematography Books and Gear

  • Create New...