Jump to content

Censorship, take two


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So the MPAA, who was not elected and does not serve at the pleasure of the president, is protecting those who find self-distruction to be recreation?

 

Bruce.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to give you guys a heads up: I watched The Village a few hours ago, and it is the worse film i've seen all year. Save your money. Terrible ending.

---

 

As we have discovered, it is fine to put a rating on the film for the pleasure of the public, but to prevent an accompanied minor from watching a film is immoral and simply fascist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Off the topic, but I watched it at a midnight showing this morning, and it has to be Shyamalan's biggest misstep. His next film is going to bomb. Next Hitchcock? Nope.

 

Back on the topic, I cannot construct a paradigm wherein a parent should be restricted from being with the kid when they watch the film.

 

Instead of being over 17 to see an R film, they should be accompanied by someone over 25 to see an NC-17

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

It's discrimination! Very self conflicting aswell. On one hand say you're against censorship, on the other suggest that only a certain group of people should do it. Films in general do not require intellect to be viewed especially not when it is possible to be offended by them. I am not pro-censorship, but let's face it. It is inevidable. Representation is key here. A society is't made up of only professors and engineers and artists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt,

 

This is not about left/right politics. That solves nothing and only serves to polarize us.

Oh, please, give me a break.

This post is peppered with you guys making political statements.

(I'll paste in just a few below, that I don't necessarily disagree with, but I'm just making a point here).

But when someone makes a conservative political statement, it's "oh my God, we can't allow this! Someone not on the left, is making a political statement! He must be chastised! Silence the heretic!"

 

Listen to you guys.

You're whining about limitations on free speech, including very legitimate political statements supporting your arguments (which, like I said, are fine with me), but if someone lets out a peep that they might disagree with you in their political leanings, you try to silence them, in the name of some unspoken ban on political speech, that somehow only applies to others!.

That's the only reason I toss in these remarks once in a while, because you guys don't see through your own hypocrisy, and I'm sitting here laughing, because this is happening, DURING A CONVERSATION ABOUT FREE SPEECH!!!

 

I'll say it again, because to me, it's so obvious:

The real problem is not the MPAA, it's what others do with that information.

I can't see how anyone has a problem with parents not wanting their kids to see certain movies.

Fine.

The problem is the media blacklisting based on the ratings.

Nobody is ever going to agree on the ratings of particular films, because it's all up to personal tastes and background.

You guys would be happy if someone rated the films in total 100% agreement with your personal tastes and beliefs, but then the hell with what anyone else thinks?

Everyone's different. Nobody agrees on this stuff, so it's always gonna be the same thing; 1/2 the population thinking whoever is rating films is insane.

 

 

 

Here are a few (dare I say it?) political statements in this post:

 

"Religion is the crux of the problem. If we put some Marxsists on the board, they would get the job done right."

 

"You're making the worst mistake in politics: telling the truth. "

 

"Remember the sexual revolution in Cuba? There would be no anti-Marxist ideology, no homosexuality."

 

"Compared to the FCC? Especially with Michael Powell in charge...."

 

"...A disease is spreading across our country...."

 

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

 

 

Are these not political statements?

 

Matt "don't blame me, I voted for John Anderson" Pacini

Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt is correct. We are trying to dance around it, but this is a political matter. Both the media and MPAA have blood on their hands. I still refuse the notion that it is Left v.s Right. It's more like moron v.s bigger moron.

 

Regarding representation, I do agree that I.Q should be the most important factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's discrimination! Very self conflicting aswell. On one hand say you're against censorship, on the other suggest that only a certain group of people should do it. Films in general do not require intellect to be viewed especially not when it is possible to be offended by them. I am not pro-censorship, but let's face it. It is inevidable. Representation is key here. A society is't made up of only professors and engineers and artists.

Of course it is, mensch. If someone refuses to beleive in basic scientific concepts because it conflicts with their religion, they are of no use to a logical people. They fear sexuality and violence because of (your god's name here), not becuase it is against the evolution of society, or there is an ethical problem.

 

When I took graduate philosophy, I can't defend Sarte by saying: because that's the way it is. I have to construct a proof, based on a thesis. I have to come to a conclusion I can back up.

 

I want to preface the next statements by saying that the U.S has my unwavering respect, as they have rescued more lives from communism and fascism and every other disease than any other country in the modern world.

 

Take, for example, the U.S legislation to ban gay marraige. This is not something that happens in a secular society. Also, having god's name in the pledge; or the ten commandments in a courthouse. These are the logical extension of a theocracy. This is not spite on my part: it's common sense. Otherwise, it's like any other country: some scumbags, some really good, kind and compassionate people.

 

So let's refrain from Jingoism in all quarters, not just mine or yours.

 

And to matt: I don't give a damn if the U.S media is liberal or conservative or moderate. The journalist's job is to report the news. People like to go on and on and on about fox news, when it is clear that people like O'reilly give Commentary, not news. If you want news, watch something else.

 

If a journalist does his or her job, they ask the prudent questions, and avoid getting a rise out of the subject by showing respect. It is fine to ask hard questions, but a real journalist is the definition of political secularism. They do not express their views.

 

The newspapers who do not run ads are, IMHO, comitting intellectual terrorism by enforcing a code of silence around a most basic deprevation of a parent's freedom of choice. The NC-17 is unjust, and is a violation of civil liberties, but, since it is not a public body, they can get away with being brownshirts and repeating, over and over as the case may be: this is not requied.

 

So the MPAA are bastards for depriving parents of their right as legal guardian to choose for the child in their care, and the Newspapers (liberal or conservative) are strolling right along the same alley.

 

As far as Michael Powell, he does practice selective enforcement by fining the hell out of howard stern and not touching Oprah for that show she did which makes stern look like Dan Rather.

 

The comment about Cuba was anti-communism, saying that the ideology does not work, and is censorship, so why you (the presumed conservative) have a problem with that is beyond me.

 

And, as we have danced around before getting to the point: religion is the problem. Both with homophobia, stem-cell research, and censorship. This is the truth, and cannot be washed aside.

 

And, as far as we the people on this board only being satisfied if one agrees with our philosophy, that is just nonsense. People are welcome to post whatever they want. And I hope that they do just that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
.... And, as we have danced around before getting to the point: religion is the problem...."

Well... it's the problem for the un-religious, sure.

And I'm certainly not saying I'm on "their" side (as if "they" are some easily definable group).

You're absolutely correct about the religious nature of America (God on our money, laws, etc).

In fact, that's what religious people in this country have to keep arguing, over and over; that the US was set up by religious people, for the purpose of being able to practice their religion freely.

It's carved into monuments and buildings in Washington D.C. going back over 200 years. This is obvious, and self evident, and yet the left in THIS country keeps saying it's not so.

I'm not saying I want a theocracy; I'm just pointing out how someone on the other side of the planet can clearly see what a huge number of our own citizens cannot.

 

Anyway, roughly 80% of Americans state in polls that they are "religious" and/or attend church.

 

So, in your opinion, the MPAA is supposed to only cater to the other 20%, because they on your side?

 

The MPAA is serving a customer; the average American moviegoer, and like it or not, the average American moviegoer just "might" go to church on Sundays (unlike myself).

Not just the intellectuals.

Not just the college professors.

Mom, Dad and the kids.

 

Like I said, the REAL problem is what's done with the information.

Moms & Dads take that information, and either let their kids go to film, or not.

I hardly view that as some fascist event.

 

However, the media are the ones who act as the gatekeepers of morality, deciding for FREE, ADULT CITIZENS what choices they will be permitted to have available to them.

 

P.S. I finally watched Fox News!

Just for the record, O'Reilly's show is clearly commentary, and he does not claim to be a journalist reporting the news.

Are you confused, or am I misreading your post?

 

Matt "haven't been to church in over 14 years" Pacini

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well... it's the problem for the un-religious, sure.

If the American status quo is authoritarian majoritarianism serving religion, then the United States is a theocracy. Freedom of religion is then a moot point, enjoyed by the minority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, roughly 80% of Americans state in polls that they are "religious" and/or attend church.

 

So, in your opinion, the MPAA is supposed to only cater to the other 20%, because they on your side?

If religion does influence this and other political matters, then the United States is not only practicing theocratic policy, but also selective morality. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

fallen? are you kidding?

 

i have encountered threads that expound ideology with which i disagree, but never have i read such incoherent, uninformed, and illogical blabbering on this website.

 

thank you for agreeing to put your attempts at wrangling an academic debate to rest.

 

now then...back to cinematography.

 

jk :ph34r:

 

p.s. "How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

Ronald Reagan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your responses to my post above, seem to suggest that you believe that I think the MPAA is running the country, or should be.

But then, as the "token conservative" on this board, I'm used to specific statements I make, being expanded into global statements, thereby supporting the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that supposedly is going on.

 

It's just a freakin' ratings organization.

They don't make anyone do anything.

Our government pretty much oppresses ONLY Christianity, so I hardly think it's a theocracy.

 

My comments were specifically in context to your statements and insinuations that an organization rating movies for public family consumption, should then ignore an 80% demographic and only cater to college professors and film students.

 

Matt Pacini

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason,

 

Who appointed you administrator? Your post doesn't even have a thesis to support. None of us are communists, so what is your problem? Your moral superiority sickens me. If you can't contribute something, don't drag the rest of us down to name calling and insults.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I would really like to see this dialouge get going again.

 

Of course, the MPAA is preferable to government control, so I condsider it the lesser of two evils. But I cannot get behind an organization that imposes these childish restrictions on parents who exercise their perogative by allowing their children to see a film, only to be cut short at the door.

 

I, too, watched The Dreamers, and was suprised at what people found to be shocking. Gentlemen, are we truly that shocked at the sight of a penis? I hope not.

 

The greatest jest at the MPAA I have ever witnessed was when Tod Solondz was denied the R-rating for Storytelling for a very intimate sex scene. Instead of bending to their will, he digitally imposed a large red square over their nasty bits. This seemed funny to most of the people in the audience, but why cut your film and make it appear as if their idea is the correct one. By putting a big damn square over it, he makes the censorship visible, and we are treated to a very good idea of just how perverse these people are.

 

As was earlier suggested, people will just stop submitting their films to be raped and branded by the MPAA, as Gallo did for his film Brown Bunny.

 

I will take an NR and a limited distribution over the same limited distribution and a seal of approval from Big Brother. Artists must not tolerate censorship, regardless of if it comes from the Government or the self-appointed Bourgeois.

Link to post
Share on other sites

".... But I cannot get behind an organization that imposes these childish restrictions on parents who exercise their perogative by allowing their children to see a film, only to be cut short at the door...."

 

(MP):

So don't get behind them.

You are free to ignore their ratings and simply watch anything you want to watch.

If you want your kids to be able to watch anything regardless of rating, then you can take them to the movies and they will be allowed in with you.

But a lot of parents want to be able to control what their kids watch, and those people are what the ratings are for.

 

Again, the MPAA is just a "ratings" organization, to warn people about the content of a particular product (in this case, movies) to give people an informed decision about what they, or their kids see.

They don't make anybody do anything.

 

I don't hear people jumping up and down screaming "fascists!" when the government puts out lists of what's in your food, or warnings on cigarette packages about what's in there, and in these cases the government actually DOES engage in bans.

Try lighting a cigarette in a California Bar or Restaurant and see how long it is before you're in jail.

And yet,( how do I say this without getting jumped on...), people of a particular political persuasion see this kind of thing as being enlightened, not oppressed, and then bitch & moan about the MPAA.

It's ludicrous.

 

And lest anyone think I'm pro smoking, I hate the stuff, it makes me sick to be around people smoking, I've never smoked, and I had to take care of my mother for the 9 months it took her to die of lung cancer.

I am, however, pro-freedom and pro-not having the government micro-regulate every aspect of our lives, and I think a little (or even a lot) of personal sacrifice and irritation is required, if we're going to have anything resembling a free society.

 

In my opinion, that includes the slight irritation of having movies rated.

 

Matt Pacini

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...