|
recent posts
----------
I wanted to go back and see them together with me ...
Cross
Yakkety Yak Yak Yak
Where I'd Like to Go
New Fascination
Welcome Home
Terror In a Small Town
Oh, my. This Guy Died.
Sunday Dread
Tyke On a Plane
|
 |
You've got questions, she's got answers. Be among the first to read Elise Mac Adam's new etiquette guide.
Pre-order from:
- Simon & Schuster
- Amazon
- Barnes & Noble
Neither Gods Nor Fools
That is Jack Valenti's description of the members of his Motions Picture Association of America, a group of "average American parents" who rate every movie that hits theatres in the United States. If you like conspiracy theories, and really, who doesn't? It is worth thinking about the organization that wants to parent your children for you. Because actually, some of these people sound quite a bit like fools.
On Friday afternoon, I played hooky and watched Kirby Dick's documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, which explains in remarkable detail the remarkable way the MPAA works and how it sets film ratings and punishes filmmakers... for what, exactly? Well, the reasons for MPAA behavior are largely secret.
It is true that the MPAA is not a censor, though it often recommends cuts to movies so that films can acquire acceptable ratings.
What makes ratings acceptable? Sometimes films are required by contract to have certain ratings, but the larger problem is that films that get an NC-17 rating or which skip being rated entirely are not able to place advertisements in many publications, will not be sold by large chains such as Wal-Mart, and are destined to an ignominious audience-free life.
Most countries have a ratings board or a censor, but very few have one that is as astonishingly secretive and Kafka-esque as the one that is in place in the United States. The names of the raters are kept secret (though this film tracks them down and attaches names and faces to most of the panel). They are supposed to be normal people, and as a result are given no training or guidance, have no standards or expertise. Being a parent is enough. Except when it isn't, because one member of the board doesn't even have children (and most of the board members' kids are much older than 17, the upper limit suggested by the vague guidelines).
Hiding behind a cloak of morality: "Are you a parent. Would you want your child to see this?" the board behaves as if questioning its decisions is practically an admission of child abuse. As the film critic David Ansen points out, while the MPAA claims it wants to protect kids, it is turning us all into children, incapable of making our own decisions or taking on the responsibility of guiding our children's viewing.
Consider this: The MPAA gives over 4 times as many movies the dread NC-17 rating for their sexual content than it does for violence. I wasn't surprised to learn this, but I do think the fact demonstrates a lack of useful perspective. Sex is embarrassing, but it isn't usually terrifying. The movie The Cooler was initially given an NC-17 rating because of one shot in which Maria Bello's pubic hair could be seen for about a second. Saving Private Ryan, spends its opening 30 minutes depicting the hideously gruesome D-Day landing at Normandy. I would be much less concerned about the effects of a glimpse of an actress's body on my kid's psyche than I would the extremely naturalistic images of a teenage soldier screaming for his mother while writhing in agony as he clutches the open wound that spills his intestines all around him.
This Film Is Not Yet Rated touches on many other themes, but I was really overcome by how Valenti (who worked for Lyndon Johnson before the MPAA and who has been an extremely well paid pro-copyright lobbyist) in countless interviews over the years says repeatedly that the board gives filmmakers freedom. There is no freedom here. The MPAA is like an abusive parent: Quixotic and random, capable of holding extended grudges and exacting extraordinary punishment.
My husband says that he wishes this question of film ratings could be at the top of his list of worries, and while I agree, I think it is a symptom of the many ways in which we can give up our power and our ability to make decisions (for ourselves and our children) because someone takes some undefined moral stance about how kids need to be protected.
See the movie if you can. As the title says, it isn't rated, so you may have to look for it, but the IFC web site contains quite a lot of useful information and is worth a visit, even if you can't catch the picture in your burg.
(Oh, and here's a not-uninteresting article on the subject from the Guardian.)
posted by Elise at 7:07 PM
........................................................
........................................................
<< Home
........................................................
|
