DISQUS

Robert Fure · 1 year ago

I've always thought that movie theaters should just provide (Free of charge) a "movie license." Just a card that a parent picks up in person and signs, stating that their child, regardless of age, has permission to watch films rated _____________.

The MPAA are a bunch of assholes - watch "This Film is Not Yet Rated." They're a small group of people who's personal values and personal feelings can create an impartial judging system - if we're already judging, can we at least strive for objectivity?

That said, Governments don't censor books or regulate them, so kids could read any dirty book they want. Removing the MPAA doesn't mean the government would immediately fiddle with movies - especially considering the 1st Amendment would protect the films from being blocked or banned.

I just think that government and governing bodies should back off and let parents do the work and decide what their kids can and can't see.

badjoke · 1 year ago

@Robert Fure

I agree, in part, but how are parents supposed to know if the movie is OK for their kids? You can't know how naughty a movie is from the trailer (under they start adding nipple/violence counters to them.) Do you expect every parent to see a movie first, so they can decide if it's OK for the kids?

The rating system is there to give a loose guess on the content material so that parents can set rules on which rating is OK for their kids.

I actually approve the whole per-item rating system. You could assign point values to different events/acts/body parts and if the point rating gets high enough, it breaks through another rating limit. For example, "Fuck" could be worth 20 points, "Damn" being only 5. PG movies could require something like 15 points or less to remain PG. This would have to be tweaked, though, so that maybe "Fuck"s were worth many more points in PG than PG-13 to prevent lower ratings from getting too raunchy. Some things should be banned in lower age brackets, too, so no nudity was in PG.

Jandy · 1 year ago

My problem with the MPAA is less how it works and more how people treat it. It shouldn't be a parental substitute, which is how people are tempted to use it instead of doing their homework and really caring about what they expose their children to. As Hunter says, though, it seems no one listens to the MPAA anyway; most theatres don't card on R-rated films, and many parents don't seem to care, or at least don't enforce it. It seems the options are "let my kids see anything" or "listen so strictly to the MPAA they can't see anything rated R." Which is silly and I consider it a breakdown of parenting. On the other hand, there are some things the MPAA could do to reform.

Hunter is right that some things need to be better defined, especially when sending a film back to be recut. The director shouldn't have to guess what the MPAA members found offensive, and they should tell him/her exactly what to do to get the desired rating. I doubt the completely specific system he describes would work, though - a film's impact (positive or negative, in terms of MPAA rulings) can't be reduced to how many swear words there are.

You guys are mostly arguing between PG-13 and R ratings; isn't the R to NC-17 rating of just as much concern? After all, no theatres or rental stores refusing to carry R-rated movies. However, getting an NC-17 is commercial death, since virtually no mainline theatres or rental stores will carry your film, even if it's a legitimately non-pornographic or non-exploitative film. What can the MPAA do to resuscitate the NC-17 rating and separate it from XXX? (In a way, the same could be said for G and PG, which have been ghettoized as 'kids movie' ratings.)

D Train · 1 year ago

It would be nearly impossible to judge a movie based on a point system. After all, it may not just be specific actions or certain words that are bothersome to parents, but the context they are in. Can you put a rape scene in a PG 13 if it shows no nudity? At what point does an allusion to a violent act become unacceptable? You see my point. Films must also be judged on moral content as well.

D Train · 1 year ago

I do agree though, there needs to be some consistency. Batman Returns anyone?

ddog · 1 year ago

Pretty much i side with fure, i dont see no purpose for mpaa at all and it dont really work as kids go to see a film regardless of teh rating they will find a way. kids a sneaky little suckers. I dont see a point or reason as to tell us what we can or cant see and who determines what classifies a film r or pg13. its all a matter of opinion and their opinions may not be the same as mine.

Parents are the ones who should pull those kids reins in and know off hand what they are going to see and what is ok for those kids before going in to see showgirls thinking its an expose on working las vegas life. homework should be done before watchin a flick.
No more watchin a midnight show and seeing parents carrying their 5 year olds to see saw and be shocked and asking for money back becasue of the violence.

No one should tell me whats classified as r or anything. I WANT TO DECIDE FOR MYSELF AS AN EDUCATED MOVIEGOER.

Robert Fure · 1 year ago

Its ok for the ratings to exist as guidelines for parents, but Movie Theaters treat them as law and won't let people in. Its like a self-imposed restriction that I'm not sure I agree with.

And the NC-17 and X rating should be done with anyways. To see a Rated R movie alone, you have to be 17. If a parent wants to take their kid into an NC-17 movie, that is their decision and they should be allowed to. By 17 you're virtually a legal adult, what difference does that one year make?. As for X, if it exists at all, should only be used for porn to signify "This is a porno." And porn is "defined" as having no artistic value, so a movie with penetrative sex (like 9 songs or something) should just be rated R.

Rob Hunter · 1 year ago

@ Fure, "9 Songs" had no artistic value. But that does point to an interesting distinction between sex and violence in films. Unlike say, the rest of the civilized world, the USA (via the MPAA) views sex as much more dangerous to the children than violence. And that's fucked up. If I had custody of any of my kids I'd pay a lot more attention to the violence they were inundated with than the sex. An enraged child is more of a threat than a horny one.

ddog · 1 year ago

@FURE
And porn is “defined” as having no artistic value, so a movie with penetrative sex (like 9 songs or something) should just be rated R.

I don't get it. it's probably obivous and all, but im a lil fried here at work and i just dont get it. just a lil slow here .
do you mean 9 songs of jungle music?

btw: love this topic

Jonathon · 1 year ago

The American fear of regulation never ceases to amaze. What is so wrong with laying out the rules? In Australia (and many other commonwealth countries) the laws governing the classification of films are clearly set out. They're even available online. The people charged with adjudicating weather a film does or does not fit classification criteria are professionals. They are paid by the government to decide what rating a film gets. And they have to show reasons why came to their decision. That way everyone - punters, parents, political parties, everyone - knows what is in a film and why a classification decision has been made. It's true, occasionally films are banned - ("Refused Classification") as was the case With Ken Park and 9 Songs a few years back. But as a rule of thumb, a film's classification generally matches well established public values and tastes. In fact these tastes have been, in part, shaped by the regulatory system itself.

Of course, the way any other country classifies a film really doesn't mean shit given American studios only care American audiences. Everyone else in the world has to put up with this insane system. We are all slave to the MPAA.

Rob Hunter · 1 year ago

@ Jonathon, As fucked up as the MPAA is, I still prefer it over the Australian alternative where a film could actually be flat out banned and made illegal to own.

Robert Fure · 1 year ago

@Rob
Just because "9 Songs" sucked doesn't mean it didn't have artistic value. It tried to be something other than pretentious and failed. Maybe they should define porn as something that gives you a boner, because despite all the sex in "9 Songs" I wouldn't pop that in on a lonely night.

@ddog
I'm talking about "9 Songs" a film directed by Michael Winterbottom. It was supposedly about love and relationships, but really some characters you didn't care about had boring sex and went to lots of concerts.

@Jonathon
Come to America and taste some of our freedom and then you'll understand why we hate regulation! ;)
Kidding. But America was basically founded because we didn't want a government all up in our business and we stick to that proud tradition.

Davebaxter1989 · 1 year ago

I tend to think that what the MPAA needs to do is get pro-active and help those whose films there rating by telling them how they can change the rating. And the reason they need to be 'unveiled' as it were is because they need to be held accountable otherwise it will always appear arbitrary. Watching 'This Film is not yet Rated' would make me think there more than a bit...ummm...well up there own arses would fit the bill.

In saying that I think that its odd that an NC17 is seen as ooooo sooooo terrible. Maybe its an institutional thing but theres a hell of a lot of people over 17 that can decide what they want to watch but cinemas and blockbuster and such make the choice for them by refusing them. Now thats odd.

Cole Abaius · 1 year ago

To my knowledge, pornography isn't defined. Or at least, it isn't defined well. Mostly, we're still hampered by the "I know it when I see it" version of defining smut. Thanks, Supreme Court.

And how dare you, Fure, insinuate that Back Door Nurses 3 didn't have at least some artistic value. Clearly, it went over your head.

I still have trouble seeing exactly how horrifically bad the MPAA is - I understand its frustrating, but is that really it? It definitely doesn't stifle freedom. For one, it's not the government or an outside force. For two, since it's self-regulation, it's a system that's agreed upon that filmmakers work within. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if some boundaries actually give artists more freedom.

It's an interesting point that the government might not swoop in to regulate if the MPAA was disbanded, but is it really likely? I'm not sure. The government does love regulating things. Loves it.

Ryan · 1 year ago

I have no problem with the MPAA giving guidelines to parents. The only problem is whatever they decree the movie is rated becomes law. It is ridiculous that 16 year olds cannot get into R rated movies. It is ridiculous that 16 year and 364 day olds cannot get into R rated movies without their parents. Most of those movies I wouldn't watch with my parents anyway.

The MPAA should make guidelines, not law

ddog · 1 year ago

9 songs ! oh yeah ! thanks robert. that was buggin me there for a lil bit.

Robert Fure · 1 year ago

Yeah, pornography is loosely defined. The only two statements I've heard that come close to trying to define are what we've already mentioned - "You know it when you see it" and "No artistic value."