That is why one of the articles I read today was so enjoyable. It was linked from one of the blogs I read and the title alone was enough to peak my interested. The article, entitled "We Need to Reboot the MPAA," gives a full but not exhaustive history of censorship in motion pictures, starting with Thomas Edison and continuing to the issue today. Now for those who have not thought about it yet please know that it is rarely easy to understand the rubric used by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) for rating films. Plus there are more people on the "inside" of Hollywood than there are on Wall Street. That makes it easy to "re-edit" a movie after receiving a rating. For instance there have been many films that have received the most adult rating of the MPAA, which is the NC-17 rating. The NC-17 rating says that no person, regardless of parental involvement, will be permitted to view this film if they are under the age of 17. I looked up a list of movies that have received an NC-17 rating (regrettably I could only find it on wikipedia). First off I was surprised at how many of the movies on that list I had seen. To my knowledge I had not seen any movie rated with NC-17. After reading the list not only was I shocked to count how many I had seen but that I owned two of them on dvd (Godfather III and The Boondock Saints).
I had long known that it was possible for multiple edits of the same film to be rated and then for the producers to decide which edit to use for distribution. There was a rumor back in the day that when Team America: World Police (from the creators of Southpark) first went to get rated that the creators had added some 20 extra minutes of unnecessary and grotesque footage to just a few scenes as a sort of practical joke on the rating board. They knew that they were going to receive the NC-17 rating and would have to edit down (because the NC-17 can only be marketed to a small audience) so they decided to have some fun by forcing the raters to sit through not only the already incredibly inappropriate scene but then to extend it to the point of pain. When the movie was released it had received only an "R" rating showing that it had been re-edited. Further evidence of the re-edit is the "UNRATED" dvd that was released. Please don't misunderstand the rating system. This re-editing is not a secret and is often actually used in viral and word of mouth marketing to hype movies that have done similar things to what Team America did. Since the MPAA is a self-regulatory organization (not government) they have the freedom to allow movies to be re-rated. Not only this but they also rate every trailer, tv commercial, and major piece of marketing that is distributed for each film they rate.
This is where you get the "Red Band" trailers that are becoming more popular. Where as before a children's movie you will see the green screen (Green Band) saying "this trailer is approved for all audiences," before a Red Band trailer posted online you're going to have to enter your birthday before viewing to prove you're old enough to view the trailer. A Green Band trailer is designed so that anyone of any age can see it. A Red Band trailer is designed to show you why a movie has received an R rating, and not in a cautionary way. The first Red Band trailer I saw (before I even knew what Red Brand trailers were) was for a war movie and showed a man getting his arm chopped off. They haven't "weakened" with time.
All this leads into the point that since the MPAA is a privately run organization, created for the purpose of self-regulation in lieu of government regulation, that they are not required to release their standards for rating. Since the MPAA is able, and does, operate with a certain level of secrecy a level of blind faith is required to trust their ratings. This has people from all spectrum of life, including the far right and left of politics, concerned. There doesn't seem to be much logic or standard reason behind some of their ratings. Some examples. The Steven Spielberg film Saving Private Ryan staring Tom Hanks and Matt Damon won several Oscars and gave a grotesque yet accurate depiction of some of WWII, especially of D-day. Some believe that if someone besides Spielberg had helmed the movie that it would have received an NC-17 rating (and a strong case could be made for that at another date. Both Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King could have similar charges brought against them having both received PG-13 ratings but were deserving of "R" ratings. The King's Speech, winner of Best Picture in 2011, received an R rating for repeated use of the "f-word." There's no violence or sexuality and none of the swearing is done in a directed anger at anyone. If memory serves every use of explicit profanity is used in a few scenes and is used as speech exercise to help Colin Firth's character to overcome his disabling speech impediment. Ever stutter when trying to cuss? Neither did the King of England apparently. This movie received an R rating and yet the 2001 waste of time Summer Catch starring Freddie Prince Jr. and Jessica Biel had more than one use of the f-word, with no significant context I might add, and received a PG-13 rating.
American films have, by and large, been biased against sexuality and lenient of violence. It goes all the way back to William Hays and Joseph Breen who developed and implemented the Hays Code (the great-grandfather of the modern rating system) in 1930. The movie booms of WWII and after bred leaps and bounds of tolerance for violence yet was still harshly restrictive of anything sexual in nature. Even today it is sexual references/acts that will skyrocket a movie's rating faster than anything. But it won't be this way for long.
Today's major movies can generally be separated into two categories: the Blockbuster and the Art House. The Blockbuster is what you think it is, a big movie released from a major studio for wide distribution in every theater in America. It's the movies that make tens of millions on opening weekends and will usually come with their fair share of explosions and special effects. The Art House or Indie films don't have the budget or resources of the Blockbusters and rely on creativity and artistic appeal for their profits. The Blockbusters go for the revenue through explosions while the Art House films go for revenue by winning awards. It is the Blockbuster which keeps violence alive but it is the Art House where values skew and creep.
We are coming into a small Renaissance for the film industry. Movie revenues are climbing and the industry as a whole has never been stronger. More people are watching more movies than before. The Blockbuster will always be there, as will the Art House, but it is the Art House that should scare you. These movies generate their audiences by portraying views, lives, philosophies, and situations that are uncommon to movies (hence, creative). They have to have something "new" or "profound" to say otherwise everyone will go watch Transformers 7 and see lots of explosions. This causes them, like most artistic ambitions, to push the envelope. This is where the skewing and creeping comes in. Most Art House movies are ok with an R rating. But it's the ones that want to be able to market to a wider audience that cleverly edit the movie just right and politicize the MPAA just so and receive a PG-13 rating instead (or the NC-17 to R edit). Now that they have gotten away with this one thing this one time and another movie comes along and pushes the boundary just a little farther. Now the whole ratings system is askew.
I don't put a lot of faith in the MPAA ratings anymore. I was trying to explain this Summer's Blockbuster "The Avengers" to a mother not to long ago. She was trying to learn enough to make an educated decision about whether or not to let her 12 year old son see it. I was trying to explain that I knew her son and knew the movie well enough (having already seen it) that I though it would be ok. She, thankfully, was more persistent and was asking about specifics, particularly what types of violence was in the movie (it is a war movie after all). I said something to the effect that all the violence was understandable in the context of the movie and it was a comic book movie where heroes battled evil aliens to save the planet. A just cause for violence in a movie. She saw through the "comic book" label and saw it for what it was, a war movie. She decided to not let her son see it. I had no problem letting a 12 year old (or his 8 year old brother for that matter) seeing this movie because it did not have any of the "reasons" not to see it. Plus I had let the PG-13 rating to become more of a TV-7 in my mind because the ratings had crept away from their original meanings.
There's a case to be made that if our children can't see it then we shouldn't either. I don't believe that to be the case. We shelter our children to protect them as they grow and when the are older and stronger they are sheltered less and less so that one day they may be strong enough to shelter their children. It's why we have the ratings system. Also as we grow and develop our tastes should too. But we shouldn't have carte blanche to see whatever whimsical desire that comes up. There's a time and a place for an adult to see and appreciate The Shawshank Redemption or the King's Speech. Yet what time and place is there to appreciate movies like Michael Fassbender's 2011 "Shame" which grotesquely explores sexual addiction or Ewan McGregor's "Trainspotting" which directly depicts heroin addiction through most of the movie?
Before I go see movies today I have to do research. For most movies reading the synopsis and knowing who's the director is enough for me to know what the movie will be like. Then I move onto movie blogs which usually have contacts in Hollywood or are being fed information from the studios for release. These blogs usually have critics which get to see the movie a few days (if not weeks) in advance so they have time to prepare reviews for you to read before the movie is released. I've found that if I do enough research on a movie I'll either be confirmed that going to see this movie will be a good use of my time and money or I'll know that I should find something more constructive to do. Sometimes I find it wise to wait until the movie is on dvd and there's fast-forward (though if you have to fast forward it's probably not something you should be watching).
For those who do not have the time or desire to delve into the world of movies as I have but still need wisdom and discernment in this area I would recommend www.pluggedin.com. For quick and efficient movie reviews that delve into specific content of the movie. Be aware that this website contains "spoilers" but that's why I'm sending you there, so you can read exactly what's in a movie first. The website isn't all-sufficient but it will give you a jump start. Many other websites, including Christian parenting websites do not give sufficient detail to make an informed decision. The more knowledge the better. Scour movie review sites (stay off RottenTomatoes) looking for reviews of films with spoilers (they'll come with a spoiler warning in the first few lines of the review). Listen to movie podcasts. Talk to some of the young men you know, particularly those in college. Chances are that if they haven't seen the movie they've at least talked about it or overheard others talking about it. They'll be more than happy to share all the knowledge they have on that subject with you. I was when I was in college.
Until a better, more informative ratings system is developed, more and more people are going to have to do what I do and research movies directly to understand the content and appropriateness. Go with this wisdom: If you doubt that a movie is worth seeing or whether it is appropriate to see, it probably isn't, and your time will surely be better spent doing almost anything else. Movies aren't necessary after all.
- Hensel
No comments:
Post a Comment