Film Ratings and Censorship in the U.S.: What are your opinions?

[Andrew]

>  Are you aware that Micro$oft, along with Intel and other
> companies are working on a 'trusted' computer design? The
> software portion of it will be called Palladium.

Very, I keep a close eye on these sort of things.  Microsoft actually wrote a new section into their license when a recent patch for Media Player was released.  In effect, it says that at any time they may install digital rights management functionality into the player.  Meanwhile, we still do not have a legal DVD player for Linux due to the DMCA.

I am a Marine because I believe what America is built on.  No matter what, a corporation cannot vote a politician into office (don't get me started about a legal entity having rights equal to my own, as a person).  Only people can elect a Representative or Senator or... ...you get the idea.  If you see something you do not like, raise hell!  Do it in a sensible manner with your elected officials.

[Mofo Rising]

Well, the very idea of ratings promotes laziness.  Easy to stop thinking about a movie if it has a convenient label to categorize it.

You could say the MPAA does a good job most of the time, but most of the time it doesn't matter what the rating is.  So STUART LITTLE 2 is PG movie, and ROAD TO PERDITION is rated R.  Who cares?  Kids don't want to see a movie like ROAD TO PERDITION.  It's the films that push the boundary where the rating system matters, and it's where the MPAA always breaks down.

They do have several hard and fast rules, which often works against them.  For instance, AMELIE, which I consider a decent movie for anyone old enough to be interested in seeing it, was given an R rating for its U.S. release.  It contained several scenes in a sex shop, but they were mostly harmless.  If you were a teenage boy you might be titillated, but what doesn't titillate a teenage boy?

For the most part it's politics.  I think most of us have heard the story about the studio exec who let HANNIBAL into the theaters, but axed Rob Zombie's HOUSE OF A 1000 CORPSES.  If you have enough clout and money, you can get almost anything by.  Sure that may be a fact of life, but it shouldn't be a fact for an organization that likes to base itself in public morals.

And who are these people who are deciding our morals for us?

My main problem with the MPAA is that, although it is not officially sanctioned censorship, it often works out that way.  The NC-17 rating is the kiss of death.  Almost no movie released with that rating will make its money back.  This is due to a combination of the policy most theaters have of playing no NC-17 movies, and the same policy for rental stores like Blockbuster.  Simple economics demand that a movie make its money back.  And movies cost millions of dollars to make.  Much as I'd like to give up millions to satisfy somebody's "artistic vision", I'm not going to.  So the cuts that the MPAA demand to satisfy themselves become very close to mandatory.  Since the cuts are often the result of entertaiment politics and the board's nebulous morals, we have a de facto case of censorship.  Not federally sanctioned, but economically sanctioned by a small group of people who just happen to have that power.

Certainly a group nobody elected.

Anyway, that's small potatos compared to the stuff Andrew mentioned.  But that's an even longer rant that I shant get into at the present time.  (How can you have a freedom of ideas when all ideas cost money?)

(As a quick addendum to my post, I should note that I was allowed to watch pretty much whatever I wanted growing up.  I turned out mostly alright, I like to think.  The worst damage you could say I received was a strange fascination with 80's sex comedies and terrible horror movies.  Funny how things work out.)

[Neville]

I live overseas and therefore the MPAA ratings have never affected me directly. In my country there is no censorship, but there exist several cathegories in which movies are organised. The real difference with the US system is that only porno movies have restricted distribution, while the  rest of the movies are distributed freely. Concerned parents can always look at the newspapers, where every movie has its cathegory highlighted.

About the MPAA, I feel that their ratings are quite capricious and hypocritical. Can't believe they don't have much trouble with violence but instead jump everytime they see a sex scene. This and PC have caused a great deal of damage to US movies since the 90s.

[Law Dog]

I think one of the key problems with ratings is that the MPAA has forgotten (or really has never known) exactly why they are supposed to exist.

They often confuse simple nudity and salicious nudity. See in breast or a penis isn't a bad thing. It all context. Of course, mostly nudity is presented as the latter to titilate in the movies.

They often label violence as BAD! Violence is neither good nor bad, it is a tool. Shooting the bad guy is a good thing.

The thing that seems to really confuse them is innuendo vs gore. Most of the time, innuendo can be so much more powerful that buckets of blood, but can usually sneak past the impotent MPAA. Of course, then we have pure crap like Hannibal come out and they let the most ridiculous gore ever presented march right past them, too.

[jmc]

I think AMELIE probably deserved its R rating--there was a lot of sex in it, not just the scenes in the sex shop.   Definitely too much for a PG-13 rating.   Still a great movie, though.

[Chadzilla]

Film ratings do't bug me anymore.  It's all part of the business and there are several alternatives to get your movie out and seen by the great unwashed masses.  Besides, who wants to sit in a theater filled with a great unwashed mass?

Censorship is something else entirely.  We cannot let the lie of "protecting ourselves" stop the free flow of information.  Do not let laws or pressure groups get items removed from the public discourse.  The best way of understanding the 1st Amendment and 'Free Speech' is a litmus test I was given in a political science class.  Find a subject that you find morally repugnant and argue in FAVOR of it (i.e. Atheists arguing for Under God staying IN the pledge, a parent arguing for the right of NAMBLA to distribute literature around elementary schools, etc).  When a collection of individuals controls information, they control YOU.

[Jim Hepler]

Yeah, that thing probably won't pass.  That's the single largest thing I think they did in the US government, making everything slow and big changes hard to do.  

If it does pass, I personally will firebomb the RIAA.  They have it coming.  Andrew, you can come, maybe bring a few military buddies?

[Jim Hepler]

The South Park movie is a really obvious example.  The scene with the two dildos was intended to be the bait removal scene for the MPAA.  They said it was fine...  Instead they had them remove a scene of sodomy between Satan and Sadam.  

The thing is, the "dildos" are actually cut out and scanned in REAL erect penises.  An erection = AUTOMATIC NC-17.  So Trey and Matt managed an R in what should be auto NC-17 territory.  The president of the MPAA even admitted it should of been NC-17 later.  

Oh yeah, has anyone seen Shadow of the Wolf?  Most gory PG-13 I've seen, easily.  Stuff like a guy getting half his face visibly chewed off by a wolf, then repeatedly stabbing it in the side, letting blood flow all over both of them.

[John]

>Very, I keep a close eye on these sort of things. Microsoft actually wrote a new
>section into their license when a recent patch for Media Player was released. In
>effect, it says that at any time they may install digital rights management

 I've heard about that. I'm still using Media Player 6.4 under Windows 98. A friend of mine keeps trying to get me to switch to Windows XP (has has a copy with no activation required), but I won't install that unless I absolutely have to, to run new software. I also won't install the RealOne player as it's the biggest piece of spyware to come along in years.

>functionality into the player. Meanwhile, we still do not have a legal DVD player
>for Linux due to the DMCA.

 I want to see the DMCA overturned. Hopefully one of the pending court cases can do it.

>I am a Marine because I believe what America is built on. No matter what, a

 Me too (the believing part, I'm not a marine), but lately, I'm starting to be ashamed of what America is becoming.

>corporation cannot vote a politician into office (don't get me started about a legal
>entity having rights equal to my own, as a person). Only people can elect a
>Representative or Senator or... ...you get the idea. If you see something you do
>not like, raise hell! Do it in a sensible manner with your elected officials.

 I've already written them about the CBDTPA bill (mandatory copy protection) and the DMCA, and I intend to write them about this Hollywood hacking proposal. I was also thinking of possibly typing up a short announcement about all of this and slipping them inside various computer and electronics magazines at the book store.

 I like what someone, somewhere once said; we should recall ALL our current elected officials and start over with a fresh batch.