MPAA movie censorship
p2p news / p2pnet: “It is important that this film be seen by as many people as possible, as it deals with an insidious form of censorship resulting from a ratings process that has been kept secret for more than 30 years.”
The movie is This Film is Not Yet Rated, a documentary investigation into the MPAA film ratings system and its “profound effect on American culture,” says the IFC (Independent Film Channel).
The quote comes from its director, Kirby Dick.
This Film is Not Yet Rated is slated for the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and will be aired on the IFC network in Fall 2006, but, says the IFC:
“On November 30, the ratings board, an anonymous group whose mandate is to classify films for the MPAA from the perspective of ‘the average American parent,’ screened this documentary and gave it an NC-17 rating for ’some graphic sexual content.’ An NC-17 rating generally limits a film’s avenues of exhibition: many theater chains will not show it, media outlets will not run its advertisements and video store chains will not stock it.”
Although MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) boss Jack Valenti retired in September last year, and Dan Glickman succeeded him, Valenti remained in charge of the ratings until this September 2005 when ex-Screen Actors Guild boss Bob Pisano took charge of the anti-p2p effort and Glickman ended up with day-to-day responsible for “operations, domestic and international, other than Washington, DC-based external and governmental affairs,” including ratings.
The documentary asks if:
- Hollywood movies and independent films are rated equally for comparable content
- Sexual content in gay-themed movies is given harsher ratings penalties than their heterosexual counterparts
- It makes sense that extreme violence is given an R rating while sexuality is banished to the cutting room floor
- Hollywood studios receive detailed directions as to how to change an NC-17 film into an R, while independent film producers are left guessing
- Keeping the raters and the rating process secret leaves the MPAA entirely unaccountable for its decisions.
“The MPAA has established itself as the lobbying arm of the American motion picture, home video and television industries in the US since its inception in 1922,” says the IFC.
“On its board of directors are the Chairmen and Presidents of the seven major producers and distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States – Sony, WB, Paramount, MGM, Fox, Disney and Universal. When Jack Valenti became president of the MPAA in 1966, he created a rating system to replace the old Hays code, first adopted in 1930. Valenti’s voluntary rating system, modified only slightly over the years, has become an icon in American culture, with its letter ratings of G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 (formerly X) used to classify films according to age-based appropriateness.”
The IFC says the subject matter of This Film Is Not Yet Rated was kept under wraps during more than a year of research into the MPAA’s rating practices and, “tries to uncover Hollywood’s best kept secret – the identities of the ratings board members themselves”
Filmmakers featured include John Waters (A Dirty Shame), Kevin Smith (Clerks), Matt Stone (South Park), Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don’t Cry), Atom Egoyan (Where the Truth Lies), Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream), Mary Harron (American Psycho), actress Maria Bello (The Cooler) and distributor Bingham Ray (co-founder, October Films and former President, United Artists).
Also read:-
‘questionnaire’ worm – The MPAA Film Ratings System and its Impact on American Culture, December 7, 2005
anti-p2p effort – Glickman ousted in anti-p2p role, September 23, 2005
December 9th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
American society is completely out of whack. A “corporate board” is allowed (no questions asked) to decide what’s morally acceptable for public viewing, yet government social initiatives are on constant assault and vilified as intrusion into the public’s livelyhood. Go figure :-/
December 9th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
There should be a website where movies are rated by independent people. Rather than rating by age appropriateness, they should be rated more objectively using a system such as the one below. The amount of each should either a number of instances or a percentage of movie play time that the instance is occuring.
Drug Use:
Injecting
Smoking
Snorting
Nudity:
Exposure of breasts
Exposure of buttocks
Exposure of genitals
Profanity:
Insulting a deity
Racial slur
Cursing a situation
Cursing another person
Sex (Specify Hetero or Homo)
Intercourse
Kissing
Masturbation
Oral
Petting
Violence
Amputation
Death
Fist play
Gore
Gun play
A rating system such as this would be much or objective than say an arbitrary age rating system. Instances of above would be listed along with the number of instances and the percentage of movie time the instance is being played out. Doing something like this would be like listing the ingredients in a food product. Parents may be surprised with the amount of crap that occurs in so called children’s movies.
December 9th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
It’s not actually censorship. MPAA members (which has most theaters in its membership) agree to not carry films that aren’t MPAA rated. If you don’t want to subject your movie to their rating system, then they refuse to carry your movie. It’s up to the studio to decide if it’s worth it to them to get the MPAA rating. The MPAA doesn’t prevent anyone from releasing their movie to the public.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
[quote]MPAA members (which has most theaters in its membership) agree to not carry films that aren’t MPAA rated. [/quote][quote]It’s up to the studio to decide if it’s worth it to them to get the MPAA rating.[/quote]
You are right, that kind behavior IS NOT censorship. It is monopolistic extortion.
December 10th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
I have yet not figured out human stupidity as demostrated by
- Organizations that say they should get a chance at self regulation, usually after some scandal. History has shown that self regulation never works long enough. It may work for a period of time, until the scandal is forgotten by the public. But politicians are such suckers (or so sold to lobbies) that they take up the offer.
- Politicians who have never done anything useful for the people seek re-election promising to do something next time around. Wich is the samr thing done in a previous election. History shows people have a that useless politicians never redeem themselves.
History also shows that people have a short memory span. The Internet will fix that, if it is not destroyed first by the governments.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 10th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
Good, and add to the list…
Discrimination or the depiction of a race, a nation, a religion, a social class, in a wrong light.
Remeber the days when Indians were all scalpers, or blacks were all servants, or Japneese and communists were all criminals and Italians were all in the Mafia? Admittedly there has been significant improvements but just because of that, it doesn’t mean that that cannot come back.
I wonder, will we see soon movies where downloaders or files sharers are depicted as criminal? Watch out.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas
December 10th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Simple way to nullify these fascists’ influence.
DON’T GO SEE THEIR CRAPPY MOVIES!
December 10th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
Maybe Racketeering also.
December 10th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
Wait a second…those stereotypes changed????