Censorship

[Vigile]

I just watched the documentary "This Film is not Yet Rated."

 

If you haven't seen it you're probably in for a shocking surprise, but a little background first.

 

The documentary was intelligent and made some very nice points, but most of which the average person could probably figure out by common sense and deductive reasoning watching the American film industry's products. It's no big shock, for example that the MPAA is much more concerned with sex than it is with violence. Commit 249 graphic homicides, get an R rating; show a shock of pubic hair, get an NC-17.

 

I probably don't need to mention, but will anyway just in case some don't know, that an NC-17 rating kills a film's potential. Film makers are forced to bend over backwards in order to avoid the death nell of this rating, which will keep their film out of the theaters and will destroy the ad budget.

 

Ok, that's all par for the course and fairly common knowledge.

 

Now here's the shocker:

 

The appeals board for the ratings group that censors all film media in the United states of America staffs A Catholic Bishop and AN Episcopelian Priest!

 

That's right folks. The christian church secretly gets to DIRECTLY decide what is good for you and your family to watch.

[scitsofreaky]

I didn't realize that was a secret. I'd heard that awhile ago. I'm not sure why it is so shocking. There ain't much that churchies hate more than sex, but they have no problem watching their "savior" get beaten to a bloody pulp (and allow, nay, make their children watch it as well).

I just wish they'd get a Baptist to stop all these retarded dancing movies.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Even though I am an atheist and hate it whenever the church does anything to suppress the public, I can't say that they do a bad job. Perhaps it has something to do with whatever age group a person is in that makes a difference on whether they think what they suppress by rating is unsuitable or not when it comes to movies and ratings, but so far I haven't had a problem with it. I wouldn't want my 13 year old going to see graphic violence and nudity and it is a long known fact that even smaller children imitate that which they see.

 

R ratings can kill a movie as well since Hollywood likes to gear it's movies to a wider audience. A family of four going to the theater will generate more money for both the theater and the movie industry than a couple on a date or some guy wanting to see a flash of beaver, in general. Since theaters make practically nothing off the movie itself, except for the draw, and their revenue is off of concessions they want movies that will draw the greater population, which is PG-13. This is the general belief of the movie producers and has nothing to do with my personal opinion. R and NC-17 movies have pretty much become considered "niche" movies.

[Vigile]

I didn't realize that was a secret. I'd heard that awhile ago. I'm not sure why it is so shocking. There ain't much that churchies hate more than sex, but they have no problem watching their "savior" get beaten to a bloody pulp (and allow, nay, make their children watch it as well).

I just wish they'd get a Baptist to stop all these retarded dancing movies.

 

The doc maker had to hire a PI to uncover this fact. The shocking part, at least for me, is the idea that this film board, which has autocratic control over the entire US film industry has clergy voting on its board.

 

 

 

JGJ, you don't have a problem with the idea that the christian church directly gets to decide what is appropriate content for you to watch? The documentary provides a good example:

 

Scary Movie received an R rating and as such received wide distribution. In the film a killer graphically stabs a cheerleader and as he pulls out the knife her bloody breast implant is impaled in the killer's knife. Juxtapose this against a love story where after a sweet intimate scene depicting the tender love between a man and a woman, the camera briefly (less than 1 second) captures her pubic hair. This, according to the notes from MPAA, earned the film an NC-17 killing its chances of even earning back fliming costs.

 

Not only does the public receive a disservice by not having films like this available due to limited distribution and ignorance due to no advertising, but film makers are forced to censor their own artistic vision as they decide what can and can't make it past this board.

 

I mean Pedro Almodovar films receive NC-17 ratings in America for christ sakes.

 

Yes, Americans can watch Almodovar if they are 17 and older. Nevertheless, there is a defacto censorship on great films like his. American artists are restrained from showing us their own visions due to the economic realities that a tiny, secret group that gives voice to the christian church (not to gays, not to single parents, not to even free thinkers [see the documentary for an explanation], but to the christian church and a group of Stepford wives straps the industry with.

 

Again, I'm not shocked that the church tries to influence the entertainment industry. I'm shocked that they are given this secret veto.

[Vigile]

R and NC-17 movies have pretty much become considered "niche" movies.

 

I strongly dispute this. NC-17 yes, R, mainstream. Some revenue dif between R and PGs, but not nearly as substantial as NC-17.

[Jella]

I just fuckin hate religion.

[Scarlett]

That's right folks. The christian church secretly gets to DIRECTLY decide what is good for you and your family to watch.

 

 

I guess that partly explains why there's so many crappy movies at the theaters!

[♦ nivek ♦]

Vig...

 

The Rating Board is a defacto governing agency, might not be as *elected by the rate paying public*, but having the total power to make decisions.

 

Unspoken public secret the Board and its reviewers. What isn't funny for the rate payers is they have ZERO say in the placing of these enelected/no public input allowed Proctors of Morality.

 

I suspect that folks are so used to the Goobers having the *right* to tell us what to do that something such as a "private concern" like movie ratings would be of less bother to care about.

 

What I see happening as technology and home screen size increases the showing of films will increase to the pay-per-view user. The cinema based movies are not getting any better plot/story/filmation wise, few flicks recently are worth the full ticket price to watch, can't see technology eventually supplanting the big screen.

 

Movie Ratings, and their arbitrary morality stamps are part of a problem that the Invisible Hand will fix...

 

k, flicks his button on remote to "PAY FOR SKIN", FL

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

R and NC-17 movies have pretty much become considered "niche" movies.

 

I strongly dispute this. NC-17 yes, R, mainstream. Some revenue dif between R and PGs, but not nearly as substantial as NC-17.

 

Out of all the movies that hit theatres, what is the ratio to R to PG-13? R may still be mainstream but the it is quickly decending into the realm of niche movies.

 

Vigile, the rating doesn't restrict what movie I see whatsoever, I'm 38. As for those under 18 I don't have a problem with them restricting what they watch. I don't blame them at all for restricticting a 13 year old from seeing what they consider inappropriate for their age group regardless if it is restricted by someone who goes to church or not. I don't think religion has anything to do with it and to think it does would put it in the category of extreme liberalism, which in my opinion is no more evil than fundamentalism.

[Vigile]

You're missing the point. You can not watch anything you want to watch because film makers are not making it. They will not make NC-17 movies, but will instead restrict themselves in order to get the much needed R rating. The guidelines on what it takes to get an R and not an NC-17 are so fuzzy that they must make subjective decisions about what is and isn't going to cut it.

 

If not wanting the church to restrict the artistic process is extreme liberalism then mark me guilty as charged.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

You're missing the point. You can not watch anything you want to watch because film makers are not making it. They will not make NC-17 movies, but will instead restrict themselves in order to get the much needed R rating. The guidelines on what it takes to get an R and not an NC-17 are so fuzzy that they must make subjective decisions about what is and isn't going to cut it.

 

If not wanting the church to restrict the artistic process is extreme liberalism then mark me guilty as charged.

 

I'm not missing the point at all. In fact I think I am more clear on it than you.

 

The latest poll results show that 78% of parents with children under 13 found the ratings to be "very useful" to "fairly useful" in helping them make decisions about what movies their children see. It is likely that the majority of those who do not find it useful think that the ratings are too lax in their ratings instead of too strict.

 

The use of the rating system created by CARA is completely voluntary and is paid for by the movie's producers. Any producer/distributor who wants no part of any rating system is free to go to the market without any rating, or with any description or symbol they choose, as long as it is not confusingly similar to the G, PG, PG-13, R, and, NC-17. It was not designed for censorship and the President of CARA has repeatedly stated that he has done everything possible not to censor any movie.

 

"Our original plan had been to use only three rating categories, ending with R. It was my view that parents ought to be able to accompany their children to any movie the parents choose, without the movie industry or the government or self-appointed groups interfering with their rights. But NATO urged the creation of an adults only category, fearful of possible legal redress under state or local law. I acquiesced in NATO's reasoning and the four category system, including the X rating, was installed." The X rating was later changed to NC-17.

 

A producer/distributor who for any reason is displeased with a rating can appeal the decision to the Rating Appeals Board, which sits as the final arbiter of ratings. The Appeals Board comprises 14 to 18 members who serve terms of varying length. They are men and women from the industry organizations that govern the rating system.

 

Since you said the two members of the Appeals Board were priests and not members of the Rating Board, two seperate boards of which the Ratings Board is the actual entity that gives the rating, I will say this...

 

"If a movie's rating is appealed by the producer/distributor the Appeals Board gathers to view the film and hear the appeal. After the screening, the producer/distributor whose film is being appealed explains why he or she believes the rating was wrongly decided. The chairman of the Rating Board states the reason for the film and rating. The producer/distributor has an opportunity for rebuttal.

 

After Appeals Board members question the two opposing representatives, they are excused from the room. The Board discusses the appeal and then takes a secret ballot. It requires a two-thirds vote of those present to overturn a Rating Board decision. By this method of appeal, decisions of the Rating Board can be examined and any rating deemed a mistake set right. The decision of the Appeals Board is final and cannot be appealed."

 

I seriously doubt that having 2 priests on 14 to 18 member board constitutes a hegemony over what is overturned to R from NC-17. In your example you used Scary Movie. Scary Movie was Rated R for strong crude sexual humor, language, drug use and violence, something as a parent you wouldn't want your child to see. There is a reason for the secrecy of the Ratings and Appeals Boards, it is so they cannot be bought and turned into a capitalistic puppet of Hollywood lobbyists. If NATO wants to keep the ratings honest and have a good guide to decide what movies to show in their theaters than more power to them. If an independent theater wants to show movies with its own ratings, they can. It is by NO MEANS a law that theater owners and producers/distributors have to follow. There may be state and local regulations but that is an issue for your local governments and not CARA, MPAA, or NATO or the two priests on the Appeals Board.

[Vigile]

I'm not missing the point at all. In fact I think I am more clear on it than you.

 

Yes, you did a very nice job presenting Jack Valenti's case. I think it's the nuance of artistic freedom that you are missing. We will probably not find common ground on this point.

[pandora]

About a month ago, I listened to a NPR talk show and they had someone who heads that group on the show. If I remember correctly, the clergy merely supervise the meeting and stand back and don't vote... but I could be wrong.

 

It's a shame though.

[Vigile]

In the documentary they made the same claim. However, when they put one of the ex censors on in disguised face, he contradicted this saying that the clergy do indeed vote and participate in the pre vote discussions.

[Onyx]

If it was up to me, I'd abolish the MPAA of almost all of its powers. No kidding. I don't want unneedful censorship. It's up to the parents to take responsbility for the children to read or see movies or books, not the MPAA or any other censor boards. The only use for these boards in my opinion is to stamp out stuff that is geniunely hurtful to the people involved and to the public. If a film is partly fake but some stuff is real, the film concerned should be reviewed by the board to see if it is illegal or not.

 

Child and animal pornography, videoes of real murders by serial killers, any other serious crimes being committed on people or animals, hatred so extreme, it can harm people and videoes of real rape. These cases is when censorship is actually needed.

 

Apart from these, anything goes, faked or real as long nobody get hurt and harmed in ways that they will be angry at people for showing it and forcing them to do parts they dislikes and all parties agrees to it. Also all parties involved should do their best to make the film making process to be as safe and fun as possible.

If a woman or man doesn't find the content good and that they will be geniunely harmed by doing so, they should be free to leave the production or complain to the police or the relevant organisations.

 

Directors and any other creative forces should be unfettered as they want to be. Even if it's good or bad, these directors and other creative forces should be allowed to shine through without ANY ratings. The only thing prohbiting children is two different blanket stickers on all covers, posters, DVDs is "Parents execrise caution, be sure about what you and your children are looking at" Or "Porn: Execrise Caution" The only punishment for looking at allowed films that happens to be adult or mature in content is stupidity. Yes you can feel free to complain but if the film is actually allowed beyond any doubt, there will be nothing to do about it. There will be no fines for any viewing of any movies that are legal even if the child is six when she viewed Salo. The parent should excerise caution the next time and learn to censor movies from the children until they are ready to do so. Additionally, Video stores can rent out movies to anyone unless the parent or any parent figures refuses to rent any movies to their children. But if the children should ask for any movie they want, they should be free to. The only punishment are the stupidity of the children or parents for renting the movie in the first place and being offended or shocked by it. That is punishment enough. I don't see the point in fining or jailing the parents or children for stupidity. The children and parents should be informed and discuss the content of the movies they are viewing before renting or buying or viewing or reading these things.

 

But looking at illegal or criminal images, publication and movies is a different thing. For each offense, you should pay $100,000 for each images possessed or viewed and sentences up to ten years for each possession of them except in courts for evidence or viewing or seing by accident if proved in courts and if proved that you haven't been of a criminal state of mind and actions when you saw them. You'll have the right to a fair trial, there.

 

As for the undue pressure of organisations on the content of respective artists's works, they should be probhited from doing it to prevent the works from being shown or to be changed. These organisations includes: Studios, religious groups, politicial groups, morality groups, gangs, the police (If the movies or book or photographs or websites or political tracts or any other medium you care to name is totally legal and doesn't harm anyone in making of them.) the government, rouse rabblers and spy agencies. All of these are not allowed to scare or force the people involved in the making of the mediums to change or refrain from making any works. All protests about the finished works are allowed but they will not effect anything. If they get violent, they are arrested by the police.

 

People should be free to express their views, again, the only punishment is stupidity.

 

So here is my own view on censorship and what should be done about censorship.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Onyx,

How can parents know what movies are safe for their children without a rating system? Are they supposed to take the producer's word (who is looking to draw customers) that it is safe for a child to watch? The MPAA has nothing to do with censorship only the rating. It is up to the producer/distributor to edit his movie to lower the rating or not or even use the rating. It also has nothing to do with the law or deciding what is legal or not. You have to remember that there are multiple sides in this dilemma.

 

CARA who creates the ratings and the standards for them.

MPAA who watches the movie and determines what rating it should be.

NATO which is a kind of union of theater owners who look out for their interests because the last thing they want is to drive away customers or cause a protest by parents over unrated or under-rated movies.

The Producers/Distributors who make the movies and can appeal the MPAA's decision to ---

The Appeals Board which was the subject of the original post.

 

For the legal/illegal considerations you would need to complain to the FCC as well as your state legislature, not the MPAA. But I am guessing that you didn't read all the posts and are just talking about general censorship, otherwise you would have known all this. And if that IS the case, then generally speaking I agree with you in that censorship is a bad thing when used to exploit.

[Onyx]

It is a general censorship post by me, yes.

I was talking about an ideal situation where the parents takes responsbility for themselves and their children.

 

The parents should view the film before their children, talk to each other about it and they must not take the producer's words seriously is what I would recommend. There is a lot of film synposes for parents on the web or books. IMDB.com is a great site explaining the plots of many movies, even without ratings, you can be either digusted or happy with the content of these movies.

[Mr. XC]

IMDB.com is a great site explaining the plots of many movies, even without ratings, you can be either digusted or happy with the content of these movies.

I agree. There is so much more to the content of a movie than just a coarse rating decided by a third party. When raising children, parents should consider the content, not just a rating. Even PG-13 movies can teach bad morals, but we have no MPAA ratings against that. Rating systems such as the MPAA's are deceiving. Parents of young children who use only the MPAA system are not being very responsible in my opinion. Regardless, we are not going to change parents who do not want to take the time to review a summary of the content; so for them, a MPAA rating is better than nothing. I do accept that rating systems are useful for parents of older children that are less easily influenced.

 

I do disagree with the the United States paranoia over seeing a little skin (while tolerating graphic violence). The MPAA reflects this mass paranoia, so they are not fully responsible for it. They mostly validate it (which is still annoying). So I guess my suggestion is to spread the idea that we should rely more on summaries posted on IMDB and perhaps use rating certifications from other countries where sex and violence are weighed a little bit more sensibly.

[Vigile]

How can parents know what movies are safe for their children without a rating system?

 

Well, just an idea, but they could just list items of interest:

 

This film contains 49 instances of graphic violence, 20+ F words, and brief nudity...

 

Not perfect, but at least it takes some of the subjective judgement out of the hands of a few and lets the parents make their own judgement from there. This way, instead of a censorship board, they would merely have a board of catalogers.

[Japedo]

Onyx,

How can parents know what movies are safe for their children without a rating system?

 

 

 

 

 

Parents go view it first to see if it's appropriate for their kids? What about the Passion for example. Do you not agree by all rights that should have received an NC17 due to the obscene blood and gore? It got a pass to the more favorably R because Xtians get to set the stage of what is deemed appropriate, that's the point. What's more likely to effect a kids mind? A glance of a pubic hair or killing and maiming someone and calling it wonderful?

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

How can parents know what movies are safe for their children without a rating system?

 

Well, just an idea, but they could just list items of interest:

 

This film contains 49 instances of graphic violence, 20+ F words, and brief nudity...

 

Not perfect, but at least it takes some of the subjective judgement out of the hands of a few and lets the parents make their own judgement from there. This way, instead of a censorship board, they would merely have a board of catalogers.

 

I dont see the difference between that and what they do now. Ratings that are given with the trailer are accompanied by a list of what the movies contain. From what I can tell you just want the producer/distributor to decide what to tell the public about its films. That would be a bad idea. Hollywood has never been known for their honesty and there would be some directors, with no oversight, that would take advantage of the situation. Not everyone would agree with a producer on what would be appropriate. Would you call a flash of beaver or pubic hair brief nudity? Would you call two people discussing oral sex or something similar sexual content? What about just a face shot of a woman having an orgasm? What if you were trying to make money off the movie and wanted to get a large box office showing? Would you scimp on anything?

 

Japedo and Onyx,

Are you suggesting that people go see a movie twice? Once to see if it is ok to bring their family and once with their family? Isn't that kind of off the wall? That would go over like a lead balloon. The first thing that would happen is people would want movies rated so they wouldn't have to spend the time and money just to see if their kids can watch it. Remember that the majority of people in this country are not like you and I. They are uptight Christians. And despite the media hype, most parents actually care about what their children do and see. I didn't see McDonalds being open about the dairy and whey content of their fries, they just wanted to sell more fries regardless of the risks to those who are allergic to dairy and whey. There are a million examples why businesses, and movie production and distribution is a business, should be regulated.

[Japedo]

Japedo and Onyx,

Are you suggesting that people go see a movie twice? Once to see if it is ok to bring their family and once with their family? Isn't that kind of off the wall? That would go over like a lead balloon. The first thing that would happen is people would want movies rated so they wouldn't have to spend the time and money just to see if their kids can watch it. Remember that the majority of people in this country are not like you and I. They are uptight Christians. And despite the media hype, most parents actually care about what their children do and see. I didn't see McDonalds being open about the dairy and whey content of their fries, they just wanted to sell more fries regardless of the risks to those who are allergic to dairy and whey. There are a million examples why businesses, and movie production and distribution is a business, should be regulated.

 

Well it's no one else's job to say what's acceptable for my kids. You don't necessarily have to go view it first, ask friends and what not, read reviews there are many other resources out there not relying upon some stooge who thinks they know best. There has been a few movies I went to see first before allowing my kids to watch it, what's the big deal? You didn't answer my question about the passion. Do you agree with the R rating or should it have been NC17?

 

I could give two what the majority of the country wants or says in all honesty, the Majority of the country are lazy idiots, one just needs to look at sitting representatives to see that's obvious. If one is so concerned about what's in takeout, one needs only ask. Frankly I can't see someone eating at MickeyD's being all the concerned about their health, but that's just me. If someone is highly allergic to something it's their duty to find out if certain foods have that ingredient. It's not the worlds responsibility to take care of you, it's your responsibility to take care of yourself.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Japedo,

Well at least I know now what type of philosophy I'm dealing with when talking to you, Individualist anarchism.

Sure, word of mouth works as an advertising tool, but I seriously doubt that the distributors would limit themselves to the truth on good faith where the dollar is concerned.

As far as The Passion goes, I wouldn't want my 10 year old to see it - if I had one. But I believe the R rating was sufficient in that it would require parental permission to view. I think you guys, like most under 17 I would imagine, just want to get rid of the NC17, which I would have no problem with as long as R would require the company of a parent. I don't believe we can rely upon the honesty of a child to inform the ticket agent that permission was given when they want to see an N17 movie while on a date. I could even throw in medical studies that show that the human brain isn't fully developed, especially the logic areas, until after the age of 17-18 which is why so many teens are risk takers and tend to mellow out once they are older.

 

Of course when you say that the majority of people are lazy idiots I will just have to say that it is hyperbole. My statement about McDonalds is not the only existing example of corporate greed, and I stated that. And people did ask what was in the fries and were handed statements of ingredients that did not include dairy and whey, thus the ensuing lawsuit. The choice of whether one eats at McDonalds is irrelavant. Using that as your only defense and making exagerated claims will get you nowhere with me, nor will it assist your point. It will only assist you in showing that you are ranting and not using argument effectively.

[Vigile]

I dont see the difference between that and what they do now.

 

There's actually a very large difference. They would only be allowed to catalog, not make a value judgement. A simple set of guidelines could be easily established to make sure definitions are not too broadly defined. No, producers would not have to be responsible. If the MPAA wished to do the cataloging, let 'em do it.

 

err on the side of artistic freedom is all I'm saying. Why let an unregulated group that doesn't represent my own and many other's values make value judgements for the rest of us?

 

In any case, would you support a similar ratings system by a group with similar powers to deny access to others to be applied to web pages?

[Vigile]

think you guys, like most under 17 I would imagine, just want to get rid of the NC17, which I would have no problem with as long as R would require the company of a parent.

 

That would probably be the most viable solution and would be a huge step in the right direction. It would give a lot more artistic freedom and it would allow parents to decide whether or not they wanted their kids under 17 to see the film rather than relying on some board to do it for them.