Mike's Musings: Hardly a Defense

The MPAA is a piece of crap.  Everyone I asked (who knows what it is) thinks so.  My parents never took it very seriously, and I doubt a lot of others do as well.  What's the point of having a rating system if none of the ratings mean anything except to the movie theaters and the filmmakers whose films could be altered to secure the desired rating?

On the MPAA's film ratings website, MPAA ratings chief Joan Graves (who briefly appeared, albeit with a hand drawn face in the searing, must-see documentary about the MPAA "This Film is Not Yet Rated"), writes a note to the parents who are confused about film ratings and how the board makes their decisions.

At first glance, Graves sounds perfectly reasonable.  She seems honest and is open about the ratings board being controversial.  However, it doesn't take much more than a cursory glance to poke holes in her reasoning.  Here is her letter (which was published in the Hollywood Reporter), published word for word, and why she is full of shit.

"A lot of media criticism has been directed at the movie-ratings system this awards season in reaction to a string of decisions described by some as unfair and out of touch and by others as tantamount to censorship.  Just as there are disagreements among those whose job it is to assess the artistic merits of a film, there are differing views about our ratings system and the rules under which we operate."

Duh, Ms. Obvious.

"The ratings system exists for one purpose: to inform parents about the content of films.  Our ratings affect how we believe a majority of American parents, not just from large cities on the coasts but everywhere inbetween, would rate a film.  It's a responsibility we take very seriously."

As I have said before, they're under a lot of pressure from loud-mouthed parents on both ends of the political spectrum.  The problem is that they're not giving parents the right information, and it's causing a lot of unnecessary pain and frustration to parents and filmmakers, as I have said before and will say again.

"When we assign ratings to films; we do not make qualitative judgements; we are not film critics or censors."

Bull.  When they assign a movie with an undesired rating (usually one that is too high), they force the filmmaker to make changes to the film or risk losing a substantial audience.  While it is true that they are not directly censoring films, they know that unless the film reaches the target audience they're going to lose a lot of money (unless the rating is successfully changed on appeal, which rarely happens).

And yet, they are, in a way, censors.  Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the "South Park" creators had their own unique experience with the MPAA.  Their first film, "Orgazmo," was a spoof that earned an NC-17, which caused some puzzlement among those who have seen it (I have not).  It was a low budget movie, and they did not have the money to edit it so it retained its NC-17 rating.  A few years later, they made "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut."  That was made for Paramount, a big studio.  That film was also given an NC-17 rating initially, but this time the MPAA advised them on what to cut out.  That, by the way, is something they claim not to do (and you can bet that they probably don't do it for independent films).

"We are parents who ask ourselves the same important question during every screening: What would I want to know about this film before I allow my child to see this?"

This is a half-truth, and a gross one at that.  According to "This Film is Not Yet Rated," most raters do have children, although one does not.  Only one other has elementary school children.  The others have children who, at youngest, are in high school.  Some are college-aged or older.  They keep them on board for about seven years, presumably doing so to keep them from getting "out of touch."

"The board makes ratings decisions based on the film in its entirety, not by comparison to other films."

Really.  Then why is it that big budget movies seem to have more wiggle room than independent films?  "Saving Private Ryan" versus "Waiting for Guffman."  I rest my case.

"Decisions are guided by established rating criteria for each category, which include a few rules that trigger an automatic rating.  For instance, any depiction of drug use results in at least a PG-13."

I don't believe this.  Not for a second.  The only "rule" with any consistency is the "two fuck" rule.  One non-sexual "fuck" may still squeak by with a PG-13 (although, reportedly, "How Do You Know" had 2.5 "fucks" and still had a PG-13).  Yet, I counted 3 utterances of "Fuckin A" in "The Right Stuff," and that got a PG, although that was before the PG-13 rating came out.

The issue of an automatic rating for certain content presents a problem.  Like I said before, it neglects the issue of "context."  Some movies, like the aforementioned "Saving Private Ryan," are intended to be disturbing.  Anyone considering going into the armed services or who is convinced that war was like "The Longest Day" with John Wayne running over the hills killing Nazis and escaping unharmed needs to see it.  Or the recent documentary "Bully."

"The restrictive ratings, R and NC-17, are not a judgement or punishment.  The ratings are simply convey to parents that, in the case of an R, a film has elements strong enough that parents should learn more about them before taking their children.  In the case of an NC-17, the rating is unequivocal: the movie is patently adult.  We are not saying that adults can't and shouldn't see these films."

True, but this doesn't help parents who still naiively believe that the MPAA can do no wrong.  There are a lot of parents who still don't want their kids to see "The King's Speech" because of the foul language.  I've seen it.  Believe me, it's not that bad, and it actually serves a purpose (it's that context thing again...).

"There is a sentiment in our industry that a film judged as "good," "worthwhile" or "acclaimed" by critics and audiences should be given a less restrictive rating so more people-namely children-can see it."

In some cases yes.  I'd say let a kid see "Schindler's List," because it is so important, but not "Boys Don't Cry."  Both are equally disturbing and powerful, but "Boys Don't Cry" is really too intense for kids.  Still, if you're a parent and you think otherwise about Kimberly Pierce's film, I'm not going to complain. "Schindler's List," on the other hand, should be seen by middle schoolers and up.  Chances are they're studying the Holocaust in class, and it would compliment it well.  Actually, when I was studying the Holocaust in class, we watched another Holocaust movie, "The Grey Zone" instead of "Schindler's List," only because the teacher assumed that we'd already seen it (and by the way, don't bother with "The Grey Zone," it's a misfire because the dialogue is so wordy it become distracting).

"But it's important to note that rarely, if ever, do we hear feedback from parents that a film given an R or an NC-17 should get a lower rating so it's more accessible to their children."

What?  Is she deaf?  Did "Bully" just not create a storm of controversy over its R rating?  Granted the article was written before "Bully" was released, but Graves wrote it in response to "The King's Speech" being re-released with a PG-13 rating.

"It concerns me that NC-17 isn't a more viable rating because it is crucial to the system to utilize a category that clearly indicates a movie is for grown-ups.  The NC-17 rating does not signify the content is bad, gratuitous or pornographic."

This is one instance where I agree with her.  The NC-17 should be a more viable rating.  Only one movie was widely released with an NC-17 rating: "Showgirls."  Unfortunately, the film bombed at the box office (although it did great on video and DVD), and the NC-17 has since become known as the "kiss of death."  Adults should be able to see the director's true vision instead of a neutered one.

In some movies that were cut to avoid being given an NC-17 rating, it's obvious that the filmmakers were forced to step on eggshells or obviously distort their vision to receive the desired rating.  "Eyes Wide Shut" is a case in point.  There is a scene where shadow figures were added by computer to block out an orgy sequence.  I haven't seen the unrated version (which is available on DVD), but I can tell you that the placement is obvious and awkward enough to jerk anyone out of the moment (and as anyone who has seen a Kubrick film will tell you, the primary joy of watching his films is being so fully sucked into it).  Another instance is "American Psycho," the black comedy/satire that made Christian Bale a star.  The film was originally given an NC-17 for a threesome sex scene.  I have only seen the uncut version, and let me tell you, the controversial scene is hardly gratuitous (in fact, it's more funny than sexy), and it tells more about the lead character than any of the violence (none of which, by the way, the MPAA found controversial).

It particularly infuriates me, as a film lover and a critic, because I'm cheated out of seeing the movie that the filmmaker meant to show.  Someone is interfering with my opportunity to see the film as it was meant to be seen.  Especially for someone who understands the creative process, the thought of having someone force you to edit your work of art is pretty disturbing.  When I watch a movie, I want to see it the way it was meant to be seen.  This is why I bought the NC-17 version of "Lust, Caution" instead of the R-rated one at Blockbuster.

The good news is that the NC-17 is coming back into popularity.  Slowly, but it's moving there nonetheless.  "Shame" was a minor hit in the arthouses, despite being released with the rating, and "Killer Joe" is also making waves.  Hopefully it isn't long before the stigma goes away entirely (although there is no doubt in my mind that studios will still edit NC-17 films to increase profits).

"I have received a lot of feedback from parents over the years.  We know parental concerns about depictions of sexuality, violence and the use of strong language are as diverse as the films we rate, which is why parents make choices based on the descriptor included with each rating that explains why the film received its rating.  Many parents will take their children to see an R-rated film if they are not concerned about the particular elements for which the film received its rating.  Plenty of parents, for example, took their children to see the R-rated Billy Elliot, despite its language advisory."

True, but there's a caveat.  Some parents blindly follow the ratings (when I was a kid, I remember hearing kids say that they wouldn't let their kids watch a PG-13 movie until they were 13 with no exceptions), and it is very difficult to convince a school to show an educational film that has an R rating.  Additionally, we come to the usual crux of the criticisms of the MPAA: inaccuracy.  The film descriptors are not always accurate, and even if they are, they don't always describe the film's content enough.  For example, the film "The Jackal" was rated R for Strong Violence and Language.  That doesn't nearly describe the brutality in the film, such as when Bruce Willis' character uses his custom-made machine gun to blow off a man's arm.  Compare that to "Black Book," which was rated R for Some Strong Violence (among other things).  That merely included some scenes of people being gunned down bloodlessly.  An even worse example is the Chinese classic, "Farewell, My Concubine," which was rated R for Strong Thematic Material and Language.  As if that's going to help anyone.

"Ratings assigned to a couple of documentaries last year further amplified criticism of the system.  Filmmakers and media critics charged that the R ratings meant children were inherently prevented from being exposed to important educational films."

I can think of one example of this off the top of my head.  "Murderball" was an inspirational documentary about wheelchair rugby.  In addition to some profanity, it contained an excerpt of an instructional video for paraplegics who are wondering how to have sex.  As I recall, it was animated (which by nature makes it less explicit), not at all graphic, and it was quite funny.  No, kids aren't barred from seeing this movie at all, but still.  This film is its own defender against an R rating.

Another example is the searing and disturbing documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated," which exposes the MPAA for all the rot that it actually is.  It contained clips that were forced to be edited out of films in order to avoid an NC-17 rating, and for that, the film got the "kiss of death" rating itself.  But within the context (there's that troublesome word again) of an analytical film, it's not the same thing as seeing an actual sex scene.  Forget the NC-17, the film should have been PG-13.

"As with an R-rated film, a parent must decide whether the content is appropriate for his or her own child's sensibilities.  Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and The Passion of the Christ--films that were critically acclaimed and considered historically significant--were rated R, but that certainly didn't prevent children from seeing them."

It's interesting that Ms. Graves mentioned "The Passion of the Christ."  I saw the movie with a friend and his family, and was shocked.  For those who haven't seen it yet, it's incredibly violent.  A woman died from the shock of seeing what was on screen.  And that got an R?  The film should have gotten an NC-17 without a doubt.  But with the R rating, I'm sure a number of parents thought they were going to see something heavy yet spiritual, yet were completely bamboozled into seeing something they never expected to see, much less take their kids to.

"Controversy surrounding ratings decisions is not new.  Indeed, it is often orchestrated by a film's producers or distributors as a marketing tactic.  Our most important job is consistency: whether a film is educational, delightful, terrible or insightful, ratings are assigned based on the level of content in a film."

HA!  Consistency is a word that is outside the MPAA's vocabulary.

"We welcome these debates as valuable opportunities to help refine our understanding of evolving societal values, and in particular, parental attitudes."

At least she's open to the idea.  Not that the MPAA would listen to anyone except the people who scream the loudest.

So you see, the MPAA is full of shit, and to rely solely on them is folly.  Do your research.  Your job is to protect your children yourself, not outsource it to an organization whose credibility is laughable.