There is an interesting case going on at the moment with the Motion Picture Association of America that I thought would be worth mentioning. Really only because I think they are nothing more than a bully and their failure to move with the times is largely responsible for the decline in movie going and not as they would have you believe the acts of illegal downloaders.

There is a proposed law in Illinois that will bar public officials from selling book and movie rights about any illegal activity they have been found guilty of. This is not a bad law at all, in many countries it is illegal to profit from a crime you have committed. You can give your movie rights away but you cannot sell them. The MPAA are fighting this proposed law citing the 1st amendment.

It seems that while the MPAA are hellbent on criminalizing anyone who is guilty of the heinous crime of downloading a copy of WALL-E they seem to think that a public official, who has already pocketed enough of public money should be free to commit a crime and then make a fortune selling their story to Hollywood.

Downloading a movie is killing the movie business, Hollywood giving millions to crooks is not.

It is this kind of elitist behavior that has left the world in the mess it is in now, I really thought that we had moved on from it. The MPAA, as always, out of touch with what is really happening in America and the people who's business it's members take so much for granted.


/End of rant.

Quoted from Murphy The MPAA are fighting this proposed law citing the 1st amendment.

How can they cite the 1st amendment by the way? The 1st amendment is - among other - freedom of speech if I remember it correct. The Illinois law doesn't prohibit that, it only prohibits a convict from getting rich off breaking the law (if found guilty).

If that constitutes a violation of the 1st amendment, how come the MPAA's film-rating system doesn't?

Those sons of bitches.

Oliver Stone should go out there and find a kid who's been convicted of distributing pirated movies and pay him a bunch of money for the rights to his story. I'm sure the MPAA would get a kick out of that.

The MPAA and CHVRS are backwards and useless.

The American one has problems with dirty words but loves torture. The Canadian one allows porn to call itself art and be released to a wide audience... yeah, that's not weird.

MPAA DOCUMENTARY: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/ (This Film Is Not Yet Rated)

A Review:

Quoted Text Ever been curious about the American film rating system? Then Kirby Dick's This Film Is Not Yet Rated is perfect. It does to US censorship what Michael Moore has done to others: it makes everyone look like jackasses, mainly because that's what they really are. The film explains pretty early on, through South Park-style animation, what kind of rating a movie can get in the USA: G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17. The last certificate is the most unpleasant one, as a film with that classification won't get a proper distribution. And it's that particular rating that Dick wants to dissect. This documentary is divided into three sections: the largest one sees various filmmakers (Kimberly Pierce, John Waters, Kevin Smith) revealing the problems they've experienced because of the American ratings board, the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). The second section features the director's efforts to uncover the identities of the film raters. You see, the MPAA is supposedly composed of average American parents, doing a fair job. Then how come no one knows who these people are? As the investigation continues, we learn that one board member doesn't even have kids, while several others' offspring are already adults. So what's really going on? The last part of This Film Is Not Yet Rated focuses on Dick's own censorship trouble, a really interesting version of the movie-within-a-movie gimmick: he sent a rough cut of the documentary to the MPAA, receiving the dreaded NC-17 (since there's some footage coming from other NC-rated films), and so we get to see his frustration as he tries to appeal the controversial decision. The best part of the film is the first one I mentioned, mainly because we get to know the rules of the game a bit better. Apparently, any kind of "weird sex" is not welcome: oral sex (Boys Don't Cry), threesomes(The Dreamers, American Psycho), gay stuff (Mysterious Skin, Where The Truth Lies), female masturbation (Jersey Girl, a PG-13 movie, almost got an R just because Liv Tyler talks about it)... the list is quite long. Of course, you're better off if your film is endorsed by a major studio. That's why a glimpse of Maria Bello's pubic hair got independent film The Cooler an NC-17, while Sharon Stone doing much more in the audience-baiting Basic Instinct was "appropriate" enough to receive an R. No wonder most filmmakers hate the MPAA! Hell, we even find out that Trey Parker and Matt Stone deliberately put distasteful material in Team America just to make fun of the ratings board. Another "funny" thing is, the NC-17 is only used against sex. No one ever says anything about on-screen violence. In fact, any movie can have the highest body count ever, and be rated R. If there's no blood, it might even get a PG-13. As people point out, all other countries have the exact opposite attitude, condemning violence rather than sex (I know, from personal experience, that most films rated NC-17 in the US are usually classified "15" or "16" in Europe, while excessive violence tends to lead to an "18"). As someone wisely says in this hilarious, poignant opus, ratings don't really matter. If it's a film a lot of people want to see, no rating in the world can damage it. If it's a film few people want to see, then no rating in the world will save it. That might be true (although I don't necessarily agree: the huge success of The Passion of the Christ was largely due to the rating controversies), but this movie also made me realize that I would definitely not want to be a member of the MPAA. Their criteria are too weird for normal people to understand.

Highest body count without blood can get a PG-13 rating = Anakin Skywalker slayed HOW MANY CHILDREN in Star Wars, but there was no blood??  He left a whole trail of bodies and no NC 17.  

Quoted from Murphy There is a proposed law in Illinois that will bar public officials from selling book and movie rights about any illegal activity they have been found guilty of. This is not a bad law at all, in many countries it is illegal to profit from a crime you have committed. You can give your movie rights away but you cannot sell them. The MPAA are fighting this proposed law citing the 1st amendment.

In New York, this law really wen into affect after David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz was convicted.  He could've made tens of millions of dollars with his memiors, if given the chance.


Phil

I find it amusing that the MPAA would delve into legal matter when their original purpose was simply to assign a rating to movies to give parents a general idea of whether they should let their kids see it. I find it equally amusing how much weight is assigned to their ratings.

I'm one of those people on the positive side of the ratings. None of them apply to me so I can pick up or go to any movie I want regardless of the rating. I really don't care. However, I have three children, so when it's rated PG, I watch it before I let them watch it. If it's G, I know I don't have to worry about it. At present, I don't allow them to watch PG-13 (or higher) films.

People are quick to judge and condemn this ratings system, and as much as I enjoyed the documentary above, I found those filmmakers also missed the point. If you have issues with the ratings system, then cater to the rating you want.

Let's take a quick step back to the beginning of movies to see how this system came about so you can get an idea as to why this system is in place. Maybe you'll appreciate it a little more.

In 1933, there was a huge outcry against movies being made because they were more realistic than simply reading situations in books. Some filmmakers were pushing their limits even then to see how much they could get away with and the more conservative lawmakers were threatening to impose federal regulations on the still fledgling industry. The studios did not want the government in their pudding, so they imposed their own rules which became the motion picture code of 1933. Every film shown in theatres between 1933 and the late 60's had to adhere to these rules and be certified. You can still find this code online if you want to read it. It's interesting.

Well, enter filmmakers like Alfred Hitchcock with Psycho and The Birds. These films adhered to the code, but they pushed the bar as far as it could go. Some theatres were even starting to play movies that skirted the code because they were outside the system. Those filmmakers felt the code to be too restrictive since they could not express the artistic vision they had for their movies. Again, the government threatened to step in and again, the industry regulated itself to try and fix the issue.

In 1968, the MPAA was created with a set of ratings: G, M, R, and X (these conform to the modern ratings of G, PG, R, and NC-17). The system had two important purposes: 1) allow filmmakers to make their movies with any content they desired; and 2) tell the concerned parents in a single letter about the content they should expect to see in said movie. 1969 and the early 70's brought us a huge influx of R-rated movies, you might notice, because filmmakers were finally freed of that pesky 1933 code. M was changed almost immediately because the perception was that M was stronger than R, so it was changed to GP. Since that felt too much like an extension of the G rating, it was changed shortly thereafter to the PG we know today.

In 1983, after Steven Spielberg threw a fit over Temple of Doom and Poltergeist getting R-ratings and using his clout to get PG on both of them (since the content was only barely strong enough for R, but really too much for PG), it was deemed necessary to create an intermediary rating between PG and R, hence the PG-13.

In 1997 (or 8, I forget), with the release of Striptease, the MPAA redefined the X rating as NC-17, largely due to the use of X in the porn industry and the perception of that rating. Another change this NC-17 rating brought was that the MPAA allowed the rating of X to be placed on any unrated film, whether the MPAA reviewed it or not, where NC-17 became like the other ratings: only used by the MPAA after it officially rated a film.

So, the purpose of the ratings system was not to restrict anyone. It was to give freedom from government regulation on filmmakers to let them make what they want. And actually, if the ratings system seems weird and hypocritical at times, you have to note that there aren't a whole lot of guidelines to the rating process. Since it's a rating given by vote of parents (though, as the documentary pointed out, avid moviewatchers might be a better term), the opinion behind the ratings change with the times.

I would like to point out that I can think of several films that got an X rating because of violence or content, not sex. Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, and most of the original cuts of the Friday the 13th films (they were recut to get an R) come to my head right away.

The documentary complained that they had to recut their film to satisfy the MPAA. THIS IS FALSE! The MPAA doesn't force a filmmaker into a rating. Maybe their studio does. Maybe they wanted a particular rating. Regardless, if a film is recut to get a different rating, it is because the filmmaker wants to do it, not because the MPAA gave it a particular rating based on the consensus of its raters.

You have to remember that the point of the ratings is to give people a very basic idea of whether particular age groups of children under 17 should view the film based on the opinion of the raters. Look at what's out there. Wall-E was rated G. Pretty safe movie. Shrek was PG. It had some off color humor and some risque jokes, but it was light-hearted enough that I let my kids watch it, but I definitely liked the warning to watch it first. Monster House was rated PG as well, and I won't let my kids watch it yet. It's not over the top, but there are some scary elements. The difference between Revenge of the Sith and the other Star Wars movies is definitely warranted. It's much scarier from a child perspective, and Lucas probably knew this and expected the PG-13. Most romcoms are PG-13, and rightly so due to the relationship content. Children under 13 wouldn't really "get" the content. Sure, there's no nudity or overt sex talk in most of them, but that 13 on a romcom would tell me there's something in there that is either over their heads or just not appropriate yet. Most of the Harry Potters are PG-13 and I agree with that ratings as well.

To be honest, as a parent, there have only been a couple films that I thought were mis-rated. One was rated R, but only due to the F-word spouted three times in a single scene (or that's all I could figure out). It was easily PG-13. Some of the PG-13 horror films really toe the line of R, but I don't let the kids watch those anyway.

Most of the time, I've found the complainers of the MPAA to be kids under 17. I think too much stock is placed in the ratings. I do know Wal-Mart and Blockbuster won't stock NC-17 titles (though they will, curiously, stock Unrated titles, such as the aforementioned uncut Friday the 13th, originally rated X). But there's my nickel's worth of free history. Hope you got something out of it.

Thanks for the background info, George.  Interesting stuff!

Still kinda weird how accepting America is of violence and how cautious it is with regards to sex.

Quoted from Wiki In May 2007, the MPAA announced that depictions of cigarette smoking would be considered in a film's rating. On a side note, Universal Studios has a policy on depictions of tobacco. Starting April 16, 2007, they presume that no smoking incidents appear in youth-rated (G, PG, PG-13) films, and that if there is such an incident, a "health warning" that usually states "THIS FILM CONTAINS DEPICTIONS OF TOBACCO CONSUMPTION" will appear on any marketing material, DVD packaging, end credits, etc.

"This film contains depictions of me and Denis Leary laughing our asses off".

I do think the smoking bit is going too far, but that's just a reflection of where the times have gone. I might point out that Dumbo, with its depictions of racism, violence, drunkeness, and smoking, is only rated G. It's probable that if Dumbo were rerated, it would garner a PG-13 or even an R, as gratuitous as the smoking and drinking actually is. Funny, huh?

And the US is a prude in regards to sex. The irony is that even though it is heavily censored in film and TV, we still hand out condoms to youngsters and instruct them how to do it in school. Knowledge is power, right? Right?

Pre 1933 Info:

'FATTY' ARBUCKLE:

Quoted Text Along with the huge profits during the boom years of Hollywood came many excesses.  Tabloid newspapers tried to outdo each other in reporting and to some degree making up stories about the extravagant lifestyles and decadent lives of producers, directors, and actors. In the minds of many, Hollywood was "sin city." This image seemed to be confirmed in the 1920s, when Hollywood confronted two major scandals. One involved a marathon party in San Francisco hosted by comedian "Fatty" Arbuckle.  As the party was ending, model Virginia Rappe was rushed to the hospital with stomach pains. She subsequently died, and Arbuckle was initially charged with murder. The cause of death was then determined to be peritonitis resulting form a ruptured bladder. The charge against Arbuckle was then reduced to manslaughter. What led up to the death was in dispute, and after three trials, two ending with hung juries Arbuckle was acquitted. Then film director William Taylor was found murdered in his home. Mabel Norman, an associate of Arbuckle's, was apparently the last person to see Taylor alive.  Although Norman was cleared of the crime, rumors surfaced that he was involved with drugs. The tabloid papers had a field day.  The Catholic Legion of Decency announced a boycott of films.

Followed by

THE HAYES CODE

Quoted Text Fearing further public backlash against their product and the possibility of some form of government censorship, the movie moguls decided that they should act quickly to adopt some form of self-regulation. In 1922, Will Hayes, an ex-postmaster general and former Republican Party Chairman, was appointed to head the newly formed Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association (MPPA). Hayes' conservative views were well known, and this was seen as insurance against a conservative backlash.   One of the first things Hayes did was ban all of Arbuckle's films notwithstanding the fact that Arbuckle had not been found guilty of any crime. Hayes felt his job included not only determining what was proper film content, but overseeing the private lives of stars.  His MPPA Production Code (also called "the Hayes Code") of do's and don'ts was issued in 1930. To be acceptable, films had to show the group's Production Code Administration (PCA) seal of approval. The code was so strict that many of today's G-rated movies would have been rejected. Hayes and his assistant issued more than 28,000 rulings covering what was and was not acceptable in films. Lists of scores of forbidden words were issued. Screen kisses were reduced from a maximum of four seconds to no more than one and one-half seconds. The Hays Commission (PCA Code) even went to far as to ban scenes showing people milking cows. During the 1930s, only films that displayed the PCA Seal of Approval were deemed acceptable for viewing even for adults.

Reference: http://www.cybercollege.com/frtv/frtv004.htm

Now, I will make one thing clear.  I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of films being regulated, or graded.  I want at least a ballpark idea of whether or not a movie is suitable for me to let my kids watch right off, or whether I should view it first.  I am a parent first and foremost.  I don't, however, believe the tobacco consumption warning is needed at all.

My problem, as the aforementioned documentary points out, is the fact that a film attached to a major studio is not only immediately given wider latitude, but that they will also be told what the film needs to do differently to lower a rating.  Independent filmmakers are rated tougher, and left in the dark as to what they need to change.  If they want to that is, but I doubt they would even submit a film if they didn't have some serious distribution intent.

The rating is fine, it just shouldn't be such a cloak and dagger affair.  Every filmmaker who submits a film should be treated the same.  Period.  They should all be given a written report of why their film received it's rating so they can go back and make changes if they wish.

Aww so that means I can't pull of the heist of the century, be acquitted of it, and then making millions of the film adaption.

Quoted from Chris_MacGuffin Aww so that means I can't pull of the heist of the century, be acquitted of it, and then making millions of the film adaption.

Maybe if you make sure there's no blood.  

Quoted from Chris_MacGuffin Aww so that means I can't pull of the heist of the century, be acquitted of it, and then making millions of the film adaption.

You can actually, if you're acquitted. It "only" goes for crimes you are convicted of.

I discovered that the fee for getting a low budget film rated is $3000. I think I'll go with "unrated" since I can't afford that. I might even put a blurb about my opinion of the content, since I'm pretty sure I'm in PG-13 range due to a description in one scene. I just think that's a bit steep to have a half dozen people watch your movie and then assign you an "official" rating you could easily assign yourself (if it weren't a protected symbol).