American Politics & Pop Culture

I thought "This Film is Not Yet Rated" was a very well done, informative documentary which really showed how flawed the hollywood movie rating system really is. One thing that was interesting to me in the movie was how anonymous the raters had to be. It makes sense that the MPAA didn't want the raters opinions to be swayed by outside sources, but it seemed like even if their opinions WERE swayed it really wouldn't matter because whatever decision the raters made could be overturned by the MPAA anyway. I don't even know what they bother having raters anyway if the system isn't legitimate. Why don't' they just get random crowd of people (maybe volunteers) to review each movie? They could change the crowd every time, and this would make sure that there weren't any movie biases among the raters. For example, what if one of the long time raters just couldn't deal with certain types of violence, or certain sex scenes, etc, and they tended to rate whatever movie had either of those things more commonly because of their bias? It would make sense if a bunch of people could volunteer to rate movies, but they wouldn't know WHAT movie they would be seeing, then that would prevent a lot of either positive or negative biases. I think Hollywood still has alot of work to do to correct this system, and they should do it soon because there are probably alot of good movies not being seen by the public because they got an NC-17 rating, just because a small portion of a womans crotch was showing. It isn't fair to everyone who could EXPERIENCE these possibly good movies, and it isn't fair to the movie's creators who spend a ridiculous amount of time to make these movies, only to have it all go down the drain.

Posted by ruppx051 at 03:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The documentary “This Film is Not Yet Rated” was an excellent movie regarding the rating system for movies in the United States. The difference in ratings can be a huge economical one. If a film is rated NC-17 instead of R, that could mean the difference of tens of millions of dollars. The one thing that the MPAA is criticized about is that they do not reveal openly who heads the panel of their board (the people who say that a movie is G or R). Since there is no directory of how a film is rated movie directors and producers must often walk a fine line and make constant modifications to their movies so it is “more acceptable” to the MPAA. What is ridiculous is that the MPAA will not allow films to reference previous examples of violence or sex in other movies to argue their cases.

The MPAA stresses that sexual activities are much more subversive than that of violence. They are also very biased, for example in a scene of American Beauty the main character who is a male masturbates in the shower and that is given an R rating, however in another movie a female does it over her clothes and this movie received a NC-17. Also themes such as homosexuality in comparison to heterosexual activities are looked down upon even more so. In general it is obvious that major changes need to be undertaken for the ratings system in America’s Movies, for it is one that is completely driven by the monopolistic movie industry, which in turn should not have the ability to censor movies.

Posted by dhill004 at 11:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Franklin assessment that the MPAA is fairly transparent and filmmakers can adapt their films to gain an acceptable rating is not entirely accurate, but it does conflict with the ultimate conclusion that Kirby draws in his film. Kirby shows that the ratings board essentially uses an entirely subjective means of evaluating films and that any film, regardless of the similarity of its content to other, already-rated films, may not be judged with the same criteria. For example, the film cited the fact that there is no precedence of films considered when appealing a rating; no one can compare their film to films with similar content or messages as an argument they should receive a similar rating. Also, the film noted that MPAA raters are typically much more tolerant of violence than sexual content when assigning ratings. Anecdotally from the interviews in the films, However, it is important to note that those directors interviewed in Kirby's film made films that were quite outside the mainstream of what could be considered "standard fare" as far as sex and violence go in films. Therefore, for the vast majority of filmmakers, it is conceivable that they are able to get the rating they desire by sticking to time-tested content that falls within MPAA standards for different ratings, and paring certain content as necessary if they wish to achieve what they want. Ultimately I think it is hard to judge the reaction of the majority of filmmakers to the procedures of the ratings board because Kirby simply doesn't offer their perspectives. Instead, he gives us interviews with a few directors/producers of some edgy and often controversial films as evidence of a censorship conspiracy, but fails to put these tales of creative roadblocking and a secret agenda in the perspective of the larger industry and filmmakers at large. Certainly his point was to say that these minority or independent viewpoints are being stifled, but along the way he certainly provided evidence that all sorts of crazy, offensive, or what-have-you material can be worked into movies by using the right channels. It often seemed that the films that were slapped with the harshest rating were those whose directors refused to budge on seemingly miniscule issues, such as refusing to parse explicit scenes for more subtle implications, different angles, etc. From a filmmaker's perspective, this kind of stuff probably makes a world of difference, but for your average movie-goer, their cinematic experience is probably not enhanced much by actually seeing someone perform a sexual act as opposed to seeing it from another angle or seeing footage that strongly implies that it is happening. So, while Kirby's film did a lot to expose the censorship culture of the MPAA and their shadowy, closed-doors dealings, I don't think it made the strongest overall case that independent and alternative filmmakers are at the total mercy of vile bureaucrats intent on destroying their films.

Posted by woitx002 at 11:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to Daniel Franklin’s Politics and Film reading “the rating system is based on the number of and graphic nature of the acts of violence and explicit sex as depicted in a film.” I like the idea of having a rating system of some sort so people can judge whether or not they want to see a movie but the MPAA is inconsistent and unrealistic. The MPAA does an ok job on restricting movies that have extremely realistic and graphic violence. There is less emphasis on violent acts then on sexual content. However sexual content seems to have some different approach. If the movie has sexual explicit content then it is restricted but definition of sexual explicit content seems to be unclear. Heterosexual male focused sex is more frequently given a lower rating for its humor while those who were interviewed seem to think that female pleasure and homosexual sex are more restricted. The MPAA claims that this is not a deciding factor, but ratings given in the different film clips from PG to NC-17 suggest something else.
Also, the bias and treatment of films that are independent and big studio are different. Looking at the two films by Matt Stone we can see the bias of the MPAA. The independent film that was submitted was rejected and the MPAA suggested they would have to cut several scenes from the movie to give his film a marketable rating. The South Park movie that was submitted which was through a major studio was also rejected but was given guidelines on how the movie could be made “appropriate.” Some of the other film makers who were interviewed said they had similar experiences.
In general the MPAA is a good idea and a pretty good system. They just need to take a look at their rules and revaluate those that are important. I think it is more important for people to see sexual content than grotesque violence. –Grant Flatgard

Posted by flat0101 at 11:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Franklin states that the MPAA rating system provides for “some fairly well-established guidelines to the assignment of ratings, [and thus] filmmakers can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their film’s ratings will be. In addition it is a fairly simple matter to edit a film to conform to a particular ratings requirement” (153). Unfortunately, the individuals that were interviewed in “This Film is Not Yet Rated” would not agree with this statement. One of the filmmakers that was interviewed could not understand why she got an NC-17 rating on her film. In her film there was no nudity or violence, but a girl masturbating in full clothing and a story line indicating that it is okay to be a lesbian. The American Pie film, on the other hand, received an R rating and that film included one of the characters masturbating half naked in a pie. According to M. Hodgson, “there are those who oppose the entire idea of the rating system, contending it is a form of censorship” (1). The interviewers would agree with this statement because the films they produced have no real validity to be rated NC-17. MPAA on the other hand claims that the parents don not want their children to see such things and that they must alter it for a “more” appropriate viewing. The various interviews with the filmmakers do not really agree with Franklin’s second statement either. One of the filmmakers was asked to change the tone of the film. To change the tone of the film would require re-filming and filming a completely different film. How can one predict with certainty what the rating will be if there are no solid guidelines? It just cannot happen. The filmmaker discussed previously, about the lesbian girl, included no violence or nudity but still received an NC-17 rating. According to D. Franklin, “Make no mistake about it, American films are censored now and always have been” (143).

Posted by karp0040 at 11:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Throughout the history of the American film industry, directors, screenwriters, and actors have strived to develop innovative and original techniques for editing, camerawork, performance styles and narrative with the goals of reflecting upon issues and creating an entertaining piece of art. However, many times individuals in the film industry are unable to accomplish these goals because of unclear MPAA guidelines regarding rating assignments for films. According to Franklin, the MPAA rating system provides “some fairly well established guidelines to the assignment of ratings, [and thus] filmmakers can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their films’ ratings will be” (153). Although subjects such as extreme gore and explicit sexual content will automatically earn a film a highly restrictive rating, the definitions for explicit and violent content are poorly defined and often held to double standards. For example, independent film companies are held to a much higher and tougher standard than big wig studios. When Matt Stone, co-creator of South Park, released two films, the first independently released film was instantly rejected by the MPAA whereas the second film (South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut), which was released by Atlantic Records, was rejected but given guidelines (including a title change) for how to make the film releasable. Holding lesser film companies to higher standards suggests that the MPAA is dishonest, secretive and hypocritical. The ratings system, established to protect audiences from graphic material that may be unsuitable, has become a political tool to appease major film corporations.

Ian Bell

Posted by bellx236 at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The MPAA is a controversial issue, because of the lack of continuity or explanation for the ratings, but not because there are ratings. Jack Valenti was very smart in creating the ratings board, because it was a preemptive way to address concerns the nation had about the content of films. It allowed for the movie industry to police themselves and allow themselves leeway where they see fit, instead of having the government try to define rigid and unchanging standards. The “moving goalposts” that are addressed by Cieply are the undefined standards against which movies are rated. The ratings and standards for comparison are very ambiguous, and sometimes it seems like they are applied unequally to the same issue at different times. This is frustrating for filmmakers, who may get a higher rating for something they had shown in a previous movie without any fuss. This ambiguous system of malleable standards is good, because it allows the film industry to change with the social and moral climate of the nation without too much trouble. It can become frustrating, however, when these invisible lines routinely move and are crossed unknowingly. Overall, self-regulation is a positive force in the industry, and will continue amidst the outcries of unfairness and inconsistencies.

Posted by schr0845 at 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

With all the censorship in today's popular culture, I actually believe it is quite hard to produce a film that could be considered "subversive" in the true meaning of the word. In my opinion, to successfully subvert the MPAA, the film would either have to be independently distributed, leading to an extremely small audience, or somehow produce a sensation for the viewer that is much more obscene or "adult oriented" than the actual visuals / audio would imply. Barring a technique like the one alluded to in the movie Fight Club, where he cuts frames of pornography into the middle of feature films, subversion is not possible. However, my opinion aside, I feel it is much more likely that subversive films would appear with relation to violence, as opposed to sex. There are very few physical acts of violence that have yet to be portrayed in some shape or form on the movie screen. Sex, on the other hand, is still a guaranteed "R" rating, minimum, with the more obscene movies (the obvious example being the small subsection of movies considered pornography) garnering the most extreme of ratings... something you don't see with violent movies.

Posted by hanse978 at 11:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In this week’s film it is interesting to see the amount of industry influence on film ratings. In response to Franklin’s statement, “Films are censored in one of three ways: by the market, by industry, or by the government,” the presence of industry in film censorship is seen not only through the MPAA Board’s actions but also through the make-up of the MPAA Appeals Board. In the film it is shown that some of the raters have direct contact with studio personnel after movie screenings. Meetings are called for these individuals to commune after a movie showing. Given that these ratings have “great social significance”, one would assume that, to avoid any outside influence on the ratings, the persons involved and financially benefiting from the ratings would not be involved. Even if a rating has been decided upon for a given film, for what reason are the studio personnel involved anyway? What is more interesting is the roster for the MPAA Appeals Board. Comprised of studio and movie theater chain executives, it seems worthless to appeal to such a crowd when so many financial partnerships and company dependability are engrossed. Assuming that the rating process for a film has a significant weight on the potential for the amount of money a film can make, these MPAA Boards can doctor the market into one that has the greatest benefit for their respective studio or movie theater. The rating for a film should not be influenced by such financial criteria.

Posted by luli0004 at 10:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The documentary we watched this week in class, This Film in Not Yet Rated was a very interesting because I had never realized the way films are rated is very bias. The biggest problem is that it is done privately and the public is not allowed to know who and how films are rated. I believe it is not fair and the general public should have the right to know the reasoning behind what can and can not be viewed. “There are those who find the ratings so vague- there is not indication whether an R rating is for sex, violence or language, and no indication why a PG has been awarded.” (Maria p.1) All this system does is make people frustrated and question the rating structure.
Over the years what is allowed and not allowed to be viewed has changed. Today you have movies and TV shows that make fun of the president all the time, which was something that was unacceptable in years past. Over time the rating of films has become less and less strict. If you were to take an “R” rated film from twenty years ago it would more then likely get a rating of PG-13.

Posted by white968 at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Censorship has always been an issue with any type of wide range of media. As an example it is only recent that the penis is an acceptable sight in certain aspects of film. Before the 21st century it is very rare to see any glimpse of the male form except the naked back, half naked front, the occasional butt, or an obscure refernce to male genitalia that is not real and over-enhance for comedy. This film is not yet rated does a good job of showing the way that our country does not accept sexuality or the human forms and tries to hide it. The MPAA is the last way that coporations can control art and in turn control that masses. Money drives the world, masses, and art. Although films accepted by the MPAA are easy to understand they tend to have little intellectual value and become pretty pictures on the screen. The only good thing is that if art wasn't censored or offensive then art would lose its edge and become a stagnant pool of creativity.

Posted by Chris Lewis at 10:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Franklin states in his article that, “At least in the current environment, creative, thoughtful and even subversive films can get made” (147). Franklin is very socially-conscious with this statement. First, there has been a leftward push in the political realm during the last few years. With a strong liberal voice emerging in politics, it should come as no surprise that films are being more heavily regulated. With a loosening of censorship on TV, in film and in other media outlets, Franklin is correct in observing that films are being created in such a way that much of the red-flag content goes under the radar and is seen by mass audiences. I would tend to disagree with this sentiment. I believe that there are many more regulations as to what can or cannot be seen now than opposed to 10 years ago. I would say that the conservative players in the political sphere have a very tight grip on the controls of film and TV and work hard to control what makes it to the airwaves or the next blockbuster. It’s difficult to claim that either sex or violence is predominantly censored above anything else. However, violence is an everyday occurrence for people to see on the news or in the paper. Because of this, young adults and children have become completely desensitized to violent images. Furthermore, violence becomes less censored and regulated as result. Sex on the other hand is a complete red-flag concept that has been censored for years. Rules and regulations try to keep sexual images to a minimum or prepare to accept an NC-17 rating. Gratuitous violence would maybe receive an R-rating at the most, but heavy exposure to violence is often capped at an R-rating. Gratuitous sex, however, would lead to a higher rating, based on the fact that sex is a private issue that is hidden behind curtains and doors.

Posted by stap0069 at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the film This Film is Not Yet Rated I saw a side of the MPAA that I have never seen before. I had no idea what film makers were being subjected to and how biased and ridiculously ran the MPAA was, and is. The film makers are unable to express their freedom of speech through films and their stories are being changed to please some fascist, conservative white man.
The MPAA was giving the message that it was ok for young people to see and experience horrific acts of violence, but god forbid that they see male or female genitalia or acts of sex. Instead of promoting creating human life, they are promoting taking human life among young people who are easily influenced by the media.
I do not understand how the MPAA has gotten away with their tactics for so long, perhaps it is our biased and easily paid off government officials… There needs to be someone in the government that steps up to the plate and brings action against the MPAA and forces them to breakup or change their ways. Directors and filmmakers need to have their Constitutional rights enforced. Their first amendment rights are being taken away by the ridiculous MPAA.
I thought it was awesome that they hired a private investigator to expose they MPAA’s ‘secret’ raters and appeals members. I truly enjoyed watching their faces being plastered all over the television.

Posted by hanl0083 at 10:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

After watching the movie This Film Is Not Yet Rated, I now have a new perspective on American films. Being somewhat unfamiliar with how movie ratings were established before I saw this movie, it was interesting to see how much influence very few people have in such an important aspect of the film industry. What this movie did very well was expose the flaws in the film rating system put into place by Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. Although it is true that many Americans would rather have some kind of system to ensure that audiences view age appropriate material only, it seems that some standards of the system have been put into place arbitrarily. One example shown in the movie was the lack of restriction of violent content in films and the hypersensitivity to films with sexual content, especially if it is homoerotic in any way. Many feel that this imbalance stems from political tensions found in American society. One part of the movie in particular laid out how equally sexually explicit scenes featuring homosexual and heterosexual couples are rated differently, with NC-17 being the rating trend for films with “alternative” content and R for films whose characters are more “socially acceptable”. The lack of restriction of violence in movies has worried many Americans as well. At a very young age, children have a difficult time associating the “cool” death scenes in movies with the effects that those actions would have in real life, and with things such as school shootings and violence on the rise, Americans need to realize how film can effect their children. While I do agree that there should be some guidelines that filmmakers should follow, there needs to be significant change in the regulations that are used today.

Posted by colb0086 at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The MPAA is portrayed as an ambiguous judge and jury in This Film Is Not Yet Rated. While Franklin states that the MPAA rating system provides for “some fairly well established guidelines to the assignment of ratings, [and thus] filmmakers can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their films’ ratings will be. In addition, it is a fairly simple matter to edit a film to conform to a particular rating’s requirements,” the testimony from film makers seems to contradict this statement (153).
In general there are some standard taboos that will automatically earn a highly restrictive rating such as explicit sexual content or extremely realistic and graphic violence. However there also seems to be a bit of a split between ratings for sexual content. While male focused heterosexual sex is frequently given lower ratings for humor or character development many interviewed suggested that female pleasure and homosexual sex earn higher ratings. Though the MPAA denies this is a deciding factor in ratings the various film clips from PG and NC-17 films suggests that it is.
There is also a marked difference in how independent production companies and big studios are treated. This is unequivocally demonstrated in the response from the MPAA to Matt Stone’s two films. While the one submitted from an independent firm was essentially rejected outright, with the MPAA suggesting that they would have to cut virtually every scene to receive a marketable rating; the South Park movie submitted via major studios was rejected but given step-by-step guidelines on how to make it suitable. Other artists interviewed suggested similar experiences.
Overall the film indicates that the MPAA is dishonest and unnecessarily secretive when it comes to film ratings. Ratings seem aimed toward placating the religious right and established corporations rather than morally protecting the average American child as the MPAA claims.

WORKS CITED
Franklin, Daniel P. “Movies, Censorship, and the Law” in Politics and Film: The Political Culture of Film in the United States (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006) pp. 143-160

Posted by shaw0139 at 10:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The movie This Film Is Not Yet Rated was an extremely entertaining movie. The movie was informative yet also clever and brought to light the subjective nature of the film rating process. As stated by Daniel P. Franklin in his paper, Politics and Film: The Political Culture of Film in the United States, "Make no mistake about it, American films are censored now and always have been. When we talk about the advisability of film censorship, it is not a discussion of whether or not but how and how much. Films are censored in one of three ways: by the market, by the industry, or by the government." The film clearly echoed this.

A particularly interesting topic that the film touched on was that of homosexuality. It brought to light the fact that the majority of films that featured any sort of homosexual encounter, regardless of how intense the act was carried out, received an NC17 rating, whereas films featuring heterosexual scenes that were far more intense received a rating of R or less. The topic of homosexuality is very political in nature and of course does not only relate to the film industry. The topic has recently had the limelight shown upon it with legislation being updated in some states to allow same-sex marriage. The film This Film Is Not Yet Rated brought it to light that discrimination is also abundant in the film rating process.

Posted by John Erck at 10:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“Filmmakers can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their films’ ratings will be. In addition, it is a fairly simple matter to edit a film to conform to a particular rating’s requirements.”
Those interviewed in This Film Is Not Yet Rated, or Kirby Dick would not agree with this statement. If we learned anything from Kirby and the other interviewees is that there is no consistency on what films will be rated. Sex is definitely more subversive in the eyes of the MPAA. The commentators in the film we watched were dumbfounded that sex is treated worse than violence by the MPAA and that their ratings are incredibly inconsistent and absurd. For example, how you can say the word fuck as an expletive but not as a reference to having sex. Maria Bello pointed out that pubic hair is deemed worse by the MPAA than a scene in one of the Scary Movie horror comedies when Carmen Electra has her breasts removed by being cut open with a knife. An act that was horribly violent and did receive an R rating. The pubic hair scene in The Cooler with Maria Bello received an NC-17 rating because of her pubic hair showing during a love scene. What we witnessed in the film this week were several examples of how violence in movies is treated less harshly than sex scenes are. Also sex is treated differently according to gender and sexual orientation. Jason Biggs fucking a pie receives an R rating and Natasha Leone in But I’m a Cheerleader, gets slapped initially with an NC-17 rating because she is a woman masturbating. They also provided an example of a guy masturbating the in the shower in American Beauty, and how that was given an R rating as well, not NC 17. Violence against women is horribly prevalent as well. I never realized that before but it is. Stories that degrade women and show extreme domestic violence is so very common place. Those are the movies that should be given an NC 17 rating.

Posted by byro0028 at 10:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The documentary this week was an investigation of the shadowy top secret cabal called the MPAA. For a long time i've seen those during previews or film trailers and never really thought much about it. I assumed that the ratings were prescribed by some technocrats that followed strict rules about what is and what is not allowed.

What is at issue is that the film industry, in the 20th century was under pressure by the government and social groups to cut down on the content in films to adhere to conservative standards of the day. So the film industry got together to create the Motion Picture association of America, in order to make it at least appear that they were regulating themselves. Perhaps this was to head-off government intervention.
Jack Valenti, the long time leader of the MPAA and former LBJ and Nixon underling, claims that the MPAA ratings are a transparent process where real parents of young children come to a general consensus about what is acceptable to children.

I was really surprised that instead it was a largely subjective endeavor that is done in the presence of elites within the industry that is supposedly self-regulating. The problem with the ratings is that the difference between R and NC-17 can be millions of dollars.
About a half dozen unelected raters watch every film released in the United States. The names and biographies of these people are kept top secret, as are their criteria and their processes. After much investigation we learned some information about those who rate the movies. It turns out that only one of them has young children, most were in their twenties and one apparently had none at all.

Over all the people interviewed in the film were all against censorship. One 1st amendment lawyer interviewed talked about a process with no precedents and only one appeal. Some suggested that the ratings be based on the criteria of Europe where less violence is tolerated and more sexuality is portrayed. I agree with that, violence destroys life, sex on the other hand might even create life.

Posted by gonza275 at 10:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This weeks film, “This film is not yet rated”, a documentary was very interesting. Before watching this film I had know idea that there was a board of ordinary people that established the ratings for each film. I guess I may have been a bit ignorant, because I thought that there was just a general consensus of what was involved in the meaning behind each rating. I also did not realize the huge cut in funding and advertising a film takes if it gets rated NC-17. This film really made me think that the ratings board is a monopoly and really puts film makers in a difficult position, in terms of making the best possible film. However, Kirby Dick only interviewed people that got a rating they did not like, or did not agree with. He interviewed people that had cut scenes from their films in order to meet guidelines. Most filmmakers would be upset with the ratings board, if it suggested that they edit their film. I do think that we need a rating system. Parents do need to know what they’re children may be exposed to in a movie. Also, there should be guidelines that children need a parent’s permission to watch a certain type of movie, if they haven’t reached a certain age. However, I do think that the system is flawed as pointed out in the film with the review board inadequacies. I don’t really know what would be a more appropriate system; I do think that the board should not be unknown. People should know who is on the board; they have no more pressure on them than a judge, lawyer, police officer, or political leader. Life is pressure. Overall, I think this film was very funny and informative. I am glad it was shown in this class, because I have never heard of this film before, and most likely would have never seen it. Probably because it was given a NC-17 rating... is this right?... I don’t think so...

Posted by zabor005 at 09:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I had never really given the MPAA ratings a second thought untill I watched This Film is Not Yet Rated in class the other day. The directors and producers interviewed in the movie had every right to voice their frustrations about the censorship system. Their films are art after all, work inspired by visions they and their crew conjure in their heads. To put a limit on what is and is not R rated strictly by the number of times a character says fuck or the severity of a sexual or violent scene is demeaning. As it says in the Franklin reading, the message of the film was what used to be capriciously judged as appropriate or not. Franklin goes on to say that "it is a fairly simple matter to edit a film to conform to a particular rating’s requirements.” Why would the film makers have to conform and thus supress their creativity?
One of the interviewees in the film argued a strong point that has stayed with me. He was talking about the purpose of war documentaries and how they reenacted actual events. However gruesome they were, they were reality and you can not put a limit on that by expecting soldiers not to swear or taking out the grotesque violence. The market, the industry, and the government are not protecting Americans by any means especially when censoring the truth. "That's reality and if you can't deal with that, then don't send people to war." The images of hysterical children running away from napalm bombs and the heaps of bodies that littered the streets are what we need to see. We need to see the uncensored truth.

Posted by kolsu002 at 09:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This week we watched a movie called This Film is Not Yet Rated. The whole idea of this film was to talk about the design of rating films. Throughout the film you learn that movies get rated by a panel of member whose names and identities are kept secret in order to keep them from “influence.” A lot of people within the film industry wonder if this rating system is bias and unfair, because of the fact that some films that seem like they should be rated R are in fact rated NC-17 and vice versa. The bad thing about having your film rated NC-17 is that it can’t be played in theaters, which causes not a lot of people to see it resulting in very low profit.

According to Daniel Franklin’s Politics and Film reading “the rating system is based on the number of and graphic nature of the acts of violence and explicit sex as depicted in a film.” One of the interesting things that I learned in the movie is that when it comes to sex and violence the rating system is more likely to rate a violent movie R, while other films that depict graphic sexual actions are more likely to be rated NC-17. This tells us a lot about our society in the fact that we would rather have our children see a film where a man kills another man, than seeing a man and a woman having sex. The weird thing about this is that there have been numerous studies on whether movies and television effect children’s actions, and they have found that they have. So wouldn’t it be wise to rethink that “more accepting” view of violence that is held throughout society?

Posted by clay0115 at 09:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This past week’s film, “This Film is Not Yet Rated” was genius. The entire concept makes me wish I had a better imagination. Not only was the movie calling out the MPAA, but it inadvertently shed light on the issue of homosexuality. For instance, it makes reference to a movie about lesbian teenagers. In this film a girl masturbates through her night gown and therefore it receives an nc-17 rating whereas in American Beauty Kevin Spacey’s shower masturbation scene goes completely unnoticed. The team of lesbian super sleuths and their daughter cracked open a jar of worms and poured it directly on the heads of the administration of the MPAA. It showed female homosexuals as strong members of society who legally take advantage of these so called “movie critics.” Not only did the film raise issues on homosexuality and fair treatment for everyone in the United States no matter your age, gender or sexuality, it raised issues on the free speech laws we have had in the constitution for hundreds of years. This small group of individuals who decides what each individual age group of people can watch is stifling free speech for artists and movie makers. Being an avid equal rights activist, this film got my attention. It is understandable why people might look down upon gay people because of religion, but it is hypocritical of Christians to look down upon another group of people because of their lifestyle which they did not choose in the first place. After all, isn’t the good book supposed to teach understanding and love for all kinds of people. Even if it is a sin what’s the difference between having homosexual tendencies and cursing? Nothing.

Posted by stor0245 at 09:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“This Film is Not Yet Rated” was quite a humorous showcase of the mysteries behind the MPAA, which I found interesting enough to pay attention to, considering I knew nothing about the ratings process and how difficult it sometimes is to put out mainstream films. I never realized the complexities of what forms of censorship were in play for a film, and the politics behind each. Franklin describes how the film industry itself set in place a personal strict production code, “imposed by the movie studios on themselves and was made enforceable by the vertical integration of the industry… [and which] came about as a by-product of governmental pressure.” The film seems to agree with this self-censorship, but also support censorship by the market, as most of the filmmakers interviewed seemed to focus on what viewers would like to see in films. “This Film is Not Yet Rated” also gives reason for the strong governmental influence in film censorship, as we find out that the man behind the whole MPAA came as a lobbyist from Washington, D.C.

Cieply describes that Jack Valenti has some kind of “genius” by developing the ratings system. I don’t necessarily think it was genius material, but people simply thought it was because they had no previous guidance in the rating of films—simply, no one had done it before. Valenti’s ideas were innovative in this specific department, yes, but how could they have been perfect if they never changed according to a changing culture? Cieply also says of the system, “[f]or the major studios it has been a bulwark against outside interference, though it has often galled filmmakers and hasn’t done enough for many parents.” This implies that the system is not in fact perfect, however, it never will be possible to please everyone. Perhaps the fact that Valenti at least came up with a working system of this sort made him a “genius” in some respects.

Posted by joh02361 at 09:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the movie “This Film is Not Yet Rated” many of the filmmakers that were interviewed were upset with the rating given to their film by the MPAA. From what we see in the film the ratings are very arbitrary, and the ratings board wasn’t what they claimed to be. For one thing most of the raters had children that were out of their teens, and the majority were over the age of thirty. Also, on the appeals committee there were members from the church present. The most shocking thing about the MPAA to me was that when a film was rated and the filmmaker was unhappy they gave suggestions about how they could get their rating changed. Some of the suggestions were acceptable, but they were very inconsistent between films. For example they allowed a scene of male masturbating, but not a female. The rating committee was very concerned about sex scenes, but not as concerned about violence. Which was very odd according to some of those interviewed, because sex is much more accepted in film when compared to other countries.

The most interesting aspect to me was how everyone believed that these ratings are so helpful to parents, and they are necessary in order for them to make good decisions on films for their children. But, what the film looked at, and what no one seems to notice is that they are only helpful because there is nothing to compare it to. There has never been another nation wide system of rating films for language, violence and sex, so when this system was developed of course it was well liked. Because there is no competition this allows the MPAA to do whatever they want, more or less, without consequence.

For the most part this film showed the faults of the MPAA, and how they are so uncooperative when working with filmmakers. I think Kirby Dick and the other filmmakers in this movie would agree with the statement that the MPAA rating system is arbitrary and there is not good logic to deciding the film ratings.

Posted by elmxx014 at 09:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In response to the first question, Franklin's statement does not hold true based on the information gained from watching the interviews in the movie. Making films is an art, and in my opinion art is not supposed to have any limitations. While clearly their has to be some sort of regulation, the rating system that is currently in use is faulty. Sure, its fair to say that film makers probably can predict the rating that their movie will probably receive. However, the fact that there is not a strict set of rules and regulations about how the rating works is completely unfair. The movie does a great job of showing that there are flaws. For example, the fact that the movie with the straight sex scene received and "R" and the gay movie that showed no nudity received "NC-17" is proof. Also, the fact that when film makers try and fight their rating they are not allowed to bring up other movies basically means that the MPAA concedes to the fact that they are wrong. They know that if film makers were allowed to make comparisons, the MPAA would be proven wrong and so they just make it un allowed. The experiences of the filmmakers make the Franklin statement completely un true because some know they should have received and "R" but since there was something in their movie that 8 random people did not like, it received NC 17. The system is completely subjective and hopefully the new leader will make some changes to the system.

Posted by cloy0004 at 09:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The film we saw this week really made me question what is happening to our rating system as of late. It was quite an enjoyable documentary and I did like it but looking at the way movies are rated now compared to what was shown in the past and how times change. Things like Saw and Hostel are coming out and it is hard to believe they are actually considered "film" because of their content. The inefficency and lack of consideration that the board has within itself is a display of the inefficency of our society today and how things must go around in circles before they are completed. Also the fact that these board members have no teenage or younger children was quite interesting to me, and i think it helps them decide on ridiculous ratings for movies that are being made now. This also showed what the mainstream media thought of new subjects, the dislike of sex and homosexuals on film. It would seem that our culture isn't fully ready to accept these ideas even though they are so prevalent in our time.

Posted by leex2727 at 09:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The documentary, this film is not yet rated, was an interesting film because it showed how the films were rated, but also it showed how the procedure in rating films weren’t efficient. From the documentary, I thought that the procedure of rating the films, which was done by MPAA, wasn’t organized at all. It seemed like they didn’t have any standard procedure in rating films and also they didn’t have any kind of training programs, which I thought it was very unusual. It was also interesting that they had completely different ratings in similar types of movies, which indicated the disorganized procedure to it. Obviously it is public’s concern to have their children watching films that contains inappropriate contents and when the films are released with the “wrong” ratings, I think it damages the relationship between the movie industry and the public. However, I also believe that the movie industry is mostly concerned with the profit, not much to the public’s attention. From one of the assigned readings, Koppes said that “the studios would stop at nothing to make a buck, not even censorship,” which shows that their priority is to make money (Koppes, 649). In today’s society, there are a lot of children who watches film just because there’s some sex scenes and other contents that are inappropriate to them. In some part, it is parent’s responsibility to not let those things happen, but obviously if the rating procedure was more organized, they wouldn’t be dealing with that kind of issue. Protection of the children is very important and it would be nice to see if MPAA and the movie industry make an improvement on the rating procedure in order to have the “proper” ratings for the films so that no one would be confused and harmed.

Posted by katay007 at 09:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This weeks film really amazed me. I never knew that there were so much politics involved in the film rating system. This film shows how the MPAA has created an uproar with the movie producers. It shows us the inconsistencies that they have for rating films and how picky they really are when looking at how the films should be rated. Hodgson explains, “there is no indication whether an R rating is for sex, violence or language, and no indication why a PG (parental guidance suggested) has been awarded.” It's amazing the difference that a rating of NC-17 compared to one that is rated "R" makes. Franklin makes the point that “it is certainly true that many theaters will simply refuse to screen a movie with the rating NC-17” (153). In the long run this could mean the difference in millions of dollars at the box office. A film maker could make a film that he thought should be rated PG-13 and ends up being rated NC-17 and the producer can not go back and change scenes so that it fits into the PG-13 class. This could end up ruining a producers movie and make it drown at the box office. I think that it is ridiculous that only a few people can speak out for the World as a "whole" when rating a certain film. I think that the MPAA's ratings should not effect a film and therefore I believe that the way that they critique the films is not totally accurate and they should come up with a new rating system. This film showed how the MPAA picked different aspects of movies to create their rating and it showed that you never really can tell what type of a rating any certain film is going to receive.

Posted by kapla137 at 09:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was very impressed, surprised, and enlightened by the film this week. I was unaware of how the ratings board/system worked, and the film revealed it in a light that made it seem very biased, elitist, arbitrary, and monopolistic.

Franklin outlines the debate about what type of censorship should be occurring, primarily arguing between market censorship, industry censorship, and government censorship. The film mostly argues that any form of censorship other than the current method of industry censorship would be best. I agree with the filmmakers that the current system allows for very strict, unfair, and collusive results, providing the industry with a completely monopolistic system to output only what they want. The secrecy of the ratings board only stands to further complicate the issue, since nobody can even be sure that the raters aren’t the filmmakers themselves.

Franklin also claims that “at least in the current environment, creative, thoughtful, and even subversive films can get made” (147). I think it is widely understood among filmmakers and anyone who is familiar with the system that violence is easily used as a subversive tactic in films. Many complain that sexual themes are treated so harshly while violence is widely accepted and often glorified. One filmmaker offered an opinion which I found very interesting; that violence should be treated oppositely of how it is now, so that realistic violence which presents consequences should be given a more lenient approach, whereas bloodless killing and other fantasized forms of violence should be treated more harshly. The MPAA’s treatment of sexual themes is apparent in the rating of This Film Is Not Yet Rated as there are scenes of sexual activity, but no violence, in the film, and the documentary earned the harshest rating of NC-17.

Posted by dunh0037 at 09:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In response to Franklin’s statement, “At least in the current environment, creative, thoughtful and even subversive films can get made,” I would have to say I agree to a certain extent. The reason I say to a certain extent is because even though sex and violence sell, some sex and violence doesn’t sell. The market itself determines this by excluding unpopular ideas (Franklin 145). Things that involve graphic depictions of rape and homosexuality normally wouldn’t sell, but then how do you explain the success of American History X which includes a combination of the two? This is where the MPAA comes in. Franklin states that, “A movie executive with an agenda beyond making money is cruising for a financial loss (144).” This leads me to the conclusion that the MPAA is in charge of determining what sells, since the leading Hollywood studios are actually members themselves. I find it hard to believe that the members of the MPPA wouldn’t have their own financial interests as their number one priority. So, in this environment, it would be very difficult for subversive films, from an independent film studio to receive a rating less than an NC-17. So, sex obviously sells but where does the MPAA draw the line? In This Film is Not Yet Rated one interviewee, the director of But I’m a Cheerleader, points out that her film received an NC-17 due to a female masturbation scene, but American Pie was rated as an R and had a more graphic masturbation clip. Some might say that the line drawn must include some sort of gray area to allow this, but besides blaming preferential treatment for the decision by the MPAA, the line is very clear. This apparent contradiction has its origins connected to women’s historical role in society. Just as adults tried to suppress the sexual protest of young women everywhere during “Beatle mania,” adult still try to oppress young women’s sexuality to this very day. Sexuality among young females is something that society detests and the MPAA’s decision about giving an initial NC-17 rating to But I’m a Cheerleader reflects that.

Posted by cros0189 at 09:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Daniel P. Franklin claims in his book Politics and Film, that “in the current environment, creative, thoughtful, and even subversive films can get made” (147). His argument supporting this revolves around the rating system put in place by the MPPDA (152). Franklin states that this rating system changed the way films were “filtered”. He explains that with the rating system, films are “no longer... be filtered for content”, but rather, audiences are “filtered for films” (152). Franklin seems to believe that because there is no industry-wide censorship, nor any government censorship, of movies, that the medium is free to be “creative, thoughtful, and even subversive”. Unfortunately this argument neglects the subtle form of censorship inherent in the rating system. This censorship can be seen in the difficulty of distribution and/or viewing for a film that is marred with a rating that excludes the films target audience.

Posted by islex007 at 09:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This week's film, "This Film is Not Yet Rated" was a very eye opening experience. I had realized that ratings were off skew and not very constant, but i did not realize how biased they were. The fact that the committee is private and not accessible to the public is not right at all. The public deserves to know who is DETERMINING what they are able to view or not view, purchase or not purchase. It makes the public think that the picking of the committee is also biased and takes away all trust in the rating system. Another point, is that the appeal system is screwed up. the fact that you can not compare any other movie or fraction of a movie to your own is ridiculous. it just goes to show that the system they have for rating has no guidance or set of guidelines to go by. it is on complete movie by movie basis based on the committee's biased decision. the system the MPAA has set up is wrong in every way. who says that these people have the right to choose what we view in the first place? Their opinion could possibly be the opposite of the majority of the American population. The part of the movie that was very interesting was the comparison of the nudity or sexual scenes involving either gay, straight, or bisexual intercourse. Most scenes involving gay or bisexual sexual scenes were less inappropriate than most straight sex scenes, yet were more often denied playing on the big screen. This weeks film was a very inspiring eye opener for me to second guess some of the things that dictate my life.

Posted by mcgui149 at 09:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It seems, these days, that the American attitude of what is "suitable material for all ages" and "what is not" is vastly different from the rest of the world, and of our past history. Not too long ago, it would have been unheard of to criticize the President in a film or on television. Nowadays, there are entire TV shows and box office films dedicated to criticizing and making fun of our Government officials, especially the President. It just goes to show how things have changed. Thirty or so years ago when "The Exorcist" came out, there were huge public outcries. People were passing out and throwing up during screenings of the film, the Church was calling out against it, and it was given an R rating. To be honest with you, if that film went through the rating system of today, it would probably only receive a PG-13. Films like "Hostel" and other snuff films like it only receive an R rating. I saw one scene from "Hostel II" and I can't even believe a studio would allow it to be made. I know that the sick, messed up society we live in will fork out the money to see this crap, and the studios will make a ton of money, but are you kidding me? Those movies should only be seen by people over 17, if any one at all.

America's filmmaking also is transported overseas to cultures wildly different from ours. Many of our films might go through extensive editing for sex, violence and language which may be offensive to some cultures. If you look on IMDB at different movies, they show the ratings of the film in different countries. In some movies, you will likely see something to the effect of "18+" or "banned", etc.

I'm not saying we need the government to ban movies like "Hostel". I'm not in favor of censorship by any means. What I do think is that filmmakers and studios should use a little more discretion in what they put out. If an impressionable kid sees a bunch of American backpackers getting hacked to bits in a dungeon in Eastern Europe and thinks it is a "SWEET!" as I thought the "3 Ninjas" were, our country, and the rest of the world, is not heading in a great direction!

Posted by smit1989 at 09:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In response to Franklin statement saying "some fairly well-established guidelines to the assignment of ratings, [and thus] filmmakers can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their films' ratings will be. In addition, it is a fairly simple matter to edit a film to conform to a particular rating's requirements" (153), I think Kirby Dick and those who were interviewed in the film totally disagree on Franklin's statement. Obviously making a film is a difficult task and to ask the directors and producers of the film to go back and simply edit or cut out certain parts of their film is no easy task! It could, and probably would, change what the film is all about. And for the movie with the gay and lesbian scenes in them, to cut out one scene where a girl is seen masturbating with her clothes on. Why should this be cut out, when in America Pie, a guy can been seen masturbating into a pie without his clothes on? To me, the MPAA is just trying to "protect" the American viewers from the real world where there happens to be homosexuals. I think that it isn't up to the MPAA to be able to limit these films from audiences, people can make their own decisions to see the movies they want to see. People can't live in a sheltered life forever. It is a fact that they will be introduced to these issues elsewhere, if not in the movies. Also what angered me about this movie was the fact that movies with brutal sex scenes of the way guys are treating women is allowed, and brutal murders are also allowed, but heaven forbid a teenage girl experimenting with herself be allowed on screen! And to a fellow classmates blog, I think that people who go see homosexual scenes aren't going to go home and want to experiment with the same sex, and if they do, who cares what people do on their own time? I think by simply seeing a movie of a homosexual sex scene isn't going to "make someone gay". I think all types of movies should be allowed on screen, and leave it up to the parents or the individual to decide the rest.

Posted by ruff0046 at 09:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)