American Politics & Pop Culture

Movie Ratings-Do they Serve Hollywood or the Public?

The problem with today’s film rating system is two fold; one, it’s too subjective and two, the ratings carry only vague meaning. Because of this, the Code and Rating Administration, also known as CARA, has been the subject of heated debate for some time. Films such as Medium Cool, If, and Midnight Cowboy have all been rated X: For Adults Only; when in fact they’ve been seen by many as being tamer than many R rated films from the same era. So, it seems fair to ask, “Can CARA be improved?” or even, “Should CARA exist? Does it serve a purpose?”

The answer is yes, yes, and yes. As stated by Richard D. Heffner, chairman of CARA, “We’re only the messengers telling the parents what we think they’ll consider an R.” (Moria, 2) It’s clear to see that CARA does censor films. If they did, I would argue that they shouldn’t exist. CARA rates films, and the ratings serve a distinct purpose. The ratings allow parents to make decisions about what films their children should or shouldn’t be able to see without having to watch the film first. The problem with the rating system, as stated in my opening paragraph, is that the ratings are too subjective and carry too vague a meaning.

In order to improve the system, there must be a firm set of guidelines that can be followed in order to make an objective rating decision. The actual rating letters can only convey meaning if they’re assigned to films in a consistent fashion. Also, since the ratings exist to help parents make decisions they should be more descriptive in nature.
There are two main categories that cause a film to be rated a specific way. Those two categories are violence and sex. Some parents are okay with violence and some parents are okay with sex. A movie could be rated R because it is sexual in nature or that it is violent. The parent making a decision about whether or not their child should be able to see a film cannot make an informed decision that reflects their views. Because of this, I suggest that the rating system could be improved by specifying why a film received a specific rating. For example, an R film that is R due to violence and not sexuality should be rated an Rv film. Also, an R film that is R due to sex and not violence should be rated an Rs film. If the film is both violent and sexual it should be rated Rvs. This method allows parents to make decisions that better match their own personal views.

Moria, Hodgson. “Movie Ratings – Do They Serve Hollywood or the Public?” The New York Times (May 24, 1981)

Posted by John Erck at 08:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

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)

Posted by schr0845 at 11:43 PM | 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)

James Nadell, in his article, “Boyz N The Hood: A Colonial Analysis,” gives us an overview of the symbolisms and illustrations in John Singleton’s “Boyz N the Hood,” as well as the struggle of African Americans in a historical/colonial context. Nadell’s main ideas deal with how Euro-American capitalism has had negative effects on the development of African Americans as a people, how a “warfare” has been made against the progress of Black freedoms by our government, and how the drug problem landed in Black communities and has since rendered violent conflicts.

Nadell begins with his opinion that “the oppression and exploitation of African and Third World labor and resources” has been influential in fueling American capitalism over time. This is a logical deduction when thinking of the times of the slave trade and the forced labor of African Americans in southern American states during the colonial times. Later on, Nadell describes how African Americans have been considered an “externalized cost” that only brings down the power of capitalism, implying the “warfare” attitude against black people by the majority in our nation’s history. From a colonial point of view, this would also seem logical, however in present day it is recognized that African Americans and other minority groups have become a viable part of the American workforce.

As Nadell analyzes “Boyz N the Hood,” he largely points out the problem of illegal drugs and its relation to violence among many black communities. According to Nadell, a “driving force of the within-group violence depicted in [“Boyz”] is the illicit narcotics trade.” However, we are informed that the CIA was responsible for the original import of opiates and other narcotics to the United States. The trouble began once the trade spread into black and other minority communities, “a most serious blow to the Black liberation struggle.” Relating to our class discussions, this problem was most likely a factor of the LA riots and the corruption of the LA police force, which also is seen in “Boyz”, and could also possibly contribute to ongoing racism against black people in this country.

Concerning the topic of racism, Jeremy Stoddard points out that: “Critical race theorists argue that racism pervades American institutions and is “endemic in American life.” Stoddard infers here that the views of Americans have changed, making racism out to be the “endemic” that African Americans and other minorities once were, according to Nadell. Stoddard idealizes the image of Americans here, at least these “race theorists,” as it is certain that many forms of racism still exist today, but are perhaps less noticeable.

Overall, Nadell uses examples from “Boyz N the Hood” to summarize well the effects of American capitalism, the introduction of drugs, and other hindrances to the struggle for liberation amongst black people over time. His consistency with history and realizable contextual evidence make for an informatively persuasive read.

Posted by joh02361 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)

For this assignment, I read the article called Movie Ratings – Do They Serve the Hollywood or the Public?, which was written by Moira Hudgson. Basically the author attacks the issue about the film ratings that we have in the society today and how these ratings are affecting the community and public in general. In the article, he compares the ratings back in the earlier days to the ratings that we have now. He believed the major change that occurred in the rating was the changes from X-rated to R-rated films. All the filmgoers, or people in general, tends to watch more of PG and R rated films today as it was stated in the article. Since these statistics are true, the industry or the studio are forced to make a film that are PG or R rated (that’s what the MPAA would call it…) because obviously they would make more money. I believe that’s one of the issues I think that needs to be solved because the priority for the studio is to make some bucks, not the public. In addition, with all the disorganized procedure that are going on in MPAA can also be harmful and inappropriate for the children that are not old enough to watch the adult contents. With all these kinds of problems flying around, it makes the film industry to focus on their job more difficult because their relationship with the public could go downhill. But was it necessary for people to change the rating from being X to R? Mr Romero said that “they should say V for violence or S for sex,” instead of calling it PG or R because I think those copyrighted trademarks can be confusing sometimes and it would make it a lot easier if they say the film is rated S (sex), for example. Maybe X would have been too much of a broad rating, but if there is no standard system for MPAA to rate films, it would make sense for them to have the films rated in the way which Mr Romero stated. Basically I just want to say that if MPAA have concerns for the public and the children, they should look closely at their system in order to receive positive feedbacks from the public. The last thing that they want to do is to have the children watching the inappropriate films because of the wrong ratings. The priority for them should be “people”, not the bucks. If we could see some changes within the organization in the next couple of years, the rating system that they have might become useful or they should just change the whole system in order to ensure the protection from the under aged children.

Posted by katay007 at 11:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the reading Movie Rating- Do They Serve Hollywood or the Public by Moira Hodgson, asks readers to examine if the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) services the film goers and parents or the Hollywood business. The article doesn’t have a thesis statement but one main question, which is stated in the title and to help reader answer the question, the Hodgson explains how the MPAA works and points out some controversial argument associated with the rating system. After reading the article I would argue that the movie rating system by Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is not designed to service the public but Hollywood.
Hodgson starts out by illustrating that the MPAA has improved the rating system since the 1970’s. MPAA now looks at violence more carefully as they do sexual content. Hodgson stats “ X ratings which used to be conferred mostly for sex are now used to designate violence as well” (2) Hodgson states even though the MPAA has made improvement, still the rating system is not helpful for the public or for parents in identifying what the movie contains “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.” (Hogson, 1)
For the most part this MPAA rating system is business, movies with the X rating don’t get any advisement in the media and most movie theater don’t play movies with an X rating. In addition “Members of the national Association of the Theater Owners, comprising about 85 percent of heaters, will not show unrated films” (Hogson, 4) Hogson explains there are small number of filmmaker who don’t submit the their film to the MPAA still make money by using their own rating system. The MPAA rating system is not only biases, but also influenced by big corporation “there have been complaints by producers that the rating board is softer on the giving X rating to the larger companies.” (Hogson, 6)
Hogson, explains that MPAA is a form of censorship, that comes between the movie goers and the films. I would also agree it is a form of censorship based on the politics and money. The article was very interesting, it had great points that supported the film we watched this week.

Posted by mula0013 at 11:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Boyz 'n the hood is a film that shows the hard life and rough area that many African Americans have to grow up and live in throughout their lives. James Nadell in his article,“Boyz N The Hood: A Colonial Analysis”, discusses the isue of racism from the African American aspect and how they are always looked at or treated differently from the White Americans. Nadell also comments on the drug trade and the way that the people looking in on it believe that it is the African Americans who are responsible for it , when they only have a very strong part to play.
The young African Americans that are shown in Boyzz n the hood are always being watched and in some kind of danger. Even they are shown to be up standing citizen's, trying to get into college, they always seem to be in some kind of danger. We see them being pulled over by police, who are mainly shown as white people are an occasional black cop who wants to show everyone that he is greater than they are. They are pulled over for no apparent reason, other than being African American. Also in the area there is always the treat of being shot, as we hear the gunshots throughout the film. Nadell say that this is typical and comes from the days where the African Americans were brought over from Africa and Europe to be slaves for the white people of America. These days are long passed but some people still class the race as being inferior to white people.This is why they find it harder to get away from the stereotypes that they once had. An example of this is shown in American History X when Derek is extremely against minorities and African Americans in particular.
The other point that Nadell talks about is the drug trade.He points out that the people who are really behind the drug trafficing are the White Americans, possibly the government. Even though it has not been discussed in class much or even brought up in the film a lot, apart from one scene where Furious tells his son that African Americans dont have the boats or planes to get the drugs in. as Furious says here, they dont have the funds to get the drugs in to the country. They are merely the tip of the iceberg as they distribute and sell it to the people who want it. This is why they get the name for the drug trade as trhey ar ethe only ones who are seen doing anything with them.
Overall, i think that Nadell touches on and goes in good detail on the race issues that we have seen and discussed in the class. I think that his article and the topic of race and racism that we talked about for three weeks are very well connected.

Posted by culve018 at 11:02 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)

In Moira Hodgson’s article, “Movie Ratings-Do they serve Hollywood or the public?”, inconsistencies of and objections to the MPAA’s rating process are examined. Although the article was a bit dated and riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, I found many of the points to be very interesting, and a relevant corollary to the film we watched recently in class, “This Film is Not Yet Rated.” Hodgson details the differences among the ratings and an overview of how guidelines for each have changed in the years since their inception, as well as assorted people’s response to and opinion of them. Also examined is the role of ratings within the film industry itself and the politics of assigning various ratings to films.

Over time, Hodgson says that the ratings board has become more lenient on sexual themes and more stringent on violence, although many interviewed in “This Film is Not Yet Rated” would say that there is still much to be done to tone down gratuitous or potentially damaging violence. Language has been a fairly consistent qualifier for a harsher rating, but Mr. Valenti, head of the MPAA, says it can be the most difficult to rate, commenting that “if you’re a born-again Baptist in Mobile and the rating says some mild language and you hear the Lord’s name taken in vain, you’d feel you’d been tricked” (3). Language presents another issue as well. Because it can be used more easily than sex and violence without affecting the storyline, it is often included gratuitously to garner a stricter rating. Hodgson comments that “G (suitable for general audiences) is today considered box-office poison for many films on the grounds that the G can be equated with kiddie movies which arouse little interest among the majority of moviegoers” (2). Former chairman of the Code and Ratings Administration Richard Heffner responds to the issue by saying, “I frequently have the feeling the filmmaker has dropped in one of the harsher, sexually-derived words to get an R” (2). It’s an unfortunate reality that the ratings board has this type of control over the output of filmmakers. In this way the ratings board inevitably serves the film producers, who are able to bend the raters’ decision to their will by including gratuitous content.

Although the article mentions the possible inclusion of an intermediary rating between PG and R, “R14” as suggested by Steven Spielberg after complaints in response to his PG “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” it wouldn’t be until 1984 that the PG-13 rating would be introduced, providing an alternative to the restrictive “R” when less offensive content is present. The article also makes note of people’s complaints that reasons for ratings are not given. As of 1990, brief explanations are included with the rating. One look at the new “Iron Man” on the MPAA’s web site reveals the reason, “Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content.” Another complaint of the X rating being commonly associated with pornographic and otherwise sexually explicit films has been addressed by renaming the rating as “NC-17”, which films can earn typically for extreme violence, as well as sexual themes.

Posted by dunh0037 at 10:48 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)

“It is hoped that this essay will contribute to a new focus on the increasingly close connections between popular culture and politics in the post-war period.” Overall, Timothy Brown’s article Subcultures, Pop Music and Politics: Skinheads and “Nazi Rock” in England and Germany examines the effects of the evolving musical and cultural tides in relation to the skinhead movement from its 1960’s origins to the 1990’s.

The original skinhead movement began in England in the 1960’s. Originally, it was categorized by “its working-class origins and its upper-class pretensions” as it emphasized an “upwardly mobile.” Along with this, the music of the subculture was primarily that of reggae music most common to black performers. Soon, this musical genre became synonymous with the skinhead culture and earned the name “skinhead reggae.” Finally, in the early 1970’s, the skinhead way of life was on the decline.

Under the influence of punk rock, the 1970’s was a time of rebirth for the skinhead culture. Their music soon came to be known as “Street Punk” or “Oi!”. Along with this, the culture began as a force in the political realm as it moved to heavily represent right-wing politics. A style change was also experienced at this time as a greater emphasis was placed on masculinity with members styling tall boots, military surplus jackets, tattoos, and cropped hair.

1980’s became the decade of the skinhead migration from England to Germany as the group maintained its right-wing views while at the same time adopting an even more prominent Neo-Nazi standard. Drinking, shouting, casual sex, and fighting became staples in the subculture as the “image of manliness, hardiness, and togetherness” was highly emphasized in order to maintain the skinhead look and identity to further promote the Aryan race.

Looking at this article and the transformation of the skinhead culture in relation to the music and various other aspects of culture was highly reflective of the overall semester for me. While reading, images of American History X continually ran through my mind as I thought of Derek, Danny, and their Neo-Nazi gang clad in military jackets, boots, and shaved heads on a mission for white supremacy.

One of the overriding themes I gathered from Brown’s ideals was that of the masculinity of the Neo-Nazi subculture. The skinhead revolution began in the 1960’s and 1970’s, which was the approximate time of the hippie movement. Although the early skinhead years were marked by less violence, many ideals still conflicted between the hippies in America and the skinheads of England and Germany at this time. First, as one of the overriding indicators of culture, the music between the two groups differed. Compared with the deep reggae tones and later punk rock of the skinhead movement, the lyrical melodies of the hippie songs seemed simple. Next, as hippies sported long-hair and an almost feminine way of life, the skinhead culture was marked by cropped or shaved heads with masculinity as one of its core values. Contrast between the high ideals of materialism in their striving to reach the top of the pay scale and the hippie’s lack of material thinking were also highly visible in this article. Finally, as the skinhead movement emphasized violence and anti-racism, the hippie movement focused on love and peace among all individuals.

Posted by basse044 at 10:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hooks argues that Madonna tries, or does, use black culture as a way to express another side of herself. He believes that Madonna thinks of this ‘other identity’ as an ‘added spice’. Hooks believes that Madonna envies black people and tries to use that to her advantage.
I enjoyed reading Hooks’ article. I found her perspective of Madonna and how she interpreted what Madonna said very interesting. I am not black and would not have interpreted some of the things Madonna has said in the past the same way that Hooks did. Madonna stated in an interview that she ‘wanted to be black as a child’. (Hooks, 1992). Hooks response to this statement by Madonna was, “It is a sign of white
privilege to be able to "see" blackness and black culture from a standpoint where
only the rich culture of opposition black people have created in resistance marks and
defines us. Such a perspective enables one to ignore white supremacist domination
and the hurt it inflicts via oppression, exploitation, and everyday wounds and pains.
White folks who do not see black pain never really understand the complexity of
black pleasure. And it is no wonder then that when they attempt to imitate the joy in
living which they see as the "essence" of soul and blackness, their cultural
productions may have an air of sham and falseness that may titillate and even move
white audiences yet leave many black folks cold.” (Hooks,1992). I found this statement very intriguing. I could feel the pain and disgust that Hooks has for Madonna, amongst others, when they speak about things that they have no background or knowledge about.
Hooks also makes other great points throughout her article. One example is her discussion about Madonna, amongst other famous white people, that demonstrate ‘blonde ambition’. She also defends Madonna in the fact that she is like other black women who suffer from ‘internal racism’.
I did not agree with everything that Hooks said. I do not know Madonna personally, but I do not think that she is trying to put down or disgrace black culture. Her attempt at a ‘crotch grab’, imitating Michael Jackson, could have been misinterpreted by Hooks. Perhaps Madonna was paying tribute to a great performer instead. I think that Hooks took some of Madonna’s and actions out of context, but she does make valid arguments. I would be interested in reading more articles written by Hooks in the future.

Posted by hanl0083 at 10:20 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 film review on "This Film is Not Yet Rated" published by the New York Times states that this documentary is entertaining, yet it does not address many practical questions about the movie ratings system. Such as, 'does this ratings system help at all?' and 'how this system could be improved?' The writer of this review points out that Kirby Dick, the director of the film, does not present a piece of work that delves into all sides of the story. Although this might be the case it is made clear that this is an entertaining film and it does bring up some issues that are important for the public to take notice of. This article discusses a film that brings the idea of censorship to a head.

This article relates back to a lot of what was done in class this semester. Censorship in the United States has always been somewhat of an issue. Freedom of speech is allowed in the US, yet there are some restrictions. Many times throughout American history censorship has been used. In the 1960's the counterculture movement was beginning to explode and people were saying how they were feeling and were very open with their thoughts and sexuality. Many people of the time felt this information should be somewhat censored and not brought up. This can be seen in many of the films made in this time period. These films were entertaining and light-hearted. Few, if any, films of this time addressed the many social issues that were being introduced to society.

Censorship is always present in our society. From every idea, to genre of music or type of film - questions of censorship can always be raised. Many people are against censorship in all forms and many people agree with some types of it. This article relates to many ideas from the semester because many ideas in US history have in some way, shape or form been censored before being accepted by society.

Posted by Martine Schroeder at 10:17 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)

Those who were interviewed in This film Is Not Yet Rated, and its filmmaker would agree that the guidelines to assign ratings are fairly well-established, but that the guidelines aren’t correct. Ratings seem to push the Christian ideology by rating movies with homosexual content worse than movies with heterosexual content, and considering sexual content to be worse for young viewers than violence. The ideology seems to be pushed even further by the investigation in the movie revealing that two members of the clergy are present at certain rating functions.
The film seems to say that the market should do any censoring, if there is to be any censoring at all. I feel it is the job of the parents of the children to either go to movies and explain any issues that come up, or be able to trust reviews beforehand, leaving the movie industry without any censorship. I feel that movie directors and filmmakers could suggest which age range they feel would be most appropriate to view their movies, but to give three arbitrary cutoff points leaves much to be desired.
He suggests the fact that “At least in the current environment, creative, thoughtful, and even subversive films can get made”, because there are other avenues than mainstream media to have films get to production. The filmmakers interviewed would agree to the fact that the films can be made, but many times won’t be made because they know they won’t get the distribution and the advertising needed to make money. According to the MPAA, sex is more “subversive” than violence, simply because the rating system allows more violent content on the screen than sexual content before a rating is moved to a higher rating.

Posted by nemme003 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)

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