American Politics & Pop Culture

Eschew the Unscrupulous Scrupulous
The author Moira Hodgson is arguing that the rating system is not serving the industry, but is hurting it. And she somehow seems to have a contempt for public interest, as if it really doesn't matter in the end. If true,such ideas are, let's face it, small minded. Her thesis is "In the past decade, the rating system devised in 1968 by the motion picture industry in an effort to forestall an outbreak of community censorship has reflected a general loosening of community standards." She seems to have an overall critical view of the system and the people working for it. Her argument is almost entirely critical of the MPAA and the CARA with no two-sided analysis or judgements. I suppose she believes the ratings and the system that creates them like the director Kirby Dick also seems to believe that from a producers or director's standpoint, the rating system is in need of reform or eradication altogether. The overall article talks at least a little about the history, politics, and economics or legal business surrounding the "system." She also talks about some key power players and a number of examples of films that she and others too may believe are contradictory to the motives or the ideology the system operates with. For example, she mentions Mr. Valenti the longtime president of the institution, or Mr. Stern a hired psychologist who ran the board for several years in the 1970's. Some of the films discussed briefly are "Caligula" for an "X" rating being converted to an "MA" rating. She talks about why some "R" rated films are given the rating based on language or violence, like "Outland" or Raging Bull." I think this article fits squarely in the tradition of almost all the films and articles we've seen and read in class so far from what I can see in one important way. It is the familiar ideological perspective of being critical of some institution of power or entity in a one sided way. One sided meaning takes no serious look at the opposing side of ideology that's either in support of the institution of power or entity, or is counter-critical of the article being read or the film being watched. Any film from "Citizen Kane" to "Double Indemnity" being one sided and critical of journalism, the American dream, to "Apocolypse Now" or "Dr. Strangelove" taking a critical or satirical look or regard at the government or the Pentagon, to "Easy Rider" and "Boyz-n-the Hood" or "Talk to Me" being critical of America's inability to change and their stubborness, etc. All of these perspectives from what I can see have almost no context in which they have been taken in. There is no contrast, just one-sidedness. And that's not to say that the one side they do represent is without merit or justification. For example, to say that this article is critical of the rating system and the power that the institution has to force its rules or agenda on anyone making film is like the Pentagon in "Apocolypse Now" or Citizen Kane running a newspaper it is totally unjust and is run by crooks that one can so easily see they're just out looking for themselves and they're not really looking out for everyone that's the public or even those that are in service to them and we have no choice but to rebell against them until we overthrow them like a never ending French revolution and every revolution is like the French revolution is one way of looking at it. But I'm not sure that that should be the end all be all that it is when one reads articles or watches films like this only.