Where do I start with this one? I guess best to start with my conclusion. That being the Motion Picture Association of America (Also known as MPAA) and the National Association of Theater Owners (They affectionately call themselves NATO. What a joke.) have become tyrannts to the industry of ENTERTAINMENT. Although I would like to see them disbanded for many reasons; the least of which is bigotry as there is not a minority among the raters except for the supervisor whom is oriental; that would be remiss. These two organizations have legitimate places in the American landscape, however, as a 'cartel' together they have become detrimental. I think Jack Valenti (click on) may have realized that in his recent retirement, although my real instinct is the opposite.
The film more than adequately reveals the pursuit to understand the 'above it all' definitions of what the MPAA sees as legitimate reasons to 'rate' a film. It also reveals a very protected rating organization. I don't know why. I looked for legitimate reasons as to why such secrecy to the raters was important rather than transparency, but, I didn't find it. All the 'raters' of the films we watch in our society are middle age, white folks, with primarily grown children. There is a rare exception to that. The grown children aspect, not the white folks or middle aged.
Back in the day, when I was not middle age, the rating system of the MPAA was based in the 'adultness' of the content of the film.
G - General Audiences - all ages admitted
M- Mature Audiences - parental guidance suggested - all ages admitted
R - Restricted - people under the age of 16 were not admitted without being accompanied by a parent or adult guardian. That age limit was later raised to 17 years old.
X - no one under the age of 17 admitted. End of discussion.
Now, clearly the word 'adult' dominates the rating system. It was intended as a guideline to protect children but more than that it allowed adults to decide what level of 'frank' content they wanted to view. I personally did not find the rating system offensive or an insult to my intelligence at that point. I can't say the same for the one today.
Today, the MPAA breaks down the 'artistic content' of a film into components of social mores'. It's "W"rong to do that. It's creating pablum out of artists hard work. It's insulting and offense to me as an ADULT. I much rather read 'reviews' these days than seek a BIG LETTER to decide the fate of my 'movie going dollar.'
The current rating system is dominated by 'child' focus.
G - General Audiences - all ages admitted
PG - Parental Guidence Suggested - some material may not be suitable for children
PG-13 - Some material may not be suitable for children under the age of 13
R - under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian - in the opinion of "The Ratings Borad" the film definately contains some adult content.
NC-17 - No one 17 or under admitted - This rating declares that the "Rating Board" believes this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. No children will be admitted.
THE RATINGS BOARD are nothing more than 'bean counters.' How many times an offensive word is stated. To what extent pubic hair appears on film. Whether or not the film has a pervasive theme to it, in other words the bean counters didn't have enough beans to continue to rate the film so it is automatically a NR-17. Etc. Etc. Etc. NOTHING IS LEFT IN CONTEXT. NOTHING. The American Public is looking at ratings according to standards set arbitrarily by Middle Age White Folks with falling hormone levels. There is no respect for the artists of the film being rated. IT'S COMPLETE STUPIDITY !!!
I am quite confident this film will meet with a great challenge in distribution, but, everyone should see this to come to understand the pains these independant film producers, directors and actors are going through to have their talent relieved of the oppression of channeled interest to protect industry profits.
To get to 'the bottom line' here. There needs to be alternative ratings systems. As a matter of fact I don't understand how or why the MPAA has cornered the market on movie ratings. There is a system in Europe/Britain that I am not convinced is any better but it doesn't seem to meet with the complaints that the American system has come to find scrutiny by the artists. There needs to be an International Independant Filmmaker and Satarist Assocaition (They could be iconned as IIFSA.). They should have their own rating system that appears with films as well and along side of MPAA's ratings. The rating system of such an organization should be based in the 'content/context' of a film realizing the human mind at any age has a framework of understanding when violence/sexuality is detrimental needing a harsh rating and when it is vital to the story. I would appreciate that rating system equally if not more than any other. I also appreciate good reviews from newsprint that reflects my value system. I would not consider a conservative critic as important to my 'movie dollar spending habit.' I would however value a critic with well rounded understanding of the world, the way it presents itself in artistic depiction and whether or not a child accompanying me that afternoon might be confused or upset at what would appear on the screen in front of them.
We need change and plenty of it. People need to think and not become robots acting on a rating system that demeans their thought processes to whether Adam and Eve did the right thing by eating the apple in the Garden of Eden.
HELP !!!!!
