MPAA film ratings are supposed to be informative and help parents decide what films to allow their children to view. However, some people, including director of the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated Kirby Dick, have argued that MPAA ratings are inconsistent and arbitrary and constitute censorship based on the personal prejudices of the MPAA's anonymous rating board. The MPAA rating board avoids naming specific objectionable content, claiming that doing so would make them a censoring body; however, others contend that severely limiting a film's viewing audience by awarding a NC-17 rating constitutes censorship as well, particularly when the board refuses to make clear to film directors what content they might cut to obtain the more desirable R rating.
Consider the sexual content and graphic violence of 300 and Requiem for a Dream and the language used in Clerks, all R rated films. Requiem for a Dream was released NR, or not rated, but ultimately bent to the will of the MPAA by cutting a 6-second shot, specifically the arial view in what is known as the ass-to-ass scene to obtain an R rating, so the film could be released in an edited version that movie rental chains would carry the film. Do these 6 seconds warrant the difference between an audience allowed to view, purchase, or rent the film with parental consent versus those completely restricted from the film, at least in the public sphere? While it contains no violence, nudity, or visible sex acts, Clerks was also originally given the NC-17 rating, but director Kevin Smith appealed and won the more desirable R rating.
Film, TV shows, video games, and music are the only art forms with censoring labels. You won't find NC-17 labels on the back of Playboy magazine, erotic literature, paintings, sculptures, photography, etc. In fact, much of classic art depicts explicit nudity, even sex and violence. (Consider the classic literary works Lolita, Lady Chatterly's Lover, Tropic of Cancer; almost all of Greek sculpture including Venus de Milo and the David, paintings by artists such as Picaso, Dali, Goya; even religious works including the Bible and the Koran.
So why is film different? To what extent are rating systems censorship and thereby unconstitutional? Could the rating system be amended to make it more constitutional? Should we have a rating system at all?
In the movie Requiem for a Dream there were six seconds cut to obtain a more desirable rating. The six seconds cut weren’t as graphic as other scenes in the movie. There were worse scenes like the scene where Tyron and his girlfriend were having intimate affairs and they showed them fully undressed for quite some time. When they cut the six seconds, the movie got a more desirable rating. The difference in the scene that was cut and other scenes are not different, they both show graphic content. There is no difference between now and before they cut it so the same audience should be able to view, rent or purchase the film as if it were rated as an “R” rated film.
ReplyDeleteFilm, TV shows, video games, and music are the only forms of art with censoring labels. Most all film is rated by the MPAA. When films are rated, sometimes changes have to be made to the film to acquire a desired rating. This cuts into the directors artistic abilities. Obviously the director wanted it the way it was presented or he/she wouldn’t have made it that way. The rating system sometimes seems to be a bit biased. Sometimes it seemed that if the association of anonymous viewers didn’t like the movie they rated it more harshly than something they liked. To make the rating system more constitutional maybe they should make a rating rubric. They should have it where so many curse words is a whatever rated movie. They should have it to where all movies are rated equally. Sometimes I wonder if there should be a rating system at all. Sometimes I think it should be up to the parents. All kids mature at different rates anyway. What may be appropriate for one kid may not be appropriate for another kid.
I believe that film is not any different than art and that the rating system is unconstitutional. Film is a series of moving images that convey a story line, while art is an image in which the artist tries to create an emotion or reaction to. However, I have found some invalid reasons that I believe do not “separate” the two forms of art. I am using the term art loosely, so allow me to dissect my answer. When it comes to Playboy, the law makes it illegal for minors to see the content, thus those who purchase the magazine must be 18 or older. The rating may not be there but the law is. Erotic words do not convey a hard copy of the image that appears in ones mind, whereas Playboy shows the audience hard copies of naked women. However, the thought that erotic words spark could be racier than any picture visible, it’s impossible to restrict one’s thoughts. Because of the imagery that words provoke, literature should have a rating as well. If film has a rating, all art forms should have one too. I think that the heads of film set a rating system out though because films are much more popular to the overall group of people than erotic literature for example. In order to set a balance that is needed, everything should either have a rating, or the rating on film should be dropped. The ratings simply restrict underage kids from viewing material that is too explicit for their viewing. However, kids parents buy them video games that are rated M. If the system were to affect everyone it would be different, but this is not the case. There is much debate to this topic, as there is to the drinking age but that is beside the point. The rating restricts director’s ability to shape the film, giving the overall impact of the film a lower effect some times. The rating system is and will always be unconstitutional in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that some sort of rating system should put in place,but I do not agree with the terms of the current system, the opinions of an oddly secret panel, the fact that society is being denied to view art in all forms and should not be sanctioned by any "government" persay. In a film like requiem for a dream, the setting throughout is a somber and blatant look into a revolting thing. Now as parents I think I can safely say that Americans are unlikely to allow their 7 year old son to view this movie. Yet is it of a complete idiocracy that one might find the artistic and dramatic points of view inspiring and maybe even detremental to on's true downward spiral in the life of addiction to a struggle 15 year old heroin user. As in the film 300, the vicious fight scenes are no more horrifying than that of a variety of scenes hanging on the walls of many churches and places of worship. So to begin by saying one should be regulated merely because it is on videotape/digital media is frightening. I mean whats next, literature.... music... information... communciation? I believe whether or not a film should be deemed NC-17 and therefore unattainable by that of anyone person younger than 17 is suppressive. Today's fast paced world has put societies next generation in a completely different era than the ones before. Information is often misleading and misinterpreted and used to to create an "educated". If not collected from many different sources and point of views one's opinion is tainted and bias and, essentially, photocopied into each mind from another. By censoring film we are constricted by the censored minds of the drones hidden behind closed doors. If this trend continues or sources of information and inspiration will soon disappear. A rating system should be put into place and should be allowed guidelines or suggestions given to the public based on a less ridiculous platform and an everchanging broad social caste of panel members. I also believe that a seperate panel consisting of psycological, sociological, art theorists, and so on, should be assembled separately to discuss the effects and/or "threat" if you will upon society. This gives the theater owners, parents, teachers, and the public in general to have their own opinions.
ReplyDeleteI do not completely understand why Playboy magazine, paintings, sculptures, and photography are not rated, but I can somewhat understand why literature is not rated. I think when reading a book you make your own picture or movie in your head as you are reading. In books the reader is able to have their own interpretation of the story. In film, art, video games, and magazines, the pictures or film are not up for much interpretation. Each of them can display inappropriate language, sexual activity, and violence. The rating systems are unconstitutional because the director should have a right to know why their film received that rating. There are not strict guidelines that the MPAA follows when they are rating a movie. It does not seem fair to give a film a rating of NC-17 like Requiem for a Dream and for initially give Clerks the same rating. They are two completely different movies. Clerks did not contain any nudity or inappropriate scenes like Requiem for a Dream. The “ass to ass” scene was not needed for the movie, but I do not believe that it should have been cut. There are other scenes in the film that are risky too, such as Tyrone and the girl he was with. If the MPAA would follow a guideline and stick to it the rating system may become more constitutional. They need to also take into affect the violence aspect. The movie 300 was very horrific and the graphics were really high quality, it made the scene a lot more real. I do believe that we should have a ratings system. You would not want a ten-year-old going to the movies to see Requiem for a Dream when it would have been rated NC-17.
ReplyDeleteBefore watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated, directed by Kirby Dick, I never really considered whether or not the ratings of a movie were accurate, or whether or not it is consistent with the ratings of other films. However, after watching this documentary, I realized that SOME of the ratings actually are inconsistent with ratings of other films with similar scenes. This was pretty obvious when the documentary showed clips from two different movies and what they were rated. All of these scenes were sex scenes, however, half of the screen showed a clip that was taken out of a movie with a homosexual relationship, and the other was taken from a movie with a heterosexual relationship. Ironically, the gay scene had the rating of NC-17, while the other scene was rated R.
ReplyDeleteIn the movie Requiem for a Dream, the MPAA originally rated the film NR, but the directors were able to take out a scene that would change the rating to the more desirable R rating. The scene that was taken out of the film was only six seconds, but it was a very explicit and erotic six seconds. Therefore, I can understand why it made the difference in the rating of the film. However, there were also other sex scenes that were pretty graphic in this film that did not involve two members of the same sex, as did the one that was taken out. So, this decision of the MPAA, in a way, shows that the ratings are based off of personal prejudices.
I think that film is different and necessary to be accompanied by some form of a rating system because it is the one form of art that people can really relate to, and that actually seems like real life. Therefore, they think that children would take the material from the film too seriously, so what they are allowed to watch should be managed.
I personally do not think the ratings are censorship at all, but more of parental guidelines or recommendations. If anything, they are helping people out by not allowing young children to watch acts of sex or violence that they are not yet mature enough to see. The only people that should be upset by these ratings are the perverted children who are not old enough to rent those movies yet. Unfortunately I used to be that perverted kid. I also think that directors should understand that the movies they make receive the ratings they did for a reason. Yes, some of the ratings are based on personal prejudices, but most of the films that are rated into the same category, such as R or NC-17, should require the same maturity level to be seen. I do not think the rating system is unconstitutional in anyway. I also think that the rating system is a good idea and should be kept.
I do not agree with the film ratings due to the fact that it takes parenting away from the parents. by slapping a rating on a movie that says r or worse tells parents do not let your children watch this movie because it has violence or nudity in it. when the parent should be able to teach their children to respect the female body and teach them the effects of shooting someone. that is whats wrong with this country we have too many big brothers and big sisters raising our youths and not enough parents. But yet schools take field trips to musumes too see art paintings and scluptures that show the same thing that movies do. Passion of The Christ was rated R but yet we take our kids to church and read about what the movie shows. everyone wants too restrict our kids but no one wants to teach them. the parents that do want to teach their kids will wait til the movie comes out on dvd and then let them watch it with them and talk to the kids about what they just watched. So in reality the movie ratings don't matter. The kids that the violence in movies effect are the ones that the parents do not supervise, the kid sees the previews on tv and tell their parents they want that movie so they buy it for them when it comes out on dvd. they buy it for them out of guilt of not spending time with their kids because they are always at work
ReplyDeleteCutting 6 seconds out of the ass-to-ass scene doesn’t make a difference in my opinion. In no way are those 6 seconds the make or break when it comes to viewing the film. Figuratively speaking, the entire movie is tough to swallow for a child, but as for an adult who understands these situations the six seconds will not make a difference. I definitely believe the way the sex scenes are portrayed has a lot of influence on the rating given out. Which is an unfair choice to make.
ReplyDeleteI know that you have to be a certain age to purchase music with explicit lyrics, violent video games, and dirty magazines. The NC-17 rating is a harsh rating to give, and should be used on extreme circumstances. The circumstances, in my opinion, should be along the lines of a vicious rape or gang bang and beating. That would be a situation I could agree should be advised as watched with caution. I disagree that the MPAA should have the power to say whether a movie is allowed in theaters or not. Everything deserves a fair chance, and should be warned if it has extreme sexual content or graphic violence. I believe we should definitely have a rating system, but poor choices seem to be made. After watching This Film IS Not Yet Rated the MPAA comes off as very unfair, but like it or not this is real life and life isn’t fair.
Why people enjoy staring at statues of naked people and call it art is beyond me. Why reactions are over the top if people are shown nude or having sex is also beyond me. Sex is natural to human behavior, and for those who don’t want to accept it will be very disappointed. If the MPAA are going to crack down that ridiculously harsh on clerks 2 because of foul language, then I think there should be a censorship on the naked statues and literary works.
The rating systems are unconstitutional. We are suppose to have the freedom of speech. Yet the MPAA will try to do everything in their power to hide the release of a movie they disagree with . Yes, they still technically have the freedom of speech, but not without consequences.
After watching This Film is Not Yet Rated, the MPAA rating board is unconstitutional and destroys the director’s ability to shape films to express a certain feeling or emotion. In Requiem for a Dream, the director had to cut six seconds in order to be able to drop the NC-17 rating and achieve a R rating. By doing this the film no longer has the main characters spiraling through all nine circles of hell before they reach their dooms and loses some importance to the theme. The MPAA rating board should not be able to judge a film on a topic that they are not familiar with and do not understand it, such as gay marriage or other controversial topics. Also, the judges should not be able to give a film a certain rating without telling the director why exactly this rating was instituted. In my opinion, I believe the rating system is unfair to directors and the audience, and should be banned. If the MPAA board had to stay, I would make them judge every movie the same way on the same rubric and would make them tell the director what parts are bothering them. But really I think the parents should hold the power of controlling what their children watch because only the parents know their child’s level of maturity. Even though some people believe film is different because of its popularity amongst the country, essentially it is the same to all other art forms. I believe if film, video games, tv shows, and music are all required to have a rating, every other art form should have to have a rating. Personally, I think literature has not been required to have a rating before it is released because of the violence and sexual activity in the bible. In many communities, religion is a major part of life, which revolves around the teaching of the bible. So if the MPAA rating board requires a film to have a rating before release, other unrated forms of art need to require a rating before publication in order to be fair to all artists in the world.
ReplyDeleteFilm seems to be more open to the public to where anyone can see films or borrow them from a friend. There are some guidelines placed on magazines that you must be a certain age to purchase things that are deemed pornographic. But let’s seriously look at magazines because I am sure that national geographic has nudity in it but there is not an age limit on that. Books seem to be open to those that seem to want to read them and there is not a bug majority of those that choose to do so. I believe that the real reason that film is treated different is the reason that it is easier to sit down and watch a movie versus sitting down to read a book. If you poll many teens now days, you will find that there is a big majority of teens that will watch a film or listen to a book on tape before they will sit down and read it. There is just a bigger convince for that. This is just the society that we live in we only look at that that is covalent. Look at the fast food market being scrutinized on their food and that they have to supply the healthier food. They don’t come in your home and tell you that you have to do that. Fast food is just easier and the majority of people prefer it. So that is why I believe that they pick on their films to beat up on, is simply because they have the upper hand with the majority of the people.
ReplyDelete