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, 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 in the films we have viewed this semester (particularly Fight Club, 300, Requiem for a Dream, Precious, and even the documentary under discussion). All of these films were rated R with the exception of Requiem for a Dream which was released NR, or not rated, but even Aronovsky 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. 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? Another good example is a film we did not watch in class this semester--Kevin Smith's debut film Clerks. While it contains no violence, nudity, or visible sex acts, Clerks was also originally given the NC-17 rating due to sexual language, but director Kevin Smith appealed and won the more desirable R rating.
Films, 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?
Various censor groups censor films, TV shows, video games and music. I feel that although I don’t mind the fact that they label what they believe the ratings are, I don’t like their system. I believe they should have warnings on them that state sexual themes, sexual violence, excessive language and violence. I don’t think they should have the right to tell parents what their kids and teens can watch. It should be labeled as an advisory warning. I believe they should have a PG, PG-13 and rated R and a separate one for what I would call hard core porn. I believe that if a parent chooses to let their teens view films above their rating age that is the parent’s choice not the movie cops. In the Film we watched in class, Requiem for a dream, the fact that by taking 6 seconds out of the film in order to rate it an R instead of NC-17 seems kind of silly. The fact that they had already shown two naked women involved in a sexual act with men sitting around watching an additional 6 seconds does not seem like it is reasonable for such a change in rating. In the movie 300, the violence and gore was rather graphic and yet they only rate that movie a rated R. The scene where King Leonidas and his wife make love shows the love that they shared but it could have been displayed without actually showing as much as they had in that scene. Had it just been a tender moment between the two would have been just as appropriate in explaining the story. I understand that the near rape scene had to show what a vile person the traitor was and they showed very little in that scene. I believe the rating system would be fair if a written form that stated how many seconds of nudity, exactly what type of nudity, how many swear words can be used, how much violence and gore is able to be seen in order for each film to reach certain standards for each rating. The directors are basically flying blind with each film they create. There are no set standards for the film makers to go by. It could be the raters are in a bad mood one day and decide a film didn’t meet their values. Each American has different values also. I don’t want nameless people saying what I can rent or see based on their views. I should have the right to see a set list of what to expect in each movie. I believe that if this standard was run by the government at least there would be a fair way to appeal the process and compare it to previous films.
ReplyDeleteGratuitous sex and violence paint the big screen in many movies. I feel as if many movie writers and directors are pushing the boundaries as far as they will go to simply attract more viewers by creating a “shock factor;” however, my feelings do not extend to ALL movies. In fact, some instances of sex and violence are essential in a movie’s plot and it is inevitable to get around including these elements. Most times, though, the level of extremity presented by the two could most definitely be toned down. I agree partly with the MPAA on issues concerning these two racy elements because my opinion on the matter is that sometimes it is necessary to include such things in movies, however the viewers could most definitely be spared from some of the more explicit forms. Film is so different from all other mediums; it is constantly pushing the boundaries of appropriateness and I believe that is why there are so many rating regulations. To an extent, this rating system works proficiently in setting appropriate levels of ratings to ensure that the content is fitting for the audience; however, some cases have proven to be a double standard. In the film we watched last week, This Film is Not Yet Rated, many instances were discriminated against because they focused more on a woman’s viewpoint in sexual endeavors, rather than traditionally focusing on the man’s. It seemed odd and shocking that a film that focused on a woman would receive an NC-17 and a movie that focused on a man received an R rating. I’m not trying to start a women’s rights argument by any means; rather I am using the comparison to illustrate a blatant double standard in the rating process. This sort of thing does not happen in gender related cases only, though. The amount of double standard in the rating process is ridiculous because a movie that showed gratuitous adolescent inappropriateness received an R, while a scene that featured a husband and wife making love received an NC-17.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I believe the rating system is extremely unfair and also very biased. It is based upon a panel of secret people’s opinions, and sometimes their decisions are questionable to say the least. What is appropriate in one movie seems to be inappropriate in another, rendering the latter an NC-17. It is not so much that the rating system is unconstitutional; instead it is unfair and unjust. I think to absolve this discrepancy of unfairness, strict boundaries should be set in place. For example, a film features rape, women in peril, violence to women…NC-17. A film has a few cusswords, a mild sex scene…PG-13. There needs to be blatant boundaries set; ones that do not bend or change—unconditional, categorical requirements to receive certain ratings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so I had a two-post response but every time I posted the second half Blogspot decided to delete the first post! Thanks Blogspot! You're cool!
ReplyDeleteSo you get this link to my response: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_UfeaOF-FOQ06vYtS4Ynr0hytDz5LxlWy3KaQuuD8Do/edit
Hopefully this doesn't get deleted or else I might flip a table or twelve.