TNMC
This site’s design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
Psychotic Reactions
-- John Shea
1 July, 2004
It's time for Jack to go. No, I don't mean Jack Nicholson. He can stay. My movie year isn't complete without watching him act up in the front row at the Oscars. No, I'm talking about Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). He did a good thing in taking the post back in 1966 and setting up the ratings code, still used today. It was needed to keep the government from the heinous thought of censoring movies. But the rating system, as it exists now, has largely collapsed as a tool for guiding parents as to what movies are appropriate for children. The system has been mastered so completely by the movie studios that it now exists as a marketing tool.
R rated movies restrict the number of kids who can see them and thus most big studio films avoid that rating. G movies are becoming increasingly rare as most animated films have introduced material that pushes them into PG territory. But the goldmine is with the PG-13 rating. Studios have learned the MPAA's dirty secret: it counts things. Did you know that saying fuck three times gets you an R but only two gets you a PG-13? That's what Samuel Goldwyn Jr. told USA Today in regards to his film Raising Victor Vargas. "According to the MPAA's rules," says Goldwyn, "you can use the f-word two times or once and get a PG-13, but three times and it's an R. Explain that to me."
Most indie films get the R rating because they can afford to incessantly send a movie to the ratings board, making little cuts and trims here and there until they find the sweet spot that reduces the rating. Movies like Vargas, A Better Tommorrow or Billy Elliot get R ratings that prevent them from being seen by teens and kids, the very people these movies are about. Why? Simply put, they feature swearing and/or drug use and thus are viewed as inappropriate to younger viewers. Never mind the fact that these films might be useful for kids to see. Billy Elliot was an uplifting film of a child in a poor working class family who fights through social conventions to become a ballet dancer. How about Almost Famous, a movie showing a young teen making the most amazing trip as a rock journalist and getting his story published by Rolling Stone? That got an R rating because of a tiny snippet of nudity and some very mild drug use, which incidently the kid avoids completely. I wouldn't object to my son seeing these films but the R rating would prevent him from going without me.
Meanwhile, a film like 2 Fast 2 Furious, which shows people engaging in outrageously dangerous driving, gets a PG-13 rating. Charlies Angels: Full Throttle, a film loaded with sexual innuendo gets a PG-13. One of the all time offenders was Coyote Ugly, a PG-13 rated film that contained images of young women dancing on a bar and pouring drinks on themselves. That was a movie that encouraged such dubious behavior in young girls. If I had a daughter, I wouldn't let her anywhere near that movie. Examples like these seem to indicate the ratings board is more concerned with specific details than context. Billy Elliot does contain countless exclamations of "fuck" but Coyote Ugly has no nudity and just a hint of swearing, so the two get the rating the other deserved. A Better Tomorrow director Justin Lin says, "Anytime a filmmaker tries to stay true to the sensibility of today's youth, he's going to get hit with an R. Adults will say, 'Kids can't see that; that's too graphic for them.' " So the very films that kids can identify with and take something useful from are denied to them.
The main reason I feel that Valenti needs to go is that he seems set in his ways and unwilling to make changes. When the ratings system is challenged he points to polls taken by the MPAA that indicate 76% of parents feel the system works. Oddly enough, polls taken by different groups get a different picture. For instance, CommonSenseMedia.org found that only 21% of parents completely trust the ratings system. Hardly an indication of strong faith.
The system needs an overhaul to save it from the studios and stigmas that become attached to the current ratings. In 1990 the MPAA changed the name of the X rating to NC-17 because X had become associated with porn. The point of that rating was simply to indicate that the film was for adults only, that children shouldn't see it at all. Unfortunately, the name change was swiftly accepted as a renamed X and nothing changed. Newspapers still won't run ads for NC-17 rated movies and most theaters won't show them. That means the rating is box office death to a film. If anyone gets that rating they can either accept it and watch the film a quick painful death at the box office, or they can edit the film to get an R rating. Since virtually no one will accept the first choice, they take the second. That effectively turns the ratings board into censors. By awarding the NC-17 rating, they can censor a movie by insisting that part of it warrants that rating. There is no choice but to make that edit or the film is essentially dead.
Valenti insists that the rating system isn't about censorship. "From the very first day of my own succession to the MPAA President's office, I had sniffed the Production Code constructed by the Hays Office. There was about this stern, forbidding catalogue of "Dos and Don'ts" the odious smell of censorship. I determined to junk it at the first opportune moment," says Valenti on the MPAA website. But doesn't that sound suspiciously like what we deal with now? He claims no big list of Dos and Don'ts but check the MPAA website and you will see fairly detailed explanations on what each rating will allow. Surely, this ratings system is far more forgiving than its predecessor but counting the number of times a swear word is used seems like the same sort of thing. Smacking a movie with a financially painful rating unless it removes offensive sections sounds like censorship. If he can't see the hypocrisy of that, he needs to go.
His dogged determination to avoid change is troublesome. He seems more interested in defending the system he created rather than acknowledging shortcomings that have cropped up. It's like he sees this as an attack on him rather than simple understanding that the climate has changed and the system needs to change with it. "I can't help it if producers stick this stuff in their movies to get a rougher rating," he says. "If you make a movie that a lot of people want to see, no rating will hurt you. And if you make a movie that nobody wants to see, no rating will help you." That statement alone indicates he can't see that not only aren't studios sticking stuff in to get a tougher rating, they are carefully crafting the films just narrowly avoid the R rating. It also indicates he won't admit that NC-17 is financially unviable for studios. He also makes a point of calling the system voluntary so that he can't be accused of censorship. "No one is forced to submit a film to the Board for rating, but the vast majority of producers/distributors do in fact submit their films for ratings. Any producer/distributor who wants no part of any rating system is free to go to the market without any rating at all." If that's true, perhaps he would enlighten me as to how many movie theaters will run unrated films. Or perhaps explain why not one studio has released an NC-17 rated film since Showgirls in 1995. Or maybe tell us why video rental chain Blockbuster won't stock NC-17 rated films.
I would suggest an adjustment of the current system. First off, change NC-17 back to X and then just let it mean porn. Right now the MPAA refuses to admit the rating is associated with pornography. In describing the rating they say "NC-17 does not necessarily mean 'obscene or pornographic' in the oft-accepted or legal meaning of those words. The Board does not and cannot mark films with those words. These are legal terms and for courts to decide." Despite that protest, the association exists. Let's face it, everyone associates X with porn, so why fight it? The next step would be to add a new rating between R and X. This rating would be for mature films intended only for adults. By letting X be the odious rating we all think it is anyway, and adding another rating below it, we could finally have a rating that could be acceptable to theaters and newspapers. Don't call it A though, as Roger Ebert suggests. The porn industry has pretty much hijacked the name adult in its attempt to seem less offensive lately. Remember, they aren't porn stars, they're adult film actors. Anyway, it should probably be called something like M for mature or something else that doesn't stir up images of bump and grind action.
Recently, it has been suggested that Valenti is considering stepping down and has been meeting with the studios to consider a replacement. Valenti himself came to the job straight from the Nixon administration. He was the right man for the job at the time but today I would suggest we need someone considerably younger with more of a connection to the artistic side of the industry. To run a group like the MPAA, it is vital to be creative, a fierce defender and open to new ideas. Valenti gets the fierce defender tag easily but in recent years seems to be totally lacking on the other two. He insists the rating system is a tool for parents. I am a parent and I find it close to useless. I want someone in charge of the system who can acknowledge that.
RIP
Buddy Hackett: The jovial foul mouthed comic has told his last joke unfortunately. The star of such films as The Music Man, The Love Bug and It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World passed away at 79. He will be missed.
News
Star Trek: The film franchise has apparently come to a screeching halt following the pitiful performance of Nemesis at the box office. Says who? Activision, maker of video games based on Star Trek. The company is suing Viacom (owner of Paramount) for damaging the franchise and thus the value of the ten year contract between the two companies. A press release states, "Through its actions and inactions, Viacom has let the once proud Star Trek franchise stagnate and decay. Viacom has released only one Star Trek movie since entering into agreement with Activision and has recently informed Activision it has no current plans for further Star Trek films. Viacom also has allowed two Star Trek television series to go off the air and the remaining series suffers from weak ratings. Viacom also frustrated Activision's efforts to coordinate the development and marketing of its games with Viacom's development and marketing of its new movies and television series." Ouch. (TrekToday)
King Arthur: Keira Knightly plays Guinivere in the supposedly ultra-realistic take on Arthurian legend. She spoke to Empire Online about getting ready for the role. "I'm actually going to knight boot camp," she tells Empire. "You know, get up at 6am, ride horses and run around a field a couple of times. Just me and my boys, which is nice... I'm doing archery, horse riding, sword fighting and a bit of boxing. I'm rock 'ard!" She's been a little tough on the wildlife though. "I nearly killed a horse!" she squeals, "I was shooting my arrows and it popped up behind a hedge and I nearly took it out!"
The Chronicles of Riddick: Universal announced that production has started on the Pitch Black sequel. They include some details on the plot. "Riddick has spent the last five years on the move among the forgotten worlds on the outskirts of the galaxy, eluding mercenaries bent on collecting the price on his head. Now, the fugitive finds himself on planet Helion, home to a progressive multicultural society, which has been invaded by the Lord Marshal (Colm Feore), a zealot who targets humans for subjugation with his army of warriors known as Necromongers. Exiled to a subterranean prison where extremes of temperature range from arctic nights to volcanic days, Riddick encounters Kyra (Alexa Davalos), the lone survivor from an earlier chapter in his life. His efforts to free himself and Kyra lead him to the Necromonger command ship, where he is pitted against the Lord Marshal in an apocalyptic battle with possibly the fate of all beings-both living and dead-hanging in the balance."
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: Andrew Adamson (Shrek), is hoping to bring his big budget adaptation of CS Lewis' novel to New Zealand for filming according to Dominion Post. He already has New Zealand's WETA (FX supplier for Lord of the Rings) making swords and other props for the film and grabbed New Zealander Grant Major as his production designer. Now all he needs is a bit of tax incentive. A decision on that is expected next week. "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe offers some of what The Lord of the Rings offers as far as being a classic story, having a big appeal to a huge audience," says Adamson. "But also being a very location-based film, as Wellington became Middle-earth, there's a good possibility that locations in New Zealand will become Narnia."
Casting Couch
Constantine: This comic book adaptation might be back on track to getting made. Keanu Reeves is now the prime candidate for the lead role and if a director is found for the film that suits him, call it a go. (The Hollywood Reporter)
Alone in the Dark: Christian Slater has been selected for the lead role of supernatural detective Edward Carnby in an adaptation of the video game Alone in the Dark. Shooting begins in two weeks and heads through early August. The modestly budgeted $20 million movie should be released in 2004, timed to coincide with the release of the next edition of the game. Uwe Boll will direct. (The Hollywood Reporter)
Reviews
Blade 3 (script review/major spoilers)
- Email Me
What do you think? Talk about it on the Forums
