MPAA Ratings

[filmcritic]

I have never really understood the MPAA. They give movies certain ratings thinking that they are protecting children from objectionable material. But they don't really think before they give it an official rating. It's almost as if they have their own rating scale and they just judge it by that, but there's more to it. I don't know why "Bowling for Columbine" got an R rating when it tells the truth about voilence in America yet other movies that love voilence and guns get PG-13 ratings. I don't know why "Y Tu Mama Tambien" got an NR (No one under 17 admitted) when it makes wonderful statements about relationships, sex and life. I'm not sure why a film like "Blue Car" got an R when it's more truthful than many PG-13 teenage movies. A film like "Can't Hardly Wait" gets a PG-13 even though it glorifies drinking, yet "Requiem for a Dream" that shows the horror of drugs gets an NR (No one under 17 admitted). Yes, they do give reasons of why they rate them, but they don't make any sense. They are blind when it comes to morals. Can anyone make sense of them?

[Duck Sauce]

Requiem had nudity also....

[modage]

http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.htm

[Ravi]

Filmcritic, everything you say is absolutely correct.  However, the MPAA seems to rate films on content rather than context.  I have to wonder about the values that the MPAA members possess.  How the hell is Gosford Park rated R just because of a few swears?  That is a much better movie to take a 15 year old to than some PG-13 film like Anger Management.

[modage]

except in the case of like Titanic, which has nudity and a bit of horrible violence, but in its historical context is deemed okay and gets a PG-13.

[bonanzataz]

By summer of 1966, the national scene was marked by insurrection on the campus, riots in the streets, rise in women's liberation, protest of the young, doubts about the institution of marriage, abandonment of old guiding slogans, and the crumbling of social traditions.

I like how he mentions women's liberation in correlation with rioting, protest, and the crumbling of tradition.

Valenti can suck my cock. the mpaa is bullshit, nobody should have to submit their films to it, but after turning 17, my strong stance on this issue has been considerably lessened.

[ono]

Ebert is always giving it to the MPAA slyly in his reviews.  They're idiots basically, and Ebert always eloquently points that out.  Amelie is given an R when a PG-13 would have been just fine.  But teen-film-trash is always given PG-13 even though it shouldn't be seen by idiot high school students anyway.

Problem here is not so much the MPAA, though, as the puritanical attitudes of most theatres and managers of multiplexes.  No one is required to submit a film to the MPAA for rating.  But in order for most theatres to play it, it must have a rating.  This means a lot of things:[list=1]

• The film must receive an R or better to be accepted into multiplexes.  The NC-17 is seen as a kiss of death because of its equivalence to X.
  
• If a film receives an NC-17, Blockbuster won't carry VHS and DVD versions of it, hence hurting the film financially after distribution.
  
• This means that basically, the MPAA acts as a censor to films.  If they don't like its content, for whatever arbitrary reason, you must change it or face financial problems.
  
• Filmmakers, however, may self-apply the X rating to their films, but this is only for pornography really.  They may also release it Unrated with an adult material disclaimer, but still, this is not good enough for most multiplexes.  These films will most often be dedicated to art houses.
  [/list:o]Oftentimes, there really isn't a problem with content in films where cutting certain objectionable scenes will change the film.  A lot can be applied to achieve something of the same effect.  But it's not the exact same thing, which is the point.  Of note recently was Todd Solondz's film Storytelling in which a student and her professor had rough sex.  The MPAA objected to the rating, so Solondz, instead of cutting the scene, added a red rectangle over it to obscure what was going on.  Ebert applauded this in his review, stressing again, the MPAA's silliness; it's not as if no one knew what was going on behind the rectangle, and it's not as if the scene was pornographic in anyway, because genetaila wasn't invisible, and the netherregions were obscured in shadows anyway.
  
  It's my wish, my dream, that this country break away from these ideals of censorship.  That a new rating system be drafted, a new organization that rates films for acceptance by cinemas compete, to truly give people an idea of the content of films.  Ebert also said in one column of his that the best thing to this right now is screenit.com, but still, this doesn't stop the NC-17 versus R issue of censorship.  Foreign countries don't have this problem.  Amelie was okayed for children 11 and older, and one reader who wrote in to Ebert commented that if everyone in the world saw the film, we'd be closer to peace on earth than ever.  This shows just how distorted the people at the MPAA's grasp on reality is.

[Ravi]

This new Jet Lag movie is also rated R.  I haven't seen it, but it looks innocuous, unless Jean Reno kills a bunch of people or something.

I also have the same problem with the Three Colors films by Kieslowski.  I only saw Blue and Red, but there isn't anything so strong (that I can remember) in those films that they should be rated R.  I thought the poo drinking scene in Austin Powers 2 was much more offensive, both to my sense of decency and to my intelligence.

MPAA = Mother Phuckers Association of America

[SHAFTR]

The MPAA is still better than the PCA, but they still do suck.

[modage]

my favorite new thing the MPAA has been doing for awhile now, is telling you exactly what makes the movie have that rating even at the beginning of the trailers you watch.  some great ones are like:

-pervasive vampire violence and gore

-graphic images relating to sexual violence including a strong rape scene

-extreme violence and graphic carnage, for shocking images

-extreme drug use

-grisly afterviews of horrific and bizarre killings

whenever a movie says something like RATED R for A SCENE OF VAMPIRE VIOLENCE or something, there is nothing funnier in the world than that to me.  its like, parents object to violence in principle, but are willing to make an exception if its vampires commiting the violence.  "Well, they are vampires, and it is in their nature, honey."  "Yeah, you're right.  Tommy, you can see Bloodbath 4, but just remember.  Vampires can kill people because they have to.  But you cant.  Okay?"  
by the way, what is EXTREME drug use? it sounds like a new sport at the winter olympics or something.  "And next up, Extreme Drug Use, after that Snowboarding."  "Whoa, these drugs are EXTREME!"

[ono]

There was one movie, I forget which, that in its explanation was "partying."  Also, another one had an explanation of "karaoke."  I'm not kidding.

[Cecil]

hey, hey, mpaa, how many movies did you censor today?

[MacGuffin]

I don't know why "Y Tu Mama Tambien" got an NR (No one under 17 admitted) when it makes wonderful statements about relationships, sex and life.

The MPAA doesn't award a NR, that's why it called Not Rated. The filmmakers skipped the rating process (usually because it recieved a NC-17 rating from the MPAA), and decided it was better to get play at theaters that will accept a non-rated film that one marked with the sure death NC-17 one, although most theaters will still enforce the 'no one under 17' rule.

[Jeremy Blackman]

http://www.capalert.com/capmarstartpage.htm

[Cecil]

http://www.capalert.com/capmarstartpage.htm

will the fucking meteor get here allready