Rating the Ratings System
Welcome back you hordes of film-junkies! Welcome back to the column that dares to thumb its nose at the unthumbnosifiable. It's the Corona Director's Cut, and I'm your host--Professor Widgett, and we're here to rock on. We're sweating and slaving over hot keyboards while Mr. and Mrs. Pat enjoy their honeymoon making their way down the Amazon River in a glass-bottom motorboat. Deadpool's passed out under the couch, my head's ringing, and Roc is seeing bugs come out of the wall. That's the last time we eat Chinese food leftovers that are that old. Whew. But we must press on nonetheless.
I want you to know that I really do appreciate this quality time that we all have together, and I'd like to spend this column doing something different for a change. That's right, I'm not going to complain about movies and how the summer season was a blot on our collective memory. And I promise not to mention for what must be the fiftieth time how The Avengers was a deplorable piece of used gum. For a change of pace, I'd like to rant about something different.
You see, I just learned that Jack Valenti, who is head burrito at the Motion Picture Association of America, is coming up on celebrating thirty years of the MPAA ratings system. It seemed like a perfect time to step back and look at the system that affects what I see in my local cinema. I've been a very vocal critic of the MPAA in the past, so I wanted to take a moment and ask myself something that doesn't get asked very often: am I being fair about this? Now I must apologize in advance to our global readers. India has the largest motion picture industry in the world, and I have no idea what you guys over there use to keep six-year-olds from seeing I Spit on Your Grave or the like. Even in Canada, where this website springs forth from, I have no idea what goes on. I can only speak to what I know and that's never enough. So here we go.
Credit Where Credit is Due
I went out to the MPAA's website, and got the skinnee on where the ratings came from, what they're there for, and why we should be pleased. And I will give the MPAA this--for the most part, their goal is strictly to let parents know what is up with a film before said parents will let the little Jenny's and Timmy's of the world go check out said film. Most of the parents of America sure don't give a rodent's patootskie about what their kids watch and see and, anyway, you can see Dennis Franz' butt on NYPD Blue, so it's primarily a wasted effort regardless, but Jack--you still get the points for trying.
Here's the fun thing, and you know, it's not even your fault, Jack. I have not been to theater one where they actually cared if eleven-year-olds went to an R-rated film, with or without parents. Now, I didn't do a roll call when I saw the NC-17 Showgirls (which, yes, I saw in theaters and yes, I will burn in hell for doing so), but I wouldn't have been surprised to find some fifteen year-olds sniggering in the back row. It's only fitting, because I was sure as hell sniggering in the front row. But I digress. You're a theater-owner, and you get the kid's admission and his concession money? Hell, yes, Timmy, go see Faces of Death V --knock yourself out. Of course that's what theater-owners are going to say. And who can blame them if the kids haven't been raised to know better? They're not there to play parent, they're there to sell movie tickets.
Blame Where Blame is Due
Now, I must take you to task on one thing, Jack and the MPAA. Here's a quote from the MPAA website:
Indeed, if you are 18 or over, or if you have no children, the rating system has no meaning for you. Ratings are meant for parents, no one else.
Now, I know that's not true, you know that's not true, everyone knows that's not true. But again, I don't think it's your fault, Jack. You're just not telling the whole story.
Ask Trey Parker. He's not happy. He created Orgazmo, the world's first porn/Mormon/superhero comedy. The film has no real sex in it, not even (from what I understand) any nudity, and yeah, some language. Granted, Dian Bachar runs around with a dildo strapped to the top of his head, but hey--that's comedy. He received an NC-17 from the MPAA. His defense? He's wondering why Ben Stiller gets to have semen dripping from his ear and an R rating whereas Trey doesn't even have any bodily fluids in his movie and gets an NC-17. He thinks it might have something to do with the religious aspects of his film. He also blames the fact that he's not involved with a big studio who can go up against the MPAA and contest the rating down to an R.
Ask Dee Snider. He was actually pleased. He created Strangeland, which he hopes to turn into the next big horror franchise, in the tradition of Jason and Freddy. The film has torture and blood and lots of psychological terror with some major nastiness thrown in. The villain sews peoples' mouths shut, for crying out loud, but hey--that's horror. He received an NC-17 from the MPAA. He was happy because he has four kids, all under the age of 17, and he sure as hell doesn't want them to see the film.
The problem these two share is something in common with everyone who has an NC-17 film: newspapers won't advertise you, cities won't play you, and you can kiss Blockbuster Video goodbye. So you have a choice--tell everyone to kiss your non-rodent patootskie and keep the film as is, knowing you'll take a hit--like Trey; or cut the film and promise an "uncut" version on video--like Dee.
So what happens is that the MPAA, through theoretically no fault of their own (momentarily excusing Oliver Stone and others with minds that normally think conspiracy), has signed a film's death warrant by giving it an NC-17. Despite the fact that the X rating was done away with because it was associated with films of a more, ahem, carnal nature, NC-17 is just the same thing with a pseudonym. In this double standard society that we have, you can see all the deathrapedisaster on the evening news you want, you can see sex on prime time television, but something as simple as a non-Dian-Bachar-with-phallus-on-head ad isn't acceptable.
And the response that MPAA ratings are voluntary is unacceptable. Unrated films get the same treatment as NC-17 films. In fact, some "sultry" videos even put "unrated" on their covers as a badge of honor to get attention, when they actually are more like tame Skinemax fare.
What does this mean? I am over 18. I am not a parent. It's only because I live in a metropolitan area that I have a hope in hell of seeing Trey's film on the big screen. Unless the "uncut" Strangeland gets put out in select theaters, there's no way in hell I'll be seeing that on the big screen. And hey, that's me being affected by your ratings system, Jack. Indirectly? Perhaps, but still it's there.
So what have I learned, Mr. Jack Valenti? I've learned that by your own definition, you probably haven't been doing a bad job these past thirty years. But I don't believe you should try to fool the world into thinking that your decisions have no bearing on anyone who isn't an over-18 parent. Studios look to your ratings, theaters look to your ratings, the creators of films look to your ratings. The people in fact who think the least about your ratings system are the people it was designed for: parents. Do I think you should stop? No, not at all. Do I think you're the bane of cinematic existence like I might have in my wilder, younger days? Again, no. So where is the blame due? On the multiplexes for not wanting to show Mr. Parker's film? No. That's their right, and if a smaller "art house" place gets it, more power to them. On the newspapers for not running ads for so-called non-family material in their bad news-ridden pages? No, again that's their right to print what they see fit. On the studios for bowing to the multiplexes and newspapers? No, because they exist to make money, and if an NC-17 film doesn't do that, then of course they're concerned.
I guess I've learned that you're right, Jack, in that it may not be the best system--but it's the only one we have. I'd like to see acceptance of films that are a bit more on the hardcore side, but I fear that day is a long way off. But I will say this: if George Romero gets forced to cut Resident Evil or Twilight of the Dead when they come out--then somebody's getting war declared on them. I'll figure out who when/if the time comes.
Well, anyway, they're blinking the lights in here--I think Deadpool's headache is getting worse so I need to shut up and let him doze. Anyway, until next time, this is the Widgerator, wanting Jim Cameron to direct the Love Boat movie just so I can see a set built that's 90% of the original ship's size. Now get on with your lives.
For more information about the MPAA, visit their official website.
Widgett
Lifelong Proponent of Constitutional Anarchy
Coming Attractions
who's standing in for
Patrick Sauriol
Creator, Chief Content Writer & Director
Coming Attractions
Got some neato items from the shoot? Parking passes, photos from the set?? Poster images, or the latest hot script
making the rounds???
Send them to our mailing address:
Coming Attractions
FAX: (604) 517-4405
We'll do our best to get 'em on the page. (Just remember to poke air holes in the parcel if it's alive -- thanks.)
That's why we're here.
7971 Burnfield Crescent
Burnaby, B.C., CANADA
V5E 2B8
![]() |
Looking for a cute, cuddly and completely unique gift?
Come browse the selection of designer ornamental teddy bears - and say hello to Klondike Kate bear, Sherlock Holmes bear, and Grandma Bear! Each bear is lovingly hand-crafted, meticulously detailed - and no two are alike! Visit the Kootenay Bear Necessities online boutique to learn more! |
Previous issues of Director's Cut are also available.