A Plausible Alternative to Censorship?

[Einherjar86]

Or they could learn how to be truely creative and write and produce without the need to be told to clean it.

Basically, Blowtus summed it up perfectly when he said this:

Because the measure of true creativity has always been how well it conforms to preconceived ideals...

You really are ignorant to believe that any possible "objectionable" material automatically constitutes a lack of artistic merit. Watch American History X. It's a perfect example of a film that exhibits much "objectionable" material, and yet none of it is gratuitous.

Einharjar - surely you see that the very fact that a studio is required, that money is a primary goal, limits the 'artistic integrity'? It's not as if without ratings there would suddenly be a burgeoning of creativity in film industries... they are still manufacturing stuff with the audiences money in mind, ratings or no.

Yes, I understand that. But you also have to realize that a large number of films are forced to cut out material in order to achieve an R rating. Many of these films are box office hits, and make a lot of money. I'm saying that there's no reason to assume that these same films would tank had the filmmakers been allowed to leave in the "questionable" material. In all likelihood they would be just as profitable. However, with the ratings system, an NC-17 basically means death for a film. All I'm saying is that the MPAA forces directors to cut out material that really has no impact on the profitability of a movie.

 

[Blowtus]

Sure. The ratings system isn't designed as some sort of 'film improvement' measure whereby films earn more money because of it. I agree that it imposes a financial burden on work that sits outside whatever the acceptable realm is deemed to be. I just think that there is already a significant financial burden on anything 'truly creative' simply because it is not derivative hollywood shit - anyone making 'truly creative' work shouldn't be too concerned about the final rating. It is only those making derivative shit with a veneer of creativity for marketing purposes who really suffer...

 

[razoredge]

Because the measure of true creativity has always been how well it conforms to preconceived ideals...

I rather think I was refering to it requiring more talent to create without resorting to shock value.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sure. The ratings system isn't designed as some sort of 'film improvement' measure whereby films earn more money because of it. I agree that it imposes a financial burden on work that sits outside whatever the acceptable realm is deemed to be. I just think that there is already a significant financial burden on anything 'truly creative' simply because it is not derivative hollywood shit - anyone making 'truly creative' work shouldn't be too concerned about the final rating. It is only those making derivative shit with a veneer of creativity for marketing purposes who really suffer...

I agree. Still, I don't like the system we have in place. Even if we don't abolish the ratings system entirely, I think it needs to be refined. Right now the MPAA has too much power over the films that are shown in America. It's basically monopolistic.

I rather think I was refering to it requiring more talent to create without resorting to shock value.

But not all of it's shock value.

Look at the movie Se7en. Each one of the murders in that movie was carefully planned and extremely creative, and each one represented a part of a message that the killer was trying to send. Now, I'm not saying that we should allow kids to watch such films; far from it. But there's actually meaning and purpose to the violence depicted in films of this nature. To censor it (thankfully Se7en didn't face many problems, I believe) would have been to detract from the meaning of the story.

 

[derek]

Valid point. I still have a hankering we've blown this out of proportion, though. The criticisms of the ratings system and those who run it seems valid insomuch as they seem to have no checks and balances.

Many movies are still released without unwanted editing, though. Take Hard Candy for example, it was released smoothly enough I believe.

 

[razoredge]

Look at the movie Se7en. Each one of the murders in that movie was carefully planned and extremely creative, and each one represented a part of a message that the killer was trying to send. Now, I'm not saying that we should allow kids to watch such films; far from it. But there's actually meaning and purpose to the violence depicted in films of this nature. To censor it (thankfully Se7en didn't face many problems, I believe) would have been to detract from the meaning of the story.

But you are using censor as if edit, no one should allow editing of anything if it doesnt work for them on an open minded review of such editing. However to accept a rating due to content, I would consider just part of the game. I really think you view it incorrectly, its just a guide, as I stated before I really dont see any lack of funding smacked down for films in the US. Many loose great fortunes, its all just public appeal.

 

[Einherjar86]

Valid point. I still have a hankering we've blown this out of proportion, though. The criticisms of the ratings system and those who run it seems valid insomuch as they seem to have no checks and balances.

Many movies are still released without unwanted editing, though. Take Hard Candy for example, it was released smoothly enough I believe.

That's true, and Se7en was also a film that I believe actually moved past the censors with relative ease.

However, something that I actually haven't brought up yet is the issue of homosexuality in films. Several directors have complained and argued that the MPAA is discriminatory against depictions of homosexuality in films. Many films depict heterosexual acts and achieve an R (sometimes even a PG-13) rating. However, films that are equally as "graphic" (or even less graphic) are actually forced to severely censor the depiction of homosexual acts, while heterosexual scenes receive less criticism.

Also, for razor:
They don't lose money if they censor their films. What I'm saying is that if the filmmakers don't censor their films, and choose to accept an NC-17 rating, then they are almost certain of box office failure. The MPAA forces films to cut out objectionable material, because if they don't then the film will suffer.

Basically, the MPAA is forcing censorship, which is what I'm arguing against. No, they haven't really caused any films to flop; but they've threatened to make films flop unless filmmakers edit certain material from the final cut. They're basically holding the film reels over the flames and saying "Edit them, or they'll fail."

 

[razoredge]

So your saying NC17 films dont do well ? Thats actually kind of new to me, I dont think they had that when I was younger, just R and PG. I was never a Cinema person anyhow, music is better for me. So that is No Children under 17 in a cinema situation ? and is a "higher" rating than R ? What does R mean now, I actually dont recall. Over 16 with parent or something ?

 

[Einherjar86]

So your saying NC17 films dont do well ? Thats actually kind of new to me, I dont think they had that when I was younger, just R and PG. I was never a Cinema person anyhow, music is better for me. So that is No Children under 17 in a cinema situation ? and is a "higher" rating than R ? What does R mean now, I actually dont recall. Over 16 with parent or something ?

They actually got rid of the X rating and replaced it with NC-17. So yes, it's worse than an R rating. An R rating means no children under 17 without a parent/guardian supervision. NC-17 means no children at all under 17. If a film receives an NC-17 rating, the studio has very few opportunities to advertise and promote it. No filmmakers making a film below an R rating will advertise it before their film, and many R-rated movies won't either. Therefore no one is able to hear about the movie and it basically goes unnoticed.

Many films begin with this rating, and must edit their material in order to achieve an R rating. That's what frustrates me.

 

[derek]

Indeed. I figured that's where the original chagrin arose from. The scenes cut are almost always included on the DVD though, so you may just need to make that suffice.

 

[razoredge]

Well thats OK then, as I recall a X rating was 18 or older. Not that I recall what a plain X rating movie was or if I ever saw one. Was probably some real weak pornography at the drive-ins. Regardless your average R movie today is way extreme compared to 20-30 years ago, blood splattering, sick violent tendencies and using "fuck" every four words. So I would say things are far more leanient today.

You have to realize this entire thing is parent oriented. "Mom & Dad, can I go to the movies tonight with my friends ?"... "What kind of movie are you going to see ?"... "Well we're going to see bla bla bla its a PG movie"... then the teens arrive at the theater and go in and watch whatever they damn well please. Now that might appeal to you or other very liberal, anything goes people but not others. So I feel this it totally legit and required.

As for what you are talking about with advertising and promotion, that problem lies at the feet of the studios. If they decide not to promote movies that younger folks 17 and up might enjoy, that is their concern and should not become the problem of the parent by removing age restriction on movies. We really dont feel like playing cops 24/7 and frankly dont need any extra work. Children can wait their turn, as with everything else, it all comes in time.

 

[Einherjar86]

Meh, I disagree. When parents ask their kids "What movie are you going to see," they can take five minutes and go look the movie up online and decide if they want their children watching it. It doesn't take long, and personally it's just neglectful if parents choose not to. If there was a system in place where reviews of every film, describing what kind of content each film contained, were placed online and easily accessible, we wouldn't need ratings and there would be no censorship. Parents can take five minutes and look up the content of the film their kids are going to see.

 

[Blowtus]

'progress' in society is often the ability to act in a manner that would previously have been neglectful, in relative safety... if that is all there is to it then good, though as you indicate in some / many situations there are more considerations necessary. I don't think the argument that 'it's only 5 minutes' is worthwhile though, for the same argument can be made for many things. It is the accumulation of all these 5 minutes that gives us more time / capacity to do stuff. Whether that is good I'll leave to the Heideggerians for the moment

 

[Einherjar86]

But at the same time, there's progress being made because we would have a worldwide database that contains detailed descriptions of the content of every film ever made. There's progress being made in more than one area, and causing parents to take five minutes out of their day to look something up will be more beneficial in other areas. The argument stands, because there is purpose to it.

 

[razoredge]

We have a nationwide system in place, its the rating of films.

Teenagers are compulsive liars as to what they are up too. Just because they say they are going to see one movie its a good bet they are actually going to see the most radical movie they can find.

The arguement stands that promotion is in the hands of the studios.

You have not yet defined what kind of material would be in a NC17 movie that would not be in a R that compromises the intregity of such a movie. Nor a reason why the crowd 17+ is not enough to support and therefore promote such a movie. Nor a reason why 14-16 year olds should be able to walk into a cinema and see what ever they damn well please.

This sounds more like a teenage rights movement to me than a artistic integrity problem.

Cinemas suck anyhow, my daughter was just telling me her friends and her recently went to some movie and they cleaned them out for tickets, a little popcorn and some soda. They'd rather hang out at someones house, rent a movie and party, make their own popcorn or whatever and drink what they please. There in lies the problem with the entertainment industry today. Home entertainment, DWI laws and personal financial concerns.

 

[Einherjar86]

Teenagers are compulsive liars as to what they are up too. Just because they say they are going to see one movie its a good bet they are actually going to see the most radical movie they can find.

That's not the filmmakers' problem.

You have not yet defined what kind of material would be in a NC17 movie that would not be in a R that compromises the intregity of such a movie. Nor a reason why the crowd 17+ is not enough to support and therefore promote such a movie.

It would often be material of a graphic sexual and/or violent nature. Now, judging from your earlier arguments, you would say that such material is of little or no artistic merit, and is thrown in by filmmakers to make more money. I believe the opposite is true. Filmmakers know that images of such a nature will be challenged. It makes no sense that they put them in to make money when they know that the MPAA will object to such images and force them to be removed. It is most logical to assume that the images depicted stem purely from artistic vision. Directors that aren't true visionaries (the likes of which include Roland Emmerich, Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, Wolfgang Peterson, etc.) will not include any such material in their films, because they care only about making money. This is why their films are never challenged by the censors. It's the directors who do include such material in their films who are the true artists. Often these filmmakers belong to smaller and less popular studios. Some of these studios even allow their filmmakers to forego the censorship and release the film with an NC-17 rating. It's too bad that such films receive little to no popular recognition, because they're often the best films of our time.

I already stated why a movie with an NC-17 rating wouldn't generate much (if any) profit. It has to do with its advertising and marketing appeal. It would get no press. No one would know it existed, and many theaters wouldn't carry it simply for its NC-17 rating. This significantly hurts ticket sales. It has nothing to do with people over seventeen not wanting to see it. They simply wouldn't know about it, or wouldn't be able to.

Nor a reason why 14-16 year olds should be able to walk into a cinema and see what ever they damn well please.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that. Furthermore, I don't believe they should. On to this point...

This sounds more like a teenage rights movement to me than a artistic integrity problem.

It's far from that. I encourage parents everywhere to investigate the movies their children are going to see. I've already stated this. It has nothing to do with teenagers' rights, and everything to do with the freedom of filmmakers. The virginity and purity of our youth should not be forced and demanded at the expense of artistic license. Parents have a duty. They should try performing it.

 

[forbidden fruit]

Totally agree, parents have & should exercise that duty.

The responsibility in this area in part also falls to cinemas & movie retailers to refuse entry, sale or hire to a child who's obviously underage according to the rating of the flick, and is not accompanied by an adult (where applicable).

I've seen a 16(?) year old store clerk hire out an R18+ DVD to a bunch of 13 or 14 year olds without batting an eyelid.
When I questioned her about it, she said she'd never been told about enforcing the ratings.

 

[razoredge]

Well you both just verified and validated all my points.

Teenagers are liars and sneaky - nothing new, little stopping them
Film makers fail to promote movies
some types of movies dont have much market appeal
Parents can perform all their "duties" and short of secret surveillance can not control what their teenage kids try to pull off

so the arguement for ratings, laws, regulations and other methods stands strong and they will remain intact

 

[Einherjar86]

Well you both just verified and validated all my points.

Really?

Teenagers are liars and sneaky - nothing new, little stopping them

This has very little bearing on the argument, I made that clear in my post.

Film makers fail to promote movies

No, they're unable to promote movies because of ratings. An NC-17 rating prevents them from properly promoting a film. It's not their fault.

some types of movies dont have much market appeal

Or they do, but no one knows about them because of what I just said in the previous post. As I said, many films that began as NC-17 films succeeded at the box office when they were cut down to an R rating.

Parents can perform all their "duties" and short of secret surveillance can not control what their teenage kids try to pull off

Not the filmmakers' problem, again. This has little to do with teenagers razor, please try and grasp this point.

so the arguement for ratings, laws, regulations and other methods stands strong and they will remain intact

Judging from your response here, you've completely misuderstood everything I said in my last post.

 

[derek]

This is getting bogged down a tad.