The MPAA

[dx23]

Maybe Michelle Williams will discuss it on Jon Stewart tonight.

She just said that the rating was changed at 1:00 PM today, although she didn't know why. Still, Michelle mentioned that they didn't change anything in the film to make it R-rated.

[flyonthewall2983]

Sources tell me the MPAA agreed to change BLUE VALENTINE’s rating to R only because Harvey’s rant was far more NC-17 and the film looked tamer by comparison.

Comment by thesearefacts — Wednesday December 8, 2010 @ 4:47pm EST

[BWilson]

The recent Disney documentary "Walt and El Grupo" may win the Silly MPAA Rating Award of 2010:

Rated PG for Historic Smoking

I too hope to one day smoke in a fashion that is truely historic.

[zedz]

There are any number of Bette Davis movies that could be rated PG for Histrionic Smoking. Now that would be useful consumer information.

[lacritfan]

From 2010 National Society of Film Critics
STATEMENT ON THE MPAA RATINGS SYSTEM
The members of the National Society of Film Critics applaud the recent decision by the Classification & Ratings Administration of the Motion Picture Association of America to change the rating of “Blue Valentine” from NC-17 to R. But several other recent decisions by CARA have been allowed to stand, and these call into question the integrity and legitimacy of that office as it is presently constituted.

“The King’s Speech,” the drama about King George VI’s attempt to overcome his speech impediment, was rated R for “language,” specifically, several moments where the King is instructed by his speech therapist to swear to relieve the pressure of his stammer.

“The Tillman Story,” the documentary about the military cover-up of the death of Corporal Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, was similarly rated R for “language.” In the case of that film the offending content is the agitated language of soldiers in combat fearing for their lives.

“A Film Unfinished,” which contains footage taken by the Nazis inside the Warsaw Ghetto, was given an R for “disturbing images of Holocaust atrocities, including graphic nudity.”

In the case of the documentaries “The Tillman Story” and “A Film Unfinished,” this amounts to CARA assigning a rating to reality.

In an editorial on the MPAA’s web site, Joan Graves, the head of CARA, claims, “These ratings are purely informational.”

This is simply untrue.

An R rating restricts who can get in to see a film and thus its potential earnings. An NC-17 rating, such as was originally assigned to “Blue Valentine,” will keep a film out of many theater chains and can deny its being advertised on most television networks and in many newspapers.

This can have an especially damaging effect on the earning potential of independently made films, such as those mentioned above, which do not have access to the large advertising budgets at the disposal of the major studios — studios, which, as CARA’s record indicates, have received much more lenient ratings for similar content.

Another damaging inconsistency is CARA’s record of judging sexual content more harshly than it does violence. We by no means advocate condemning violence in movies, and we do not believe we are doing so by pointing out that there is no equivalence between an R given to the most explicit horror images and the same rating given to a drama in which King George VI utters a four letter word. And certainly no equivalence to a historical document showing the emaciated bodies of dead Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Despite Ms. Graves’ contention that CARA decisions are “purely informational,” it’s clear that the board has become an agency of de facto censorship. There is a difference between giving parents the information they need to make a decision as to which films they want their children to see, and a system whose decisions make it harder for adults — and their children — to see films clearly meant for them.

The National Society of Film Critics believes that CARA has for too long demonstrated these inconsistencies and has refused to explain itself. We would like to believe that the major studios who constitute the membership of the MPAA care enough about the availability of movies to recognize that the ratings system should be open and consistent, not arbitrary and unfair, and that films from independent distributors should be judged by the same criteria as their own releases. It has become a system that enforces the kind of moral policing that, when it was founded in 1968, it was intended to prevent.

[Jeff]

Chris Dodd is the new head of the MPAA.

[dx23]

Chris Dodd is the new head of the MPAA.

I always wondered why don't they bring someone from the movie industry for this position or at least someone with some cinema knowledge, like a movie critic. The MPAA is as antiquated as the Comic Book code, which has been recently dropped by all in the comic book industry.

[Matt]

It's a lobbying position, political contacts are much more valuable than mere movie knowledge.

[MichaelB]

In Britain, the Director of the BBFC usually does have a lot of film knowledge and professional experience - James Ferman was a TV director who specialised in documentaries and dramas about hard-hitting social issues, Robin Duvall cut his teeth on COI public information films, and so on - but the President almost invariably doesn't: he's usually a far more overtly political figure appointed specifically for clout and contacts.

But in practice the President rarely gets involved in day-to-day operational matters, only the really controversial cases.

[swo17]

Good to see I'm not the only one who considers all of these things to be atrocities:

Rated R for war violence and atrocities including rape, sexuality, nudity and language

[Brian C]

You have to admit, the language there is a grammatical atrocity.

[tarpilot]

Not surprising in the least, but the MPAA has slapped Shame with the NC-17

[MichaelB]

It's good that Fox Searchlight seems keen to make a polemical point about this.

In Europe, there'd be no problem at all, in that there are no marketing or advertising issues surrounding intelligent films about adult subjects clearly aimed at adult audiences (in Britain, it's obviously going to get an 18 certificate, and no-one's going to bat an eyelid) - and I thought the whole point of changing the old X rating to NC-17 was to allow the US media to finally grow up about this. But that happened twenty years ago, and there's been precious little change.

[mfunk9786]

American Psycho is rated R. Just saying.

[knives]

Isn't that mostly implied though? Wouldn't something like Hostel be a better example.

[mfunk9786]

No, because American Psycho deals with similar issues to Shame, but uses realistic instances of deeply personal and often sexual violence to do so. Hostel is an over-the-top horror setpiece - Argento-ish stuff with better special effects. Hostel has earned the most unfair reputation of any film in recent memory, I really don't understand what made it the poster child for pleasurable violence - it's a pretty fucking scary pic.

[MichaelB]

It's graphic sexual subject-matter that gets the MPAA hot under the collar - they've always been absolutely fine about passing the most horrific blood-drenched violence as being suitable for kids, whereas the mere sight of a naked man (which seems to qualify as "graphic sexual subject matter" in some quarters) will give them a collective conniption.

[mfunk9786]

Which is bizarre, because even the most graphic sexual violence is R-worthy.

[MichaelB]

Which is bizarre, because even the most graphic sexual violence is R-worthy.

Indeed - and there's a major cultural division here. In Britain, we tend to be pretty laid-back about graphic scenes of consensual sex (even clearly unsimulated sex scenes have been granted an 18 certificate, as opposed to R18, which denotes pornography), whereas sexual violence is still a major taboo. In the US (at least according to official arbiters), it appears to be the other way round.

[mfunk9786]

It's because of the right wing of this country's alignment with the censorship organizations within the government (including the MPAA and FCC) and their alignment with the completely backwards anti-women, anti-gay, anti-minority ideals of the American south. Which, regardless of how much polite avoidance there is of this by most liberals in the U.S., is monstrous and still thinks things should be run like they were in the 19th century.

[swo17]

American Psycho originally got an NC-17 though, and was only taken down to R after some cuts. In any case, this seems like much less of an issue now, with far fewer people seeing movies in theaters, and with distributors proudly adversiting films as "unrated."

[Brian C]

...as opposed to R18, which denotes pornography)

This is obviously the problem we have here in the US, isn't it? The absence of an R18 equivalent? Ebert (among others I'm sure) has been railing against this very circumstance for years and years, and rightfully so I think. That, combined with the voluntary nature of the MPAA ratings, means that NC-17 is effectively the worst rating a movie can get.

Of course, none of this would matter if the US was populated by actual adults, but that's a different matter...

In any case, this seems like much less of an issue now ... with distributors proudly adversiting films as "unrated."

Which, in most cases, amounts to little more than a marketing scam.

[Murdoch]

American Psycho originally got an NC-17 though, and was only taken down to R after some cuts.

I believe the only cut was Bale flexing in front of a mirror while having sex with a prostitute, which lasted all of several seconds. The distinction between NC-17 and R has always been arbitrary and, as mfunk says, political in what is deemed approrpriate and what isn't.

Although, wasn't Antichrist not submitted to the MPAA rating because it would have received an NC-17, and was instead released "unrated" or something along those lines?

[JamesF]

(in Britain, it's obviously going to get an 18 certificate, and no-one's going to bat an eyelid)

As indeed it just has

[Minkin]

I was a bit suspicious when I heard that Hammer's Dracula has Risen from the Grave had received a 'G' rating - as stated on the Warner packaging (heard it first from James Rolfe's excellent review) - that it must be a printer's mistake. Having received a different edition of the film today (still Warners) - it still lists the film as 'G' (in the same box as Taste the Blood of Dracula - which has received an 'R' rating). Well, a check on the MPAA website shows the following:

Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (Dracula Has Risen From The Dead) 1968 G Warner Bros./7 Arts

Not that I should complain about ratings, but this film is at best PG-13. I wonder what other examples of grossly misapplied ratings exist.