criterionforum.org

John Cope wrote:just let it go (my advice)

Let what go, John? Are you a royalist? Do you consider support for blood elites to be the rational position of all reasonable people, even when it goes against their own interests? My original reply to Michael was clearly tongue-in-cheek, but if I had instead suggested abdication and the declaration of the republic would you still consider this worthy of contempt (a bit rich coming from an American, I might add!)? Do you support the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few? Would you consider, say, a ban on offshore banking and a 99% inheritence tax on all holdings over $1m to be inherently unfair? Do you recognise that capitalism failed in 2008 (thanks to a liquidity shortfall in the United States) and that every person here, every regular person on the planet, is now being asked to foot the bill whilst the elites continue to slurp caviar - when, in fact, the honest thing to do would have been to fully nationalise the banks (or let them fail!)?

willoneill wrote:the Royal Family redistributing their wealth, well, that's not going to happen.

Not voluntarily, no, and therein lies the moral conundrum. How many lives could be saved and bettered with those assets and how far would it be acceptable to go to seize them? I propose this in a theoretical sense, of course, accepting with a heavy heart that the elites are so entrenched, and the media-fried masses so sheeplike, that any such change or action is unlikely to occur within our lifetimes.

This is, in a fundemental way, relevant to The King's Speech, btw, as Freedland timidly points out in his article, because (the reason I will never watch it - or The Queen or Mrs. Brown or...) it is a part of the propaganda, a part of the machinery that maintains the status quo, albeit an insignificant cog in the wider picture.

From the The Playlist Blog:

The LA Times reports that Weinstein wants to re-cut the movie and snip out the offending foul language to drop the film’s R-rating down to a PG-13. Citing the big numbers coming in for the film in its native Britain, where the lower 12-and-over rating has helped make the film a box office success, Weinstein says “The British numbers are huge because the rating lets families see the movie together. Tom and I are trying to find a unique way to do this that keeps his vision of the movie.”

Or perhaps the British numbers are huge because the film is British and depicts a pivotal moment in British history. ](*,)

The FUCK FUCK FUCK!s are the best part!!! so of course they'll cut them out. idiots


here's a better idea - give a completely benign film a pg-13 rating despite i exceeds some arbitrary quota of swear words. The MPAA could not possibly be more idiotic when it comes to parsing silly things like this.

Doesn't Bertie curse during the final speech? How are they going to pull this off?

Yep, both him and Rush. I'm sure they'll just trim those few seconds. It's not as if Hooper had much of a reputation to begin with, but he's a whore if he participates in this.

My suggestion: just bleep it. It will have a similar comedic effect and isn't as horrifying as the alternative, taking out important sequences.

If someone were interested in reading a book about sympathetic members of British Royals who at least understood Hitler's anti-semitism, and/or American leaders, where might one look for something like that? I know of one title centered on Ford, but would be curious to learn more of the sympathetic leanings that have been tossed about here off-hand (Edward, even Bertie himself?)

HistoryProf wrote:here's a better idea - give a completely benign film a pg-13 rating despite i exceeds some arbitrary quota of swear words. The MPAA could not possibly be more idiotic when it comes to parsing silly things like this.

That's exactly what happened in Britain. Under current BBFC guidelines, the quantity of "fucks" should have given it an automatic 15 certificate, but in this case the BBFC sensibly recognised that that would have been overkill, so they gave it a 12A - which admits kids under 12 if they're accompanied by an adult.

(Not that I imagine under-12s would get much out of this film, but there you go).

Send your kids to Ontario ... it's rated PG here. Parental Guidance is only suggested. I haven't really paid attention to ratings since I turned 18, but when I was checking, I also noticed Black Swan was rated 14A, which is the equivalent of a US PG-13.

That always happens in America; it's perfectly normal for a 14 year old to see guts and gore, but if the film has swear words :-#

mfunk9786 wrote:Doesn't Bertie curse during the final speech? How are they going to pull this off?

I saw it last night, and I didn't hear Bertie say any curse words in the final climatic speech. Rush did however 'mouth' "fuck fuck fuck" to Bertie to calm and soothe him, but even these were silent since the microphone would have picked them up for broadcast.

Perhaps I am remembering his preparation and rehearsal for the final speech.

Perhaps. Both of them curse up a storm in that room with the fire place right before he gives the speech.

It's such a charming film. I think the Weinsteins might even be better served running a television ad campaign encouraging families to come out for the film and perhaps even addressing the rating in a frank and honest manner. It's not like it's an NC-17, people can come to the film with their children if they see fit. I am pretty astounded that they're greedy enough to actually be disappointed with the box office returns it's gotten so far - I would consider $50 million+ and a #4 slot on its 9th week in release (and no signs of slowing down) are anything to sneeze at when it comes to a film about British royalty during WWII.

I realize this thread might not be the place, but quickly, with all of the money and power in Hollywood and the fact that the MPAA can cost very powerful people millions of dollars (like assigning a PG-13 film a R rating because common sense isn't allowed, as in this case), how does this MPAA maintain this semi-authoritarian control over Hollywood? I am not saying that the MPAA should be overthrown, because I feel we do need a uniform rating system, but if nothing else, why can't the leading CEOs broker some time of common sense agreement that meets in the middle and allows a little subjectivity leverage within this rigid objective litmus test or ratings determination?

ianungstad wrote:The LA Times reports that Weinstein wants to re-cut the movie and snip out the offending foul language to drop the film’s R-rating down to a PG-13.

The same thing happened to the US release of The Ghost Writer. Is this a new trend or just something I wasn't previously aware of?

David Ehrenstein provides an unusual perspective on The Kings Speech.

Warning. Not Safe For Work.

But as this link reveals the Bst Picture of The Year was shot on a gay porn set

aox wrote:I realize this thread might not be the place, but quickly, with all of the money and power in Hollywood and the fact that the MPAA can cost very powerful people millions of dollars (like assigning a PG-13 film a R rating because common sense isn't allowed, as in this case), how does this MPAA maintain this semi-authoritarian control over Hollywood? I am not saying that the MPAA should be overthrown, because I feel we do need a uniform rating system, but if nothing else, why can't the leading CEOs broker some time of common sense agreement that meets in the middle and allows a little subjectivity leverage within this rigid objective litmus test or ratings determination?

A documentary from a couple of years ago called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" gives a great history of the extremely dysfunctional relationship and the odd levels of power and secrecy the MPAA has managed to retain. Luckily, it appears to be completely available on Youtube

domino harvey wrote:Thy will be done

Oh, great. My wife took our ten year-old daughter to see the wicked R-rated option Sunday morning. If only we had known that a PG-13 version was around the corner, perhaps we could have prevented her delicate mind from being sullied.

In the UK, in 1977-78, Saturday Night Fever managed the vertiginous drop from an X in the UK (18+) to an A (5+), to capitalise on Travolta's teeny following. You can imagine how much sense the cut version made.

reaky wrote:In the UK, in 1977-78, Saturday Night Fever managed the vertiginous drop from an X in the UK (18+) to an A (5+), to capitalise on Travolta's teeny following. You can imagine how much sense the cut version made.

Just occurred to me I used to watch this movie all the time when I was a kid, and my parents never objected. That's probably one of the many they should never have let me watch when I think about it now (and yet they would never let me watch the ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where the Nazis all start melting...)

... aaaaaaannnd it's back to the traditional, safe, EXTREMELY accessible, down-the-middle Best Picture winners. [-(

Colin Firth isn't happy about the MPAA situation.