criterionforum.org

Posted: **Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:51 am**

Interesting news from Variety, by way of IFC.

NEWS FLASH FROM IFC: MPAA CHANGES FILM RATINGS RULES

THANKS TO YOU, THEY'RE CHANGING THE RULES!

Thanks to your support of the IFC documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated", the MPAA is making improvements in the rating system.

Posted: **Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:13 am**

I wonder if they'll put something on the This Film... DVD about "The film that changed the way films were rated."

That's pretty cool that he had that kind of effect. I look forward to seeing what they change.

Posted: **Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:22 am**

The best thing about the rating system in the US, depsite the many flaws with it as show in the doco, is that distributors can release a film unrated. Whereas in Australia, ALL films have to be rated which then opens the possibility of them being given an RC (Refused Classification) which is effectively a ban.

Posted: **Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:07 am**

Here's feedback from the filmmakers of This Film Is Not Yet Rated on why the MPAA "changes" are still effectively useless in creating a fair and open system:

[quote]
When This Film is Not Yet Rated preemed at Sundance 2006, producers Kirby Dick and Eddie Schmidt knew they'd be doing more research and editing before its release, and they said it might be an ongoing project. Voila! While the MPAA's execs are in Sundance to announce a number of alterations to the ratings system, Dick and Schmidt in town as well. From the press release about their continued adversary role (in its entirety in extended entry): â€œThe MPAA's reforms simply address the public's perceptions of the system, rather than affecting real change in the system itself,â€

Posted: **Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:47 pm**

marty wrote:The best thing about the rating system in the US, depsite the many flaws with it as show in the doco, is that distributors can release a film unrated. Whereas in Australia, ALL films have to be rated which then opens the possibility of them being given an RC (Refused Classification) which is effectively a ban.

It's the same in Britain (aside from documentaries and music videos, which are exempt unless they contain graphic sexual/violent imagery), though in practice it's now exceptionally rare for a classification to be refused - the system was massively liberalised five or six years ago as a happy side-effect of the incorporation of European human rights legislation into UK law.

Basically, to get a film actually banned in Britain it generally has to break the law in some way - animal cruelty and sexual activity involving children being the hardest ones to get round (as the law doesn't admit context or artistic merit as a defence). Plus of course films that are effectively banned by the underlying copyright holders (Ken Russell's Dance of the Seven Veils being my favourite example), but there's nothing a ratings/classification body can do about that!

Posted: **Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:50 pm**

Oh, and in Britain the rules generally apply only to video - provided the relevant local authority is sympathetic, cinemas can show films unrated.

I regularly used to have to write to the tellingly-named Camden Environmental Health and Consumer Services Department for permission to screen unclassified films, but they always said yes.

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2007 8:51 pm**

Coming soon: Rated R for Brutal Violence, Sexual Content and Relentless Cigarette Smoking

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2007 8:53 pm**

Holy smokes

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2007 8:56 pm**

Good. It's about time we got this filth away from our kids.

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2007 9:06 pm**

Sorry, Jason, but the Anti-Carrot Smoking lobbyists aren't faring quite so well... that one could be a long way off.

-Toilet Dcuk

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2007 2:24 pm**

Wow, that means the entire film noir genre just got a collective NC-17 rating.

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2007 2:45 pm**

lord_clyde wrote:Wow, that means the entire film noir genre just got a collective NC-17 rating.

Wouldn't surprise me. I suggest we seek an artistic exemption on the basis of morally ambiguous fatalistic expressionism as rendered in the shadowy chiaroscuro mise-en-scene.

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2007 4:28 pm**

lord_clyde wrote:Wow, that means the entire film noir genre just got a collective NC-17 rating.

Not to mention Now, Voyager!

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2007 4:36 pm**

An amusing take from NPR's All Thing's Considered.

Posted: **Sun May 13, 2007 2:49 am**

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:37 pm**

What film rating are you?

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:19 pm**

Antoine Doinel wrote:What film rating are you?

You got 9 out of 10 correct.
You are rated NC-17. Your tastes are not shared by everyone, but your refusal to be censored â€” and your fearless embrace of complicated sex â€” should be applauded. Bravo!

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:29 pm**

Only R-rated (5/10)

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:21 pm**

SncDthMnky wrote:
You got 9 out of 10 correct.
You are rated NC-17. Your tastes are not shared by everyone, but your refusal to be censored â€” and your fearless embrace of complicated sex â€” should be applauded. Bravo!

Same here. And I've probably only seen about 50% of the films they used as examples.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:42 am**

I wasn't sure where to post this, so I figured it might as well go in an older thread about the MPAA. In one of the most galling rulings in recent years that I can recall, the MPAA has rejected the poster (!) for Alex Gibney's new documentary on the U.S.'s use of torture, Taxi to the Dark Side, calling it "inappropriate." Variety has this to say about the MPAA's rationale:

According to ThinkFilm distribution prexy Mark Urman, the reason given by the Motion Picture Assn. of America for rejecting the poster is the image of the hood, which the MPAA deemed unacceptable in the context of such horror films as "Saw" and "Hostel."

Here's the image in question:

More from Variety (emphasis mine):

An MPAA spokesman said: "We treat all films the same. Ads will be seen by all audiences, including children. If the advertising is not suitable for all audiences it will not be approved by the advertising administration."

The MPAA also rejected the one-sheet for Roadside Attractions' 2006 film "The Road to Guantanamo," which featured a hooded prisoner hanging from his handcuffed wrists. At the time, according to Howard Cohen, co-president of Roadside Attractions, the reason given was that the burlap bag over the prisoner's head depicted torture, which was not appropriate for children to see.

"Not permitting us to use an image of a hooded man that comes from a documentary photograph is censorship, pure and simple," said producer, writer and director Gibney. "Intentional or not, the MPAA's disapproval of the poster is a political act, undermining legitimate criticism of the Bush administration. I agree that the image is offensive; it's also real."

ThinkFilm plans to appeal the ruling, although Urman admitted that he "doesn't know what that entails. I've only appealed ratings before."

If ThinkFilm ignores the MPAA and uses materials that have not been approved, it runs the risk of having the rating revoked, which is what happened earlier this year to "Captivity."

The "Taxi" ad art is actually an amalgam of two pictures. The first, taken by Corbis photographer Shaun Schwarz, features the hooded prisoner and one soldier. Another military figure was added on the left. Ironically, the original Schwarz photo was censored by the military, which erased his camera's memory. The photographer eventually retrieved the image from his hard drive.

"It's the photo that would not die," Gibney said. "This movie is not a horror film like 'Hostel.' This is a documentary and that image is a documentary image."

Fuck the MPAA!

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:13 am**

Watch or download This Movie Is Not Yet Rated at Google Video for free.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:10 pm**

What they need to do is get rid of "NC-17" and just have the R rating be the be all end all rating and let filmmakers put as much sex and violence as they want in films that have R ratings. It's stupid to do anything else.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:36 pm**

Raoul Duke wrote:What they need to do is get rid of "NC-17" and just have the R rating be the be all end all rating and let filmmakers put as much sex and violence as they want in films that have R ratings. It's stupid to do anything else.

Either that or make it the exact equivalent of the 18 rating that's very common across Europe - adults-only, but with no stigma attached, no restrictions on advertising or exhibition and (in general) no censorship, because most European adults are allowed to think for themselves. (Believe it or not, this even applies in Britain, since the massive BBFC liberalisation of a few years ago).

For the record, Sweeney Todd got an 18 in Britain, and it appears to be doing OK.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:05 pm**

I'm confused with what you can get away with now in a PG-13. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly contains copious amounts of both male and female nudity and Away From Her includes three uses of the word "fuck"-- how did they both get PG-13? It's not like kids were clamoring to see these films anyways but still

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:24 pm**

domino harvey wrote:I'm confused with what you can get away with now in a PG-13. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly contains copious amounts of both male and female nudity and Away From Her includes three uses of the word "fuck"-- how did they both get PG-13? It's not like kids were clamoring to see these films anyways but still

Remember when MIDNIGHT COWBOY was rated X for reasons which are now impossible to discern? Remember when ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN was rated R because Woodward and Bernstein are told - "alright; you're on the story; don't fuck it up."?
I guess the new PG-13 standard is that you can get naked and say "fuck" as long as you don't get naked, say "fuck" and then do it.