the changing of times
Kevin Smith has made history, and most people have no idea. The Motion Picture Association of America has traditionally been a strict, uptight place where morals and social taboos are freely discussed and dismissed from public view. In it's 87-year history, the mpaa has reviewed and rated thousands of films. From this astounding length of celluloid, only a handful have been allowed to argue their rating with the association. Many directors take their assigned rating in stride, and make the necessary edits to allow for a timely release. This is why a number of films have an "unrated version" or "director's cut" once distributed for public purchase. It's a compromise that must be made. Unless you know how to debate your opinion.
Less than 5% of films reviewed by the mpaa appeal their rating, and less than 1% successfully turn over the rating. Kevin Smith has appealed the rating of three films. Clerks was allowed to keep it's R-rating with no cuts. My appreciation of Clerks does not need to be stated. Jersey Girl was given an R-rating but was allowed to have its PG-13, although i never saw this film so i have no opinion. Zack and Miri Make a Porno was initially rated NC-17, but allowed to have an R-rating without cutting shots from the film. There were key scenes that would have suffered from the kind of strict editing the mpaa initially wanted, and there was a specific shot that the director argued was not as profane as it seemed. Smith was able to cite numerous parallels in older films that were given an R-rating or less. The mpaa met for a final review, where they would either allow the R-rating, or stick the film with the stigmatic and fiscally undesirable NC-17 rating. After hearing Smith's argument, they graciously agreed to give him the R-rating.
I was always confused by the mantra of the mpaa. Excessive violence and course language meant a PG-13 or R-rating, but as soon as there was any nudity of sexuality, an R-rating or higher was mandated. A realistic scene of consensual intercourse seems way less damaging to a teenager's mind than a realistic gunfight.
A good experiment would be to take a number of pre-teens and subject them to two categories of films. One group of kids would watch movies with nudity but no violence. The other group would watch movies with violence but no nudity. Let a few years pass, and do a study on the mental and social issues plaguing these teens. I guarantee the group that watched the violent movies will have more problems.
Obviously movies that portray sexuality and violence should be given a more exclusive rating, because we don't want young minds to thing it's ok to combine these things. Of course, we don't want to give people the wrong idea about sex, and many movies depict sexual acts with a certain stylistic flair that gives impressionable minds unrealistic expectations. But doing the same to violence is fine? I think not.
The point of all this? If you think you would enjoy a funny parody of the pornographic industry using a great cast, sharp writing and hilarous adlibs, check out Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Just don't watch it with anyone who doesn't like the word "cock", for your own sake.
Less than 5% of films reviewed by the mpaa appeal their rating, and less than 1% successfully turn over the rating. Kevin Smith has appealed the rating of three films. Clerks was allowed to keep it's R-rating with no cuts. My appreciation of Clerks does not need to be stated. Jersey Girl was given an R-rating but was allowed to have its PG-13, although i never saw this film so i have no opinion. Zack and Miri Make a Porno was initially rated NC-17, but allowed to have an R-rating without cutting shots from the film. There were key scenes that would have suffered from the kind of strict editing the mpaa initially wanted, and there was a specific shot that the director argued was not as profane as it seemed. Smith was able to cite numerous parallels in older films that were given an R-rating or less. The mpaa met for a final review, where they would either allow the R-rating, or stick the film with the stigmatic and fiscally undesirable NC-17 rating. After hearing Smith's argument, they graciously agreed to give him the R-rating.
I was always confused by the mantra of the mpaa. Excessive violence and course language meant a PG-13 or R-rating, but as soon as there was any nudity of sexuality, an R-rating or higher was mandated. A realistic scene of consensual intercourse seems way less damaging to a teenager's mind than a realistic gunfight.
A good experiment would be to take a number of pre-teens and subject them to two categories of films. One group of kids would watch movies with nudity but no violence. The other group would watch movies with violence but no nudity. Let a few years pass, and do a study on the mental and social issues plaguing these teens. I guarantee the group that watched the violent movies will have more problems.
Obviously movies that portray sexuality and violence should be given a more exclusive rating, because we don't want young minds to thing it's ok to combine these things. Of course, we don't want to give people the wrong idea about sex, and many movies depict sexual acts with a certain stylistic flair that gives impressionable minds unrealistic expectations. But doing the same to violence is fine? I think not.
The point of all this? If you think you would enjoy a funny parody of the pornographic industry using a great cast, sharp writing and hilarous adlibs, check out Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Just don't watch it with anyone who doesn't like the word "cock", for your own sake.
Labels: reaper, underoath, view askew
posted by incrediblemoo at
9:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home