In an odd bit of synchronicity, I just finished watching This Film is Not Yet Rated last night, which I had DVR'd off of IFC. I then woke up this morning to find that Jack Valenti had died. See, Jack Valenti, for better or as this movie suggests, worse, is the father of the movie rating system.
It is this movie's contention (and I'd have to agree) that our current movie rating system and board unduly penalizes movies for sexual content while being lax on violence. A movie with sexually suggestive content (especially what puritans would call deviant) is four times as likely to be slapped with an NC-17 than a violent one. This hang-up is exclusive to the U.S. and can be correlated with the rise of the Religious Right.
Movies like Boys Don't Cry and The Cooler were initially given NC-17's because of scenes of female pleasure. Apparently this is taboo but decapitations and gun violence in just about any Swarzenegger, Stallone, etc. movie is OK, perhaps even OK for PG-13.
The item that I found most interesting was that the appeals board for the MPAA included movie and theater industry people (which one would expect) but also two clergyman, an Episcopalian and a Catholic. Why the hell would there be any religious representation here at all? And if you decided to have such representation, why those two to the exclusion of all others (and atheists)? The answer is that the movie industry is about 95% big movie studios, which in turn are owned by just a few huge media conglomerates. And those conglomerates are owned by people like Rupert Murdoch. You have to kiss the ass of big business and big religion lest you get boycotted by groups headed by James Dobson. I guess they're not so worried about organized boycotts by atheists. lol.
This is a movie with an obvious slant, but the facts that are laid out are not disputed. It does an effective job of pointing out the problems with the current movie ratings system. There are a lot of insightful interviews with actors, directors, etc., including Kevin Smith and Matt Stone (of South Park). I recommend it. Grade: B
18 comments:
I remember seeing on Inside the Actors Studio, Mark Ruffalo talking about this. There's a movie, In the Cut, which I haven't seen, which was almost NC-17 because you can't say the words clitoris and lick in the same sentence... but blowjob is just fine.
Not only is the movie rating system slanted toward big media conglomerates and christian morals, but also slanted toward male pleasure: you can show full frontal female nudity a lot more than male, for instance, and your citing of the 'female pleasure' scenes but violence and near pornographic (male pleasure) scenes are just fine.
The ratings system is completely skewed but I'm not sure what we can do about it. I'll have to find when this is on IFC next.
"... slanted toward male pleasure ..." - They talk about that quite a bit. They cited almost identical scenes in American Pie (male masturbation) and But I'm a Cheerleader (female masturbation through clothing without any nudity) and you can guess which movie skated through without the NC-17. What a bunch of hypocrites. It makes you think sometimes that we haven't really progressed at all as a society -- still hung up in a biblical definition of the roles of men and women.
"still hung up in a biblical definition of the roles of men and women."
Well SHEESH, I coulda told you THAT... ;)
-- still hung up in a biblical definition of the roles of men and women.
I don't see how the biblical definition of the roles of men and women have anything to do with movies showing female pleasure or male pleasure.
I believe that the rating system is just jacked up but it doesn't have anything to do with the bible and everything to do with the industry being controlled by alpha males.
For the record: I thought Boys Don't Cry would have been a much better movie if instead of the graphic rape scene, we could have just watched Hilary What's her name's facial expressions as she told us about the rape.
I don't need to see it. I have an imagination.
Some of the most powerful scenes in film are suggested violence.
Think Resevoir Dogs when that guy cuts the other guy's ear off--the camera slowly left the scene as we heard the screams--think Psycho--everyone remembers different things about the knife and the blood and the violence but it was all suggestion.
Much harder for a director to do but well worth the effort.
"... I don't see how the biblical definition of the roles of men and women have anything to do with movies showing female pleasure or male pleasure ..." - I'm not suggesting a direct link between the two. Certainly, the Bible would not possibly encourage either (but that's a subject for another day). I'm saying that most societies that are predominately religious have historically looked less judgementally on men's sexual escapades and pleasure-seeking than on women's. And to a large part, that is due to the traditional gender roles set up a long time ago in the bible:
"And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33. 1
"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." Ecclesiastes 7:26, from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)
And very little has been said by religious leaders throughout history to elevate the status of women much beyond that.
"I don't need to see it. I have an imagination.
Some of the most powerful scenes in film are suggested violence." - No argument here. It's not always necessary to show something in grisly detail and often it is gratuitous. But that's not what I was trying to debate here. My issue is;
(1) The higher moral stigma attached to scenes of sex than ones of violence
(2) The higher moral stigma attached to sexual scenes of female pleasure or to scenes of homosexual sex (All other things in the movie being equal)
It's not just the Bible, but also post-biblical theological reasoning (like St. Augustine - a real woman hater) who set up the dichotomy we still see in the world today:
Men-->Rational-->Reasonsed-->Driven by Rational though (Mind)-->Stronger-->Active Subject-->Purer of Faith
Women-->Irrational-->Emotional-->Driven by the bodily desire (Body)-->Passive Object-->Weaker of faith.
All one needs to do is pick up a copy of the Malleus Malleficarum to know that the Inquisition had it in for any woman that stepped out of her predefined role as passive object.
"And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33. 1
What is Ecclesiasticus? My Bible has Ecclesiastes and it only goes up to Chapter 12.
But your second mention of Scripture from Ecclesiastes chapter 7 is found.
But we can't judge women in general by the words of this book. If you know the story of Solomon, he slept with a woman and this one act caused a world of trouble for him. He was pretty bitter about women, in general, as many of the Proverbs warn against the adulturous woman and such. So I would take Solomon's outlook on women with a grain of salt. Especially in light of countless times the Bible makes it clear that women and men are equal in the sight of God.
Laura--
I'm sure what you say is true but I don't find, in my own walk with God in faith, that God has made any distinctions between men and women as far as who is more spiritual or faithful. Men have made those distinctions themselves.
Whoa ... wait a minute. I'm not even going to try and debate fine ecumenical points. That would be like taking a cap gun to a gun fight (I'm the cap gun). lol.
Certainly there are many churches that believe that "women and men are equal in the sight of god". But there are many that are not and they are the major churches of the U.S. and world (Catholic, Islam, Mormonism).
Oh, I'm not saying that unequal gender roles are what Jesus would want, but that's what a good deal of his followers (and the followers of all his other prophets) preach. It all goes back to original sin and Eve. In many circles, women are thought to be spiritually, emotionally, and physically immature - in need of protection by men.
Whoa ... wait a minute. I'm not even going to try and debate fine ecumenical points. That would be like taking a cap gun to a gun fight (I'm the cap gun). lol.
*laughing* Okay.
Certainly there are many churches that believe that "women and men are equal in the sight of god". But there are many that are not and they are the major churches of the U.S. and world (Catholic, Islam,
Mormonism).
Agreed.
Oh, I'm not saying that unequal gender roles are what Jesus would want, but that's what a good deal of his followers (and the followers of all his other prophets) preach. It all goes back to original sin and Eve. In many circles, women are thought to be spiritually, emotionally, and physically immature - in need of protection by men.
Yeah, I realize that some churches have defined men and women's roles in strange ways. Equal but different. That's my take on it.
Sadie,
I do appreciate your point of view. If you got the impression that I was saying that the male bias in movies was all due to religion, I apologize. That's not what I was trying to say. I'm just saying that organized religion (more so than the bible itself) over the years has (and still does) tried to keep women down. Certainly, the "alpha male" tendency of men also is a contributing factor.
I don't honestly know that much about the rating system, but at least it's voluntary and self governed. Maybe it's got screwed up values, but does it really matter all that much what a movie is rated?
"does it really matter all that much what a movie is rated?"
Actually yes. For some of Dback's examples that would have been NC-17 rated, that has a severe impact on marketability and overall revenue. An NC-17 movie will never get the wide release of any other movie, regardless of the reason for the rating (whether it's gore or sex). A move like Boys Don't Cry never would have seen the light of day if they didn't make the cuts they did.
So in a nutshell, yes, it matters a great deal. If you want to get your movie seen in theatres or in homes (don't forget Blockbuster won't carry NC17s either), then you bow to the will of those who impose the ratings. The filmakers have no say, so it's really not "self" governed if you mean the artists themselves get to decide what rates as what. It's still an outside body imposing its will on a creative outlet. Just because that outside will is corporate and not government doesn't make it any better.
Exactly what Laura said. Most theater chains just will not carry NC-17's. And if you don't live in a large city, you don't have access to art house type theaters. Even in a metro area like Phoenix, with 4 million people, there are only 2 decent theaters that have foreign and indie flicks.
I also have to add that in this case, I'd rather have a government oversight than a corporate oversight (if there were no option of no oversight) because at least the government is accountable to the people. You can't easily vote a CEO out of his position. Sure you can boycott, but in this day and age when about 10 corporations own all the media outlets (radio, TV, movie, and print), unless you unplugged completely and moved into a cave in Montana, there's no way you could have any impact on their decisions at all. They're only beholden to the highest bidders.
dback,
It's all good. I think I started out confused as to how you could link the current rating system with religion. I see where you're coming from, now. I might not fully agree but I get it.
But if the lowering the rating makes the movie more marketable (in other words, more attractive to a larger audience) than isn't having a lower rating a good thing? At least if you WANT to be marketable and make money it is. If your goal is to be "artistic" and give a big F-U to the market than make your NC-17 movie and get what you get.
But if the market (i.e. in other words people who watch movies) are saying we don't want NC-17 movies than what's the big deal? Isn't that true democracy in action? Isn't that the will of the people? Isn't that corporate CEOs being responsive to what the MAJORITY wants? Completely unlike what the government does, actually.
"...But if the market (i.e. in other words people who watch movies) are saying we don't want NC-17 movies than what's the big deal?" - Ah, the true free market soldier. lol.
One of the points of the movie is that the board is NOT representative of the people or the "market". It's a handpicked board whose members are not known and are shrouded in secrecy. If the rating process was transparent and open to a more representative cross-section of people, I think less directors would have a problem.
I've got to write this down. Scott is defending big government, LBJ-crony, Jack Valenti. Wow.
Post a Comment