I have never heard any criticizers of the MPAA until I was assigned this blog entry. Being an active movie watcher I have asked myself “Is there an exact set of standers that this organizations holds movies accountable to?” However as Dan Glickman, current head the MPAA, states, “This is an art not a science.”
Movie producers complain that because there are such few people on the MPAA board there are going to be biases that could potentially affect the gross outcome of a multi million-dollar film. Glickman explains that if the parent that rate films have a bias then that bias is looked at the same in our society. “Movies reflect our culture, and so do the ratings, we don’t try to lead society, we try to reflect it.” Glickman uses the movie “Knocked Up” as an example; the movie received a rating of R when it was released in 2007. He explains that if this movie were to be sent in to the MPAA in 1940 it would have never received a rating. This is simply because society has changed and for better or worse has gotten more accustom to violence and sex.
The movie The Film is Not Yet Rated is a documentary about a few men who go undercover trying to expose the MPAA as a misguided attempt to rate movies. The films main complaint is that the company operates in secrecy and has no set of standers to rate films by. First of all the MPAA does not operate to please multimillion-dollar movie companies, it is simply a tool that parents can use before allowing their children view a movie. This is why a requirement of all film raters is that they must be parents. What would they want their kids to see? The movie biz is such a money-oriented industry there has to be some level of secrecy to prevent any corruption.
Movie producers know that having a film rated, as NC-17 is bad for business. As explained in “Dame in the Kimono” the fact that anything over “R” is economic suicide (281). Leff says, theaters wont play your movie, you’re not able to advertize on TV, and many newspapers wont take your ads” (282) This is why the MPAA lets movie producers go back and edit out scenes that could have lead to such a mature rating.
Noel Muray, author of “Crosstalk: Does the MPAA Ratings Board Get A Bad Rap? Proposes her argument by stating “1) Rating-wise, the MPAA gets it right 90 to 95 percent of the time. 2) When they get it wrong, the injury caused in negligible. 3) When people complain about the MPAA’s decisions they’re most often really complaining about something the MPAA doesn’t control. This explanation sums up my argument, so why complain? If change were necessary to the system already in place the government would most likely step in. This leading to government regulation and possible censorship, wait isn’t that what they do in China?
Tyler, I strongly agree with your post. When was the last time you have heard any of our peers complain about movie ratings? I cannot recall ever hearing such a thing. This is for a very simple reason.... we do not care because we are not dissatisfied with the rating system. The key to movie ratings and who they use to rate them is to remember that the why the system was created in the first place: to give the parents a guide to what the movie would be like. Creating such a system prevented government censorship as you said.
ReplyDeleteI think you have some valid points about the MPAA. Why is everyone so upset that the MPAA gives out NC-17 ratings? A movie rating doesn’t stop people from seeing the movie; it only keeps film makers in check. If a movie producer wants a movie to be rated R all they have to do is cut some of the ultra explicit sex scene. Like you said “the movie biz is such a money-oriented industry” and film makers including Kirby Dick want their movie to be PG-13 or R because attracts a larger audience.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good argument but I would kindly have to disagree. The parents are biased on anything that is different. For instance, if there is sex its a harsher rating for if there are gays or lesbians they make it a harsher rating. And when you say the government would step in, I do not believe that for a second. They have much bigger things to worry about right now. The rating system has not changed within the past 10 years or so and society has. Violence is more tolerable today especially with the war that has been going on. In my opinion, they should have a bigger panel rating these movies with a mix of age groups. That way no one could complain, I do not see why it is only parents.
ReplyDeleteEven though I talked about a completely different issue (my main concern was: WHY parents?) but i do agree with your point. come to think of it, we really don't care about the rating system all that much. It was never brought to my concern until this assignment. I guess it really doesn't matter who rates the movies. because regardless of our age we will watch whatever movie we please. But i will still raise the question... WHY PARENTS? why not a herd of professionals? or a neutral age group of people?
ReplyDeleteI agree with both sides of the arguments. However, i don't think that the people who are on the side against the MPAA is complaining. We are stating our opinion in hope of change. The MPAA is inconsistent and not a good representation of the rest of the movie watchers in the world. The 10-13 parents that rate movies are bias in how they rate. There are no standards. Kirby Dick says,This is one of the most unprofessional boards today..." and "there are no professionally developed standards.."
ReplyDeleteBut your points do make sense and i understand your side of the argument.
First off i think you made a very good arguement on the MPAA's system of rating films. But personaly i disagree with you. Our kids need tobe kept in check on what they see and what they cant see. It is not what the people need to see if it is not suitable for them yet. The parents should have the athurity over their children to let them see the films that are appropriet.
ReplyDelete