I have said time and time again that I don't like the MPAA. I like the idea of it, but it's practice is so fucked up it's not doing much real good. It's a pack of people who are trying ot police other people's families, to police other people. Why? I think that just listing what's in a movie should be fine and not the soul crushing rating of G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17, I don't remember if X is still being used.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its international counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) serve as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically through the MPAA and internationally through the MPA. Today, these associations represent not only the world of theatrical film, but serve as leader and advocate for major producers and distributors of entertainment programming for television, cable, home video and future delivery systems not yet imagined.
Founded in 1922 as the trade association of the American film industry, the MPAA has broadened its mandate over the years to reflect the diversity of an ever changing and expanding industry. The initial task assigned to the association was to stem criticism of American movies, which were then silent, and to restore a more favorable public image for the motion picture business. Today the association continues to advocate for strong protection of the creative works produced and distributed by the industry, fights copyright theft around the world, and provides leadership in meeting new and emerging industry challenges.
And it's parent company, the MPA
Our member companies' films are shown in theaters in more than 100 countries around the world and on television in more than 120 countries. The U.S. film industry provides the majority of home entertainment products seen in millions of homes throughout the world. This complex audiovisual industry is represented globally by the Motion Picture Association.
The MPA was formed in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II to reestablish American films in the world market, and to respond to the rising tide of protectionism resulting in barriers aimed at restricting the importation of American films.
"Today the [MPAA] continues to advocate for strong protection of the creative works produced." Really? I hear time and time again about directors damn near whoring themselves to get a lower rating because they don't believe their film is all that bad. If not for the fact that I have and have seen 'This Film is Not Yet Rated' a documentary from 2006 that discusses how the MPAA works with directors and filmmakers, I'd wonder what the criteria were for hiring someone to the ratings board. The film described it to a minor extent, but the information about some of the members of that years MPAA board intrigued me the most. Not everyone had children, or if they did their children were grown adults.
I continue to say ‘fuck the MPAA’ because they’re not addressing the content of films half the time, it’s the aesthetic of the film. It’s not plot points or ideas more often than not it’s language, violence and sexual situations. Those are more aesthetic than content in the film, and now people are advocating for the MPAA to cut down on smoking by automatically giving any movie where people smoke an R rating. Why? People smoke in real life. As a child I was dissuaded from smoking because I didn’t like the smell of the ash. My mother and grandfather smoked around me. My mom stopped because I asked her to. My mother was the most influential person in my life, and still is, amazingly so with her being dead and all, but ces’t la vie?
My point is that rating a movie R for smoking is akin to rating it R for alcohol, or for humping and sex. They’d soon be rating movies for necking, and it’s annoying enough that breasts are out, and the penis was just about never able to be seen on screen. None of these things are really content wise to the movies, its people who take some sort of virgin or puritanical offense at these things. Ignoring the hypothetical and back to the reality of the situation, the two things that give a movie an R rating in America are sex, and cursing, specifically the word ‘fuck’. Sex is because people have some issue with the human body. Cursing, that’s down right biblical. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” – Ephisians 4:20 [NIV].
I got sidetracked, my point is what is the MPAA really for? What they seem to be doing much of the time is policing other people and other people’s families and children. A better way for rating movies is to just take the little box from under the rating, make it bigger and call it a day. What box? The one that lists what’s in a movie, like ‘harsh language’ or ‘brief nudity’ etc. Inform people so they can make an educated decision. Parents should work at being positively involved in their children’s lives and not just there because they made them. Ask them about movies they want to see, ask them why. With the MPAA that we have now, families are coddled and parents have become lazy. They expect other people to tell them how to raise their children instead of taking the reins themselves.
I also advocate in parents policing their children because they would then be accountable, but people love not being accountable for things. They run and hide from criticism and accountability because they like having someone else to blame for why their children are fucked up. But the biggest part in them blaming someone else, it ultimately loops back to them and their inability to train and educate their children themselves.
But back to the MPAA and smoking as an R rating. What would that accomplish is what I really want to know. Yes, children would not be able to see smoking in the movies, but what about reality? In walking down a real New York street at least one in every ten or twenty people I saw was smoking. Going to a 7-Eleven the other night a car pulled up, the passenger was smoking a cigarette and the driver lit up a stogie. People smoke in real life. What about period pieces then? Smoking was pretty much considered a health benefit until the late 20th century. I’m saying, are you going to show me a western, or a movie about 1910 or about the settlers and people won’t be smoking.
Yes, smoking is harmful; yes, smoking is dangerous to your health. But remember, people have been smoking for hundreds and hundreds of years and acting like they didn’t isn’t going to help. I’m not advocating ultra-realism, movies are my escape from the doldrums of my day to day life of going to class or sitting around doing nothing. I’m advocating keeping life real enough that people can accept it. I accept and enjoy movies where people don’t smoke at all, I can also accept and enjoy movies where people smoke. It’s an aesthetic not content. Stop worrying about aesthetics and worry about the content that children get to see.
My biggest reason for leaving smoking in a movie is that it’s life. Life happens, if a character would do something, let them. Why change their character just to fit somebody else's moral standards. My standards are not those of my brothers. They make share similarities, but they’re ultimately not the same. But this blog is what inspired me to stick out my hat. It says what I want to say better, and more directly, but mine was not a failed effort.
Jasmine P.
I continue to say ‘fuck the MPAA’ because they’re not addressing the content of films half the time, it’s the aesthetic of the film. It’s not plot points or ideas more often than not it’s language, violence and sexual situations. Those are more aesthetic than content in the film, and now people are advocating for the MPAA to cut down on smoking by automatically giving any movie where people smoke an R rating. Why? People smoke in real life. As a child I was dissuaded from smoking because I didn’t like the smell of the ash. My mother and grandfather smoked around me. My mom stopped because I asked her to. My mother was the most influential person in my life, and still is, amazingly so with her being dead and all, but ces’t la vie?
My point is that rating a movie R for smoking is akin to rating it R for alcohol, or for humping and sex. They’d soon be rating movies for necking, and it’s annoying enough that breasts are out, and the penis was just about never able to be seen on screen. None of these things are really content wise to the movies, its people who take some sort of virgin or puritanical offense at these things. Ignoring the hypothetical and back to the reality of the situation, the two things that give a movie an R rating in America are sex, and cursing, specifically the word ‘fuck’. Sex is because people have some issue with the human body. Cursing, that’s down right biblical. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” – Ephisians 4:20 [NIV].
I got sidetracked, my point is what is the MPAA really for? What they seem to be doing much of the time is policing other people and other people’s families and children. A better way for rating movies is to just take the little box from under the rating, make it bigger and call it a day. What box? The one that lists what’s in a movie, like ‘harsh language’ or ‘brief nudity’ etc. Inform people so they can make an educated decision. Parents should work at being positively involved in their children’s lives and not just there because they made them. Ask them about movies they want to see, ask them why. With the MPAA that we have now, families are coddled and parents have become lazy. They expect other people to tell them how to raise their children instead of taking the reins themselves.
I also advocate in parents policing their children because they would then be accountable, but people love not being accountable for things. They run and hide from criticism and accountability because they like having someone else to blame for why their children are fucked up. But the biggest part in them blaming someone else, it ultimately loops back to them and their inability to train and educate their children themselves.
But back to the MPAA and smoking as an R rating. What would that accomplish is what I really want to know. Yes, children would not be able to see smoking in the movies, but what about reality? In walking down a real New York street at least one in every ten or twenty people I saw was smoking. Going to a 7-Eleven the other night a car pulled up, the passenger was smoking a cigarette and the driver lit up a stogie. People smoke in real life. What about period pieces then? Smoking was pretty much considered a health benefit until the late 20th century. I’m saying, are you going to show me a western, or a movie about 1910 or about the settlers and people won’t be smoking.
Yes, smoking is harmful; yes, smoking is dangerous to your health. But remember, people have been smoking for hundreds and hundreds of years and acting like they didn’t isn’t going to help. I’m not advocating ultra-realism, movies are my escape from the doldrums of my day to day life of going to class or sitting around doing nothing. I’m advocating keeping life real enough that people can accept it. I accept and enjoy movies where people don’t smoke at all, I can also accept and enjoy movies where people smoke. It’s an aesthetic not content. Stop worrying about aesthetics and worry about the content that children get to see.
My biggest reason for leaving smoking in a movie is that it’s life. Life happens, if a character would do something, let them. Why change their character just to fit somebody else's moral standards. My standards are not those of my brothers. They make share similarities, but they’re ultimately not the same. But this blog is what inspired me to stick out my hat. It says what I want to say better, and more directly, but mine was not a failed effort.
Jasmine P.
No comments:
Post a Comment