The Motion Picture Association of America Essay Example for Free

The Motion Picture Association of America Es adduceAmeri raise Psycho, A Clockwork Orange, Boys Dont Cry, and Clerks. What do tout ensemble these films open in common? They were only rated NC-17 at first-class honours degree linear perspectiveing. The reason why they were rated as such is the real issue. They were rated NC-17 for the inner content, either shown or talked just active. The way in which it was presented in these movies make the MPAA give away it an NC-17 rank. The MPAA found it nauseating and inappropriate. The force play, few of it quite gruesome, was settlen as little offensive and inappropriate according to the MPAA. Despite their best efforts in reaching to protect kidren and what theyre subjected to, the MPAA is utterly shadowy. The internet provides easy access to dirty wordography and other sexual content by the break down of a mouse. The boundaries made by the MPAA in regards to sexual content be unclear most of the time and the ord er is conflicting and g stop overer biased. The MPAA has worn out its usefulness and should be entirely eliminated and replaced with a more democratic, fair and decipherable rating dodging. A rating system for buck has been around for quite a man. Since 1926, the dart effort has been rated in some manner.Back in 1926, much more was banned sexually and in ground of personnel. For almost 40 classs the US film industry was governed by the Motion Picture work Code, which banned nudity, drug use, religious ridicule, disrespect for the law and other depictions in film that would have the final result of lowering societys moral standards ( Feiser, np). M whatsoever movies back them were quite subtle comp ared to todays day and date. Many filmmakers didnt get adventuress and stayed well within the parameters of the rules because our society was more modest and pure. thither was a much rough-cuter strain on sexuality.Romantic ikons were heavily scrutinized to uphold the sancti ty of the institution of wedding and excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are not to be shown (Feiser, np). pullulatemakers had no option, they needed to play along with the code or their film would not be released. When the times changed, the rules needed to as well. In 1966 the standards of the occupation code were relaxed, and two years later it was replaced with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) film rating system, which, in modified form, we follow today (Fesier, np).However, with this rating sysyem, filmmakers have the option to not follow the guidelines decide in place. Filmmakers dope opt out by not freeting their films for rating and accept an NR (not rated) designation. But by taking NR rating, a film will have less theatrical distri notwithstandingion and will decoy fewer viewers to movie houses. Thus, for mainstream films, participation in the rating system is a practical necessity (Fesier, np). Many f ilmmakers are stuck when it comes to getting their movie rated because the MPAA is the only company out there that rates films so what they say goes.Even though filmmakers nates make their films NR, the film wont get any publicity and will most likely fail. totally filmmakers can do is hope for the best when they submit their film for rating. No filmmaker wants to receive an NC-17 rating because it would require severe editing and cutting of the film. all filmmaker knows that sex is the only thing that will drastically effect a rating yet the rules and guidelines of what sexual things are and arent allowed have never been stated by the MPAA and often times, it is shocking what is allowed in one film and not another.Lets first discuss the issue of masturbation in films. For illustration, Kevin Smiths film jersey Girl, released in 2004, was made by Kevin Smith for his daughter. Its about one mans struggle to be a single father after his wife dies in childbirth. The movie contai ns no nudity or sex picture. When Kevin Smith gave it to the MPAA for rating, Kevin Smith said The MPAA gave Jersey Girl an R rating for a sentiment where Liv Tyler and Ben Afflecks characters discuss masturbation in a diner (This Film Is Not moreover Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film).Kevin Smith, who disagreed with the films rating, talked to the head of the MPAA and her response was Its uncomfortable to think of my 16 year old daughter listening to this (This Film Is Not heretofore Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). Kevin Smith then said in response, Do you really think your daughter hasnt masturbated? (This Film Is Not in time Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). Kevin Smiths response, although quite brave, brings up quite a valid point. onanism is a natural part of life but the MPAA dont want kids knowing about it.The MPAA is incredibly gender biased when it comes to rating a film that includes physically showing masturbation. For exam ple, in the film But Im a Cheerleader, in its original viewing, it received an NC-17 rating. The director Jamie Babbit said that The MPAA told me that in order to get an R rating, I would have to cut a scene where one of the girls is trace herself fully enwrapped (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). The director, furious, then makes a great comparison when she uses the example of American Pie.Jamie Babbit says In American Pie, Jason Biggs character masturbates in an apple pie not fully clothed and yet that only received an R rating (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). A scene much more vulgar and inappropriate receives an R rating because its a male and not a female that does the masturbating. A girl fully clothed rubbing herself or a male, with his knickerbockers down, masturbating in an apple pie. Its almost as if the MPAA views guys masturbating as inappropriate but natural but a female masturbating is unnatural and worse.That is insulting to women and angering as a film watcher. The MPAA is also quite harsh in their issue of physical sex between two people and sex scenes in movies. at that place are many perfect examples of movies being rated harshly, including NC-17 simply for sexual content over extreme violence like blood and gore, and mutilation. One example is when Marry Harron, the director of American Psycho, sent her movie to the MPAA for a rating. She asked the MPAA why it was rated as such and she paraphrases, saying It was rated NC-17 but not for a scene of brutal freshet murder with a chainsaw.No brutal murder scene was the issue the issue was a buttocks entry three way sex scene (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). One scene determined this movies harsh rating. One sex scene was enough to overlook some(prenominal) scenes of brutal mass murder. This is just one of many movies that have gotten an NC-17 for one sex scene and not for anything else. For example, Blue Valentine was rated NC-17 for a scene of explicit sexual content (Berkeley Library, np). Crash, as well, was given an NC-17 rating for numerous explicit sex scenes (Berkeley Library, np).Even This Film Is Not Yet Rated was given an NC-17 rating due(p) to some graphic sexual content (Berkeley Library, np). Maria Bello is an actress that was in The Cooler, which is another movie rated NC-17, this time because of Maria Bellos pubic hair being shown in the sex scene. She gives her opinion in This Film Is Not Yet Rated when she says Ive always been such a fan of the way European filmmakers in the way they view sexuality which is real people and real bodies and its a way of life and human character (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film).She goes on to say that Weve desexualized sex because weve taken it out of being a day to day function. Weve desexualized because were afraid of it (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Fil ms, 2006, Film). David Anser, a film connoisseur for Newsweek says that Europe has always found America odd in sexual matters (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). Finally, Allison Anders, a director, says that the US has become so strict in their policies of sex that its become a denial of women pleasure, but of pleasure in general (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir.Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). Despite all of what is said, there are people who believe that movie censorship is a good thing. Jack Valenti, present of the MPAA, has had to defend the MPAA and his opinion on censorship for years. He sent an article to the LA Times where he discusses why things are the way they are and why the MPAA is in fact successful. In the article, he states that For the know 15 years, more than 70% of parents with children under 13 come across the system to be Very usable to Fairly Useful in helping them guide their childrens movie going ( Valenti, np).He th en mentions that the 2006 cap showed that an increase in approval by parents with children under 13 to 80%. Those who said the rating system was Very Useful rose 10% higher than last year. This latest poll underscores my central etymon that parents, for whom the system was designed, are highly approving of what it does they trust it (Valenti, np). First of all, parents with children under 13 years of age are infected by the higher ratings because they cant even be allowed into a PG-13 movie without a parent.The high ratings are the ones that affect ages 15-18. He should poll those parents and see how many parents agree with the R to NC-17 rating, or even the PG-13 to R rating. Secondly, Matt Stone, co creator of South Park states that Valenti brings up these statistics that say that 70% of parents find the ratings useful. I always felt like that was because theyre the only game in town. As compared to nothing at all, they probably are useful (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir. Kirb y Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). Having no ratings board at all would be chaos. on that point needs to be a ratings board, there is no doubt about that. Having nothing at all would is not acceptable but since the MPAA is the only rating board that rates movies, they should be fair in their ratings as well as listen to directors arguments and try their best to accommodate. The MPAA refuses to ever change their minds or hear what anyone has to say. Its their way or the highway. Unfortunately, the MPAA is not the end all be all in censorship. The internet, although a great tool, has little to no censorship and soul can find just about anything on the internet.As John Waters put it All teenagers, because of the internet, have seen more hard core filth then their parents have seen. Theyve seen the most hideous things you can find on the internet and theyve all seen it. All kids have searched and gone deep into web porn sites (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). Although film is a huge media outlet, kids arent seeing any less hideous things just because theyre not allowed to see this movie or an inappropriate sex scene was cut out of a movie.According to Internet Pornography Statistics, The average age of a childs first exposure to pornography is 11. A total of 90 percent of children ages 8-16 have viewed pornography online (Ropelato, np). Another striking statistic is 15-17 year olds having multiple hard-core exposures is 80% and 8-16 year olds having viewed porn online is 90% (most while doing homework) (Ropelato, np). Unfortunately, kids have so many options when it comes to pornographic sites. There are 4. 2 million (12% of total websites) pornographic websites and 420 million pornographic pages (Ropelato, np).By censoring or harshly rating films based on sexual content, all the MPAA is doing is forcing kids to go online to find pornographic material and as proven, it is as easy as the click of the mouse. Encino, California ins ide the headquarters of the Motion Pictures Association of America, an anonymous group of parents gather to rate film G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17. But the MPAA wont let anyone inside to see who these people are or how they make their decisions and among their most controversial decisions are the movies they rate NC-17 (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir.Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). The MPAA has been anonymous and their members have been un cognise since the MPAAs inception. This has come under much scrutiny with filmmakers and film producers because they believe they have a right to know who these people are that rate their films. There are many opinions as to why the MPAA members are unknown and one opinion is by Kimberly Pierce, director of Boys Dont Cry. She says Youre dealings with a very powerful, cultural censorship group that doesnt want to be disempowered.If you made those call public, you might disempower them (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 200 6, Film). Kirby Dick, the director of This Film Is Not Yet Rated asks John Lewis, motive of Hollywood v. Hardcore Is there any other review board in this country that you can think of in any industry besides the C. I. A. that is secret that operates in secrecy. John Lewiss truthful is a simple but powerful No. The MPAA is the only other association besides the C. I. A. hat operates in secrecy.There is something seriously wrong with that picture. All the MPAA does is rate movies, the C. I. A. helps keep our country from being destroyed. The C. I. A. risks their lives any day to protect us and MPAA members sit in a dark room and rate movies. There is no good reason why the MPAA should be secretive. Naturally, Jack Valenti had something to say as to the reason why board members name calling are unknown.He told the L. A. Times First, the Motion Picture Assn. f America withholds the names of the rating board members so they wont be harassed by disgruntled producers. Grand gore memb ers names are withheld so are criminal jury members, all for the same reasons. Theres nothing saturnine about this. We convey to the press, upon request, a brief biography of each rater. We could make public their names, but if we did, how would that mount up the quality of the ratings? (Valenti, np). What Valenti doesnt realize is that he has more disgruntled producers because the members names are unknown.Producers have the right to know who rated their movie. Kirby Dick said it best when he told Joan Graves It seems like the raters who you are trying to protect from influence actually are in direct contact with the people who can influence them, the senior raters especially (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). The senior raters would, in all likelihood, have a huge impact in what rating a movie gets and the other raters would be more inclined to agree and give it the same rating as the senior rater did.This is probably due to the fact that the raters have the opinion that the senior raters would know more knowledge of ratings and have more consider so therefore their rating must be the best rating for the film. Senior raters wouldnt be the only ones that would influence raters, other raters as well would be able to convince another rater to give a rating. Even though Valenti tried to avoid influence, influence is still a big reckon in the MPAA. Valenti also told the L. A. Times about the guidelines required to be an MPAA rater.He told the L. A.Times that They are parents, who see a film through the eyes of a parent. We have three senior raters who give historical knowledge to the system, have administrative duties and whose children, young when they started, are now over 17. The rest have young children (Valenti, np). Kirby Dick, director of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, hired a private investigator to discover the identities of the MPAA raters and find out if what Valenti said about them is in fact true. The investigat or figured out the names of the raters on the 2005 board and discovered that what Valenti said wasnt 100 percent accurate.One rater was Joan Worden, Age 56, Children 18 year old twins and Howard Fridkin, Age 47, Children none (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). Joan Worden has two twins who are old enough to see an NC-17 movie so how does she know whats best for children to see? How is soulfulness with no kids like Howard supposed to know what children should and should not see? Ultimately, its these factors that make the MPAA utterly useless and really more harm than good. The MPAA and the process of getting a game rated leaves many directors and producers frustrated.The MPAA should be replaced by a rating system which has clear rules and regulations when it comes to how movies are rated. It should also consist of members names that are known so as to give the producers and directors some idea who rated their movie and therefore can discuss good what needs to be done to get a different rating. This system should also treat violence as being a serious factor, like sex, that determines a movies rating. These factors are all-important(a) for a successful movie rating system that will benefit not only the movie makers but the audience as well.