The Motion Picture Association of America Essay Example for Free

The Motion Picture Association of America EssayAmerican Psycho, A Clockwork Orange, Boys Dont Cry, and Clerks. What do altogether these movies fall in in common? They were all rated NC-17 at first viewing. The reason why they were rated as such is the real issue. They were rated NC-17 for the cozy content, either shown or talked about. The way in which it was presented in these movies made the MPAA give it an NC-17 military rank. The MPAA found it offensive and inappropriate. The violence, some of it quite gruesome, was seen as less offensive and inappropriate according to the MPAA. Despite their trump efforts in exhausting to protect children and what theyre subjected to, the MPAA is utterly useless. The internet provides easy access to pornography and other genderual content by the click of a mouse. The boundaries made by the MPAA in regards to versed content argon unclear most of the time and the rating is inconsistent and gender biased. The MPAA has worn out its mul tipurposeness and should be simply eliminated and replaced with a more democratic, fair and open rating system. A rating system for film has been around for quite a while. Since 1926, the film constancy has been rated in some manner.Back in 1926, much more was banned sexually and in terms of violence. For almost 40 years the US film industry was governed by the Motion Picture Production Code, which banned nudity, drug use, religious ridicule, disrespect for the law and other depictions in film that would convey the effect of heavy societys moral standards ( Feiser, np). Many movies back them were quite subtle compared to to twenty-four hour periods day and age. Many filmmakers didnt get adventuress and stayed well within the parameters of the rules because our society was more modest and pure. in that location was a much harsher strain on sexuality.Romantic panoramas were heavily scrutinized to uphold the sanctity of the institution of marriage and unjustified and lustful ki ssing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are non to be shown (Feiser, np). conductmakers had no option, they needed to comply with the code or their film would not be released. When the propagation changed, the rules needed to as well. In 1966 the standards of the production 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 set in place. pictorial mattermakers can opt out by not submitting their films for rating and accept an NR (not rated) designation. just now by taking NR rating, a film will have less theatrical distribution and will attract fewer viewers to movie houses. Thus, for mainstream films, participation in the rating system is a practical necessity (Fesier, np). Many filmmakers are stuck when it comes to getting their movie rate d because the MPAA is the further troupe out there that rates films so what they say goes.Even though filmmakers can make their films NR, the film wont get any furtherance and will most likely fail. All 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 regard severe editing and caterpillar treadting of the film. Every filmmaker knows that sex is the only thing that will drastically effect a rating but 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 unmatched film and not other.Lets first discuss the issue of masturbation in films. For example, 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 contains no nudity or sex scene. When Kevin Smith gave it to the MPAA for rating, Kevin Smith said The MPAA gave Jersey Girl an R rating for a scene where Liv Tyler and Ben Afflecks characters discuss masturbation in a diner (This Film Is non Yet 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 value of my 16 year old daughter listening to this (This Film Is non Yet 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 Yet Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). Kevin Smiths response, although quite brave, brings up quite a valid point. Masturbation is a natural part of life but the MPAA wear downt want kids knowing about it.The MPAA is incredibly gender biased when it comes to rating a film that includes physically showing masturbation. For example, in the film But Im a Cheerleader, in its original viewin g, 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 get by a scene where one of the girls is touching herself fully clothed (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 pants 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. There are many perfect examples of movies being rated gratingly, 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 mass murder with a chainsaw.No brutal murder scene was the issue the issue was a rear entry three way sex scene (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). One scene intractable this movies harsh rating. One sex scene was enough to overlook several 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 limpid sexual content (Be rkeley 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 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 nature (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 Films, 2006, Film). David Anser, a film critic 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 defence force 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. turd Valenti, founder 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 situation successful. In the article, he states that For the dying 15 years, more than 70% of parents with children under 13 bewilder the system to be Very Useful to Fairly Useful in helping them guide their childrens movie going ( Valenti, np).He then mentions that the 2006 public opinion poll showed that an extend in approval by parents w ith 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 theme 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 arrive 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. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). Having no ratings card at all would be chaos. There needs to be a ratings board, there is no dubiousness 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 someone can find just about anything on the internet.As John Waters put it All teenagers, because of the internet, have seen more hard core pornography 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 spacious 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 heart and soul 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, calcium inner the headquarters of the Motion Pictures Association of Ame rica, 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 unnamed 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 dealing with a very powerful, cultural censorship group that doesnt want to be disempowered.If you made those names public, you might disempower them (This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dir. Kirby Dick, IFC Films, 2006, Film). Kirby Dick, the director of This Film Is Not Yet Rated a sks John Lewis, author 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 simple 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 every 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 names 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 dialog box members names are withheld so are criminal jury members, all for the same reasons. Theres nothing sinister 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 advance the timberland 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 yield 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 cognition of ratings and have more experience 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 factor 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 younger 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 investigator figured out the names of the raters on the 2005 board and discovered t hat 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 someone 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 easily what needs to be done to get a disparate rating. This system should also tre at violence as being a serious factor, like sex, that determines a movies rating. These factors are essential for a successful movie rating system that will benefit not only the movie makers but the audience as well.