One of the bloggers I read pretty regularly, Devin Faraci of BadassDigest, wrote up a pretty good post about the history of the MPAA and what he, Devin, suggests should be done to revamp it to make it more appropriate for the 21st Century His post can be found here.
I found Mr. Faraci's post interesting and informative. While I knew a great deal about the history leading up to the creation of the MPAA, there were still a few things of interest there as well. I also like Mr. Faraci's ideas when it comes to a new rating system, which I will expand on further down in this post. Overall his post is worth reading and more importantly involves a conversation worth having right now.
The first thing you need to understand about the MPAA is that it was created and exists in order to prevent direct government interference in the production of motion pictures in America. It exists to prevent censorship and unfair restrictions on the screenwriters, directors, and producers of films. We all, film makers, studios, and moviegoers alike do not want the government becoming involved in the regulation of movies. So it can be agreed the MPAA or something similar should exist.
The second thing you need to know about the MPAA is that it is run and controlled by the studios. It is a ratings body that is managed by the very industry that it is suppose to oversee. It is a self policing body, more or less. Now on the surface it would seem to the casual observer that it is wrong to have the studios have a hand in a ratings body. And yes there has been some occasions where the studios used their positions to leverage better ratings for films they wanted to open more wide. But there have also been cases where the MPAA went against a studios wishes and forced cuts to a film in order for it to receive the rating the studio desired. It is an imperfect system I will admit.
So we know we need a ratings system and a regulating body to oversee it. But we also know the system as it is now is imperfect. The question then becomes how do we fix it. For that I would like to take a small detour into American culture and taboos.
Since Thomas Edison released one of the first films in America to the summer blockbusters released this year at multiplexes across the country, we have been as a nation prudish collectively in our views on sex and sexuality in film. We do not want to expose our children to nudity in films and we do not want them to see sexual acts played out on screen. Now for children of a young age I agree with this viewpoint. I, for instance, do not want my 4 year old to see two people having sex in a film. There is an age that I feel is appropriate for that and when that time comes I will have less of a problem with him seeing such things. But at the same time, I think we collectively take our prudishness too far and create taboos where none should exist.
This applies to the MPAA as well. You see the MPAA has always been more willing to give a pass to films that depict violent acts as opposed to ones who show nudity, sexually suggestive material, or outright sexual acts. It has always struck me as a strange position to take and one that highlights our own cultural hangups on sexuality in America. But at a time when gun violence is becoming more rampant, is it really right for the MPAA to give violence in films such a wide range in which to be acceptable? Let me reframe the question a bit here- how many people have committed violent acts after seeing a film that showed a person or persons naked or engaging in sexual acts? Then let's look at how many could, and I stress the word could, have been influenced by violence in films?
Now I want to be clear that I do not blame films, even violent ones, for making people commit murder. Ultimately the choice was on the individual to commit those acts and take that course. But I also feel the MPAA does allow too much leniency when it comes to violence in films while also at the same time dropping down the hammer on sexuality. It is the wrong philosophy to embrace and one of the key things that needs to be revamped about the ratings system.
What I would suggest is that the MPAA loosen their perimeters on sexuality in films and then tighten those on violence. I think the first step involves eliminating the NC-17 from the available ratings you can use. Then, like Mr. Faraci suggests, you replace it with a tiered R ratings system. You start with R-15, no people under the age of 15 allowed without a parent. Then you add to it a R-17, no people under the age of 17 allowed without a parent. You weigh violence more for both of these ratings classes and do not allow more violent films to receive a more family friendly rating, like PG-13.
I do feel you still should keep the PG-13 rating for the record, as well as PG and G. But G could become SA- Suitable for all ages, or E-Everyone like Mr. Faraci suggests in his post. Parents with small children still need to be able to know which films are suitable to take their children to and I feel the current upper half of the ratings system does just that and does it pretty well.
It is at the lower part of the ratings system where we have the problem. The NC-17 represents the kiss of death to studios as it comes with a certain stigma, one which discourages theater chains from carrying a film and audiences from seeing it. In most cases when a film receives an NC-17 it is due to sexual content. Take, for example, the film Shame which came out this year. That film was given the rating of death due to frontal nudity of it's star, Michael Fassbender, and for some of the sexual situations and acts it portrayed. Now I have seen the film and I did not feel it warranted this rating. The nudity was not gratuitous and the sexual situations were necessary to the plot as the film was about a sex addict.
At the same time films like The Expendables were being released with R ratings, even though they showed violence on a massive scale with multiple deaths and bloody acts. It just does not seem fair to me. That is why if you were to eliminate NC-17 and replace it with a R-17 rating, you could take both of these films and rate them the same. That would prevent the negative connotations of an NC-17 hurting a well made film like Shame from being released widely, but also hold violent films accountable as well.
So in summation, you need to revamp the lower half of the ratings. Eliminate NC-17 and R, then replace them with R-15 and R-17. You need to open things up a bit on the perimeters of what is inappropriate from a sexual standpoint while also tightening up the perimeters when it comes to violence in films. Now I know I do not get into particulars as to how they will do either the loosening or tightening as it were as that could be a separate post in itself. With that said, the time for change is now for the MPAA. I have faith they will do what is necessary to bring them more in line with where we are as a culture in 2012 and keep the regulation of films in the hands of those responsible for making them and not government bureaucrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment