« Indie Theater Plays Grindhouse 8 Blocks From The Clinton | Main | Quotes of the Day »
April 09, 2007
Question Of The Day - The Hard R?
Just ran into this online when checking out some nasty YouTube comment about what an idiot I am for not loving Grindhouse like my first born.
The issue of Grindhouse and the MPAA is already dated. But I'd be interested in your notions of whether a Hard R or any more restrictive rating than an R from the MPAA wil ever work?
And does MPAA "censorship" change your perception of a movie before you see it?
Posted by poland at April 9, 2007 04:27 PM
Comments
All I know is, if the MPAA has a problem with the movie it immediately makes me want to go see it. Even Captivity I will probably try to sneak into after paying for another movie.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at April 9, 2007 04:34 PM
Kirby Dick chose the wrong target: the problem has never been the MPAA.
If you want a true villain here, go after the newspapers who won't run ads for NC-17. Go after the Blockbusters and Wal-Marts that won't carry them. Go after the theater chains that won't show them.
An NC-17 is appropriate in many cases. I don't see any justification for a 16-year-old to be able to see Showgirls, to see the director's cut of Natural Born Killers, to see Henry & June. Hell, the NC-17 rating should be used more liberally. Can you really argue for a 16-year-old to be able to see Saw III or Hostel?
Hell, if the kids really have to see them, let their parents rent it. At least it will keep the theaters annoying teenager-free.
Posted by: Josh Massey
at April 9, 2007 05:30 PM
I kept waiting for Olivia Munn to show up and all I get is Chris Gore and DP. :(
I disagree with the notion that people don't see films theatrically that have been tampered with by the MPAA. For the select few films I'm really excited about I'll still go but if I'm on the fence about a film I *never* end up seeing it in the theaters. I always wait for the soon to come "unrated" DVD.
Posted by: Krazy Eyes
at April 10, 2007 06:22 AM
The zoning in most cities prohibit the showing of NC-17 films. Most theaters don't have the option of showing NC-17 films.
Posted by: tfresca
at April 10, 2007 07:28 AM
More often than not, if I hear the MPAA has a problem with a film I consider the source first.
9 times out of 10, if it is some director or studio claiming to be 'censored', I figure they are just trying to drum up canned controversy and it actually lessens my interest in the film.
I think the whole 'unrated' tag on videos is used far more as an exploitation gimmick now, then anything meaningful.
In the end, the MPAA on its own has little effect on my desire to see a film or not. I am far more concerned with artists and filmmakers self- censoring for issues of political correctness than I am of the MPAA.
Posted by: Nicol D
at April 10, 2007 10:23 AM
And when does that happen?
Posted by: jeffmcm
at April 10, 2007 10:49 AM
JeffMCN...
Never. Absolutely, unequivocally, never.
Any subject matter would be considered equally for production by any studio so long as it was brought through the proper channels. No subject matter or purpose of intent would ever be filtered out and every filmmaker will use the subject matter of the world as an artist would use the colors on a palette, just as the colors on a rainbow. There is no intimidation, no fear of reprisals and everyone lives in one harmonious land of intellectual freedom and joy. No subject matter is considered more desirable than others and all choices are made only with the utmost objectives of economics and entertainment.
...with a cherry on top.
Do you really believe that on principal, Jeff?
If you do, you know nothing of the history of art or Hollywood.
Posted by: Nicol D
at April 10, 2007 11:17 AM
So no examples, then.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at April 10, 2007 11:25 AM
And I really am amused at how stupid you really seem to think I am. Of course I know that ideas are trampled all the time. But I'm not going to blame 'PC' because that's just a code word you're using to mask your real objections.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at April 10, 2007 11:29 AM
If I thought for one minute you wanted a discussion I would Jeff, but you don't, you want a pissing match.
I'll give an example, and then you will deliberatey take the example out of context to mount a personal attack and say what a real nasty guy I am revealed to be.
Don't have the energy for that today.
Besides, if I really have to give an example, you haven't been reading my posts here since I started and you know nothing of Hollywood history.
Posted by: Nicol D
at April 10, 2007 11:30 AM
Well, you've never been interested in discussion either, so let's call it a day and huddle in our separate corners. Too bad, really.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at April 10, 2007 11:36 AM
MPAA is a necessary evil. Could it be better run? Of course. But without it, the movie biz is inviting official government censorship, which is a very bad move. The compromise worked out years ago - the reasons for doing it still stand.
Posted by: The Carpetmuncher
at April 10, 2007 03:44 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)