Promontorium — 12 years ago(August 04, 2013 01:29 AM)

Not a knock on the movie, it hit its mark. But the topic brings up other issues that weren't even hinted at in the film.
The first is the elimination for the necessity of the ratings for many films, particularly independent ones. There are no ratings on the internet. Much of our media is going to the internet. Netflix is releasing successful online only television. A Netflix show could literally show anything not illegal, it could be hardcore porn and graphic murder while everyone swears and women moan in orgasm from beginning to end and nobody could shut them down. This is a significant development.
Even before the internet was doing the dirty work, despite what Waters said, many movies were exploiting the market of "Unrated version"s of films. While Wal Mart might not hold them, plenty of other locations did. So you could get the unfiltered, de-MPAA'd version. Movie stores are going away, but films are heading to the internet, where the porn section doesn't even have a curtain around it.
Of course theater bucks are big money. And I love seeing films in the theaters so this isn't a cure-all.
A second issue is the actual data. The film is entirely from a few biased perspectives. The film is about the MPAA, the MPAA applies to films people see in theaters. Was a single theater goer interviewed? You got the whiny artist who wants to shove her pubic hair at you, and you have the totalitarian douche confirming the corporatism in the system where the line is blurred between government and corporation. The closest thing you have to an unbiased voice in the film is the private eye. But statistics would have spoken even louder. Show some real data that shows how similar films can be made or broken by their ratings in theaters.
A third issue was only brought up briefly, and brilliantly by Matt Stone. He mentioned when you poll people they say the ratings help. But if you offered them a better alternative they might take it. What the film doesn't explore is this hypothetical alternative.
The MPAA only has as much power as the industry gives it. They made a good point in this film that it is the last bit of censorship. The government isn't even involved.
The government is involved in telling you what light bulbs you can buy. But they don't say what films you can show your 3 year old. Why was there no exploration of an alternative. If no one had ever tried it before, mention that. If someone had, how did it go?
Another poster here pointed out something that I also noticed in the film. I have no problem with the MPAA, or even their ratings system. It's an independent group. You make a porn, deal with the NC-17 rating. Don't act surprised. Sure there are plenty of mistakes. Because they are a terrible monopoly and no one holds them accountable. But that doesn't mean this issue is their fault. The problem has several steps.

1. The studios working together to shut down films they don't like.
2. The studios working with the MPAA.
3. The theaters working with the MPAA.
   Independent film makers have found ways entirely around the studios to produce their product, but distribution is still a killer.
   If for example theaters would show NC-17 films and the media would allow advertising of NC-17 films, then most of this MPAA issue would be negated. It's true that the current system, with the NC-17 rating is a de facto form of censorship.
   As anti-intellectual and anti-art as the studios are, they still ultimately want to make a profit. And when we're talking about mass theater distribution, you are invariably talking about profit. If you don't want to talk about profit, go to the independent film theater, go online, or shut up because it's irrelevant to the main focus. If a film is otherwise profitable but is being shut down due to a rating or a refusal to distribute, then there's a real problem and a real solution.
   Enough big money people in the business of making films need to get together and fund an alternative to the MPAA. Shop the idea around to the theaters. Find what they want for a profitable ratings system that would work. Establish the alternative, start giving alternative ratings to films. Get theaters to use your alternative ratings, have them side by side, or stand alone. Let the market decide. If the ratings system is as good or better than the current one, nobody buying tickets will be complaining. If the ratings system works better for film makers, they'll start using it. Eventually can favor the one they like. If the competing system beats the MPAA, the MPAA will fade into obscurity. You can't tell me it won't work if nobody has tried it. The easiest way to do it would be to start working around the edges and let it drip into commonality. Specialty theaters, get IMAX to join in, things like that. It's not like the MPAA has oil, guns, or capital. They have nothing to bribe the rest of the industry with. They exist out of necessity and lack of competition.