Here's my review, very shocking documentary..
-
almighty_cinder — 15 years ago(November 30, 2010 01:01 PM)
"this leads to director not making enough money to keep being a filmmaker"
Right, and this is the MPAA's fault?
Also, your arguement about NC-17 being only a suggestion is invalid. The only reason it's even legal to make movies with bad content is because it's regulated by the MPAA. Before the MPAA, it was fully illegal to even swear in a movie. Do you know how much fighting they had to do to get the line "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn" in Gone With the Wind? And that was only "damn"! If we did not have a group rating the movies, the government would do it for them and they would not simply give 'suggestions' about content, they would edit it out themselves and release it the way THEY feel it should be released.
.
"Fine. You want to eat? Let's see if you can eat PIZZA!!!" -
remerkwehttam — 15 years ago(January 02, 2011 01:42 PM)
But, why is it a secret group of people? As this film clearly exposes, the group of parent raters is mostly made up of people with kids in their 20s and some didn't even have kids at all! We are the ONLY country in the world with a secret group rating the movies. An NC-17 movie rating is a bad thing. Those movies are geared at a specific audience. It's unfortunate that if they get that rating from the MPAA, they really can't do much with their film.
-
luisdanielblandon — 15 years ago(January 14, 2011 12:52 AM)
The MPAA being the reason we got more freedoms in film is only the truth because thats how it panned out. You look at a movie like Deep Throat and the controversy surrounding that and you don't see an MPAA white knight protecting their rights, you see a bunch of regular ass people fighting for themselves. I wouldn't watch the film in a theatre (not into sticky seats) but the point of the matter is NOTHING should have a stigma like the NC-17 rating attached to it!
Also to the OP, I don't know if you only saw this documentary and never did any homework after this, but the ability to cite precedent has been in use by the MPAA since 2007 (in part because of this documentary). -
iddhipada — 15 years ago(January 09, 2011 09:23 PM)
NC-17 limits a film's commercial value. If these so-called artists actually were only concerned with their art, they wouldn't give a damn how much their movie makes. The studio gave them money to make their movie, and they made it. Their part is over. How much it makes is the studio's problem now.
That statement is a bit misdirected. To make money, studios force film makers to nip and tuck their vision and drop the NC-17 rating. Yes, they made their money. No, continuing distribution does not concern only the studios. If you make a masterpiece, get paid, then watch it sent out to the public as a washed-out corporate prize, wouldn't you be offended?
At risk of sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, the only way for a director or writer to get on film what they truly intended (if it's in the realms of "NC-17") is to produce independently. Often, that's not satisfactory enough, because the "so-called artists" want their work seen by as many people as possible (within their target audiences). It's a catch-22 situation: either chop up your work or no one sees it. -
kidjay83 — 13 years ago(September 18, 2012 12:10 PM)
" He does not submit his movies to the MPAA because he fully doesn't care if the general public can see them at their local multiplex, because that's not what art is about" Finally someone who get's it excellent point my hat's off to you sir.
In Europe an actor is an artist. In Hollywood, if he isn't working, he's a bum. -
Sundance-A-Kid — 12 years ago(December 14, 2013 01:34 PM)
NC-17 limits a film's commercial value. If these so-called artists actually were only concerned with their art, they wouldn't give a damn how much their movie makes. The studio gave them money to make their movie, and they made it. Their part is over. How much it makes is the studio's problem now.
This shows a complete lack of knowledge of how the industry works. The point was that independent films have a far greater task in getting favourable ratings as the MPAA serves the studios so their films don't face this problem as much. And if they do this is of great concern to the filmmaker regardless. In order to continue being an 'artist', so to speak, then it is tantamount that his/her films do well as any future money will come based on previous box office figures. What the documentary shows is that these ratings are sometimes very inconsistent - particularly for independent cinema - where it is even more important that the films get some kind of return as they don't have the safety of the financially powerful studio system to swallow up any losses. The point being made was not about films that have obvious NC-17 ratings but those independent films that probably didn't deserve it. Then that studio films with very similar and sometimes more extreme scenes were passed as R-rated. It was the favouritism that was being highlighted in this case.
More generally though, the independent films issue aside, there is a system of ratings in the US that is inextricably linked to box office, success and therefore exposure and this can directly harm the future of a film and therefore the future of a potential 'artist'. It is not the studio's problem, actually - it's the filmmakers problem. The studio will not rise or fall on one film's rating, but a filmmaker's career might. The studio can decide that the filmmakers future is limited because their film didn't succeed. They care about a million here and there that is lost by the NC-17 rating and this reflects back on the filmmaker (and probably the exec who greenlit the project, but you can just hire another one).
Anyone who believes it is possible to make films without financial incentive is naive concerning what it takes to be an 'artist' in the film industry. -
Misanthwopical_Bweed — 15 years ago(January 30, 2011 10:42 PM)
what is terrifiying is the secrecy
this is like kafka-eaque
secret tribunals deciding your fate
and you have no rebuttal
and it is censorship
"The US was founded by a group of slaveowners who told us all men are created equal." -
ExcessiveMilkDrinker — 14 years ago(August 10, 2011 03:19 PM)
If you think that's what people are referring to as "terrifying", then you either didn't watch this documentary, or completely misunderstood every single point made in it. I hope for your sake it's the prior, in which case you shouldn't be commenting on this film until you see it.
The problem isn't that they rate movies. The problem is that they can hugely affect the distribution opportunities of movies they dislike by giving them an NC-17 rating, which is based on no specific criteria at all, so that they can impose their "moral code" at will on all Hollywood movies, and with a system in which past examples cannot be used for comparison. This basically forces filmmakers to cut any material the MPAA doesn't like from their films, or else just release their film to a couple arthouse theatres, generate no revenue, and endanger their career. Not to mention that the raters operate secretly to avoid accountability, and contradict most of their own guidelines.
There's also the bias towards studio films over independent films. One filmmaker said that when he submitted a film independently, the MPAA gave zero feedback on what he had to cut to get an R rating and said he simply had to submit a re-cut version and hope it would be good enough, leaving him at risk of also cutting shots he didn't need to cut. However later on he submitted a film through a studio, and they told him exactly which shots he had to cut to get an R rating.
It's also funny how their "moral values" come down so hard on homosexuality and movies that show loving, sexual relationships, yet movies that glorify brutal violence get away relatively easy. I wonder which would be more harmful for teenagers to see -
Uber_Soldat — 14 years ago(May 10, 2011 03:51 AM)
The filmmaker and the interviewees are just as biased and pro-censorship as the MPAA, even though they're trying to come off like they're against the whole system altogether.
The idea put forward by the movie is that explicit gay anal sex is perfectly fine for PG-13 movies, but a movie should be branded with an NC-17 if a woman gets slapped or the movie is pro-military.
They're not really against censorship, they're just against censorship by their political opponents. They're not against our culture being controlled, they just feel like people with their values should be the MPAA controlling it. -
gregforttmags — 13 years ago(September 25, 2012 06:08 AM)
The documentary kinda of shoots itself in the foot a bit by suggesting media violence motivates stuff like Columbine and other horrible spree killings and the MPAA has been a lesser evil compared to earlier US Conservative attempts to hamstring Hollywood. However this documentary is great at highlighting the hypocrisy of the MPAA (the aversion to homesexuality but the toleration of women being maimed or raped), the MPAA institution itself being in a secure compound guarded by intimidating bouncers, the MPAA members kept unknown to the public, the MPAA being heavily influenced by big business and relgious pressure groups, and the genuinely disconcerting influence the US Military has had on Hollywood (the creators behind Independence Day had a big falling out with the US Military when they featured Area 51).
-
almighty_cinder — 13 years ago(March 09, 2013 12:03 AM)
The military being involved in movie productions usually is limited to loaning the production their planes, tanks and helicopters. Unless a filmmaker wants to buy a 40 year old derelict tank and only show it from a distance because of how crappy it looks, they need to cooperate with the military. Independence Day had jets featured very prominently and using a bunch of 1960's scrap heap jets would not have worked out well at all. They NEEDED military assistance, but (and this is just a guess, I'm not aware of the backstory) neglected to inform the military of the entire plot of the movie, that something the government is adamant about not existing was a major plot point.
For a recent example of a filmmaker doing this right, Transformers used the Hoover Dam as a secret military facility. It has nowhere near the stigma that Area 51 has, so the military would've taken no issue with it being featured. Due to this, the later two Transformer movies also feature military vehicles used prominently.
.
"Fine. You want to eat? Let's see if you can eat PIZZA!!!"