Um, no.

In the UK in particular, the movie ratings system is a joke: even PG-13 movies get cut because they include a head-butt or something equally tame, and many movies (e.g. 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and 'Straw Dogs') were banned for decades: one consequence of this is that there are a number of major movies which have commentary tracks on the US DVD but not on the UK DVD as they won't sync up to the cut version of the movie. As a result, many of us buy DVDs from abroad to get the uncut version.

The stupidest thing is that the courts recently decided that Customs are allowed to seize imported DVDs that they take a dislike to, even if the same DVD would be perfectly legal to own in this country. It's absurd.

To make it even worse, the whole video censorship system was introduced as an attention-grabbing measure by a politician who was then voted out at the next election. So he didn't even benefit from his 'five minutes of fame', but we've had to live with the consequences for decades now.

As for America, Lloyd Kaufman from Troma has complained repeatedly that the MPAA force cuts to his movies for things that would pass them without comment if it was in the latest Hollywood blockbuster.

That's not to say that movies should be allowed to include anything they want, but no-one should be forced to submit their movies to censors before they're released. No-one has to do that for books anymore, so why should it apply to movies?

I could be wrong but I don't think the US govenrment is involved in movie ratings at all. The ratings baord was developed as an indpendent entity. Thye have a lot of power, and a lot of folks in Hollywood don't like them, but they are not a government deal.

Personally I don't think anyone really wants the government involved. Occasionally they pimp for the press to get more money or headlines but nobody really follows up.

The government is involved in TV and radio however. Unless you are pro-government censorship your story is in TV and radio.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

You aren?t wrong, rj. The US government isn?t involved in the MPAA. Mark makes an excellent example of why the government shouldn't be involved. No one in the government should decide what an adult can watch. They cannot possibly make a better decision for me than I can.

The MPAA doesn?t actually force cuts on anyone. It?s a very fine line, but essentially they decide what rating a movie will get and if the producer is contracted to deliver an ?R? rating, it?s not the MPAA that forces the cutting.

And here in the States no one is forced to submit their movie to the ratings board. Another fine line, but a movie can be released without a rating at all. Few are, because marketing is difficult, but no one is forced.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sarbow

Should the government have more control in this area?

---

No. The less goverment intrudes in my life, the happier I am.

Welcome to the boards, sarbow!

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

I could be wrong but I don't think the US govenrment is involved in movie ratings at all.

---

The ratings board was created because the US government was threatening to censor movies by law. So it's a distinction that makes no difference.

If the movie companies had had any balls they'd have told the government to 'bring it on', and then had the censorship thrown out under the First Amendment. Instead they 'voluntarily' imposed a system which harms movie-makers to this day.

Fortunately, as you and others have pointed out, it's less and less relevant in America as people abandon theatrical releases for DVDs, which are often released unrated. Interestingly we've even had a few cases (e.g. 'American Psycho') where movies were significantly cut for theatrical release in America but uncut here in the UK.

With respect to your opinion, Mark, it?s a distinction that makes a big difference. The movie companies aren?t in the business of having balls, they are in the business of creating movies that generate a profit. If a PG-13 or R rated film makes more than an unrated or NC-17 film, they will insist the filmmakers deliver a product they can market. They aren?t always correct. But then no human is. The important distinction (for me) is that the government isn?t making these decisions - the government is a threat, but they aren?t making the decisions.

Many individual filmmakers and distributors have ignored the MPAA and released movies unrated. The government does nothing about it. To me, that?s an important distinction. And the government here in the States doesn?t seize DVD?s that are legal to own despite the content. Another distinction I find very important.

I have no problem with self imposed guidelines on a product made available to the public. Many movies are cut to fit a certain running time. That running time is more profitable for the exhibitors. Some call this censorship.

This is a business where the art must meet business more than half way. Fortunately, on the independent scene and (as you point out) in the home video market the creative side can win over the business side. And the government has nothing to say in the matter.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

Personally I think the Movies should adopt the ratings used by video games because haveing two sets of ratings is stupid and the video game ratings actually make a distinction between violence and nudity that the movie ratings don't really manage.

I also think the movie maker should be able to submit their suggested rating with examples and that rating should have significant weight.

Even a single deciding panel would be better than the way the system works now where you can submit the exact same thing twice and get two different ratings depending upon who ends up getting the assignment.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA