There's no question in my mind that both ends of the political spectrum are very well aware of the power of film to shape the viewer's perception. In fact, I'd have to say that only a fool would deny that that power exists. The key question revolves around who controls that power, and what should be done to temper that control.

Yes.

The operative word there is "can". If you are a creator of art or entertainment, or even just an average workaday shmoe, freedom can be measured by what you're able to say or do without running afoul of a self-styled authority over what expressions are okay and what ones are not. Make no mistake--even if the MPAA's guidelines are ostensibly voluntary, they are censorship.

That's not to say that we should wield images and words like blunt instruments without regard for our situation, but it does mean that the decision must come from ourselves.


In some ways, I agree, and in some ways, I don't. Media saturation has gone up. Entertainment and "infotainment" go along with that, and they thrive on conflict. The narrative we're being sold is far more crass and oppositional than is necessarily reflected in reality.

That said, we seem to be slowly chipping away at certain forms of intolerance. I generally don't prefer to see ideas in our media that reinforce oppression based on race, sex, orientation, etc.

Btw, in regards to filmmakers who deliberately insert "risque" material into their films in order to bump up the rating, I trust we all remember the infamous "penis breath" line in "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial," designed to avoid the dreaded "G" rating, as well as the heart-ripping sequence in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," which secured a ticket sales-enhancing "PG13" for Spielberg's sequel to the "PG" rated "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was rated PG. At the time, there was no PG-13, though the movie did play a role in the subsequent institution of the PG-13.

Don't forget the gremlin exploding in the microwave in "Gremlins," which was the other strong contributor to the creation of the PG-13 rating.

I also once heard that George Lucas ended up adding the charred corpses of Owen and Beru to "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope" to avoid getting a G rating. And in "Lost Ark," Steven Spielberg added the flames that consume Belloq prior to when he explodes to avoid an R rating.

During it's theatrical release, STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE was rated G. When the Director's Cut (which added nothing substantial ratings-wise) was submitted to the MPAA, it got a PG for "language." (I think there's a "damn" in there somewhere.) Consistency is a wonderful thing.

I'm sorry, your brilliant counterargument has eluded my grasp. Please enlighten me.

You can't deny there's a little something-something to Ragnarok's theory. It isn't necessarily that there's an overarching conspiracy. It's simply that the owners of the most resources tend to manipulate our narrative (obviously, it is within the spread of their influence to do so) such that our ideas serve their interests. It's systemic. Authorities don't need to bully you into complying if they can convince you that it's a good idea to do it voluntarily.

A country that's as young and full of piss 'n' vinegar as ours needs to make violence okay, for various reasons. One of them is being able to stomach our own history. Another is being able to compartmentalize a thing like war as being a different kind of violence than getting mugged on the way to 7-11. I'm sure there are many others.

Of course, sex is an easy means of control and pacification. Sexual imagery has the power to titillate one second and shame the next, provided there is a sufficient ideological framework already in place that says that sex is bad, forbidden, and naughty.

Right on the money. Take some personal responsibility people!



See this is where you're wrong. This is a documentary, which means that the kids are not reading from scripts and talking how they really talk in real life (I'm assuming this since I haven't seen the movie yet, and I highly doubt that a movie about bullying would have swearing talking heads). There was more swearing in a middle school hallway than there was in Pulp Fiction. Don't believe me? Have some kids (not you...kids clean their mouths around adults) take a tape recorder and listen.

My point is that if you want this movie to have any sort of effect is that they have to believe it's real. Bleeping it out or fogging it up does two things: it jerks the viewer out of the moment, and makes it laughably obvious that the movie is neutered. There's no better way to get a kid to stop taking a movie seriously than to preach. And quite honestly, kids will be able to guess what is being said, which defeats the purpose entirely.



You have a point there. But which is better? Hearing a kid swear or letting them have the chance to see a movie that may save lives? And if you can give me a compelling reason why swear words are really that bad, I'd love to hear them. Quite frankly, they're just words like and or the. They are "bad" words because we label them as "bad" words. If we stop caring about how "bad" they are, kids won't use them as much (it's the old "teenage rebellion"). And like it or not, profanity does have a use. It adds emphasis to a statement.

All phone numbers that use the '555' prefix also jerk me out of the moment.

I think now is a decent time to trot out my proposal for a revised and better ratings system. It may not be perfect, but it is most definitely better.

G: Suitable for General Audiences. This is exactly what it means. This is not a kids' rating; the film is suitable for a general audience so far as content goes. Films that would fall under this rating include The Artist, Hugo, Moneyball, The King's Speech, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, Avatar, Up, Slumdog Millionaire, Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen, and Lord Of The Rings.

PG: Parental Guidance Suggested. Again, exactly what it means. Parental guidance is suggested with younger children with the content of films given this rating. Films that would fall under this rating include Mystic River, Traffic, Fargo, Schindler's List, Unforgiven, The Silence of the Lambs, and Born on the Fourth of July.

R15: Recommended for patrons 15 and older. Just what it means again. Films in this category would have stronger content than those in the previous two, and would be geared to (but not restricted to) those 15 and older. Films that would fall under this rating include Saving Private Ryan, Goodfellas, Platoon, Raging Bull, Pulp Fiction, Gangs Of New York, Inglourious Basterds, The Hangover Part II, Bad Boys II, and Borat.

A: Adults Only. Films that are intended for adults only, obviously. Films that would fall under this rating would include The Passion of the Christ, Hostel, the Saw sequels, 9 Songs, Antichrist, and Crash.

Not perfect, obviously, But it's better. I think that having fewer ratings, laying out what they mean, and sticking to them wipes out a lot of the grey areas.

I don't think a new rating system is the solution. Given time, the categories will drift and we'll be in the same jam all over again.

I think it's time to dissolve the rating system altogether. Information about new titles is no longer scarce. It's extremely easy for parents to be informed about the content of movies. If a need arises, independent organizations can develop their own systems and market themselves on the web--in fact, some have already. There is simply no longer a need for a centralized authority that has direct ties to the movie industry, except where the industry itself is concerned. The ratings, as they are now, only serve to manipulate what gets released and where.

I remember a few years ago, there was talk of the R rating getting split into two ratings, SR(soft R) and HR(Hard R), the former would be for films that had foul language, mild violence, and some sexuality/nudity, the latter would be for films with extremely gratuitous violence and/or sexuality like the Saw and Hostel films. Presumably younger kids would be allowed to see SR films without having to be accompanied by a parent, and HR would recquire identification.

PG for Silence Of The Lambs? I'm all for a more relaxed rating system, but Lambs is one film that I would definitely want to restrict kids from seeing, that film is WAAAYYYY TOO graphic for most parents to even THINK about letting their kids see it, it should definitely be included in the same category as Hostel and Saw, Lambs might have a an A-list cast, but the content is very similar, (Schindler's List I MIGHT give a pass on if it's being used as part of a history class in school, my junior high class watched The Patriot as part of a history lesson) most kids aren't going to "get" a film like Lambs anyways, you ask kids what movies are their favorites, I highly doubt a film about a serial killer is going to be very high on the list. Also how is Lambs more appropriate for kids then Raging Bull or Schindler's List more appropriate then Saving Private Ryan? That dosen't make any sense.

I would propose a system more like the ESRB for movies.

I've always hated the NC-17 rating because it takes the power away from the parents. I believe it should be up to parents whether their children should be allowed to see a movie or not but the NC-17 rating means no children under 17 even with parents. Very few movies actually receive the NC-17 rating but that's not the point. It's the idea that the MPAA is overriding parents that I don't like.

Keep in mind my meaning behind the PG: Parental Guidance Suggested. That's exactly what it means; parents should use their discretion with those films. It's not a kids' rating.

As a side thought, Silence is nowhere near on the level of Hostel or Saw; it's a much less violent and gory film, and many of the most disturbing elements of the story are implied, not explicitly shown.

Now, to answer your other question: My reasoning behind an R for Saving Private Ryan is pretty simple. It's a well-made film, but very graphically violent. Extremely violent; much more violent than Silence. Raging Bull, on the other hand, is one that I would be inclined to go one way or the other, but what would tip me toward the R is the fact that Jake LaMotta abuses his wife in the film.

When discussing issues of censorship, it always helps to first understand the subtle but important distinction between 'naked' and 'nude'

It is rather strange that violence is given less restriction than sex in movies but it also explains a great deal. We are collectively violent people, to extreamly varying degrees.

This also explains why I had the shit kicked out of me before I ever got laid :/

I personally don't oppose the basic idea behind censorship, since there is a time and a place for certain content at a given age. However we shouldn't kid ourselves that the two big opposing agendas here are both out for one-upmanship. Until THAT changes, the problem will never be solved.



The original trilogy has always been U certified in the UK (Universal, suitable for all) even with the corpses, and the many other instances of violence that seem to have been given a free pass.

I don't really care about this subject that much but come on, Slumdog Millionaire as "Suitable for General Audiences?" Kids are intentionally blinded by oil so that they can make better beggars. A girl is forced to live with an abusive guy because she has no other options. A mother is killed in a slum riot. And isn't the brother shot to death in cold blood? Among other things. Don't get me wrong, Slumdog is a great movie but it definitely requires parental guidance.

Jim wrote a well-reasoned and thoughtful article, but now more than ever aren't ratings irrelevant because I don't know any theaters that enforce them anyway. In my local AMC local theaterplex there is sometimes not even a ticket-taker, let alone someone monitoring who is going into what theater. I remember in my tweens (I am 47) having to sneak into an R rated movie at a twin theater with an usher nearby and that was a little risky, but back then I would've killed for the freedom of today's multiplexes.

"Shoot bitch, democracy's at stake!"