This Film Has Been Rated Low In Tar
Like the old song goes, “Smoke gets in your eyes.”
It seems the MPAA is taking that quite literally. Recently, they decided to include on-screen depictions of smoking as one of the criteria that can earn a film an “R” rating.
I’ll take a somewhat unpopular (among Hollywood types) view on this.
I think it’s a good idea.
Naturally, most smoking in movies occurs as a general reflection of the fact of smoking itself. Smoking, like driving, is a part of visible life. However, movies have made something of a fetish of smoking for a few additional reasons. Actors are often looking for “business,” that catch-all word to describe hands-on activities that take the burden of undue focus off their dialogue.
Smoking is a great bit of business. Watch Bogie roll his own cig, then light it up in The Maltese Falcon. Great business.
And the reward?
The smoke itself.
Cigarette smoke is Hollywood’s cheapest special effect. It curls around the actor’s face. It lights beautifully. The simple act of taking a drag can shorthand misery, suspicion, anger…
Smoking is a great window to the soul, as visually informative as a smile or a tear. The way the actor exhales, the way they stub the cigarette out, the ritual of the “light,” the snap of a Zippo, the flick of the butt…
It’s all wonderful.
I don’t care what anyone says. Smoking DOES make you look cool, and movies make the already cool act of smoking even cooler-looking.
The one-sheet for Chinatown, which you see above, was illustrated by a friend of my named Jim Pearsall. It’s my favorite movie poster of all time, and that’s in no small part because Jim nailed the noirish essence of smoke. Jake Gittes is a man’s man, a tough private dick whose oxygen is the very stuff of smoggy L.A. And Evelyn Mulwray is a vision, a bit of smoke curling in the air. Beautiful, seductive…and then gone. Disappearing into the Chinatown air.
It’s movies like these that made me want to smoke. Yes, I’m actually someone who can safely say with 100% surety that I started smoking because of the way movies made smoking look. So did Jim Pearsall. In fact, that’s how Jim and I met. We were two smokers working at an ad agency in 1992. I’d stand outside sucking down my Marlboro Menthols (I know, I know…), and he’d rip the filters off his Carltons and tell me stories about old Hollywood.
Two years later, he was dead. Cancer, naturally.
The week before I got married, I quit smoking. I quit cold turkey, and I haven’t had a cigarette since 1996.
Still, is this a moral crusade we need?
Here’s my basic view of the MPAA and their ratings system. I don’t always agree with it. I know that I’ve personally had my share of issues with the MPAA on every movie I’ve done, and I have no doubt I’m in for plenty more. However, the MPAA ratings system is not censorship. The MPAA ratings system is designed to help parents figure out whether or not a movie is appropriate for their children. Simple as that.
We can argue about whether or not it does that well (although most parents apparently seem to think it does). I do know that every time I’ve gone in to recut a scene in order to avoid an R rating, I did so not under the threat of censorship, but out of a personal concern for my own bottom line. In other words…greed. I wanted a PG-13 so that the film would be seen by a wider audience, and I made the personal choice to sacrifice some moments in order to get that rating.
Even the dreaded NC-17 isn’t censorship. It’s just a rating. As an aside, however, I do believe that newspapers that refuse to run ads for NC-17 films and theaters that refuse to exhibit those movies are way out of line, and I think the MPAA should make a concerted effort to kill that practice…at least with the major newspaper and exhibitor chains.
Anyway…the operative question is simply this: do parents want their unaccompanied children to see a movie that glamorizes smoking? And yes, the ratings board seems pretty specific about the glamorization aspect. Context counts.
I’ll be honest. I don’t want my children to have that option. I was able to quit smoking, but I’m sure damage was done. It’s a risk I’d rather not leave to my children and the film industry to take together. I want to be a part of that decision. I’m not supporting the nanny state, nor am I attempting to legislate morality. An R rating doesn’t mean the film is evil, or it’s taboo, or it’s sinful or it’s shameful. It means that it includes certain content that parents should have the right to decide whether or not their children see.
I don’t agree with many of the criteria for R ratings (and I think there’s too much violence permitted in PG and PG-13 films), but I agree with the MPAA on this one. After all, I wasn’t just being an idiot when I decided to smoke.
I was being a 16 year-old idiot who had seen a lot of movies.
I accept responsibility for my choice as a child. As a parent, I’d like to accept responsiblity for the choice as well. The MPAA gave me one. I think that’s a good thing.
As much as I despise cigarette smoking, I have to agree that it’s really not the business of the MPAA to label movies based on smoking content. But, then I don’t think anything the MPAA does is very ethical. If they can do this, I can easily imagine them rating films in the future for showing gasoline driven vehicles. After all, auto exhaust pollution is at least as dangerous to society as smoking. The recent film, This Film Is Not Yet Rated, was very enlightening on what the MPAA does and it ain’t pretty.
Meanwhile, as I’m reading your post, I’m watching Thank You for Smoking, another great film on a modern issue, this issue. In fact a major point of discussion in the film is the idea of Hollywood actors smoking, a potential boost for the tobacco industry; but, one that has become very much out of favor, regardless of anything the MPAA does. You see little smoking in films these days, and certainly never in relation to sex or as a reinforcement of sexuality. Quite the opposite, smoking more often is a bad guy’s habit, a mark of nervousness or a sign that something wrong with the character.
So, here we are discussing the issue of smoking on film, while also discussing the idea of smoking. We can be very much against censorship, which is effectively what the MPAA does, while also being very much against the smoking habit. But, The later issue is a personal choice and I agree it should remain that way. Our society in recent years has become much too involved in peoples’ personal business. With the advent of computers and the information age, we can hardly do anything in our lives without someone potentially tracking us through our bank account, and even our cell phone. But, that’s another issue. It’s important to take a stand against this erosion of personal liberty, freedom, and privacy.
I’m sorry, but how does the fact of an “R” rating erode your personal liberty, freedom and privacy?
If you’re over 17, an “R” rating has zero effect on your life. Zero.
I think it’s somewhat rather silly. I don’t have anything against it - I don’t even really care, really, sincemy country has a wholy different ratings system with no relation to the MPAA.
But I find it very silly.
See, when I think of the MPAA, I think of this picture: http://orage.mjp.brown.edu/mjp/images/Bundy/Puritans.jpg And the image of all those folks gasp in horror when presenting them with a picture of some guy smoking on TV is, well, very silly.
It’s all just silly.
One of Arthur C. Clarke’s futuristic novels, The Ghost from the Grand Banks, has characters busy digitally removing smoking from old films. It’s quite an interesting little novelty.
Personally, I have no problem with the new ratings criteria. This will challenge screenwriters to tie smoking more to a film’s content, rather than using it to take a simple stab at glamor. I just hope no one ever does try to erase smoking from classic films. Especially anything with Bogey.
The most surprising thing to me is that this would be an unpopular view among Hollywood types. I thought L.A. was at the helm of the anti-smoking movement.
i’m from belgium, a country where you can drink beers, smoke cigarets and do other dirty things at any age. you’re speaking about “nanny state”, and that’s exactly what it is: not letting the freedom for children to see “bad” things… and mpaa forgets the role of the parents: i’ve seen many wars on TV, in the papers, and i’m not a aggressive warroir. i’ve seen many people smoke, drink, and do drugs since i’m very young, but i have a very healty life… why? because my parents do their job: the taught me “that is good, that is not good”. and that’s not the role of mpaa nor the “nanny state”.
freedom of speech is nothing without freedom of actually earing what is said and viewing what is shown!
i don’t want to wait 17 years to see “casablanca”!
ps: excuse my english, i’m a french speaking person.
Good for you, Craig! I also have a friend who died from lung cancer, in her case due to second-hand smoke. She worked for the police department in Hong Kong for eleven years, and those cool cops smoked plenty. How many great actors have we lost to their favorite “business”? The best Sherlock Holmes, Jeremy Brett, asked for smoking to be added to scripts. He was at or above six packs a day. Death from heart failure was certainly no surprise.
And isn’t smoking the least creative and imaginative business writers can give to actors? It’s a cliche. Swear off smoking in your scripts and you find a real challenge ahead. Come up with something new and the characters immediately become more unique and memorable.
When we created our series NAKED JOSH, we had a discussion about whether the characters would smoke. And they were, for sure, the kinds of people who would smoke. A lot.
We decided not to let them smoke. I didn’t want to be responsible for any kids picking up a cigarette because Eric, who is cool, smokes. (We did do one story where a hot girl tries to get him to start smoking again. He wound up dumping her.)
I also think it’s a crutch. It gets in the way of a good story. Instead of acting, actors wave around a cigarette. Instead of coming up with fresh business, writers stick a cigarette in the actor’s hand. Cigarettes are not only toxic. They’re so last century. If you want a character to have a neurotic quirk, come up with something original.
I’m all for the MPAA narcing on gratuitous smoking onscreen. Considering how little they narc on horrible behavior — driving dangerously, shooting people, punching people — this is a small step in the right direction. I agree with Craig: I don’t want my kids getting hooked on smoking because the cool villain smokes. And if it’s a restriction on creative freedom, I think it’s a mild one that can only encourage true creativity.
RATED R FOR SMOKING - You gotta be friggin’ kidding me?
Think about it this way… Parents who give a damn about what movies their kids watch, are likely to give a damn about keeping them away from cigarettes anyway. So what’s the point?!
The point is more control for the MPAA.
An R rating in most cases (yes, “300” was an exception) means a potential loss in revenue. Ostensibly the MPAA isn’t forcing anyone to compromise their vision. When in fact, they are. The argument - “We’re not telling you what to do, but if you don’t do it you’ll suffer” is one of the oldests tools of facism, along the lines of “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” It’s an order phrased as a choice. And it’s bullshit.
Wonderful poster - being way off topic, what the heck’s with the “quote” marks? “Chinatown”? Is that because it’s in a line in the script, or simply because that’s the way they did it?
I once had the pleasure of being an extra on a movie being filmed in my hometown of Decatur, GA.One of the things that has stayed with me (besides how hot Neve Campbell is in person), was how almost every single member of the cast and crew smoked. I had never though about smoking and had no desire to ever try, but after spending 12+ hours a day for a week around people smoking constantly, I had a physical craving for a cigarette by the end of the week. It had nothing to do with the social pressures and everything to do with the addictive nature of nicotine. So in that sense I support the MPAA- although this is probably the only decision they’ve made that I do support. I would be interested to see how people feel about the rule on a smoker/non-smoker basis, though.
You talk about parents taking responsibility and deciding this and that, but the purpose of the rating is to give parents a heads up on what sort of material a movie contains. Parents can chose to allow a child to watch anything, or they can choose to shield a child from everything. The rating of a movie doesn’t change that. It simply gives parents more information on which to base their judgment.
Can ‘implied’ smoking still get a PG? what if we never actually see the cigarette touch the lips?
Why isn’t the simple act of shooting someone with a gun an automatic R rating?
Now, if they’d give scenes with people talking on cell phones while driving a car an R Rating, I’d be all for it.
I don’t like this, Craig. And I don’t think smoking in movies shouldn’t warrant any kind of rating adjustment.
Nowadays the public is much more educated about cigarette smoke and the anti-smoking adds trump anything you see in movies. Back in olden times, Bogie smoking a cigarette probably had a heavy impact, but now, I don’t think so. Times are differant. And I’m a differant kinda guy. I’m looking to meet some differant kinds’a ladies, too, man. I really am.
“R” rating for smoking is stupid.
To whom it may concern, that second sentance in my first, amazing, paragraph has a typo. I used the word “shouldn’t” instead of “should.”
“Parents can chose to allow a child to watch anything, or they can choose to shield a child from everything. The rating of a movie doesn’t change that.”
You’re right, but what the rating of a movie DOES change is the film’s potential to make money.
And why do parents need more information on which to base their judgment??
Picture this…
Soccor-mom watches the GRINDHOUSE trailer:
“Ah, a new film by the guys who brought us Pulp Fiction and Sin City, let’s see… explosion, explosion, crotch shot, fist fight… explosion, explosion, cleavage, gunfire… explosion, explosion, chick with a machine gun for a leg. Huh… I wonder if little Timmy should watch this… Oh wait, here comes the rating… R, what a bummer.”
Catch my drift?
The whole rating system is bullshit. Watch the (real) GRINDHOUSE trailer. You’ll find it here: http://www.apple.com/trailers/weinstein/grindhouse/ Watched it? Good. Now… Do you really need a RATING at the end of that trailer to reckon it may not be appropriate for the little munchkin tugging on your sleeve?!
Gimme a break.
Ah… well, if you’re not over 17?
Fuck yeah, Craig! In fact, let’s take this to its logical conclusion and make it a law that if you’re under 18, you can’t leave the house without being accompanied by a parent or guardian. Because an unaccompanied teenager wandering the streets could, God help us all, encounter AN ACTUAL LIVE PERSON SMOKING A FUCKING CIGARETTE. And if that evil, evil, smoker looked even slightly “cool” in the act, well…Might as well buy the kid a shovel and tell him to start digging his grave.
While you’re at it, let’s R-rate all movies that contain any kissing, because kissing, as cool as it can look, leads to sex, and sex leads to AIDS, and AIDS kills.
Let’s see…What other potentially fatal acts should we protect movie-going minors from witnessing, despite the fact that anybody can see them in real life, in public, on any given day? Driving, of course…Eating fatty foods…Walking alone…
I got more. Lemme get back to you on that. But either way…Fuck yeah!
Johnny:
All trailers with green cards at the front (99% of them) are rated for general audiences, so no, there’s really no way anyone can tell from a trailer what the specific content of the movie is.
Jon:
Children under 17 already have extremely limited personal liberty, freedom and privacy. They can’t drink, they can’t purchase cigarettes, they can’t gamble, etc. etc. I don’t see how the pre-existing fact that they can’t attend Rated R films without a parent or guardian has changed in any way. They already couldn’t do that.
Arthur:
Reductio ad absurdum.
Oh, and some of you (Arthur, for instance) seem to be confusing R with NC-17.
An R rating does not mean we are protecting movie-going minors from witnessing certain acts. It means we are insisting that their parents give them permission to do so. No more, no less.
“An R rating does not mean we are protecting movie-going minors from witnessing certain acts. It means we are insisting that their parents give them permission to do so. No more, no less.”
Yes, it means that in order to witness these acts on film, they have to be accompanied by a parent. Whereas to witness them in real life, all they have to do is walk down pretty much any street or through any parking lot in the country, accompanied or no.
Dismiss it with any Latin phrase of your choice, Craig, but any way you slice it, R-rating an act that can be lawfully done in public, right out in the open, for all to see, still makes no fucking sense. Do I need to start listing the movies that would be R-rated under this rule? How about that vile, cigar-smoke-packed piece of corruptive trash, “It’s a Wonderful Life”? (Fortunately, that only airs once a year, so we have plenty of time to set the adult controls on the cable box to weed that one out. Whew!)
All trailers with green cards at the front (99% of them) are rated for general audiences, so no, there’s really no way anyone can tell from a trailer what the specific content of the movie is.
Uhhh… unless they watch the actual trailer !
Just because you don’t see severed limps and spreading legs doesn’t mean a tralier can’t communicate the basic content and tone of a movie. In fact, as you know, that is the whole purpose of a trailer - To give highlights of the content so people get interested in seeing the film.
What are we, motards who need a big red card shoved in our faces to form an opinion - when we can watch actual footage of the film???
Seriously, Craig, or ANYBODY, explain to me why we need a rating system to tell us whether a film is appropriate for kids to watch, when trailers, adds, reviews, etc. provide a sufficient sample of the content of a movie-?
I for one have enough brains to base my opinion on what I see, rather than on an acronym.
I strongly disagree, Arthur. When I walk down the street, some smokers are see look cool. Some are old and fat. Many smell.
Not so in movies. Just as films can glamorize violence (and I think “fetishize” is probably a better word than “glamorize”), they can glamorize smoking.
The R-rating is not for the mere depiction of smoking, but the glamorization of smoking. That’s not something my kid can see walking down the street, unless Vilmos Zsigmond happens to be lighting that particular street corner, and Cate Blanchett happens to be walking by.
So again…the glamorization, rather than the mere fact of, is what matters. Hence, your example of “It’s A Wonderful Life” probably wouldn’t apply.
Furthmore, mores change over time. Birth of a Nation was an enormously important and popular film in its day, but try and tell that story now, and they’ll hang you off a bridge. Similarly, and oddly, bare breasts were considered acceptable PG material when I was a kid, but sure aren’t anymore.
I know that there’s no such thing as the perfectly typical parent. I’ll never agree with all of the MPAA’s choices. This one, however, makes sense.
Smoking is not legal for children under the age of 17. We’ve banned cigarette advertising from the airwaves. We’ve banned its sponsorship from many professional sports. I think it’s a good trend, and I don’t see the MPAA’s move as out of step with that.
In fact, you can still get away with certain drug references in PG-13. I think it’s actually impressive that the MPAA allows some pot-smoking to get by in PG-13, but not the glorification of cigarette smoking.
By and by, we try and keep our tone civil here. Easy on the language.
Maybe because not everyone has seen every trailer for every movie their kids might want to see?
Had it even crossed your mind that not everyone keeps abreast of the film industry in intimate detail? Say an eleven year old kid wants to see Grindhouse and his unhip parents have no idea what the hell Grindhouse is. The kid could probably feed them a bunch of BS about it, but the big Rated R, for strong graphic bloody violence and gore, pervasive language, some sexuality, nudity and drug use would be a big red flag.
Johnny:
Having spent two years of my life making trailers for Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Films, I can safely say that you’re wrong.
So much of trailer-making has to do with presenting the movie you want the audience to think they’re going to see.
Craig -
Seriously, can you name a more recent example of a film that “glamorized” smoking than “Chinatown?”
But more importantly…Look, I could MAYBE see an argument for smoking boosting a PG movie to PG-13, but c’mon, PG-13 to R? SIXTEEN YEAR OLDS need parental accompaniment to watch a film of somebody smoking? Sixteen year olds, who, in less than two years, will be eligible to join the military, which could very well send them to another country to shoot people and drop bombs on them?
My broader argument here, of course, is that “under 17” is too high a bar for the R rating. You can DRIVE at 16. That means the state trusts you to operate a several-ton vehicle and use it on the open road, where if you make one wrong judgment error, it could very well cause the injury and/or death of you and who knows how many others. But it doesn’t trust you to hear more than one “f-word” in a 90 minute movie? Or look at boobies? Or see some fake blood spurt?
And now you want to add SMOKING to the list?
Craig -
Fine, marketing can be manipualtive, IS manipulative, but let’s get real… you’re not gonna make GRINDHOUSE look like a kiddie flick. It’s a hard core action movie, and it’s marketed as such. Trailers often make a film look better than it really is, but genre and tone are pretty evident.
Besides, ultimatately we’re not talking about trailers but movies being rated. A concerned parent could - arguably should - go see the actual film to decide whether it’s appropriate for their child.
Consider this, why not have a ratings system that gives parents a general idea about the film’s level of violence and nudity, but that does not get enforced at the box office-?
The system is obviously not set up to educate, but to dictate!
Nick -
How exactly are the parents gonna see the big red flag without seeing the trailer???
Johnny:
You are talking about parenting the way people without children talk about parenting.
Arthur:
I don’t disagree that 17 years may be the wrong age for the R distinction. 16 probably makes more sense. I think the Brits have a system that uses 16 as the demarcation.
Johnny-
All one needs to do to find a film’s rating is open a newspaper to check the listings.
I really appreciate the rating system as both a parent and a movie theatre owner. The only problem I have with the rating system is that it is NOT just a rating system. I am obligated by law not to allow kids of certain ages into movies of certain ratings, even with the parents permission. It is a draining experience being forced to be the ‘parent’ for every kid that walks through the door, telling them what they can and cannot see. I would love to see the ratings serves as a guide to what kind of content is in the movie, but leaves up the decision to see the movie to the actual moviegoer. Of course, under this model you would have to make the stretch that the vast majority of kids have been brought up by competent parents. After numerous sightings of parents taking their 7 year olds to bloody gorefests, or dropping them off at the theatre for me to babysit for the afternoon, I’m of the mind they are not. If we were better parents, the MPAA wouldn’t have to compensate.
My favorite movie when I was a youth was probably “Grease.” Saw it in the theatre four times, which remains a record for me. The opening shot of Travolta after the credits: He turns around, in close-up, gives a half-smile to his buddies, cigarette dangling from his lips. To my 10-year-old eyes, he looked unspeakably, transcendentally cool.
So let’s R-rate that puppy, right?
(Because sure enough, I started smoking cigarettes the moment I became of age and haven’t stopped since.)
(Oh wait, no, none of that happened.)
Craig,
I guess I feel the MPAA has no right to make judgment calls on movies for any type of content, certainly not when you consider they answer to no one and have complete freedom to choose which movie gets which rating. Will the MPAA make this distinction? What about the grey areas? If someone buys a pack of cigarettes on screen will that get the R rating? How about if they light up in the context of showing someone how ugly it can look, or take one puff and spit it out in disgust?As to kids, if they have one more restriction on what they can see, that’s more films that they have to drag their parents to, and that is an intrusion on person freedom and choice of both parents and children by an unmonitored group with no accountability. Sorry, the MPAA is un-American. We shouldn’t be willing to accept this. It’s just another way of approving what the MPAA does, interesting coming on the tails of this film is not Yet Rated.
I never thought I’d defend the MPAA until this moment, but I have to say in response to Arthur’s claim that kids can see smoking any time:
My husband and I have no kids, but we do have annual passes to Disneyland. We both say fuck, a lot. These facts aren’t actually related except that the latter often occurs while visiting the former. Based on the horrified looks from parents behind us in line for rides, I think most of them would appreciate a heads-up—which an R-rating is. Just because it happens in public doesn’t mean it’s something all parents want their kids exposed to with no warning.
Thursday -
An R-rating is more than a heads-up, it’s a mandate. If you’re under 17, you CANNOT see this movie without parental accompaniment. There ARE acts and images that I believe merit this sort of mandate. Smoking cigarettes is not among them.
A PG-13 rating? THAT is a heads-up.
I can honestly say I never started smoking because I thought it was cool. I get pissed off at some of the information about smoking that gets passed off as “fact” and I get pissed off at some of the more fascist anti-smoking legislation.
Having said all that, I have no problem with the MPAA’s decision. In fact, yeah, I support it. I think a lot of the people who are appalled by the idea don’t fully appreciate the nature and power of advertising — and to be sure, having a tough cowboy light one up in a movie is as much an advertisement for smoking as a Marlboro spread that does the same. At the very least it makes more sense than slapping an R rating on a film because it has 4-letter words and nipples.
Which brings up another issue. If we are to accept that movies encourage smoking then does it follow that movies encourage violence as well?
Craig:
You are talking about ratings the way people who are trying to avoid the real issue talk about ratings.
Nick:
Instead of looking for the little “R” under the poster, maybe the parent can take a glance at the actual add, read a review, or watch the trailer.
Johnny: “Instead of looking for the little “R” under the poster, maybe the parent can take a glance at the actual add, read a review, or watch the trailer.”
But the ‘R’ under the poster gives people an ADDITIONAL piece of information so the viewers can make their decisions.
It can be useful simply because the ads, reviews and trailers can be MISLEADING. For example, go to http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/historyboys and read the reviews of ‘History Boys’.
It sounds like a modern ‘Goodbye, Mr Chips’ .. right? The trouble is, many of the viewers who read the reviews and watched the ads & trailers have been surprised at the actual movie … which is about a pederast teacher who has sex with his students!
As a non-American, I’ve been surprised by the behaviours being shown as ‘acceptable’ in American movies. For example, you’ll see an allegedly ‘loving’ mother driving, while her child isn’t wearing a seatbelt. In real life, around here a mother like that would be viewed as being barely better than a child molester. (OK, slight exaggeration. But only slightly)
Mind you, on the other end of the scale, I’ve also seen critics complain that ‘The Full Monty’ was ‘glamorizing’ smoking. Considering that they seemed to use smoking as a crutch whenever they wanted to show that a character was a total loser, I’m not sure how it is glamorizing it ..
Mac.
Arthur:
I think it’s fair to say that if they made Grease today, yes, they’d have to scale back on the smoking shots in order to get a PG-13. Otherwise, they’d get an R.
I have no problem with that.
Your insistence on using your personal experience as a moviegoer as the sole determinant for a parental empowerment policy is strange to me. It’s not about you. It’s about parents with children.
The only people whose rights are being infringed are minors. Their rights are already infringed in regard to smoking.
Using your logic, I presume that you support the elimination of the rating system. Children can walk down the street and hear foul language, so they should be able to hear it in movies if they so choose? Exhibitors should have no responsibility to the children’s parents?
I’m trying to figure out exactly what you’re advocating.
Jon Raymond:
Since you’re against ratings in general, there’s really no point in debating the particulars of this specific aspect of them.
Hmm. Although I think the idea of adding smoking to the list of “what gets you an R” is rather worrying (and I dread to think of whatever might join it, five or ten years down the line), I’m actually not too concerned with the actual practice of doing it.
Looking through my spec scripts, the ones that do feature characters smoking (and never excessively, I might add - and also none of them are villains, actually the heroines!) are pretty much set for an R anyway due to my excessive use of swearing and extreme violence. So it wouldn’t really affect my work, hence, no bother.
One point Craig touches on I would like to mention is the practice of theatres (sorry, I’m British, that’s how I spell it) and papers not showing/promoting NC-17 movies. When I recently watched This Film Is Not Yet Rated - ironically on the same day Jack Valenti took leave of the world - all I was thinking was, hang on, this NC-17 essentially does the same as our 18 certificate here. It stops people under that age watching the flick. Now, in the UK, unless you’re going for the teen audience and have to start cutting, no-one has a problem with the 18. People of age can see the movie, rent the movie, buy the movie, the world goes on.
What seems to be the problem in the US is the block on NC-17s by the groups that Craig mentions, plus the thorny Blockbuster stocking issue. What the hell? Blockbuster stock 18s in this country no problem and the certificate essentially does the same damn thing. Until someone gets that little conundrum sorted, I’ll be worried more about NC-17ing myself than getting a chick to light a Marlboro.
Just an off-topic question, Craig:
When is the new installment of Ask a Pro coming out? There haven’t been any new people since Koppleman, and that was in March. Or have you decided to wait until Charlie Kaufman agrees to do a gig? :D
You are talking about parenting the way people without children talk about parenting.
Granted. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s up to the parents. Nobody said it was easy and I don’t expect it to be. Then again, I can’t think of a movie that’s come out in my lifetime that I haven’t been able to judge kid-safe from the poster. Based on that poster, would you have taken your kids to see “Chinatown”?
I wouldn’t care at all about the rating system if it didn’t force filmmakers to change their films. If you change your film in order to get advertised so that people come see the thing you’ve worked 2, 3, 5 years of your life on, that’s being forced. There’s no choice there. And it’s all based on how a few random people arbitrarily rated your film based on how they felt about it that particular day.
I wouldn’t miss smoking in movies if it disappeared entirely. And I feel exactly the same way about the MPAA.
What “real issue” would that be? An imagined attack on your freedom of speech? I’ve noticed over the years that 99 out of 100 people who claim that their freedom of speech is being infringed are really just upset that the constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to an audience.
Forgive me for saying so, but I think a great number of you are missing the point.
Craig is going out on a limb explaining why the recent decision by the MPAA isn’t the ridiculous fascistic event that many people are making it out to be.
The fact is, the MPAA is adding smoking to an already long list of factors that help determine their ratings. Now arguably, these ratings are silly and arbitrary, but no one is defending the MPAA’s general practices. What Craig is defending is the decision to put smoking on the list.
And frankly I don’t understand how anyone could really debate this…
Cigarettes are a controlled substance in the United States, just like alcohol and firearms. It is unlawful to sell cigarettes to minors. It is unlawful to advertise tobacco products on television. Why should the MPAA not take this into consideration when determining the ratings of movies that will undoubtedly be marketed toward children?
Sex, nudity, violence, and drug use are already used to determine the rating of a film. Of course it’s ridiculous that an inclusion of a nipple makes a film R as opposed to a PG13… and sure, parents should raise their children, and anyone who saw THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED knows how backwards the practices of the MPAA are.
But this is beside the point.
In the past 30 years the attitude toward cigarettes has changed dramatically, and since the MPAA is supposedly made up of American parents, it should be no surprise that they are going to reflect this attitude.
Simon:
Right on. The failure of NC-17 in this country is a real problem. We need a rating like that to work functionally, and we don’t have one. That’s a blot on our newspapers and theater owners.
Moorhead:
The problem is that when you say “children” I think you mean “five year olds” or something. I’m not sure how a parent is supposed to react to the Chinatown poster if they have a 15 year-old. They’re going to need more information. A rating helps them make a choice.
As a parent of a barely teenager, I check the reasons behind the ratings at Rotten Tomatoes before he sees a movie. Some of it is for my knowledge and some for his (he wants to avoid the sex ones, especially if I’m seeing it with him).
I cannot and do not shelter my children from the world, but I can prepare them better for it with a warning. That is my job.
A warning by me that a movie has smoking in it and they might make it look cool in our family with get an eye roll - because my father was a smoker who died of lung cancer, my kids are asthmatic and they know if they smoke I’ll kill them faster than it will. However…
I don’t see anything wrong with putting it into the warning system. It’s easy enough to find out why a movie is rated the way it is. If people are too lazy to figure it out - oh well. Hits the bottom line, but smoking hurts in a whole different way.
Don’t forget— Grease also had lyrics like:
“You know that ain’t no shit she’ll be getting lots of tit”, “she’s a real pussy wagon”, “the chicks’ll cream for grease lightning”, etc.
Always fun to sing in 4th grade. So it’s not smoking alone that might up the rating today.
W
Nick -
Nice rant about freedom of speech, but I never mentioned the first amendment, YOU DID.
The real issue is that the ratings system is not merely a tool to discern whether a film is suitable for certain audiences, but has a de facto effect on the film’s potential revenues (and consequently on the filmmaker’s creative process), because it is being enforced by the exhibitors based on the MPAA’s ruling.
Yes, parents should decide and enforce what films their children watch! Not a faceless group with no official rules and regulations (watch the before mentioned docuemnatry).
Keep in mind, we’re not talking about the use of cigarettes here, we’re talking about WATCHING the use of cigarettes.
One of the proudest days of my life was when Variety ran the list of ratings that had been handed out that week. They list the film, then the rating, then the rationale, as in: “The Craig Mazin Story: R for sexual perversity, smoking, and cruelty to animals.” My movie, Infested, had an R, followed by the longest list of offenses of any movie that week. I clipped it and sent it to my mom.
Let’s get something straight - “It’s not censorship” is a deceptive argument. It’s a way of sidetracking the argument before it even begins. No, it’s NOT censorship. The government censors, and the MPAA isn’t the government, and besides - you’re still free to release your film, so what’s the complaint?
It’s always frustrating to have to respond to this because the people who make this argument know it’s bogus to begin with. Craig knows the issue isn’t censorship. Craig knows EXACTLY how powerful the MPAA is and what the impact of their action are, and he knows exactly how repressive the system is.
If the MPAA deems your movie worthy of an R rating, they’re making a decision - usually arbitrary - that directly affects your ability to reach your audience.
Fact is, if the MPAA were a government organization, there’d be an appeals process that allowed filmmakers to actually challenge the ratings and learn the criteria by which they were applied. It would be a transparent system. What we have now is not.
The whole cigarette thing shows EXACTLY what’s wrong with this corrupt organization and this fucked up system. The idea that I can’t show someone smoking without getting an R, but I can show someone killing people with a machine gun and still get a PG-13 is nauseating.
Craig inadvertently answers his own argument with this:
“Birth of a Nation was an enormously important and popular film in its day, but try and tell that story now, and they’ll hang you off a bridge”
And rightly so. Yet, somehow, America’s become much more racially sensitive over the last century without the help of the MPAA. We managed to evolve without the guiding hand of Jack Valenti and his cronies, and will continue to do so. Do you really think we’d solve the racism problem quicker if the MPAA stepped in?
But is this the next step? Will the MPAA eventually start rating things based on the fact that they think they contain racially offensive images and ideas? Who will get to decide these things? It’s fucking absurd, and it’s insanely offensive to anyone who’s a rational, intelligent adult.
The notion that we need to candy-coat the world FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN is absurd. It’s as absurd as Craig’s assertion that you can’t tell the content of a movie from the trailer. Watch the trailer for Seven. Watch the trailer for Over The Hedge. Tell me which one you’d take your kids to. Now stop being silly.
“So much of trailer-making has to do with presenting the movie you want the audience to think they’re going to see.”
Indeed. But as morally bankrupt as the folks who make movies like Hostel and Captivity may be, I doubt any of them are trying to come up with trailers that will suck up those family audience dollars.
The notion that a parent can’t find out whether or not a movie is appropriate for their kid is absolutely ridiculous.
Instead of the R for smoking, maybe what we ought to be focussing on is the way tobacco companies pay to have their products placed in the mouths of stars in movies. And if someone wanted to pursue that legally, I’d be all in favor of it. But that’s not the issue. The issue is a secretive group of anonymous strangers with an unknown agenda dictating what filmmakers can and cannot do.
The whole discussion is ridiculous. The “problem” the MPAA exists to solve doesn’t actually exist. If you want to know if the movie’s appropriate for your kids, there are gobs of ways to find out. We do not need an organization that is unresponsive to creators, and whose actions restrict our ability to do our damn jobs.
“I think it’s fair to say that if they made Grease today, yes, they’d have to scale back on the smoking shots in order to get a PG-13. Otherwise, they’d get an R.
I have no problem with that.”
Craig, have you SEEN “Grease” lately? You seriously, genuinely believe that because of its smoking references, it is inappropriate viewing for an unaccompanied 15-year-old? You would really give it an R rating if it were up to you? “Grease” gets the same rating as “Grindhouse”, “Basic Instinct”, and “Hostel”?
Please watch the movie again. Then come back here and say with a straight face that that’s not insane.
“Your insistence on using your personal experience as a moviegoer as the sole determinant for a parental empowerment policy is strange to me. It’s not about you. It’s about parents with children.”
I’m not “insisting” on it, I just mentioned it as an incidental example to support my main point about “Grease”, that giving such an innocuous, obviously family-friendly film an R rating is absurd. The idea of thousands of kids being denied the pure joyous experience of that film because their parents are wary of R ratings is far sadder to me than the idea of exposing them to a few shots of people smoking.
“Using your logic, I presume that you support the elimination of the rating system. Children can walk down the street and hear foul language, so they should be able to hear it in movies if they so choose? Exhibitors should have no responsibility to the children’s parents?”
That’s not what I said, I said giving something an R (or X) RATING to something that can be seen or heard at any given moment in public (or, probably even more frequently, during recess) is absurd. So yes, I’ve always felt that movies getting an R rating solely for language reasons is stupid. e.g. “Blues Brothers” had the f-word maybe twice in it. No real violence, no nudity, no sexual situations, just a couple of f-bombs. R rating. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I’m not against the ratings system serving as a general GUIDE for how “adult” the material in a film is, but a rating that actually prevents high school-aged kids, many of whom are quite probably already having sex, drinking, smoking pot and/or cigarettes, cursing blue streaks, and Lord knows what else, from hearing the F-word unless accompanied by Mommy or Daddy, is retarded.
So no, I’m not for its elimination, just its overhaul.
Would it be fair to say that the heart of this argument stems from the fact that film marketeers aim too young? That the further we get from a PG or PG-13 rating, the less “sellable” a film is?
I’d love to know the numbers on who is actually going to the theater right now. I was at the 8PM Thursday showing of POTC 3: At World’s End, and the kids were in the majority.
Or the minority, rather.
I am so special.
I hate smoking as much as anyone in the world … but I don’t think a lot of smoking alone should garner a R rating (nor do I think the word “fuck” should … actually you need three to be an R, which is silly… Billy Eliot, rated R? Come on!)
You couldn’t do a movie set in the forties or fifties and make it true to history without everyone smoking in it … back then, it was considered good for ones circulation.
We had this discussion briefly over at Unknown Screenwriter, but as much as I hate smoking, I agree with Olson …
The idea that I can’t show someone smoking without getting an R, but I can show someone killing people with a machine gun and still get a PG-13 is nauseating.
The point isn’t smoking gets an R, really, it’s that the MPAA needs to be radically overhauled or thrown out altogether … Parents certainly have ways of determining content these days that they never did, the internet for one.
And pay cable shows a lot of original programming that would get an NC-17 rating if ever released (has anyone really watched REAL SEX or the CATHOUSE series … I haven’t, of course, but I I’ve heard they’re real raw) and before each one, they list each thing a parent can expect to find in the show.
This whole smoking thing, seems more like a carrot to parent groups, look, we’re controlling Hollywood by cutting back on smoking … it’s very silly, in my view.
And I notice that the act of murder looks pretty cool in most PG-13 movies … hell, even on TV … lots o’ killing on the telly, and it looks pretty awesome, too …
Joshua:
You need two fucks to garner an R-rating. One actually, if you use it in a sexual sense.
Johnny:
In terms of Rated R films, that’s exactly the current state of affairs.
For what it’s worth, I agree that violent deaths should earn a filmmaker an R rating.
Mr. Olson,
I am a mother of two boys in Frisco, Texas and I appreciate greatly the ratings system for movies. I believe the R-rating for smoking is fair, because smoking should be outlawed in this country. Think of all the death it has caused! I’m glad to go to a church that is smoke free! I don’t want my boys seeing Viggo Mortensen or whoever you’re friends with smoking on a screen in a PG-13 movie! I have my hands full enough as a parent and mother.
Could there be a better way to get kids to think smoking is cool than to add it to the list of things that garner an ‘R’ rating?
To touch on something that others have mentioned, if the MPAA ratings system worked like the ESRB (video games) ratings system, then this would be great. Every rated video game simply lists the objectionable content on the box along with the rating. I can easily see what’s appropriate for my kid.
Every attempt to make it illegal to sell a video game to an underage child has been ruled unconstitutional. However, that doesn’t appear to be the case with movies. At some point in the ’90s, the MPAA rating seemed to become a legal requirement for theater operators. So to treat the rating as though it’s simply a guide for parents (which IMO it should be), as opposed to a hard and fast restriction, isn’t quite accurate.
Aaron:
The ratings system is voluntary. It is not legally compelled on movie theaters.
I thought they made a joke of the two fucks in BE COOL, which it was two PG-13 and three makes it R, but I cede to your authority.
It is voluntary, sure … except when it comes to advertising, right? I thought (and again, I could be mistaken) that many chains and newpapers won’t run ads or film trailers for movies unless they participate?
I know they won’t carry NC-17 ads, many of the papers … and I don’t believe many theatre chains will run an NC-17 films, either.
And why 17, why not 18? Or 21? It’s all so fucked up.
Ms. Cunningham, I wanted to ask respectfully (as that I hate smoking more than you, I bet) how you felt about all the people in Texas being put to death by the via the death penality, many of whom were clinically retarded and not aware of the severity of their crimes … don’t you think that has an effect on kids, too?
In case you’re wondering, I have relatives in Houston, and I grill them about it as well … shameful that the state of Texas puts mental ill children to death for crimes they couldn’t comprehend … equally shameful that a grandmother was put to death and when she pleaded for mercy, George W. Bush made fun of her … and then ran on a platform of compassionate conservatism …
Equally shameful that many people in Texas still support that ass-head …
Mr. James,
I have not seen what you are referring to. I try to steer clear of overly political movies like Bowling for Columbine or Babel because I just want to be entertained when I spend my money and go to the movies. I am like a lot of people I suspect in my neck of the woods. I know I would not let my boys see an R-rated movie whether it was about the death penalty or smoking.
Joshua:
Not sure how I could make this more clear (I’ve said it twice now, I think), but I do think the newspapers and exhibitors are way out of line on their policies regarding ratings.
Craig, my apologies then … it seemed to be that when you stated that the rating system is voluntary and isn’t legally compelled upon theatres that you were suggesting it was a simple thing for filmmakers of commercial movies to ignore or dismiss at their leisure … but I looked back and you did state that previous … my apologies.
I guess I feel that the wrongness of the exihibitors and newspapers for that specific action, which we agree on is wrong, is more worthy of discussion than rating the number of glamorous puffs of a smoke in a film …
And again, I’m about as rabid an anti-smoker as you can get, too …
Ms. Cunningham, I wasn’t speaking about executions in movies but rather the real life executions in Texas, which are featured rather boldly in the news … my point being, real life isn’t rated by the MPAA, so instead of harping on the ratings of movies that most teenage boys will see if they really want to see it, regardless of how good a parent is or is not at their job, one should look to the rated R ugliness happening in the newspapers in real life (especially in Texas) and call out that, rather than pick on one specific movie …
A movie can entertain as well as edify, and while I didn’t watch Babel, I found Bowling For Columbine to be very entertaining, along with other things. I’m not saying you would or wouldn’t, I’m just saying …
And I should add, Ms. Cunningham, in New York (where I live now) it’s against the law to smoke in bars, restaurants and most public spaces … because secondary smoke proven to cause cancer in non-smokers …
In Iowa, where I’m from, it’s not … people smoke everywhere … last time I visited a couple chain-smoked through lunch while their young boys, seven or eight years old, ate across from them covered in dirty smoke … and my wife was apalled when a pregnant waitress walked by with a cigarette in her lips.
I’m sure it was one of the filtered ones.
That’s how it is in Iowa, with smoking, and I believe the same to be true in Texas, I’m not aware that they’ve changed the smoking law there (right now there are only 12 or 13 states with anti-smoking laws) so most of the time in public venues, when you’re out with your family, your teenaged boys are being exposed not just to the sight of smoke, but to the terrible ills of it as well …
Don’t you think that’s worse than any R rated movie?
Most of the people back in Iowa, in the neck of the woods where I grew up and go back to visit, many of whom also avoid movies like Bowling For Columbine or anything political, as you’ve stated you do, those folks dismiss the idea that second smoke is bad as liberal claptrap … I’m not saying that you would dismiss it just the same … I’m just saying … education and information ain’t a bad thing …
And it’s fascinating that despite your aversion to political movies, you’re here on this talkback discussing the very political move of rating movies per their cigarette use …
And for the record, I DON’T believe smoking should be outlawed throughout this country… and again, I’m a rabid anti-smoker … I just believe it should be against the law in all public spaces and areas … what a person does in the privacy of their home, as long as they cause no harm to anyone else, is their right.
People have the right to abuse their bodies … just no one else’s.
Mr. James,
Rating movies has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with letting concerned parents know what they are up against when they take their most important possessions to the movies — their children. Here’s how it works in the real world (not Hollywood). Cody and Nolan see a commercial and say, “Mom, can we go see that movie!” I open up the paper or look on the ‘net to see what the rating is. If it’s PG-13, I want to know what for. And if it’s sex or nudity or drug use, then they aren’t going to be seeing that one. Since I usually haven’t even heard of the movie before that, it is an easy reference for me to find out about it. I know I’m probably much older than you; I grew up in the early ’70s when they made movies for ordinary people to enjoy without having too many “Hollywood” messages. At least now, the ratings are there for us to know what’s really going on.
Ms. Cunningham,
Ratings has everything to do with politics.
Jack Valenti (who invented it) was a politician, first and foremost (he was in the convertable when JKF was shot which happened, ironically enough, in Texas) and worked for Lyndon Johnson.
And I’d say that how you look after your children’s interests regarding movies isn’t that different that how many concerned parents in Hollywood look after theirs.
Or in New York.
And teens in all the states buy a ticket to see Happy Feet at the multiplex and then slide on into the next showing of Hostel …
I’m not saying your kids do that, of course, I’m just saying kids do that …
For the record, I’m a BIG fan of the movies of the early seventies … I think you’d totally dig a documentary of the era called EASY RIDERS, RAGING BULLS (based on the book by Peter Biskind) it’s REALLY good …
Though a few of those movies DID have messages, it seems … but entertained as well.
Hang on a sec…
From the National Assoc. of Theater Owners website’s FAQ:
Is the rating system a law? No, the rating system is strictly voluntary and carries no force of law.
Who enforces the ratings? While the decision to enforce the rating system is purely voluntary, the overwhelming majority of theaters follow the Classification and Rating Administration’s guidelines and diligently enforce its provisions.
Can we have a theater owner comment on WHY they embrace the voluntary guidelines of the rating system?
Is Nolan named after Nolan Ryan?
great name, BTW.
I can guarantee you my kids are not sneaking into a movie they are not allowed to see. They know what would happen if they did. My husband would wear out their behinds. I’m actually glad you asked about Nolan’s name. He is named after the Irish poet and author Christopher Nolan, an inspiring story if ever there was one. Here’s an idea: someone make a movie about him!
Valenti was in the convertible with JFK when he was shot??????
Oh boy.
Go back to history class. Do not pass Go.
He was on Air Force One with LBJ when Johnson took the oath, however.
“My husband would wear out their behinds.”
That’s nice… don’t allow kids to see violence in movies, but beat the shit out of them at home.
Christ!
Ouch. YOu’re right. You caught me on the convertable thing … it seems Valenti was in the MOTORCADE, but not that specific car JFK was in …
Got me, Sundance … ooff.
I’m man enough to take it, head or gut. Lemme have it.
Arthur,
“Craig, have you SEEN “Grease” lately? You seriously, genuinely believe that because of its smoking references, it is inappropriate viewing for an unaccompanied 15-year-old? You would really give it an R rating if it were up to you? “Grease” gets the same rating as “Grindhouse”, “Basic Instinct”, and “Hostel”?”
Personally, I’d make it even harder for kids to get into Grease than the movies you mention. I think it’s a loathsome film with a despicable message for an impressionable audience, and if I ran the MPAA, I’d give it an NC-17.
I’m being dead serious, by the way. I’d rather kids see movies with wall to wall sex than movies that show the best way to find love and be accepted is to be a mindless slut who turns her back on edumacation and just does what everyone else does.
But that’s also the reason I shouldn’t run the MPAA. Because I’d be imposing my personal values on everyone. It’s also the reason there shouldn’t BE an MPAA to begin with.
Craig,
“The ratings system is voluntary. It is not legally compelled on movie theaters.”
This is the same squidly argument the MPAA hides behind whenever the C word comes up. “It’s not censorship. It’s voluntary!” Truth is, it’s NOT censorship. But it’s as far from voluntary as you can get, and it doesn’t enhance your credibility to be parrotting their line.
Maye,
You obviously have access to the internet. If you take a minute and a half, you can find out pretty much anything you want about the content of any movie independently of the MPAA in vastly more detail - and often with more accuracy - than by just placing your trust in that organization.
I’m curious, though - you write, “If it’s PG-13, I want to know what for. And if it’s sex or nudity or drug use, then they aren’t going to be seeing that one.” Does that mean if it’s just for violence, you take them?
I remember being on a plane where the in-flight movie was The Fisher King. The scene where Robin Williams runs around Central Park at night naked was edited so that his little pecker - it’s very cold there at night - isn’t shown, but the scene where his fiancee’s brains are splattered on his face and the wall behind him was left in intact. And not just for the audience to see, but for anyone who’d happened to buy a ticket to Philadelphia that week.
The human body, or the act of love is considered obscene, but showing someone rip that same body to shreds is just fine. I can’t say “Fuck” three times (a word I learned on the playground, by the way, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA), but I CAN show my hero blasting a hundred people to death with an Uzi. This may be trite and obvious to say, but it’s true - that’s an obscenity so enormous, I can barely wrap my head around it.
And no, that’s not a situation the MPAA created, but it sure as hell is one they reinforce. I don’t think it’s overstating the case to lay some of the blame for the fact that we are a puritanical and emotionally stunted nation at the feet of a tremendously powerful organization that regulates this extremely influential medium.
Because I sit here, and I read the list of things you don’t want your kids to see, and I gotta say - most of the experiences you can have with sex and nudity - and hell, even drug use - are pretty goddam fun, and pretty goddam harmless. I’d much rather my nephew came home from school and told me he’d smoked dope and gotten laid this weekend than that he’d beat the shit out of someone.
But hey, I’m just one of those crazy Hollywood assholes who spends all his time in hottubs with Viggo Mortenson. We’re so out of touch here that we actually think rape and murder are bad things.Joshua,
Schmuck. Everyone knows Valenti wasn’t in the limo.
Because he was on the grassy knoll. The MPAA is actually only the SECOND most evil thing he ever did…
Josh:
Even if I stipulate that the MPAA’s rating system is only definitionally voluntary, but in practice is compelled (and I think the thriving unrated DVD market runs contrary to this stipulation), I still don’t see how they’re censoring anything that’s rated G, PG, PG-13 or R.
All they’re doing is putting a letter next to it. As for children not being able to self-elect to see an R film, I don’t see how their status as rights-holders has been affected at all. They were already limited in their rights.
I do believe that NC-17 films are essentially censored through unfair trade practices by periodicals and theaters, and those are practicesI decry.
LOL - I am a schmuck … and I was doing so well up until Valenti!
So I was a few cars off … hollywood is a tough and demanding business!
I understand that — but I didn’t exactly word it that way in my post. (When do we get an edit button???) Oopsie.
I was referring to events in the ’90s when politicians were pressuring theater owners to check IDs and it looked as though actual legislation might happen. Nothing was actually passed, but around that time, theaters became a lot more serious about checking IDs than they were when we were kids. And that was definitely a result of government pressure, if not actual legislation.
Isn’t that what high school’s all about?
Legally one doesn’t even have to pay income tax in the USofA. But in reality most of us do, because if we don’t we get unlawfully imprisoned.
The Ratings system operates in a similar manner. It may not be censorship by definition, but de facto it can have the same effect, especially when it comes to R vs NC-17.
Voluntary means you have a choice.
Chocolate or vanilla? That’s a choice.
Cut the female orgasm or not, but if you don’t we’ll slap you with an NC-17 and your film is doomed to play on youtube - is not a choice.
CENSORSHIP: Official prohibition or restriction of any type of expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order. It may be imposed by governmental authority, local or national, by a religious body, or occasionally by a powerful private group (like the MPAA). It may be applied to (…) the theater, dance, art, literature, photography, the cinema, radio, television, or computer networks.
The theater owners aren’t the ones who tell the filmmaker to cut the pussy shot, they just show whatever film that didn’t get an NC-17.
The MPAA does the de facto censoring whilst the exhibitors enforce the resulting rating, giving the MPAA essentially the leverage they need in their process.
So Craig, when you say:
I do believe that NC-17 films are essentially censored through unfair trade practices by periodicals and theaters, and those are practices I decry.
How can you lift any and all responsibity off the MPAA, the very organisation whose ambiguous practices create the rating that leads to in practice censorship?
Craig,
“All they’re doing is putting a letter next to it.”
Even THEY don’t believe that, man. Come on.
I’m glad you’ll grant that the NC-17 IS censorship, essentially. And that’s the big issue. You’re the one keeps bringing the rights of children into it. I’m not concerned with the rights of children to get into Basic Instinct. What I AM concerned with is my right to make movies geared towards adults and to market those films freely, without some shadowy puritanical organization hampering my access to an audience that wants them.
But in placing the blame for that de facto censorship on the shoulders of newspapers and theaters, you’re acting as a shill for the MPAA. They know exactly what that rating means. They know it’s the kiss of death.
As for the unrated DVD market, that makes my case. We don’t need the MPAA. Calling it outdated implies that it ever served a real purpose.
There are resources galore out there for parents to ensure their precious babies don’t see any boobs or butts. If I want to know exactly how many seconds of nudity there are in Knocked up, or how much violence is in Pirates, I can do it in about a minute and a half.
What I resent is this obsession with THE CHILDREN. We sanitize everything for the sake of the little buggers… I remember someone once saying to me on the old AOL screenwriters’ forum that the reason we couldn’t use four letter words was that some child might read it.
First of all, the idea that there was a child out there who knew how to access the internet but had never seen the word “fuck” before was inane, and second, the notion that an adult, professional forum should gear itself towards 6 year old readers was lunatic.
Bug From the director of The Exorcist “Intense… terrifying!” - NY Times
Gee, I wonder if Timmy and Tammy would enjoy that? I better check the ratings before I take them.
Craig,
You said something to the affect that: ‘People who walk downt he street smoking are often not cool at all whereas people who smoke in movies are cool, and the therefore, glamorize smoking.’ (I hope that’s not off the mark)
I think this is Ka Ka. Number one, there are plent of unattractive people in movies who make smoking look like ka ka. Number two, a disproportionate amount of people in movies look cool and therefore, by your argument, glamorize everything they do.
And if that’s the case, a character who eats fast food and goopy sandwhiches, is glamorizing a lifestyle that’s more likely to cause health issues than even cigarette smoke (since obesity and heart diesese are bigger problems in this country than smoking). Does that mean cops who are eating horrible food during the stakeout, then going home and taking the sole slice of pizza in the fridge and dropping it in the blender, warrant an “R” rating?
Because, again, eating badly is a lifestyle, just like smoking, and it’s a far bigger problem than smoking, and your kids are way more likely to imitate the dude on a skateboard eating a Big Mac than Bogie.
Mr. Olson,
I think you might be a little out of touch with the needs of parents in what I’m sure you think of as the “fly-over” states. I have two boys who are constantly trying to get in trouble and that is a load to manage, let me tell you. I don’t have time to scour the internet for knowledge I can get in two seconds from looking at the paper and seeing PG-13 for Strong Sexual Content. You want to see what real life is like, come to Frisco. Try having your son whom you raised come up to you and say MF and tell you he got it from watching a movie at his friend’s house. And to Johnny Hartmann I would add that you should try to be a little less melodramatic. I hope your screenwriting is better than that.
Oh.
Ohhhhhhhh.
You’re one of those people.
Smoking has become a crime along the lines of child molestation. If you don’t like smoking in your characters don’t watch the movie. Just like I don’t like your writing, I won’t read your blog anymore.
Maye,
Melodramatic, huh? Tell it to your kid after daddy gave him a whooping. Anyway, I will not get into a debate with you about how you raise your children. Though I will say this, you obviously have enough time to spare on the internet to read a lengthly screenwriting blog… but not to find out more (than a rating) about a film your boys want to see? Hmmmm….
Craig:
I knew that’d get your attention. Now, MPAA - ? No responsibility - ? At all - ?
Maye,
“I think you might be a little out of touch with the needs of parents in what I’m sure you think of as the “fly-over” states.”
In other words, you presume that I presume.
I’ve spent a lot of time in Texas. I have dear friends in Texas. I find the assumption that you’re all ignorant, Bible thumping Bush freaks to be as offensive as the assumption that WE are all coke sniffing whore masters who want to turn your children into sex crazed zombies.
“I don’t have time to scour the internet for knowledge I can get in two seconds from looking at the paper and seeing PG-13 for Strong Sexual Content.”
And yet, you seem to have time to scour the internet and excoriate us Hollywood types for our wicked ways.
“Try having your son whom you raised come up to you and say MF and tell you he got it from watching a movie at his friend’s house.”
He’s lying. Hate to break it to you. He learned it on the playground long before you ever heard him say it.
I wish you’d answer my question, though - when you’re checking out that PG-13 rating for your alleged kids, why is it you’re more concerned about them seeing sex than violence? Although, you’ve made it pretty clear that there’s more violence than sex in your household, so I guess we know the answer to that one….
PS: Um…. you all know Maye is the figment of some joker’s imagination, yes?
Maye -
I think you make the other point. Your kids got MF from watching a DVD at a friend’s house. These days, the ratings system has more impact on commerce and commerciality than it does on what children are exposed to. There’s cable and satellite, unrated DVDs, and thousands of other sources for poor role models for us parents to worry about. My chief worry is what my kids pick up from other kids by virtue of the other kids’ parents’ inattentiveness or different standards.
With movies, I’m more concerned with violence than sex and more concerned with overt sex than with bad habits like smoking, swearing or eating junk food. My biggest concern however is stories where negative behavior is presented with no moral context. In the past, Dreamworks has marketed their CGI animation to kids when much of the content plays more to adult sensibilities and jokes. I don’t want my kid to see things where the point being made is an enshrinement of consumerism, or simply being rude and sarcastic is equivalent to ‘humor’ or where the idea of appearances and dating within your ‘class’ is the message of the movie. My kids (4 and 7) know that smoking is bad. No movie is going to change their opinion of smoking, it’s only going to affect their opinion of the movie. At that age, they’re not going to see Rs anyway.
I’m not advocating the abolishment of the ratings system as a tool for parents, though, just for making it a useful tool. Without placing an undue burden on filmmakers who choose to tell their stories their way and still want to find an audience. Smoking, like any activity, can be a factor - but the context is what matters. Not to the ratings board though who is imposing a contextless quota and combining it with their arbitrary, contemprorarily PC, normative judgment. Protect my kid from bad values, McDonald’s insidious cross-promotion, before you protect them from some adult bad guy lighting up a cigarette.
Your son watches objectionable movies over at friends’ houses, and yet you “gurantee he’s not sneaking into a theater to a see a movie he’s not allowed to see?”
I don’t know how I feel about this smoking issue yet. Someone posted a comment earlier, and I’d like to see more opinions on it…
It was something like,
“If we admit smoking in movies promotes teenage smoking, then aren’t we also admitting that violence in movies promotes real violence?”
So just so we’re clear, Craig, are you saying that “It’s a Wondeful Life” should be R-rated…?
Craig,
I think the best argument against R-rating for smoking is the slippery slope argument alluded too above and I think the argument works.
IIRC (and maybe I don’t) we (by which I mean the MPAA) used to have three main criteria for raitings: Sex, Violence and Language (which is arguably a subset of Sex and/or Violence but we’ll break it out to make it easier).
Some time in the 1990’s or maybe a little earlier we added a new criteria: Drug Usage. Which can not, argubly, be tied to either Sex or Violence.
Now we’re adding a new one: Cigarette use, which can’t be tied to S&V but could be considered a subset of Drug Usage.
What’s next:
-Depiction of any illegal behavior? War Games glamorized computer hacking. -Depiction of other legal behaviors? Topper and many other movies glamorize drinking. -Steroetyped Depiction? I’d argue this is worse than showing cigarettes. Why don’t we rate based on stereotypical depictions of Native Americans, Blacks, Asians, People from Arkansas or West Virginia? -Depiction of Pollution (mentioned above) — will movies that glamorize excess and non zero-carbin footprints get rated?
The point is that rating based on cigarette usage is a political statement condemning legal behaviors. Even the original drug usage at least was based on depictioin of illegal behavior.
And its probably going to backfire. I love the scene from the 6th Day where Arnold and his wife go out to smoke an “illegal” Cigar which inspires them to a little bit of passion.
Anyway there’s a lot of things that we could rate on but don’t and probably shouldn’t and smoking is one of them.
I think I’m also annoyed because I’m currently working on 20’s spec script and everybody smoked back then. This is going to lead to bowderlized versions of histories — a cotton club where nary a Cigar or cigarette is in site to avoid the dreaded R.
I’ve been keeping quiet because I’m humbled over my Valenti mistake (okay, so he was a FEW cars down, okay?) but I just gotta say …
I love this discussion.
I love the internets.
I hope Bush never censors the internets.
“Personally, I’d make it even harder for kids to get into Grease than the movies you mention. I think it’s a loathsome film with a despicable message for an impressionable audience, and if I ran the MPAA, I’d give it an NC-17.
I’m being dead serious, by the way. I’d rather kids see movies with wall to wall sex than movies that show the best way to find love and be accepted is to be a mindless slut who turns her back on edumacation and just does what everyone else does.”
Yeah, and its message re: unprotected sex (in the Ri