This Film Has Been Rated Low In Tar

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.

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�.

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.

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.

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,

Children under 17 already have extremely limited personal liberty, freedom and privacy.

The R-rating is not for the mere depiction of smoking, but the glamorization of smoking.

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.

You are talking about ratings the way people who are trying to avoid the real issue talk about ratings.

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:

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).

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.

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!

The ratings system is voluntary. It is not legally compelled on movie theaters.

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.

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

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.

Legally one doesn’t even have to pay income tax in the USofA.

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 Rizzo subplot) isn’t entirely responsible either… So okay, perhaps there IS an argument for it to have a mature rating…but take all that stuff out, and Craig STILL gives it an R due to its graphic, raw depiction of smoking cigarettes.

Oh, and I heard a rumor that Travolta and Newton-John actually did their own smoking! Can anyone confirm this?

I heard an interview with someone from the MPAA on NPR and she made it sound more like the smoking thing would possibly shift a movie from a G to a PG. It’s not like depicting smoking gives you an automatic R. And also it’s supposedly not going to be a factor that changes the rating so much as it is going to be an addition to the descriptors they give underneath the rating. So “Rated R for gory violence, strong language and pervasive smoking.” It’s not the smoking that gave it the R but they’re going to make note of it for the milquetoast parents out there who don’t want their kids exposed to smoking.

On the other hand, NC-17 IS de facto censorship.

Craig,

Maybe “It’s a Wonderful Life” is a bad example, because of the famous ‘fisting clarence’ scene, but here’s some PG or PG-13 movies that feature smoking:

All the President’s Men Good Night and Good Luck Breaking Away Romancing the Stone Stand By Me

Do you think that a 16 year old should be prohibited from seeing any of those movies without an adult?

Yet another of my searingly brilliant posts undermined by formatting.

I think the idea of Craig “rating” every movie we throw at him is a bit silly. Ask yourself - Do these films glamorize smoking or not? If so, he’d probably support the R. Personally, I don’t give a shit how Craig rates ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’… because he’s not on the MPAA rating board.

Johnny,

“Ask yourself - Do these films glamorize smoking or not?”

Boy, is THAT ever an objective question. Personally, I thought Requiem For A Dream made heroin look like the coolest thing in the world. Then, like most Hollywood drug movies, it turned around tsk’d tsk’d at us.

But this is the problem with the whole notion of the MPAA, and why it’s all such a slippery question.

Context is everything. EVERYTHING.

The physical act of smoking carries no moral weight. Humphrey Bogart puffing away in Casablanca is glamorous as hell. Andy Garcia smoking through the hole in his neck in Dead Again… not so much. But if this thing goes through, both would get the same rating, even though the Dead Again scene makes anyone who sees it want to quit.

Actually, that’s specifically not true, Josh. Realistic depictions of smoking in context of their dangerous effects would most likely not garner an R. In fact, I’ve spoken with one of the proponents of this particular ratings change, and I believe she cited Dead Again as an example that would be exempt.

C.

Craig, movies that use violence to make the point that violence is bad, contain nudity in scenes that de-glamorize sex, and contain profanity to reflect poorly on people who curse are still given stronger ratings to reflect “violence, nudity and profanity.” What the hell makes you think that NOW they’ll suddenly get the brilliant notion, after all these years, to start considering context?

Josh -

Craig specified in his main post that he is against the glamorization of smoking on film - I was merely telling people who want to play the “Rating Game” with him to consider this when they throw their bombs at him.

I myself obviously agree with you – the question is totally subjective!

And therein lies one of the key issues. Smoking is now an official criteria in considering the R rating. That doesn’t mean every movie with a lit cigarette gets an immediate R, HOWEVER we have no clue how the MPAA will apply this new criteria in their evaluation of films, because, so far, their process has been proven to be arbitrary at best, bias at worst.

What about Leo’s charater in TITANIC. He smokes. Would TITANIC get an R rating today?

Who the hell knows!

Craig,

You’ve implied context in your main post and in subsequent comments. I’ve searched the MPAA website and couldn’t find an official statement re. how smoking will be evaluated in the ratings system.

Can you provide a link or source ?

Who’s playing a ‘Rating Game?’

Is “Breaking Away” suitable for a 16 year old to see alone? Apparently the MPAA thought so when it was released.

But the cool, tough, likable outcast teenage “Cutters” in the movie smoke cigs. Glamorously.

By the new system, this movie would be rated R, and no 16 year old could see it without an adult.

I’m asking if Craig thinks this example (and my others) supports his thesis that the change to the MPAA system is good.

Craig,

Let me make this clear - I’m not doing this to play rhetorical games with you, although it may seem so with this post. I object to what the MPAA does on every level you can possibly imagine.

I have a problem with them making blanket judgements without considering context, and in this case, you say they won’t. But I have an even BIGGER problem with them judging context.

At least when it’s a mechanical process (three Fucks and you’re R), you can deal with it. But now, it’s a bunch of shadowy figures you never meet, with agendas you do not know, determining the moral context of what we create? WAY fuckin’ worse, man.

Back to Grease - most people think it’s a terrific film for the kids. I think it’s despicably immoral. I can make the case, for instance - and just as seriously - that Shrek is an immoral movie for kids. I fervently believe in my right to make the argument, but I also fervently believe in the right of the film’s makers to put the movie out there.

See, all of this comes down to context, and not just the context of the scene in the movie. Some parents don’t want their kids to ever see nudity or sex in a movie. I might think that’s whacky, but that’s a parent’s right. Some parents might thing sex is fine, but not want their kids to see mindless violence. And some might want their kids to ONLY see violence that has no real consequence.

So we have about a zillion resources at our disposal to figure this stuff out. If I want to find out whether or not Syriana has boobies in it, I can find out easily and make my decision accordingly, and I can do it without hampering the filmmaker’s ability to reach the audience they’re going for.

The MPAA is NOT a simple advisory board. If they were, there’d be no problem. They directly hamper my ability to do my job. The fact that the morality they tend to promote is not shared by me is just icing on the whole nasty cake.

I love heated debates.

They are hot.

…anyway I agree with Josh.

A defense of the MPAA board on any filmmaker’s forum is hysterical. Insane, but hysterical. Pardon me while I nibble on a Burger King french fry out of my super-sized, Spiderman slathered box… Ah, that’s better.

So much for my script with the Vietnamese hooker with a heart of gold who can blow smoke rings out of her vagina. Maybe I’ll write a script about an alcoholic pirate who carouses with Caribbean hookers… who, alas, cannot blow smoke rings out of their vaginas.

It’s not meaningful to compare smoking to sex, violence, computer hacking, illegal activity, and all the other stuff people have mentioned. To point out the blindingly obvious, cigarettes are, like, an addictive health hazard. If John Travolta *in Arthur’s GREASE example) were mainlining crystal instead of smoking, I don’t think anyone would argue that GREASE should get an R. If smoking was bad for you but not addictive - like eating red meat - or addictive but not bad for you - like drinking tea - then Josh et. al.’s arguments might make some sense. As it stands, they don’t.

Mr. Olson,

Please do not be patronizing to me. I have not been so to you as I’m sure everyone here will agree. I have made some very valid points as a mother of two living in Frisco. That is my perspective. When I said I don’t have the time to scour the internet, I meant why should I when I can easily see what I need to know right there in the paper. It’s like I looked up the definition of a word in the dictionary and you told me to waste my time looking at a different dictionary. To answer your question about violence… no I do not want my boys seeing gory shots of heads exploding and all that. But PG-13 movies have “mild” violence which is very different. Think about Pirates of the Caribbean. We don’t have to see all that mess and it is still a good movie. I will be glad to meet you in Frisco or next time I’m in Los Angeles since you think I’m a “joke.” But now I have a question for you and please don’t bully me like I’ve seen you do on this blog. When has the ratings kept you from doing what you wanted to do in your writing. Against my better judgment, I watched your movie on cable last night — just meaning that I thought it would be gory and it was beyond belief.

Joe Quesada, editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics, banned smoking in all Marvel comics period a couple years ago. Some fanboys still get outraged that Wolverine, Nick Fury, The Thing, etc. don’t smoke cigars anymore. His response is usually “Why does it matter to you if a fictional character is seen smoking?” and of course it shouldn’t.

I think smoking should be rated by the MPAA, but I don’t know that it should change an otherwise PG into an R by itself. Just list it on the “rated WHATEVER for nudity, illegal drug use, smoking, adult language” etc.

It’s scary when writers and artists accept censorship, no matter what it’s called or how the writer would love to define it. Yes, we work in a business but if we don’t defend our work, who will? Although TeeVee is ostensibly “free” the level of censorship that happens is appalling. I spent three hours on a call with BS&P for an episode once. One of the issues was that a character was smoking. Because the networks don’t advertise cigarettes, we had to show that the character was going insane, which is why she was smoking. Yes, it’s okay if you show CRAZY PEOPLE smoking. But the heart of the issue was the story itself, which had nothing to do with smoking, sex OR violence. It was an issue of religious freedom. THREE HOURS.

This is the kind of gray area of censorship that can seriously hurt artistic freedom. Entertainment entities are owned by corporations and what are most corporations? Conservative. If everyone’s okay with the MPAA censoring smoking, will you be okay when it censors ideas?

I also think Maye is fake. Sounds like a version of Phronsie to me.

Kay:

It’s easy to not accept censorship. Stop selling your art to the highest corporate bidder.

Censorship over.

Ms. Cunningham,

With all due respect, whatever points you’ve made have been proven “invalid” … one example being that your statement that you can guarantee your boys aren’t sneaking in to see R rated movies, which you yourself disprove when you complain one of them learned the word “Motherfucker” watching a DVD over at a friend’s house.

And you also mentioned you believe in corporal punishment, which is a bit hypocritical when it comes to violence in film, at least in the eyes of a few of us here … and I should add, you’re not the only parent on the boards, here.

And I would respectfully point out that you took a patronizing tone with Brother Olson, curtly referencing Viggo Mortensen smoking in movies (and BTW, I don’t believe Viggo smoked in History of Violence, did he? And that movie is actually a non-glamorous look at the impact and effect upon a person’s psyche) as a somewhat passive aggresive swipe at what Olson makes his living doing … writing a movie with the word Violence in the title (and rated R to boot).

Basically I’m saying, you started it with the patronizing tone and that’s why it came back at ya, respectfully.

I completely agree about context, and I think any parent who’s worried about their children having sex should set up a screening of KIDS right away … they’ll stay a virgin for a long time after that film. And sober, too.

“To point out the blindingly obvious, cigarettes are, like, an addictive health hazard.”

So is alcohol. That the next bogeyman on the list? “Ah, what a lovely wine…” BAM! Rated R.

“It’s easy to not accept censorship. Stop selling your art to the highest corporate bidder.

Censorship over.”

Hell, stop selling your work completely. Now you’ll never complain about any aspects of the business ever again. Bravo, Craig!

Maye,

I’m not being patronizing to you. I’m responding to you in kind. Your posts towards me have been both hostile, and revealing of a specific, pre-conceived notion as to who I am based solely on where I live and what I do for a living. In spite of the fact that I’ve revealed nothing on the level of your revelation that you beat your children, you have decided that I am somehow less moral than you because I write motion pictures and live in Hollywood. I must hang out with movie stars. I must think of Texas as a flyover state. In my defense, I will only say this - I have never beaten a child.

I haven’t seen the new Pirates movie, but I could easily make the case that the last one’s cavalier portrayal of violence without real consequence is vastly more damaging to its audience of children than the violence found in Unforgiven, or Mystic River, or my movie (Funny - you’re the sixth person today who’s mentioned they watched it on cable last night. That sumbitch runs constantly, man! Love those residuals - they keep me in coke and whores!)

I’ll keep saying it - context is everything. It ain’t the meat, it’s the motion. The portrayal of a violent act is not, in itself, a moral or immoral thing. How that act is portrayed and positioned in the moral universe of the film is everything.

As long as we’re being personal and specific, I’d point you to one of my absolute favorite reviews of History, from Christianity Today. They seem to get it, while you found it beyond belief:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/historyofviolence.html

Point being this - here we have two people (although I’m only positive one of you is actually real) who both share similar religious and moral views. One of you finds the movie “beyond belief,” the other finds it to be a deeply moral piece of work (Although, to your credit, you at least get my name right.)

The critic feels it’s a movie that should be seen and discussed, while you argue for a system that restricts access to it - as well as restricting the ability of filmmakers to make such movies. Who’s right? Doesn’t matter. What matters is that the choice should be available to everyone, not restricted or controlled. I support your right to keep your kids from seeing my movie - or any movie. I do not, however, support anyone’s right to dictate what kind of movies we may produce.

Arthur:

There’s this other thing you can do with your art called “licensing” it. Just a thought. Novelists don’t have censors do deal with. Nor do painters. Of course, they’re not asking other people to pony up $50 million to support their vision.

This is the screenwriter’s dilemma. We can’t seem to get it done on our own. If we finance it, we still need a distributor. If we finance and distribute, we still need an exhibitor. If we finance, distribute and exhibit, we still need advertising media.

We’re loners forced to ask for help.

Then we bitch about the restrictions that come along with it.

Kay can’t believe she had to spend time on the phone with S&P, even though her job exists because the same corporation that believes she’s worthy of employment also feels that way about the S&P guy…who is necessary because Kay wants her art pumped out over the public airwaves.

What’s the answer? No S&P? Some? Just the kind you like? Just the kind I like?

No ratings?

I can accept “no ratings” as an answer. I think Olson is wrong, but he’s certainly consistent. He doesn’t want a ratings system. Fair enough.

Do you?

Does Kay?

What about my point about glamorizing bad eating habits?

I want that addressed by the lot of you.

Immediatly.

Craig,

“It’s easy to not accept censorship. Stop selling your art to the highest corporate bidder.”

Aside from exhibiting your utter disdain for people who consider this an art form first and a business second, what, precisely, is this meant to achieve?

I’m all for taking a contrary position in order to foster interesting discussion, but it really does seem that you take every opportunity to side with large corporate entities over individuals.

But more specifically, why am I wrong? in this day and age, when you can find out anything you want about any movie out there, why do you think we need a ratings system that actually affects trade?

When did Josh say he doesn’t want a ratings system?

Did I miss that?

I remember him specifically saying there’d be no problem if the MPAA would merely advise parents. It’s the de facto censoring effect their system has on the industry that he and some of us sane people have a problem with.

Let’s look at it from a practical point of view…

The depiction of violence can be trimmed, e.g. a kill can be less graphic without possibly hurting the story (the vision, yes, but maybe not so much the story). But how do you cut around a main character smoking? We’re entering an era where filmmakers will end up having to spend thousands of dollars to digitally replace a character’s cigarette with a stick of gum just to get a desired rating - OR not have the character smoke in the first place to avoid the risk of getting an R rating!

Bottomline, the system in place is bad, and it just got worse.

Of course, they’re not asking other people to pony up $50 million to support their vision.

JK Rawlings has, if I remember … she’s a billionaire, wahoo!

And I believe Clive Cussler just won his lawsuit …

Craug,

What’s the answer? No S&P? Some? Just the kind you like? Just the kind I like?

No ratings?

I can accept “no ratings” as an answer. I think Olson is wrong, but he’s certainly consistent.How about consistent ratings.

Based on your original article, you seem to want “just the kind I like.”

You really believe that a movie should be restricted to 18+ unless accompanied by an adult for smoking? OK. Fine (but, really? Good Night adn Good Luck?)

But then what about the other material that’s been mentioned. (overeating, alcohol, pegging)

Consistent ratings or no ratings.

oops. that’s me above.

And hey … I wanna hear more about Olson’s coke and whores!

Craig sez: “It’s easy to not accept censorship. Stop selling your art to the highest corporate bidder.

Censorship over.”

Oh, okay. So because we’re all hypocritical corporate sell-outs we should just accept everything that comes down the pike. NOW I understand your position! I’m not against parental warnings but like Josh said, this is getting into a dangerous area.

Also: “Kay can’t believe she had to spend time on the phone with S&P, even though her job exists because the same corporation that believes she’s worthy of employment also feels that way about the S&P guy who is necessary because Kay wants her art pumped out over the public airwaves.

What’s the answer? No S&P? Some? Just the kind you like? Just the kind I like?”

The point of the example had more to do with the slippery slope of censorship than with the existence of TeeVee censors. We actually had a cool censor who, it turned out, just wanted enough info so she could answer the complaints. But see, the issue for me is that once you censor one thing, it’s a short trip to censoring something else. When I was growing up, my parents didn’t depend on media to raise me. They did it themselves and they did it by being open and honest, not by being scared and angry. Regarding this particular episode of television, I’m not going to censor my show so I don’t offend people who don’t watch it anyway. We had a school shooting in the episode, too, but that was FINE. The rules just keep changing, see?

But this gets into a whole new area - self-censorship, which is running absolutely rampant in TeeVee. Fake Maye — you claim that us Hollywood types don’t care what you — as you termed it — fly-over people really want to see and watch? Honey, all I hear about from executives and producers is how you people won’t get or like what we’re doing. So it always galls me when reg’lar folks think we’re just making movies for our friends. We aren’t. And God, how I wish we were.

I think this is posting in one paragraph instead of many and I don’t know why. Sorry if this is unreadable.

I think we’d probably survive if we through the currently atrocious ratings system out the window, and we simply left it up to the parents to research the content of a movie and whether or not it’s appropriate for their child (Isn’t that where the responsiblity should lie, anyway?).

But I’d be relatively satisfied with either of two smaller steps: Simply removing the flat-out restriction on the R rating to something more like “Parental accompaniment strongly suggested”, or lowering the age restriction on R ratings to, say…13.

Hell, if 13 makes you an adult in the eyes of the Jews, who have survived thousands of years of war and oppression, that’s good enough for me.

THREW the whole ratings system out…etc. Is what I meant to say.

I miss the editing function.

I’d be willing to bet that if a 16 year old kid threw a fit and tore down a cinema because they wouldn’t sell him a ticket to an R rated movie, he’d be arrested and charged as an adult.

Then they’d make a movie about that kid and rate it PG-13.

And, it would star Shia Lebeouf.

I think Maye Cunningham is a fake too. At least, for her sake, I hope so.

I’m trying to figure out why the MPAA is pondering this? I mean, come one — the MPAA is the studios. It was set up so that the government wouldn’t regulate the movie business. Self censorship and all… There is only one thing the MPAA is meant to do: Help maximize profits of studio movies and keep things looking clean and on the up and up. If this weren’t the case, Temple of Doom would have been slapped with an R instead of being the reason for pg13. (I won’t get into the foreign levies/lobbying things the MPAA does here. haha)

My question about this cigarette smoking thing… Has the government been making some kind of stink lately? I don’t get it. whose complaints are causing this issue?

It’s my belief that cigarette smoking isn’t all that profitable in movies anymore - so this is a dog and pony show for the ‘Maye’s’ out there. Otherwise, if they really cared about bad influence, the list for R would be as long as my arm… and they would have done it twenty years ago.

Don’t worry, they won’t ban or death-rate anything that really matters for story telling — or profitable movies.

A question I pose, which will either confirm or debunk my thoughts: how many blockbuster PG movies (movies geared for the under 17 demo) have had cigarette smoking of any significance in the last ten years?

Good Lord I’m glad everyone is concerned with me being “fake.” It’s an easy way to forget that I actually might be saying something people are wanting to listen to.

Mr. Tiersky,

Your idea that 13-year-old boys should see R-rated movies tells me you’ve never parented 13-year-old boys. My honest opinion is you should know what you’re talking about before you spread your opinion to the masses. That is just ridiculous and you know it! Mr. Olson, thank you for posting that review of your movie. I would write a little different one as I’m sure you can imagine. Your movie was violent as all get out but I knew that already. Why? Because the ratings told me. Did it have to be so graphic to get that point across? Did you see Schindler’s List? Same message but done in an elegant style that didn’t have to be so in your face. There is a big difference and that is all I’m saying.

There’s an article regarding the topic in USA TODAY -

“Underage smoking has always been considered behavior that could warrant a tougher rating, the MPAA said in its release. Now, “all smoking will be considered and depictions that glamorize smoking or … feature pervasive smoking outside of an historic or other mitigating context” could warrant a more prohibitive rating, the organization said.”

It all sounds so peachy, don’t it? Here comes the interesting part, as it relates to the issue of context:

“Although the MPAA said that scenes of smoking would not warrant an automatic R, Glickman said the organization will consider three questions in considering giving a movie a tougher rating: whether the smoking is pervasive; if the movie glamorizes smoking; and if there is an historic or other mitigating context for the smoking.”

So I guess high ranking Nazis and cowboys wearing black hats will still be allowed to smoke on screen, yay.

Here’s a link to the MPAA’s official press release: http://www.mpaa.org/pressreleases/mpaa%20statement%20smoking%20as%20a%20rating%20factor%202_.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/2o2wck

I’m watching ‘Say Anything’ and realize that it would be an instant ‘R’. High school and college kids are seen smoking at a party. A lot. Even though this is what kids do at party and even though they are socially responsible kids in that they give their keys up so they don’t drive drunk, they are smoking and it could be seen as cool. The film has a very strong moral context. But the smoking does not. So under the new forced guidelines, that would be an ‘R’. And this is not an ‘R’ movie. No serious sex, no violence.

You could argue that, hey you know the guidelines, make sure the kids don’t smoke. Sure, you can have the MPAA content-edit your film. You can also take a fairly realistic portrayal of kids and first love and make it less realistic simply to avoid a business-killing rating. But why? To what end? Should an attempt at a realistic portrayal of teen life be automatically given a rating making it inappropriate for most teens?

Craig,

Lemme ask you something, do you really love big business the way everyone thinks you do? Would you do-it to big business if it were a chick? And what about Shia LeBouf, would you do-it to him? Cuz that would be illeagal , Craig.

My point, don’t be such a hypocrate.

“Mr. Tiersky,

Your idea that 13-year-old boys should see R-rated movies tells me you’ve never parented 13-year-old boys. My honest opinion is you should know what you’re talking about before you spread your opinion to the masses. That is just ridiculous and you know it!”

No, I don’t. And I don’t know you exist either, but I’m going to pretend for the moment because I’m just that bored.

The fact of the matter is that most 13-year-olds are fairly autonomous creatures, and if they really want to see some violence or some boobies (and guess what? Most of them do.), they’ll find a way (and guess what? They’ll be none the worse for it.) (Don’t believe me? Prove I’m wrong With a concrete example. Like, seriously, just ONE).

So basically, whether the R limit is 17 or 13, (which is to say, pretty much all of them) the 13-year-olds (particularly those with internet access) will have more than enough access to R-rated material. The only ones who won’t are those are extremely sheltered by over-protective parents. But guess what? If the parents are that determined to prevent their 13-year-olds from seeing that stuff, by not letting them leave the house alone or what have you, then guess what? It STILL doesn’t matter what the R limit is, because THOSE kids won’t get the opportunity to see the movies anyway.

And incidentally, as I say, bar and bat mitzvahs happen at age 13, so don’t take my word for it, take thousands of years of Jewish law and tradition.

The above is me, btw.

This place takes some getting used to.

Goddamn this lack of an editing button. Here’s how the sentence should read:

So basically, whether the R limit is 17 or 13, the 13-year-olds (particularly those with internet access)(which is to say, pretty much all of them) will have more than enough access to R-rated material.

My brother actually made me change my stance on this.

I think we can all agree that the MPAA is an incredibly corrupt, secret society but after speaking with my brother who works for the Center of Tobacco Control brings up some very good points. As a whole, cigarettes are marketed towards kids, not adults. Believe it or not, most people start smoking between the ages of 11-13. And when asked what made them start smoking they give 2 answers. Either they were influenced by their own parents or from someone they saw smoking in a movie.

Let’s be real for a second. As artists, we all get off on making an impact on the audience that watches our stuff. Sometimes we can influence people to start recycling, sometimes we can influence people that being gay isn’t a crime against nature. And while we can happily accept that we can make some positive changes, we have to accept that we can make some negative ones as well.

Truthfully, I doubt the MPAA’s motives are on the up and up. But as a bonus, this can hopefully make a difference in the amount of kids that start smoking. Besides, I can’t really feel good about defending the tobacco companies right to advertise. Because that’s what this really is. Of course indie films are different. But for studio films, they recieve millions, sometimes tens of millions of dollars for Brad Pitt to inhale a cigarette and look longingly into the camera.

Whether we like it or not, kids think smoking is cool. As parents, we teach them that it’s not. But I really don’t need Phillip Morris advertising to my kids in the guise of artistic expression.

“Whether we like it or not, kids think smoking is cool.”

Yes, and whether or not smoking kicks a PG-13 movie up to an R, they’ll still think it’s cool.

Just like they think violence is cool.

And naked babes.

And swearing.

And fact, if anything, by branding smoking with the same “You’re too young to even LOOK at this, this is ADULT behavior” type of stigma, it’ll probably seem even cooler.

So can we PLEASE drop the argument that doing this would reduce allure of smoking?

Cause it won’t.

“Whether we like it or not, kids think smoking is cool.”

Yes, and whether or not smoking kicks a PG-13 movie up to an R, they’ll still think it’s cool.

Just like they think violence is cool.

And naked babes.

And swearing.

And fact, if anything, by branding smoking with the same “You’re too young to even LOOK at this, this is ADULT behavior” type of stigma, it’ll probably seem even cooler.

So can we PLEASE drop the argument that doing this would reduce the allure of smoking?

Cause it won’t.

Apologies for the duplication.

That’s what I get for trying to edit in mid-post.

Arthur,

I’m not interested in reducing the allure of smoking. I’m interested in limiting the amount of advertising marketed directly towards kids. Because again, cigarettes are marketed to kids. That’s a fact.

“I’m not interested in reducing the allure of smoking. I’m interested in limiting the amount of advertising marketed directly towards kids.”

But this wouldn’t do that. It wouldn’t even necessarily prevent kids from seeing movies that glamorize smoking. It would MAYBE reduce the amount of smoking-glamorizing movies that a kid would see, and that’s only IF the kid’s parent refuses to take the kid to see them and IF the kid has no other way of seeing them, such as sneaking into them at the multiplex, which, as we all know, is a no-brainer 99% of the time.

And anyway, there are plenty of reasons a movie character would be smoking that have nothing to do with marketing cigarettes toward kids. So you’re pointing your arrows at the wrong target. If you want to stop Big Tobacco from trying to appeal to kids, then wouldn’t you say there are about 100 more effective, direct ways of going about it than messing with the movie ratings?

But this wouldn’t do that. It wouldn’t even necessarily prevent kids from seeing movies that glamorize smoking. It would MAYBE reduce the amount of smoking-glamorizing movies that a kid would see, and that’s only IF the kid’s parent refuses to take the kid to see them and IF the kid has no other way of seeing them, such as sneaking into them at the multiplex, which, as we all know, is a no-brainer 99% of the time.

Okay…but that was total conjecture.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not believe that the MPAA’s heart—they have hearts?—is in the right place. In my opinion, I think the MPAA is one silver face plate away from Cobra. Either way, what we do know is that this will limit one of the million ways that Tobacco companies market to kids.

Again, cigarettes are not marketed to adults. They’re marketed to kids. And Tobacco companies spend millions of dollars a year to place their product in film. Want to know why? Because they absolutely know something that we just can’t collectively seem to admit:

Smoking in films influences kids to smoke.

I know that this is tough to grasp but honestly, that’s just our egos talking. Do you really think that these companies that have been around for a hundred years put cigarettes in films because they think it influences kids? No, they do it because, unfortunately, it does. Whether we like it or not or believe it or not.

Kevin -

All you’ve done is repeat your argument. You have not said anything to suggest that this R rating will solve the problem of cigarettes being marketed to kids (Because guess what? It won’t. At all.). You have not responded to the fact that going after Big Tobacco by messing with the movie ratings system is utterly indirect and, when you get right down to it, rather silly.

And perhaps most importantly, you have seemingly disregarded the fact that there is plenty of smoking in movies that is an artistic choice that has nothing to do with product placement. Nothing. So take a moment and think about the poor filmmaker who made the personal, artistic choice to have his character smoke, and he’s told by the studio or the financer that he has to cut it because his contract mandates that his movie be no stronger than PG-13. All because some idiot wanted to stick it to Big Tobacco. Does that strike you as fair?

Arthur,

Okay.

Two things.

I wasn’t repeating an argument. I was stating a fact. The fact that you think that limiting the places where cigarettes can be marketed as ineffectual is a little strange.

The R rating for smoking has to do with context—the glamorization of smoking—not just smoking in general. There’s a difference. And quite easy to pick it out.

Also, please explain to me when a character smoking or not smoking will make a break a movie. If a “poor filmmaker” is making a movie geared towards 13 year olds or younger, it’d be pretty dumb and irresponsible to have a character smoking away with no consequences. If the “poor filmmaker” is making a movie towards adults than who gives a damn? Let the character smoke away, it doesn’t matter if you get an R or not. Let’s not forget that our art form is also a business. If you’re making Goonies and you made an artistic choice to have one of the kids smoking away, you’d be kind of an idiot.

I think you might find the fact that the MPAA has found yet another reason to give a film an R rating distasteful. I understand that. I think we all know how ridiculousy arbitrary they can be. But if you’re making a movie that’s geared towards 13 year olds and one of the characters absolutely must be a smoker or the whole movie suffers, and ultimately an R rating will destroy the marketablity of your film, I’d argue that you didn’t have a firm grasp on your audience to begin with.

Arthur,

Also, cigarettes are only advertised in print, internet, television shows (in network television, cigarettes are only allowed in the context of comedy, i.e. a character is trying to quit or pretends to be a smoker), with the brunt advertising down in film. Limiting how cigarettes are marketed in film is HUGE. Not small. But huge.

I’ve never thought smoking was cool… I did give it a try once when I was a kid because both of my parents smoked and I thought my Dad was pretty cool there for a while so I gave it a shot and have never smoked since…

I think there are just as many people out there that think smoking is NOT cool as there are people that think it is… In fact, an edgemacated guess on my part would be that with more and more EDUCATION about the dangers of smoking; less and less people are going to be thinking smoking is cool.

But I don’t give a shit about that.

Many theaters and theater owners around the country do NOT make it a rule that a parent or guardian accompany the under 17 year old kid to the movie… Many however, do require a parent, guardian, or somebody who says they are somebody’s big brother or sister to buy the “kid” a ticket. Happens every day and I’ve personally seen it thousands of times…

But I don’t give a shit about that either…

What I do care about is how the MPAA declares itself (read their web site) UNINFLUENCED by the industry or any other entity when it comes to their ratings system… What I do care about is how the MPAA says that only 10 to 13 people sit down and come up with the ratings of each movie. What I do care is how the MPAA declares that rating a movie is more of an ART than it is a science.

Believe it or not, Jack Valenti didn’t want smoking to be a factor in rating movies… He was the constant holdout when it came to implementing it as a factor… But oops. He’s dead now and less than a month after his death, nobody gives a shit that he was the holdout… Why? It couldn’t be that the MPAA decided to go ahead and cave in to all the organizations and politicians they devoutly state on their web site that they do not cave in to — could it?

Of course not… Of course they didn’t cave in to the myriad of organizations who feel smoking in movies is directly related to kids becoming current and future smokers… They wouldn’t cave in to them… It says so right on their web site… LOL. Of course they didn’t cave in to the years and years of letters sent to them by politicians soliciting them to please factor in smoking when it comes to giving a movie an “R” rating…

What I also find utterly AMAZING is that apparently this phenomenon known as the ratings system only seems to work at the theater… LOL.

I see underage kids buying and renting “R” rated movies all the time… And how about the NON-RATED films that are probably worse than the “R” rated version of the same film?

I guess we have to start somewhere though… RIGHT?

I guess what I’m saying and Maye in Texas more or less corroborates this in one of her comments… If an underage kid wants to see an “R” rated movie bad enough, he or she’s gonna see it. We even have middle school teachers showing “R” rated films without parental permission… LOL.

But I digress…

The current ratings system has absolutely no consistency… The MPAA even acknowledges this fact by stating that rating a film is an ART i.e., there is no standard… There are no specific guidelines… There is certainly experience on the part of filmmakers who, based on their past experience, more or less know what’s going to get a film an “R” rating but it’s been proven time and time again that there is no consistency.

And for the MPAA to simply state that they will now factor in smoking when it comes to ratings means to me that there will be even less consistency than there has ever been before when it comes to handing out ratings.

It turns out that my oldest son who does in fact smoke like a chimney tells me that he smokes because his mother smokes… And her mother smokes… And his friends smoke… That’s not to say that adolescents cannot be influenced by characters or movie stars that smoke in movies… Maybe they can and maybe this is something that can be controlled… Who the hell knows? But there is overwhelming evidence out there that says adolescent smoking can be thwarted a hell of a lot more through education than it can be by giving a movie with smoking an “R” rating.

Unk

I love Chinatown. I just had to say that.

I’m sorry, Unk. I’m a little confused at what your argument there was. You said that Jack Valenti was the constant hold out against using smoking as a criterion for the R rating, but now that he’s dead, the MPAA is caving in to other people’s demands? I’m not sure what the one has to do with the other.

It seems to me (based on your post) that if Valenti was the lone holdout, then the rest of the MPAA already wanted to use smoking as a criterion for the R rating, so they aren’t caving to anyone. They’re simply not listening to Valenti any more because he’s dead.

For the record, I’m a dad and I’m with Craig and Kevin on this one. But with the added caveat that Olson is partially right too in that ratings in this country aren’t treated like simple guidelines for parents even though that’s really all they are. Or at least, all they should be. But that’s really a separate issue, I think. And I don’t think that abolishing them altogether is the solution.

Mr. Tiersky,

As I’ve stated, I can tell you are not a parent of teen-age boys. You might think differently when you are one. If you are representative of Hollywood, all I can say is that the news has it right when they keep saying that Hollywood just doesn’t get it.

Arthur,

Don’t bother – Kevin presents theories as fact and then complains that nobody accepts the facts. Wait til he tells you that he’s an authority in all things film because he knows Whoopie…

Craig -

The MPAA give the guidelines that are enforced by theaters.

Yet you seem to blame solely the theaters.

It’s like blaming a police officer for the law he’s enforcing. What about the lawmaker?

The MPAA must be well aware that though non-mandatory, in reality their ratings are being enforced as if they were the law. Worse - some theater owners are apparently under the impression that it is a law:

“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.”

Posted by: Neil Winchell at June 2, 2007 6:32 PM

One could argue that the theater owners are to blame because they aren’t well informed. True. But still, saying the MPAA has no blame in this sounds like the old excuse – “I didn’t sent them to death camp, I just measured their noses”.

Sorry to go to an extreme to make a point, but, well, I wanted to make a point.

So, Craig, how can you not put any blame on the MPAA for the effect their system has on the industry-?

P.S. I don’t know about anybody else, but I didn’t realize you had provided a link to the CNN story that mentions the 3 criteria – the link was sorta hidden in the original post. Sorta…

saying the MPAA has no blame in this sounds like the old excuse – “I didn’t sent them to death camp, I just measured their noses”.

Godwin’s Law.

“The fact that you think that limiting the places where cigarettes can be marketed as ineffectual is a little strange.”

Because, again, THAT’S NOT WHAT THIS DOES. Here’s what the actual effect would be: It would reduce the amount of movies that “glamorize” smoking that under-17’s can see without accompaniment. It does not “limit the places where cigarettes can be marketed”, it just makes it SLIGHTLY harder for the teenagers to see a few movies in the theatre. That’s it. Nothing more. Call me crazy, but I fail to see how that is so “huge.” It’s a completely empty act. And I’ll ask for the third time now…Doesn’t that strike you as a bit indirect? You got a problem with what cigarette companies are doing, so the MOVIES take the hit? That’s like…well, it’s like invading a country that DIDN’T attack us as revenge for 9/11.

“Also, please explain to me when a character smoking or not smoking will make a break a movie. If a “poor filmmaker” is making a movie geared towards 13 year olds or younger, it’d be pretty dumb and irresponsible to have a character smoking away with no consequences. If the “poor filmmaker” is making a movie towards adults than who gives a damn?”

a) I’m not saying smoking would make or break a movie. What I’m saying is a guy has made an artistic choice to have his character smoke. Follow me? Artist making a choice. Like a painter chooses a color. Imagine painters suddenly having to be wary of which colors they choose because some guy wanted to hit Big Oil. Anything wrong there?

b) Silly me, I didn’t realize movies could only be “geared” toward 13 and under, or adults. I was under the impression that plenty of movies are suitable for both age groups, such as plenty of PG-13 movies, which is why the PG-13 doesn’t prevent anyone from seeing them. But the R rating DOES. That’s why there is a HUGE difference between getting a PG-13 and an R. It can have a major impact on box office, which is why tinkering with it can have a major impact on what studios demand of their filmmakers, which is what Olson is saying about it affecting his job.

If your feeling about how filmmakers are affected by crap like this can really be summed as, “Who gives a damn?”, well, that’s your right, but I gotta say…you chose an odd profession to go into, then.

“Mr. Tiersky,

As I’ve stated, I can tell you are not a parent of teen-age boys. You might think differently when you are one. If you are representative of Hollywood, all I can say is that the news has it right when they keep saying that Hollywood just doesn’t get it.”

Ma’am, unlike you (we’ll assume for now), I WAS a teenage boy for a number of years, and if you think your teenage boys are not seeking out all the violence and porn they can get their hands on when you’re not around, you’re living in a greater fantasy world than we here in Hollywood could ever create.

Johnny,

Excellent points! I’d love to hear Craig’s response. He’s been dodging that bullet for a while now. Is it because he doesn’t want to “jinx” his next movie? Is he afraid they’ll put him on a black list? Is that why he wrote the pro MPAA piece in the first place, to garner points with them? Is he nothing but a sheep in wolf’s clothing??

Johnny:

If you’re capable of having an intelligent conversation without the unnecessary digs, let me know. If not, shut your mouth. I can safely say that we’re all sick of your crap. At least Arthur and I are having a conversation without insulting each other.

Grow up.

Arthur:

Silly me, I didn’t realize movies could only be “geared” toward 13 and under, or adults.

I don’t think I’m understanding you correctly here. It sounds like you’re saying that some movies aren’t geared towards specific demographics. That’s a strange thing to say so I’m wondering what you mean here…

I realize we’re all artists here but it’s important to realize the distinction between a painter and a filmmaker.

Painting is a solo process that can be completed for as little as $20.

Filmmaking is collaborative process that can cost millions of dollars.

When a writer or director makes an artistic choice, it goes through a funneling process whether you like it or not. You can make an artistic choice to depict a helicopter explosion or a grown man having sex with a 2 year old but that doesn’t mean that you can shoot it because you want to.

I believe you’re right when you say that kids eventually find their way to certain vices. But I’m not saying that this will deter kids from smoking. I don’t think anyone believes that and that’s not what I’m saying. What this does affect is the way major studios accept money from tobacco companies to market to kids.

Besides, this doesn’t really affect “indie” film. Indie films are notoriously edgier than studio fare and have always received “R” ratings anyway. Think of some of the bigger, more successful indie films and I think you’ll find that most of them are rated “R” anyway. Because I don’t think indie filmmakers really make films for kids.

I’m not a fan of the MPAA or ratings in general — I would prefer a system where parents determined for themselves whether the content of a given movie is appropriate for their children.

However, there is an aspect of the MPAA ratings system being overlooked that should be considered in this discussion (or any discussion of the MPAA ratings system):

One of the purposes of the ratings — in fact, arguably, it’s most important purpose — is to help protect exhibitors from prosecution under local “community standards” regulations.

Let’s say a local government passed a law that made it a crime to expose minors to any homosexual acts. They couldn’t require the filmmakers not to include the Will Farrell/Sacha Baron Cohen kiss in Talladega Nights (first amendment issue), and the couldn’t prohibit a local theater from showing Talladega Nights (prior restraint of trade). But they could prosecute the theater owner for having sold a ticket to a minor.

And, let’s not kid ourselves — that could still happen, MPAA ratings or no (if you want an example of local government zealously and maliciously prosecuting a business under “community standards” regulations, run a Google search for “Friendly Frank’s” — or just go to the Comic Book Defense Fund’s website and read about it there — and prepare to be appalled).

But because the MPAA ratings establish what amounts to a de facto national “community standard” for movie content, and because, even though the MPAA ratings do not carry the force of law, they are nonetheless believed by many people to be law … it would make it very, very difficult for a case against an exhibitor on these grounds to be won … difficult enough, in fact, to make it not worth prosecutors’ time to even try.

The rise in the number of local laws that criminalize smoking in public is evidence of a change in “community standards” regarding smoking … and that might be something worth considering when judging the MPAA’s new guidelines regarding the portrayal of smoking in movies intended to be exhibited in those communities.

-

-

Ted -

Interesting new angle. Certainly relevant in regards to sexual content – but smoking?

I follow your point that no-smoking laws are part of the modern day “community standard”. But prosecuting theater owners for showing a film that has a likable character light up seems like a bit of a leap…

I’d like to see a show of hands. Who in here has kids? Me, Criag and..?

As a parent, heck as a guy who’s not getting any younger, I’m more and more aware of the culture gap between me and young people. Even people not that much younger than myself.

I can use all the help I can get. And as a movie fan and story lover, I can’t wait to introduce the things I love to my kids.

Two quick anecdotes:

I tell my sone bedtime stories every night. I used to make them up and he dug that, but I was getting dry, so I thought, hey, I’ll break out the Hobbit. You’d be amazed at how much I skip (or take license with) when reading to him. He’s nearing 4 and super smart with a crazy imagination and I’m learning that he has a certain amount of innocence I’d be irresponsible not to try and preserve.

We learned that the hard way when we put in Pirates, Dead Man’s Chest. He came in and wanted to watch (he’s in love with the idea of that franchise), but it was pretty clear that Davey Jones was a bit too much for him.

These are experiential things that you just can know until you have kids. Sure, the ratings are a flawed system… but parents need this kind of stuff to help us raise our kids in a way that jives with our sensibilities.

Having said that, I think the glorification of any vice is something the MPAA should take note of and then find the best, most logical way to communicate that to people who want to know.

Ted,

You certainly bring up another interesting wrinkle. And, I’m with you, I would love a world where people take responsiblity for their children and actually set about to “raise” them well…

I’m legitimately trying and I think the MPAA has proven, at least to me, to be immensely helpful as I’ve started to take my son to the movies.

There was a time when I thought I didn’t need outside help. But life has given me stiff wisdom and proven to me otherwise.

So, I ask you, if not the MPAA, what do you propose to parents, like me, who care about the Bill of Rights and their children’s well being? What do you offer us as an aid to choosing movies, without sending us ticket and babystitter money to go and screen the movie first?

Johnny —

But prosecuting theater owners for showing a film that has a likable character light up seems like a bit of a leap …

Ah, but what about using the fact a theater owner showed a film that has a likable character light in order to force a theater owner to pay legal costs that make shuttering or selling off the business an attractive alternative … does that seem like a bit of a leap?

Particularly if the theater owner shows other movies which content a small, narrow-minded but nonehteless-active-in-local-government segment of the population find objectionable?

But, in a bigger-picture sense, changing the rules for rating the depiction of smoking on film in response to changes in local community standards regarding smoking serves as means to refute the criticism that the MPAA ratings ignore the changes in community standards about other things — charges that are leveled by that same small, narrow-minde but nonetheless-active-in both-local-and-national-government segment of the population.

-

Ted -

“Ah, but what about using the fact a theater owner showed a film that has a likable character light in order to force a theater owner to pay legal costs that make shuttering or selling off the business an attractive alternative … does that seem like a bit of a leap?”

Not in a very nefarious world full of sinister forces with secret agendas and no moral fiber, no.

But you got me curious. In regards to the last paragraph… What other things might you be referring to?

There may be an angle here…

The MPAA has given the new movie Captivity (directed by Roland Joffe?!?!?!?!?) an R rating. To be expected, I think. But look closely at the explanation on the poster. Among other things, they feel the movie contains “grizzly images.”

Now, unless there’s a bear attack in the movie, seems to me that Lion’s Gate might have a landmark case against the MPAA.

Maye,

“Your idea that 13-year-old boys should see R-rated movies tells me you’ve never parented 13-year-old boys.”

I’d seen gobs of R rated movies by the time I was 17, and that was back when the ratings were a lot looser. Somehow, I managed to survive and become a healthy, happy, and productive member of society. Of course, my parents didn’t beat me, either…

“Mr. Olson, thank you for posting that review of your movie. I would write a little different one as I’m sure you can imagine. “

That was precisely my point. Thanks for missing it entirely.

The point was that we shouldn’t be letting some tiny, shadowy group decide what’s appropriate and what’s not, because while you might find a specific film violent and reprehensible, others find it to be something else entirely.

“Did you see Schindler’s List? Same message but done in an elegant style that didn’t have to be so in your face.”

History had less than ninety seconds of violence, and no arterial spray. Schindler has gore galore, an exceptionally violent and bloody movie, and thematically has exactly nothing to do with the ideas we were exploring in History. But then, you know that, don’t you, dude?

Arbouet,

Whether or not this will impact on kids’ smoking is absolutely irrelevant.

“Tobacco companies spend millions of dollars a year to place their product in film”

Then make THAT the issue. Some prosecutions would be nice.

“I know that this is tough to grasp but honestly, that’s just our egos talking. Do you really think that these companies that have been around for a hundred years put cigarettes in films because they think it influences kids? No, they do it because, unfortunately, it does. Whether we like it or not or believe it or not.”

No shit. Really? Thanks for explaining that to us morons here.

You’ve stated the bleeding obvious as though you’re breaking new ground, and you think that that alone justifies the MPAA getting involved. You haven’t. It doesn’t. Nobody here is arguing that rampant smoking is a good thing. The argument is not about smoking, specifically, it’s about the MPAA.

“Also, please explain to me when a character smoking or not smoking will make a break a movie.”

You’re worse than Craig. While you’re at it, please explain to me when a character cursing or not cursing will make or break a movie. Then explain why any movie REALLY needs nudity. And when you’re done with that, explain why you feel it might be necessary for a filmmaker to show a character blaspheming. And hey, you know what? Some people think inter-racial couples are offensive, and don’t want their kids seeing that. And I’m sick of this glamorization of piracy. I think it’s high time the MPAA did something about it. I mean, really, can’t you people find some way to make your point without glamorizing criminals?

Christ, no wonder you love Craig so much. Both of you have nothing but contempt for people with the audacity to perceive this as an art form.

“Besides, this doesn’t really affect “indie” film. Indie films are notoriously edgier than studio fare and have always received “R” ratings anyway. “

Jesus mother of God. This is something Maye would say, and she’s not even real.

This statement is so disconnected from reality I can barely reply to it.

Newsflash, bunkie - the term “indie film” does not refer to a type of movie, it refers to how that movie is financed and distributed. There are plenty of PG indie films, and in case you’ve only just heard of the MPAA, the people they hurt the most are independent filmmakers. Since the MPAA is a functionary of the studios, they tend not to be as adversely affected by the process. Good luck changing the rating when your one million dollar indie gets an NC-17, though. Jesus, Kevin, seriously - based on that statement alone, you simply do not know anything about this subject.

To Johnny: “I can safely say that we’re all sick of your crap.”

No, you can’t.

Trey —

I don’t begrudge parents the use of MPAA ratings in deciding what movies they let their kids see. Personally, I wouldn’t rely on any singular source of information regarding the content of movies, though — better to draw on a wider range of opinions, I think.

I think we both agree that the ideal would be that any movie your kid wanted to see, you saw first for yourself. Even though that’s not practical, I believe that any practical system should be in keeping with that ideal.

-

Ted,

“I don’t begrudge parents the use of MPAA ratings in deciding what movies they let their kids see. “

I don’t think anyone here does. The issue has never been that they offer guidelines. It’s that those guidelines are backed up with a very big stick.

A while back, a friend of mine showed me a site that went through new releases and ranked them based solely on whether or not the films showed inter-racial romances. More power to ‘em. If someone doesn’t want to see Margaret Cho and Sam Jackson making kissy faces, that is, of course, their right. The issue, obviously, is when the people who run that web site have the ability to limit the number of theaters my movie can show in because they don’t like what they see.

Johnny —

You don’t have to live in a world full of sinister forces and no moral fiber to imagine the scenario I suggested — you only have to live in a world filled with human beings who have different philosophical, political or moral beliefs.

People tend to forget — or else, can’t be bothered finding out — that the case that closed down the Hays Office and put an end to the power of local governments to ban movies outright — that is, to prevent them from being exhibited at all — was one that involved an exhibitor who dared to show a movie that had not been submitted to the Legion of Decency for rating. He had to fight that one all the way to the Supreme Court.

That case is largely responsible for the freedom from censorship that fillmakers have today, but that case did not turn on First Amendment issues — it turned on restraint of trade issues.

Why?

Because — another thing people tend to forget or can’t be bothered finding out — is that movies made for commercial distribution are not protected by the First Amendment. Whether a specific expression of ideas is protected must be determined on a case-by-case basis — but such protection is not a given.

And another thing that people tend to forget or can’t be bothered finding out is that in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, there is a nasty little provision that effectively gives the President of the United States the authority to establish a national, governmental-run or -controlled ratings board for all audio/visual media — theatrical, television, video games, etc. — based on whether or not Congress determines enough people actually use the V-chip technology in their TV sets and cable boxes to deem it “effective.”

But you got me curious. In regards to the last paragraph� What other things might you be referring to?

Things that are subject to far greater and more intense philosophical, political or moral disagreement among human beings than smoking, obviously.

-

Ted,

I think I’d modify your ideal slightly.

“…the ideal would be that any movie your kid wanted to see,” was one you’d want to see - twice.

Shrek the Turd. Not so much.

However, having seen Toy Story, Cars, The Incredibles and Nemo 7 zillion times… I’m actually still very much in love with those pictures.

But to your point, yes - a wider range of voices in these kinds of decisions is great. And the most reliable source, at least for our family, is still word of mouth from people who’s taste and judgement we trust.

I’m not a guy who says, you can’t see Gladiator until you’re 17. Running through life with the blinders on seems as dangerous as running through life saying all things are permissible.

Josh -

What is the better system?

You may not be begruging parents on paper, but what I’ve read thus far from the anti-MPAA camp isn’t offering a better solution. I’m all for a change - but let’s not just be critics, let’s propose solutions.

An interesting related story…just yesterday, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the four major TV networks in their lawsuit against the FCC over fines levied for expletives. The decision referenced the First Amendment:

“We are skeptical that the commission can provide a reasoned explanation for its ‘fleeting expletive’ regime that would pass constitutional muster. We question whether the F.C.C.’s indecency test can survive First Amendment scrutiny.”

The story is on the front page of the NY Times website.

Josh:

Do you have any kids?

Can I just say …

I love this conversation and almost all the people involved (even you Maye, even if you ain’t real, I love ya, but not in a Jesus-way, because A) I’m a Buddhist and B) the President loves people in a Jesus-way and New Orleans suffered as a result, among other things … but I’ve digressed) … I mean, I don’t agree with Craig on a lot of issues … but DANG, I love the exchange of ideas happening here!

Can we do this, like, all the time?

You may not be begruging parents on paper, but what I?ve read thus far from the anti-MPAA camp isn?t offering a better solution. I?m all for a change - but let?s not just be critics, let?s propose solutions.

The easy way would be for MPAA ratings to be used as a simple label, complete with listings of the reasons for a specific rating (“grizzly” and all), with absolutely no threat of legal action (including civil lawsuits) against exhibitors, distributors or producers. I know that’s ostensibly how it works now, but clearly it goes further than that in practice. Whether we like it or not, ratings affect production, distribution and exhibition of films.

I don’t know if that can happen without someone taking somebody to court (as has happened over video game ratings, time and again, always with the same result).

BTW, I’m a parent too — I couldn’t even tell you how many times I’ve seen Cars. Good thing I like it. :)

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most of the people who support this rating have kids. No one can argue with your credentials but when it comes to raising a child you don’t have a fucking clue as to what you’re talking about. You live in a world where it’s all about Josh Olson and there’s nothing wrong with that but when you have kids you realize the world is a bit different than you possibly could’ve imagined.

Regarding loving Craig…um, what? I disagree with his views more than I agree with them but as a rational human being I’m able to be liberal and conservative at the same time. This is what is so wrong with politics today. You got small minded assholes on the right and conspiracy theory idiots on the left. There’s not enough people in the middle who actually fucking think and have an open mind.

Oh, and thanks for letting me know what indie film is considering that’s how I make my living. Also, bunkie? Bunkie? How fucking old are you anyway? Why not Bub or Boobie? I find to take a man seriously when he talks like fucking Wolverine.

Oh and Kevin …

Having kids doesn’t automatically mean a person automatically becomes more responsible or understanding or any of that … I’ve met plenty of irrresponsible parents … including my own!

I worked as a para-educater in a High School for a year and one thing I learned was that the ability to procreate doesn’t automatically bestow ANY judgment or good sense onto anyone … there’s an assumption often made that, since you squirted out a kid, you must be now more mature.

Not what I’ve observed. Some people do become more responsible … but many do not.

I remember seeing SOUTH PARK the MOVIE in theatres and laughing my ass off because, well, it’s a damn funny movie.

And noticing that there were many mothers in the audience with young children, as young as 3 or as old as 14 or so …

Now … maybe we can assume these mothers figured it was a cartoon and that the kids would like it, didn’t pay attention to the rating and went anyway … we can assume that.

But the UNCLE-FUCKER number comes up about 9 minutes into it and after that, any reasonable parent figures, unless I want MY six year old singing this at home, maybe I’d better skedaddle …

Nope, every smack dab one of those parents stayed with their kids until the bitter, wonderful end, right thru Satan fucking Saddam up the ass and Winona Ryder doing tricks with pingpong balls between her legs … (god, I loved that movie).

I counted at least six parents with young children at that screening (a matinee) when the lights came up and found it the height of irony, given the subject matter of the movie (parents attacking Canada for a filthy movie corrupting their kids) …

So … while Maye might maintain she’s a good parent, I’ll nod and go cool … but I’ll believe it when I see it.

Josh or Johnny might say they have kids and maintain they’re great parents … I’ll nod and say cool, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

Same for anyone else … So a show of hands here of who has or doesn’t have kids, it doesn’t really impact this debate … Because a person could say they have kids and be a great parent or an incredibly bad one … and there’s no way to quantify it one way or another, you know?

You could be and probably are a great dad … but how can we really know that regarding this conversation?

but my old man says he was a great dad, too … even though he gave my brother and I sticks with our names painted on them for Christmas … spanking sticks … personalized beating, how about that shit?

I’m not attacking anyone here who does have children… I just don’t think having kids gives anyone a special insight into the ideas being discussed here … some people have that insight, and some people don’t … some of those people have kids, and some do not … intelligence and empathy comes with or without children, don’t you agree?

My status regarding whether or not I’m a parent … that’s a secret (hee-hee).

Joshua:

I’ve seen you on the Maury Show and I know your status as a parent…

Mr. Olson,

I think the part you are forgetting in all this is that the system works. For real moms and dads out there, we are thankful for the ratings. With all the junk being bombarded on our children every day, it is nice to know what is going on in the movies without having to sit through them as Ted Elliott suggested. (No thank you!) Some of us in the real world are just trying to raise our children as best we can in our own communities. We certainly don’t want Lindsay Lohan or George Clooney or the rest of Hollywood doing that! From what it sounds like on this blog, it is those of you who make movies who don’t like the system. Well, you’re not who the system is for. Now that’s simply put with no blogger-bullying, isn’t it? And guess what, you don’t have to be condescending.

“I don’t think I’m understanding you correctly here. It sounds like you’re saying that some movies aren’t geared towards specific demographics. That’s a strange thing to say so I’m wondering what you mean here…”

I’m saying you make it sound like an either/or, like they’re mutually exclusive, like there aren’t oodles of movies that try to bring in both kids AND adults. I’d venture to say that this, in fact, describes most of the most successful movies of this year, this decade, and all time. And most of them would have been far, far less successful if they’d been rated R. Which brings me to a question for all you supporting this crap (Kevin, Craig, “Maye”…):

Suppose Jack Sparrow smoked, and made it look cool, as he undoubtedly would. Should the “Pirates” movies be rated R?

If your answer is no, then that should pretty much end this whole debate right here.

If your answer is yes, then let me ask you this:

Sparrow is a drunk. A very lovable, rambunctious, life-loving drunk. He makes being drunk look fun, cool, and without consequences. He’s also hardly the first children-friendly to do so. He imbibes an addictive health hazard and is, by and large, none the worse for it; if anything, it gives him even more quirky appeal.

So pardon my French, but…what the fuck’s the difference? By your logic, shouldn’t the “Pirates” movies already be Rated R?

That’s me above, incidentally. And I left out the word “character” after “children-friendly.”

Damnit.

I’ve actually heard some disgruntled parents claim the Pirates movies should be rated R, but they usually cited excessive violence as the reason, not drunkennness. That is particularily the case with the third movie.

On the other hand, taking a 4-year-old to a PG-13 movie might have been a bad idea from the start…

LOL! damn it, I knew Maury would come back and haunt me!

Kevin,

“Do you have any kids?”

If you can’t make your argument based on facts, reason, and logic, please don’t wave your fucking baby flag in my face.

Read this drivel:

“No one can argue with your credentials but when it comes to raising a child you don’t have a fucking clue as to what you’re talking about.”

And where, O wise one, have any of us made any assertions as to how to raise children?

There are few things on this planet I despise more than the way people justify all manner of ignorance, stupidity and nastiness “for the children.”

NOBODY HERE IS TRYING TO SELL CRACK TO YOUR FUCKING CHILDREN, KEVIN.

“Oh, and thanks for letting me know what indie film is considering that’s how I make my living. “

So you say. But then you post stuff that displays an astonishing ignorance on the subject.

If you do, actually, have kids, I hope you’ll raise them not to use their children as some kind of twisted trump card in discussions that have nothing to do with them.

You know whose job it is to look out for your kids, Kevin? Yours. You know whose job it isn’t? Mine. The notion that it should be harder for me to make a movie for adults because you’re a shrieking hysteric who wants someone else to do his job for him does not make a lick of sense.

But, as you point out, you don’t actually have to make a rational argument, because you stand FOR THE CHILDREN.

Bleargh. All this sugar makes me ill….

Maye,

So funny you mention those people. Last night, Clooney, Lohan, Marilyn Manson and I were chilling after the orgy at the local kindergarten, snorting meth and discussing how to turn your kids into Satan worshipers. Christ, the thing that kills me is we do our damndest to keep you from finding out about it…. You’re too smart for us, honey.

Give Jethro Jr. a smack in the head for me, would ya?

Josh:

Let’s try this again because you don’t seem to be fucking getting it, totally uninformed, or totally fucking ignorant.

Yes, no one is trying to sell crack to my kid.

BUT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SELL CIGARETTES TO MY KID!

Cigarettes are marketed towards kids you moron, can you get that through your fuzzy skull?

If you want to make movies for adults—then make them. If you want to make movies for kids—don’t take money from Phillip Morris to put cigarettes in your film.

Arthur:

I can’t speak for Ted but personally, I do think that Pirates should be rated R. Forget the smoking, it’s incredibly violent.

Josh —

The reason I brought up the role exhibitors play in this is because, when it gets right down it, the stick that the MPAA weilds against filmmakers is simply this:

The threat of limiting the potential commercial success of the movie.

The art need not be compromised if the filmmaker is willing to risk generating less revenue then might otherwise be possible.

Obviously, if the filmmaker has already made the art subject to commercial concerns by conceding control to another party in exchange for a pile of cash, that consideration is moot.

But for an independent film, one over which presumably the filmmaker has final authority … well, the only thing the MPAA can actually do is suggest that the movie has limited commercial appeal.

The real problem here is that, regardless of the intent that filmmakers have when they make a movie, all filmmakers, be they artists, hacks, mavericks or corporate lackeys — we are all to one dependent upon a commercial distribution system, one that consists entirely of businesses that are operated for profit.

If only there was some means for filmmakers to get their work to the public that bypasses the traditional distrubtion system. Maybe even one that allows filmmakers to get their work directly to the public. That would render the MPAA pretty much irrelevant.

-

“I do think that Pirates should be rated R. Forget the smoking, it’s incredibly violent.”

That’s a side-step answer, and I’m pretty sure you know it. You really want to make me rephrase so that you can’t sidestep the actual issue at hand? Fine.

a) TAKE ALL THE GODDAMN VIOLENCE OUT OF THE PIRATES MOVIES, but make Sparrow a smoker. Rate them all R?

b) If you answered a) yes, then TAKE ALL THE GODDAMN VIOLENCE OUT OF THE PIRATES MOVIES, and consider Sparrow’s drinking. Rate them all R?

And if no…Why not?

My gut feeling says it seems insane to make smoking in movies R-rated -

The Hallmark channel is full of G rated killings.

And why — which is the worse crime – smoking, or shooting someone?

Since smoking is illegal for kids, you can make a good argument that it should only appear in movies which are made to be viewed by adults.

But again, if we’re putting up ratings based on crimes, why aren’t more severe crimes against others, instead of “victimless crimes” (against oneself) R ratings factors?

I don’t know what it is about LA…I normally barely smoke, but here, a pack a week habit of American Spirits comes easily if I don’t watch it.

Ted –

I was under the impression that the production code was abolished (or rather replaced by the rating system…), because basically distributors stopped adhering to it. I wasn’t familiar with the court case you brought up, but will bother to find out more about it… as it sounds like a delightful morsel of film history.

Just to clarify…

In regards to - “things that are subject to far greater and more intense philosophical, political or moral disagreement among human beings than smoking” – are you suggesting the new anti-smoking criteria is but a smokescreen for the MPAA to get the narrow-minded but nonetheless-active-in both-local-and-national-government segment of the population off their back when those ‘dark forces’ want the organisation to rate films based on, for example, the portrayal of war-?

Can you really see the MPAA arguing “Hey, we gave you smokes, obviously we do honor community standards, now leave us alone with your requests to rebuke films with (to stick to the example) an anti-war message!”-?

Is that what you were getting at, or am I getting it all wrong-?

“But again, if we’re putting up ratings based on crimes, why aren’t more severe crimes against others, instead of “victimless crimes” (against oneself) R ratings factors?”

I don’t think the fact that it’s a crime for kids to smoke is the primary argument for this. Most in favor of it are justifying it with the reasoning that films that glamorize smoking are a bad influence on kids. So while I’m waiting for anyone to give me a reasonable answer to my “Pirates” query, let’s try a follow-up (cause it could be a while)…

Ya know what else always look REALLY cool in movies?

Car chases.

Don’t they? C’mon, admit it, don’t car chases look unimaginably fun? Zooming around the city at top speed, zipping through red lights, narrowly evading the idiot cops, leaping over shit, smashing up stores, overturning fruit carts, screaming victoriously as you trick your pursuers into smashing into each other…

But wait a minute…What the hell?…I’ve seen car chases in ALL types of movies with all types of ratings. G, PG, you name it, there’s car chases in ‘em.

Surely an outrage, yes? Let’s slap them all with R’s, right? Defenders of the “R for Smoking” campaign? Can I get an amen?

Speaking of the whole “for the kids” arguments -

I think one of the best - and one of the worst - aspects of the 3-4 years I spent living in Tokyo and in San Francisco was the Singles Scene.

Where you have fewer families, you have more unapologetic, uninhibited adult thought and speech, more wild-assed goings-on.

You even get more legal freedom, sometimes.

But you also get more rude to the point of sociopathic, smart-assed types annoying the crap out of anyone who wasn’t raised by wolves.

Speaking of the whole “for the kids” arguments -

I think one of the best - and one of the worst - aspects of the 3-4 years I spent living in Tokyo and in San Francisco was the Singles Scene.

Where you have fewer families, you have more unapologetic, uninhibited adult thought and speech, more wild-assed goings-on.

You even get more legal freedom, sometimes.

But you also get more rude to the point of sociopathic smart-assed types annoying the crap out of anyone who wasn’t raised by wolves.

Kevin –

The notion that only parents have the authority to evaluate the rating system is of course ludicrous.

It’s like saying only pet owners have the authority to talk about shit on the sidewalk.

Or only Oscar-nominated screenwriters have the authority to comment on the Academy Awards.

You get the idea.

Kevin,

“Let’s try this again because you don’t seem to be fucking getting it, totally uninformed, or totally fucking ignorant. Yes, no one is trying to sell crack to my kid.

BUT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SELL CIGARETTES TO MY KID!”

Then do something about it. And by “do something,” I mean do something other than act like people who don’t have kids don’t give a shit about children.

The baby flag makes people shut down and pay no further attention to your ramblings. Because guess what, jackalope - you haven’t cornered the market on caring about kids. And having children does not give you the right to get on your idiotic high horse and lecture me about what really matters.

I not only care about kids in general, I care about some specific kids as well. Hell, as long as we’re being sanctimonious bloviators, I’d wager I’m a better uncle to my nieces and nephew than you are a parent to your kids, because I emphasize LEARNING AND INTELLIGENCE, as opposed to mindless, irrational emotionalism. My 11 year old nephew can make a better argument for the MPAA than you can, and he doesn’t have any kids at all.

See, I GET that people are trying to sell cigarettes to kids, and I have a real big problem with it. I find your insinuation that I don’t to be loathsome, shit-stained behavior of the lowest order. Hiding behind a child to throw turds at people you disagree with is just shabby, kiddo.

I do not think the MPAA holds the solution, and it has nothing to do with whether or not I’ve ever impregnated anyone.

I think a vastly more effective and reasonable solution is to investigate the way tobacco companies and studios are clearly violating the Master Settlement Agreement, because not only will that have some real consequences for the people responsible for this travesty, it WON’T have damaging consequences for those of us who are simply trying to make good movies.

But because you’ve decided to go the moron route and wave the baby flag in my face, you now feel free to accuse me of ghastly beliefs, and of making statements I’ve never made. To wit:

“Cigarettes are marketed towards kids you moron, can you get that through your fuzzy skull?”

At no point have I indicated that I’m unaware of how tobacco companies work, or that I think it’s okay. In an earlier post, I said it was criminal, and warranted criminal investigation.

What I HAVE done is stated that I don’t like the MPAA, and because this wretched intellectual midget doesn’t agree with me, he throws his child at me, then yells at me for taking positions I’ve never taken.

But know this, Kevin - waving the baby flag does not strengthen your argument, it weakens it. It makes you out to be a shrill hysteric with no interest in solutions. Having a child does not give you the right to accuse me of not caring about children.

Kevin:

“Let’s try this again because you don’t seem to be fucking getting it, totally uninformed, or totally fucking ignorant.

Yes, no one is trying to sell crack to my kid.

BUT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SELL CIGARETTES TO MY KID!

Cigarettes are marketed towards kids you moron, can you get that through your fuzzy skull?

If you want to make movies for adults—then make them. If you want to make movies for kids—don’t take money from Phillip Morris to put cigarettes in your film.”

Um… Josh isn’t making movies for kids. So why the craziness?

I’m with Josh on the baby flag thing. I am so goddam tired of people trying to win arguments by bleating “YOU DON’T HAVE KIDS SO YOU CAN’T KNOW WHAT IT’S LIKE!” It’s so bloody sanctimonious and it has nothing to do with the topic. The parents I know don’t get hysterical about this shit, nor do they wave it like a banner in front of my face when I’m trying to make a point. Yeah, being a parent is hard. IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE. If you wandered into it thinking it was going to be a piece of cake, you’re just an idiot.

Of COURSE all kinds of bad shit is being marketed to your kids. IT’S CALLED MARKETING. But you? You’re the parent. And if you do that job correctly, you are the gatekeeper between your kids and temptation. Do you REALLY think the best way to raise your kid is to block every little thing that may harm them? Because you can’t. It will ALWAYS be there. Are you incapable of teaching you kids to think for themselves? You’re supposed to teach them morality. You’re supposed to teach them how to be safe, and what’s dangerous and what isn’t. Haven’t you told your kids smoking is dangerous? And, by the way, illegal if they’re underage? So you take your kid to a movie and there’s SMOKING in it, and your kid goes, “Hey, Dad, that looks cool. Can I have ten bucks?” WHAT DO YOU SAY, KEVIN? Or do you just get pissed off at the MPAA for not warning you because now you have to have an actual conversation with your kid?

When I go to the movies, I see parents blithely taking all ages of kids to see everything. Grindhouse, Pirates, whatever. I don’t think Pirates, which is marketed as a family film, is for little kids. But there’s an example for you of people not giving a shit. The parents want to see it, so the kids will see it, too. I’ve heard babies screaming their heads off because they’re terrified but God forbid the parent should leave and miss the movie. And in the age of home theaters and DVD, you can completely control what your kid sees in the comfort of your own home. Lord, how I wish parents would do this. It would make my movie-going experience much more enjoyable.

Whoever made the point about Jack Sparrow’s drinking — Arthur, maybe? — bravo. Exactly. We just choose which vice to demonize today. If your kids are going to smoke, they’re gonna do it because kids they know are doing it. Not because they saw it in a movie. And if you aren’t doing your job as a parent and TALKING to them, that’s not a filmmaker’s fault.

Do characters in your movies smoke? If so, do your kids see them? And by the way, indie filmmaker… get a better resume. It’ll be easier to take you more seriously.

Sheesh!

Maye: why the beat-down on George Clooney? Because he’s one o’ them lib’ruls?

Idiot.

Ted,

“The art need not be compromised if the filmmaker is willing to risk generating less revenue then might otherwise be possible.

Obviously, if the filmmaker has already made the art subject to commercial concerns by conceding control to another party in exchange for a pile of cash, that consideration is moot.”

That’s a truly bizarre leap. Because I choose to give up some control to one party, I should be prepare to give up all control to any other party who comes along, no matter how illegitimate their claim?

And by the way, some folks manage to make movies using other people’s money without conceding control. But if my distributor or my financier have demands, that’s part of the deal I made with them. By choice. I have no choice when it comes to the MPAA, and they are NOT a neccessary part of the process. I cannot make a movie without money. I CAN make a movie without the arbitrary input of a shadowy group of strangers.

“But for an independent film, one over which presumably the filmmaker has final authority … well, the only thing the MPAA can actually do is suggest that the movie has limited commercial appeal.”

I’m fascinated by why you and Craig keep saying stuff like this, because it’s so completely disengenuous. Yes, they can suggest it has limited appeal. So can you. You can watch my movie and say, “I think it has limited commercial appeal.” But there’s a difference, and I bet dollars to donuts you’re smart enough to know what it is.

Gosh, this makes me happy!

I’d pay ten bucks for this …

Joshua is smoking something… that’s for sure.

This whole discussion is like CRACK for movie nerds - heheh …

By the way, someone tell Seth Rogen he stole my wardrobe for KNOCKED UP … I went to see it with my lovely lady only to discover I was wearing the same exact t-shirt and shorts he was in about five scenes … my lady was highly amused …

If had had the fro, it would be a scary comparison - that’s what the lady said, too …

She made me throw my bong away awhile ago, tho ’ -

Oh, and don’t take your kids to see it … much smoking of the doobage, much sex and a head comin’ out the birth canal … there’s also strippers and pinkeye and nipples and lots of bad language …

Come to think of it, there WERE kids in the audience last weekend when I saw that movie … how on earth did that happen? I thought once someone squeezed a kid out, they automatically grew good judgment genes … Even Seth Rogen put on a clean shirt, got a job and threw his bong away in the movie when he became a parent!

I mean, didn’t parents SEE that it was rated R? Someone must be held accountable! Someone who isn’t a parent and who doesn’t have children must be held accountable for exposing childred to rated R movies!

Joshua, your lady made you throw away your bong.

You must’ve allowed it because…she’s got A GREAT ASS!

Mr. Olson and Ms. Kay,

A poor way to argue a point is to call the person to whom you are addressing names. Either “idiot” or “honey” or telling me to smack my children. I expect more out of professionals, but you have solidified your reputations on this blog let me tell you. Someone once said “Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before the fall.” Do you know who? God. That’s a pretty good source to cite wouldn’t you say? Maybe it is this kind of haughtiness that is turning hard-working Americans away from the movies. And from the Oscar show which is getting low ratings now.

The MPAA should work better, absolutely, but the idea that everyone should have informed self-determination — when deciding which movie to go see and which movies they want their kids to see based on their individual moral compass — seems inarguable. And yet, almost 200 posts later…

Unless you come up with some better way to inform the people Olsen, you are screaming at the wrong crowd. But if it makes you feel better go for it as it is ridiculously entertaining.

Holy shit… the Bible-thumping has begun… and I thought I was bad with my Nazi analogy.

Maye,

“I expect more out of professionals”

And I expect more out of fictional constructs.

Speaking of which… say hi to God for me.

Anonymous,

Why do we need a better way to inform the people? The people seem pretty well informed. I have no problem with the MPAA or any other organization - including the American Nazi Party, NAMBLA, or Kevin’s Self-Rightous Parents Organization offering information to people as to the content of movies. Where I have a problem is when those ratings end up determining whether or not a film can be distrubuted.

“Someone once said “Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before the fall.” Do you know who? God. That’s a pretty good source to cite wouldn’t you say?”

Your imaginary friend?

Um, no.

Dear Josh,

You are right. The sheer lack of R rated movies with violence and sex and other fun stuff is really problematic. If only the film companies made money on R rated films that featured such things.

Love,

Eli Roth’s Entire Career and The Distribution The Movies You Wrote Received

Dude … I’m not saying anything, I’m just saying … it was a great bong but when push comes to shove …

See ya!

Everybody is trying to market everything to kids. They’re the only demographic anyone cares about. Why are cigarettes special? The largest retailer of toys in America? McDonald’s.

Josh —

You do know that there’s no law that requires any movie to be submitted to the MPAA, right?

And that if a filmmaker chooses not to submit a movie to the MPAA, it carries no consequences whatsoever, right?

I mean, other than economic ones, of course. Most U.S. theaters won’t exhibit a movie that doesn’t carry an MPAA rating. But that doesn’t impact in anyway the content of the movie, or even the filmmaker’s right to show the movie to the public.

It only means that the movie won’t generate as much revenue as it would if did carry an MPAA rating.

And, of course, if a filmmaker does choose to submit his movie to the MPAA — either on his own authority, or as a term of a contract he’s entered into for a pile of cash — then whatever rating the MPAA gives to the movie likewise does not impact the content of the movie.

However, it is unlikely the movie will generate as much revenue with an NC-17 rating as it would with an R; and it is also unlikely that an R rated movie will generate as much revenue as it would if it were rated PG-13.

Only the filmmaker, or whatever party to whom the filmmaker has ceded authority over the film (in exchange for a pile of cash), can actually make changes to the content of the film to receive a different rating from the MPAA — and the only reason any changes would ever be made to a film so as to receive a different MPAA rating is to potentially increase the revenue the movie earns.

Like I said: the stick the MPAA weilds is the threat of limiting the commercial viability of a movie.

But the only person that can compromise the filmmaker’s art in response to the threat of limiting its commercial viability … is the filmmaker.

Or, of course, whomever the filmmaker has granted the authority to do so (in exchange for a pile of cash).

And, based on the fact that you completely ignored what I actually wrote, and instead made up a lot of ludicrous crap you tried to assign to me, it is clear that you do not actually want to discuss this issue seriously.

And it’s also clear that the reason you don’t want to discuss it seriously is because you know that, no matter how sincere your feelings are about art and censorship, that’s just smoke and mirrors on this one — becaure your real beef with the MPAA is about nothing more than money.

-

Ted,

Thanks for reiterating the party line.

“And, based on the fact that you completely ignored what I actually wrote, and instead made up a lot of ludicrous crap you tried to assign to me, it is clear that you do not actually want to discuss this issue seriously.”

I addressed EXACTLY what you said. And what you said is what the MPAA says when they want to duck any responsibility. Coming from the keyboard of someone who writes movies, it’s more than a little apalling.

“your real beef with the MPAA is about nothing more than money.”

Spoken like a true CEO.

You are not opening my eyes to any heretofore mysterious truths when you point out that commerce plays an enormous part in this art form of ours. You are also not opening my eyes when you point out that to create something in this medium, you usually have to risk at least some creative control in exchange for access to material. None of this is news. I’ve been in this business at least as long as you have, and learned these basic truths some time ago.

None of that changes the fact that you know exactly how disengenuous your argument is. If an R or an NC-17 rating served no purpose other than alerting people to the content of movies, we obviously wouldn’t be having these discussions. But since they have an enormous impact on the ability of that film to reach an audience WHO WANTS TO SEE IT, we ARE having this discussion.

Well, gee, Josh. Nobody’s saying you can’t make the movie you want to make.

Yes. Thank you. Duly noted. Can we now address the reality of the situation?

Seriously, man - you and Craig sound like paid employees of the MPAA. You want to make an argument for why this body should have such enormous power over what we do, please do. But pretending that they don’t is creepy.

Beyond that, your assertion that once you take money, you’ve somehow made your work impure is the kind of notion you usually get from people who don’t actually work in any kind of art form, or cynical adolescents.

Someone paid for Van Gogh’s paints, you know. There are levels of compromise one must tolerate to get to the end goal.

Not every film is made by committee, so thoroughly compromised creatively that the only purpose it serves is selling crap to kids.

If your kids are going to smoke, they’re gonna do it because kids they know are doing it. Not because they saw it in a movie.

I thought the same thing until I picked up a book and read a couple of studies. The main influences for kids to start smoking are their parents first, movies second. Those are facts. Not my facts. But facts. Oh and, bite me.

You wanna know why I smoke? (of course you don’t, but I’ll tell you anyway)

I want to kill myself, but I’m a cunctator.

Also, I met Tom Hanks and he said to me, “Son, if she smokes, she pokes.” Then he signed my baseball, gave me a Dr. Pepper, and tried to put me on a train… or maybe that was the ‘shrooms….

Cigarettes, a fun but slippery slope straight to the hard drugs, like coke… and not the good Hollywood coke… the Cleveland, Ohio coke that’s been recut more than a movie with cunnilingus and smoking trying to get an R.

People who put their faith in higher organisms/izations have no faith in themselves, their children, or humanity. Why? Because they have a fear of being an individual or (as the metaphor will appear later) straying from their flock.

These people look to others to feed them their morals. And these people tend to puppet their moral teachings without first questioning/analyzing what they are actually saying or the actions they are actually taking.

I like to call these people sheep or lemmings or omegas.

The flip side to these beings is the higher organisms/izations that spout the scripture the sheep preach.

I like to call these beings lone wolves or lead lemmings (aka Off Camera PAs with long sticks) or alphas.

These beings are similar to the sheep in that they have no faith in humanity and, most likely, have little faith in their own children (be they figurative or literal). Why? Because they see the rest of humanity, including their offspring/employees, as sheep.

The big difference between sheep and lone wolves is that lone wolves have faith in themselves. Why? Because their philosophies come directly from the source… their own minds (be they collective or individual)…

These higher beings (like the MPAA, ARTFULWRITER, JOSH OLSON, REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRATIC FIGUREHEADS CHURCHES OF FORMER/LATTER DAY SAINTS, MYSELF) preach and know, for the most part, what they are preaching about and that they are preaching to sheep and that sheep, sometimes, most times, flock together out of fear (for a lone sheep is easy prey for the drooling wolf).

Wolves know this, they know sheep listen to their righteous howls (howls they know sometimes to be false) and they still howl and why do they howl? Because they have the power to think for themselves. They know that sooner or later a sheep will stray and that their cause will be fed.

Without going all Darwin on you, but keeping him in mind� when we were monkeys/apes/amphibians, alphas (wolves) and omegas (sheep) needed to exist for evolution to take place. There needed to be a winner and a loser, so that the winner would advance and at some point develop opposable thumbs.

Now that we’re Western civilized humans (at the epitome/slow apocalypse of our evolution), now that youtube has made us all equal, now that we have no need for that primitive power structure, can some of us, just some of us transcend our sheepish exteriors and actually, for better or worse, express true thought and not regurgitate the vomit of other higher beings to appease those same higher beings?

Can some of us do this? For me? To appease me?

Could we also use slash marks to bring a level of irony/levity to our word choices?

Thank you.

Since the MPAA guidelines are not required by law, can we not just rate the movies ourselves?

GRANNYBANGERS - written and directed by Joshua James

Rated R by Joshua James …

That way, theatres can have the rating and run in theatres … I mean, why couldn’t one do that?

Josh —

No, Josh, you didn’t address anything; you just threw up your usual shitstorm of meaningless rhetoric and pathetic insults.

It’s clear you don’t even want to acknowledge that the only impact the MPAA rating systems can have on filmmakers is to limit the commercial potential of their movies.

What’s funny is, you actually think that’s a defense of the MPAA.

And, of course, my point that filmmakers need to develop an alternative means of distribution, one that bypasses the traditional commerical model and so renders the MPAA irrelevant … you blew past that because, according to you, we have to be “realistic.”

I have no doubt that if were no other considerations, and you had a choice between receiving an NC-17 rating or compromising your art and receiving an R rating, you’d go for the R rating in a heartbeat.

And then justify that decision to yourself on the hubristic basis that there’s an audience out there WHO WANT TO SEE your movie, that would be denied that opportunity if it were rated NC-17.

Paying audiences, that is.

-

Joshua —

You can’t use the R rating, because its trademarked by the MPAA. So are G, PG, PG-13 and NC-17 (“GP” and “M” were trademarked at one time, but have fallen out of use, so might be available).

But you can use an X rating — the MPAA never trademarked that one, to their chagrin — and you can use any other letter or letter-combination you want as a rating.

-

If this were a competitive debate, Ted would be well ahead of Josh right now. While Ted has used skillful logic and persuasive facts to paint Josh into a corner — which he unwittingly walked into — Josh has fallen on hyperbole and faulty rhetoric. Fascinating. And entertaining.

They trademarked the big R but what about the little “r” …

Rated “r” … that could work!

Or damn, Ted … you could have rated Pirates films rated “Arrgh” … heh.

Sorry Ted, couldn’t resist.

Film is an art, and yet we’re in a business. It’s called the film industry, not the film artshow. I got that. But to me that’s the best argument AGAINST a rating system that can potentially impede said industry’s product’s ability to generate profit.

Or not, of course - at the cost of compromising the artistic vision.

And that’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it?

If the producer who optioned my spec asks me to make a change I disagree with, I can argue her face to face. Some you win, some you lose. By the end of the day we both argue for our theorie of what’s best for the movie. The MPAA argues (if you want to even call it that) for what’s best for the children.

The producer and I have a creative alliance. We both have artistic as well as commerical interest in our art/product. I’ll even go as far as saying that if the producer wants a change, I will ultimately make the revision – because she is paying for it!

She has a right to want the film to be more commercial (or artistically different for that matter), because she put money – AND her own blood, sweat and creative effort - into it.

Not so the MPAA.

Why should anyone compromise their artistic vision to an anonymous group of people who have no artistic OR commerical interest in the film, but whose sole official purpose is to impose their morals on filmmakers-?

Why, oh why !

Oh… AND WHY arent’t certain other products that children are exposed to being rated?? Like say, Baseball? RATED R for cursing, spitting, and excessive violence.

Okay, Josh and whomever else, you have to separate the argument that R ratings prevents a movie from being seen and NC-17 prevents a movie from being seen. R movies get seen all the time. The top 20 R rated movies in 2006 combined made $1,283,999,493 at the box office. PG-13 movies combined made $2,760,839,989 (this is per Box Office Mojo.) You can’t tell me almost 2 billion in box office translates into an excuse for whining about how R rated movies don’t get to an audience. That’s crap.

BUT where we really get in trouble is NC-17 and NR films. The top 20 combined in 2006 made $45,376,469 . That isn’t too bad when you consider it, and doesn’t seem to support that films with NC-17 or NR ratings don’t find their audience. I think the pissiness comes from feeling like NC-17 and NR is roughly translated as “too artsy and hard to reach for my taste.” That isn’t the fault of the MPAA, that is the fault of the filmmakers.
Because none of us are making NC-17 films and standing by them. We sign deals that make sure we deliver R rated films. We have stopped using the only fair barometer of whether an audience exists — the marketplace — to see if films with NC-17 or NR ratings will have box office success.
If you want to make the MPAA obsolete, make movies that are NR and NC-17 that make money. Exhibitors and studios are using art in the service of commerce and when the money shows up, they will follow. If Sascha Baron Cohen had stuck with an NC-17 and not kowtowed to an R, his movie still would have made plenty of money. He would have taken a financial hit, of course, but he would have led the way for NC-17 comedies the way Wedding Crashers revitalized R rated comedies. The MPAA is a powerful lobbying organization, and they are frightened of sex, but that doesn’t make them responsible for the lack of NC-17 films. If lines were around the block for an NC-17 film at one theater, exhibitors would notice and make sure to get that film in the theater. But it doesn’t happen because we, as filmmakers, don’t deliver those films.

“If Sascha Baron Cohen had stuck with an NC-17 and not kowtowed to an R, his movie still would have made plenty of money. He would have taken a financial hit, of course…”

I think this is a bit of an understatement. Not a single ticket sold to anyone younger than high school junior? And certain theatres and theatre chains flat out refusing to play the film because of its rating? There are whole STATES that the movie would’ve never even touched. In this scenario, even if “Borat” had made twice as much as the most successful NC-17 movie ever made (20 movies COMBINED made $45M…so an average of $2.5M per movie?), it would have been peanuts - no, more like half-peanuts - compared to what it DID make.

But that said, I agree to the extent that I wouldn’t say R movies don’t find an audience. They do if they’re high concept and broadly appealing, i.e., not so adult-seeming that parents are afraid to take their kids. All I’m arguing against is having to deal with another silly reason to deem a film unsuitable for unaccompanied under-17’s. I mean, Christ, these are HIGH SCHOOL KIDS we’re talking about here. They smoke, drink, fuck, and curse with the best of ‘em. That the MPAA is apparently comprised of the tiny, tiny percentage of Americans who refuse to acknowledge this is just ridiculous and sad.

Hi, Maye.

Hi.

Kevin,

“I thought the same thing until I picked up a book and read a couple of studies. The main influences for kids to start smoking are their parents first, movies second. Those are facts. “

Indeed they are. I’ve heard ‘em before, and it’s not the sort of thing you need a study to figure out. But you confuse identifying the problem with coming up with a solution.

Classic political rhetoric - if your opponent disagrees with your solution, he must WANT the problem to exist.

I think the solution of giving the MPAA even MORE power is a bad idea. I think a real investigation into the relationship between tobacco companies and studios IS a solution. Big fines. Fuck it - jail time.

Ted,

“It’s clear you don’t even want to acknowledge that the only impact the MPAA rating systems can have on filmmakers is to limit the commercial potential of their movies.”

Asked and answered.

“What’s funny is, you actually think that’s a defense of the MPAA.”

The way you and Craig put it, it IS. People complain about the power this shadowy group has, and you two say, “Well, really, the only impact they have is to limit the commercial potential of your film,” as though, somehow, there’s something worse they could do.

“I have no doubt that if were no other considerations, and you had a choice between receiving an NC-17 rating or compromising your art and receiving an R rating, you’d go for the R rating in a heartbeat.”

Indeed. And this is a blistering assault on my integrity how, exactly?

“And then justify that decision to yourself on the hubristic basis that there’s an audience out there WHO WANT TO SEE your movie, that would be denied that opportunity if it were rated NC-17.”

No. I’d justify it by telling myself the truth. It’s the only way I can reasonably ensure my movie makes its money back, so I get to work again.

I’m sure I’m misunderstanding your point, Ted, because you SEEM to be laboring under the conviction that if you don’t make giant, two hundred million dollar blockbusters, you don’t care about the movie making money. I assure you, it’s possible to make movies that are artistically sound AND be responsible to your financiers.

Whether it’s Spider Man 3 or Short Bus, you have to find a paying audience.

Talking about alternatives…

How about a new way for the filmmakers to make up for mature content? Say a film gets rated R for drug use. Why not do a drug related PSA, staring the star of the movie?

I’m sure filmmakers and celebrities would be happy to oblige to that sort of stipulation.

Much happier than compromising artistic vision to retain the well-deserved ability to make a buck.

Education is everything!

Beth,

Some of this is cyclical. The success of Wedding Crashers and - more importantly - 300 have eased studios’ concerns a bit about that rating. But regardless of your numbers - and they are meaningless, because they lack any context whatsoever, it just sounds like a lot of money to you - an R rating (obviously) limits the audience for a film. In most cases, this doesn’t bother me. I don’t WANT kids seeing 300 (although the ratings clearly don’t stop them, and if you think the studios are oblvious to that, why do you think they’re selling 300 action figures to kids?). But it’s even more egregious in the case of NC-17 films.

Nice idea - make an NC-17 film that makes a lot of money. Since you won’t be able to advertise the film in most markets, nor show it in theaters, I’m just curious how you propose to do this?

You say, “We have stopped using the only fair barometer of whether an audience exists — the marketplace — to see if films with NC-17 or NR ratings will have box office succes.” Problem is, an NC-17 prevents the movie from entering the market place.

But that’s no big deal. You can still make ‘em. You just can’t really make any money off of them, and obviously, if you’re artistically minded, money doesn’t matter. Or something like that.

“300” won BEST FIGHT at this year’s MTV Movie Awards…

Maye,

Listen. Before you go marching down Holiness St. dragging all of Christianty (unwillingly) behind you (as if we all talk like, WHICH WE DON’T!!) —

Remember what Jesus said just after speaking the most quoted Bible verse ever. He took a breath and then said, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him,” or if you’d prefer the Message version, “God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again.”

In short, Christians are to follow Jesus. Jesus made a habit of redemption. More of His people should follow his lead.

Instead of preaching at people, try on grace and humility.

Oh, and incidentally, Maye?

The quote you are attributing to “God” is actually from the book of Proverbs, written by King Solomon. It’s bad enough that you’re spraying this sanctimonious crap around as if the interest any of us have in it could be detected with even the most powerful of microscopes. You have to get it wrong too?

Josh:

Finally! We agree on something. There should be an investigation into the relationship between studios and tobacco companies. It’s insidious and it’s downright criminal.

Here’s another solution. I don’t think you’ll find a majority of filmmakers that really care for the MPAA. If you or I or anyone were really serious about making a change instead of just blasting each other over a writer’s blog we’d band together, contact the Attorney General and investigate the MPAA. Of course we’d use the investigation as an opportunity to help create and sponsor a new Ratings Advisory Board. We could even work with the Television Parental Guide and branch off a movie division (MPG), comprised of publicly known advisors.

It’d be a long process, there’d be a lot of meetings between the theatre exhibitors but if the MPAA is under investigation for corruption (as we now all know that there are individuals who work for movie studios on the appeals board), theatre exhibitors might be more open to using a different and less corrupt ratings board.

So there’s my solution. We can all talk about it seriously or continue to shit on each other like fucking idiots.

Kevin,

“Finally! We agree on something. There should be an investigation into the relationship between studios and tobacco companies. It’s insidious and it’s downright criminal.”

Indeed. I said that here at least a day before you accused me of not being aware of the problem, and not caring about kids. Nice of you to finally join the party.

“We can all talk about it seriously or continue to shit on each other like fucking idiots.”

Seems to me we’re doing fine doing both.

Gee, no one defending this stupid idea is even willing to respond re: the Pirates movies and Sparrow smoking/boozing?

Shocking.

Folks, we’re well over 200 comments (for which I thank you), but I just had to delete one. It’s the only one so far.

Please avoid overtly uncivil and needless personal attacks.

Ted -

Help me make sense of something you said:

“…the stick the MPAA wields is the threat of limiting the commercial viability of a movie.”

Is you argument that the MPAA’s rating actually limits the number of viewers or is it that the audiences stay away from certain ratings, or a healthy combination of both?

I guess “Cigarettes are marketed towards kids you moron, can you get that through your fuzzy skull?” doesn’t count as overtly uncivil, does it?

No one got too upset when warnings were put on cigeretts. No one got too upset when nutritional labels were put on snack foods and fast foods. No one gets too upset when Consumer Reports rates cars or Good Housekeeping puts its seal on a product, so I’m not sure what all the fuss is over.

Mr. Trey,

Thank you for stating what I was trying to say better than I ever could. You see, I already have at least one person who isn’t afraid to come to my side! Mr. Tiersky, you remind me of Robert Cohn in the book “The Sun Also Rises” by Mr. Ernest Hemmingway. I recommend you read it and gain a little perspective on how you come across to the people who are reading your words here. The best thing about all this is that the ratings work for parents and no one has said one reason why they don’t other than that I should do more research than just the ratings. Or go see all the movies my boys want to see. Right. I don’t think so. PG-13 and R tell me all I need to now and then some.

Dan,

” I’m not sure what all the fuss is over.”

Heh. I love the internet.

What the fuss is over has been explained and discussed dozens of times in the last 48 hours. It’s all here, in black and white. All you have to do is read the posts that came before. If you can’t be bothered to do that, why on earth should anyone here be bothered to recap for you?

Maye,

“I recommend you read it and gain a little perspective on how you come across to the people who are reading your words here.”

Heh. Irony. Cool.

By the way, I talked to God last night, and he told me you were actually Ernest Borgnine.

Maye,

I don’t want to rail on you. You seem decent enough, albeit misguided.

For the record: I wasn’t defending you.

In your posts on this thread, there is more than a healthy dose of self rightousness. When mixed with the Christian moniker you come off like a zealot. And I don’t think that’s your intention.

But, it’s not gaining you any ground in here. So, ease up on the fingerpointing.

I seriously disagree with Craig (his article, that is, I haven’t read the posts in this thread). On each and every count.

All I can say is that I’m glad that Craig is not in charge of film cencorship (nor is he likely to be).

“I recommend you read it and gain a little perspective on how you come across to the people who are reading your words here.”

Read it in high school, amid the sea of porn and sexy/violent movies I was indulging myself in at every opportunity, just like your sons are undoubtedly doing while you’re sitting here preaching the gospel inaccurately and deluding yourself that people are on your side who aren’t (and if not, it’s because they’re waiting till you take your afternoon nap. Sweet dreams!).

So please enlighten me, Maye. How do I come across to the people who are reading my words here?

And while you’re at it, could you answer my query about whether or not the “Pirates” movies should be rated R because of Sparrow’s drinking? (You’d be the first. Set a precedent?)

And then thank me for correcting your Biblical faux-pas? If I don’t do it, no one else will.

Arthur -

brother -

I’m with you. You know that. But the Pirates ship has sailed… Excuse the pun. We got it: Sparrow - rum - yoho - R ! But why bother debating a hypothetical, when there is a real issue at hand? I’m sure as soon as the MPAA announces they will consider glamorization of alcohol consumption as a criteria for an R rating there will be a 200+ post discussion on this very blog. But not today. Today we’re talking about smoking, dark forces and some dude named God.

By the way…

“300” won BEST FIGHT at the MTV Movie Awards !

‘I guess “Cigarettes are marketed towards kids you moron, can you get that through your fuzzy skull?” doesn’t count as overtly uncivil, does it?’

C’mon, Johnny, get with it. Attacks on Olson don’t count. Everyone knows that.

Now stop with the personal attacks against non-Olsons. You’re making Craig so busy deleting your posts that he can’t even answer a simple yes or no question about the Pirates movies.

Wow - synchronized posting, groovy.

Sorry, I didn’t see that post. I get all of these comments via email to a separate account, and I’ve been very busy over the last few days (note my lack of comments about this topic).

If anyone is the target of an inappropriate comment, email admin@artfulwriter.com and I’ll address it.

But Arthur, to answer your question, I’m a working screenwriter. My work comes first. I’ll read back to your original question and try and answer as best I can when I find the time.

What was the question again? That will save me some hassle.

The nutshell version -

1. If Jack Sparrow were a smoker (and made it look cool), should the PIRATES movies be rated R (putting aside for the moment whether or not you already feel it should be rated R for violence)?

2. If yes, then do you feel that they already should be rated R for Sparrow’s equally hazardous and addictive drinking habit?

Optional essay question: And if not, why not?

By the way, I just absolutely love that we got this proud proclamation:

“Folks, we’re well over 200 comments (for which I thank you), but I just had to delete one. It’s the only one so far.”

…followed shortly by Craig admitting that he hasn’t read all the posts.

Just adorable!

Arthur:

You seem to mistake me for someone providing you with a service to which I’m accountable. I’m not. This is volunteer work. I do it when I can, as best I can, but within my priorities. I have a wife and children and a film to make.

Since I’m here now, I’ll answer your two questions.

1. Yes.
2. No, because that’s not a current ratings criterion. You’re certainly asking the wrong question.

I presume the question you want to ask is “Do you think the glamorization of alcohol abuse ought to warrant consideration when rating a film R or PG-13?”

My answer to that is “yes.” I do. Not an automatic R, but consideration toward an R. Yes. The ratings board should be free to take quantity and context into consideration, as they are with smoking.

I hope I disappointed you.

So please enlighten me, Maye. How do I come across to the people who are reading my words here?

Honestly?

A lot of name-calling and accusations of dishonesty were hurled at someone who was posting quite civilly. When the target of all those rude comments responded with a simple bible quote along the lines of “don’t be so snotty,” cracks about bible-thumping and zealotry were added to the litany of attacks, which continued.

So the answer (and this doesn’t apply just to you) is “obnoxiously.”

Which is really a shame, because there are plenty of good points being discussed amidst all the flaming.

The fact is that a list of the vices portrayed in a movie (alcohol abuse, comedic or otherwise, counts — and the distinction should be made) is helpful to parents. Another fact is that the behavior of various elements of the production/ distribution/ exhibition/ retail chain means that the MPAA wields far more power over artistic expression than it should.

The original question was whether smoking should be on that list of vices. The idea that any addition to the list would exacerbate the problem of a rating’s potential effect on artistic freedom is a perfectly reasonable objection. What would be interesting would be a practical way to eliminate the problem so that adding to the list of vices wouldn’t make it worse.

The name-calling can be amusing for a while, but after 200 posts, it gets rather tedious.

“You seem to mistake me for someone providing you with a service to which I’m accountable. I’m not. This is volunteer work. I do it when I can, as best I can, but within my priorities. I have a wife and children and a film to make.”

You seem to mistake me for having chastised you for not having read all the posts. I’m not. I’m amused that you made it sound like you HAD, when it quickly turned out that you hadn’t. Stuff like that is called “funny” on my side of the aisle. On yours, it’s called “de rigeur.”

As to your “Pirates” responses…Thank you.

And wow.

Just…wow.

Aaron:

“A lot of name-calling and accusations of dishonesty were hurled at someone who was posting quite civilly.”

Excuse me? Here’s an excerpt from Maye’s very first post on the thread, and probably her MOST civil and least self-righteous:

“I don’t want my boys seeing Viggo Mortensen or whoever you’re friends with smoking on a screen in a PG-13 movie!”

“When the target of all those rude comments responded with a simple bible quote along the lines of “don’t be so snotty,” cracks about bible-thumping and zealotry were added to the litany of attacks, which continued.”

Did you just plain skip (aka “Mazin”) a lot of Maye’s posts, or what?

“So the answer (and this doesn’t apply just to you) is ‘obnoxiously.’”

Yeah, well, I get a little caustic when people come at me with crap like…

“My honest opinion is you should know what you’re talking about before you spread your opinion to the masses. That is just ridiculous and you know it!”

That’s NOT obnoxious?

“The fact is that a list of the vices portrayed in a movie (alcohol abuse, comedic or otherwise, counts — and the distinction should be made) is helpful to parents.”

Agreed. Which is why I haven’t voiced any objection to a list of vices. I’ve objected to rating some of them “R”, which is to say, RESTRICTING high school aged people from even viewing them on film without parental accompaniment, even though millions of them actually commit those very acts every day, or at the very least, see them in real life, in public. How many more times do I have to explain that an R Rating is not merely a warning? Didn’t we already know that? Is this news to you folks?

“The name-calling can be amusing for a while, but after 200 posts, it gets rather tedious.”

Agreed. So please point out to me all instances of me name-calling on this thread so I can apologize for them? Shouldn’t take long. Thanks.

Craig is back!

Do you feel like addressing my earlier question, posted June 5, 2007 9:36 AM -?

(I don’t want to re-post as to not interrupt the flow of the debate in case you don’t feel like or have time to respond - I know, I’m obnoxiously considerate of my fellow posters).

Ted -

So apparently, if it were up to Craig, your Pirates movies would be rated R for Jack Sparrow’s boozing.

Any thoughts on that? Do you agree that the images of Johnny Depp’s comical tippling and stumbling are too dangerously influential to be exposed to unaccompanied 16-year-olds?

Arthur,

Maye’s comment about not wanting her kids to watch someone smoking in a PG-13 movie does not even approach the level of hostility of the responses that called her names and accused her of being someone else. I’m not saying she reads like a saint, but she wasn’t the one who started the flaming (and, to be fair, neither were you, although you did join in later).

I searched on the name “Maye” to read all of her posts and pretty much all of the responses (the ones that mentioned her by name). Just relating how it came across. And, like I said, I wasn’t referring only to your posts. I think a number of people could stand to take it down a notch.

Anyway, enough about that. As for the real subject:

Agreed. Which is why I haven?t voiced any objection to a list of vices. I?ve objected to rating some of them ?R?, which is to say, RESTRICTING high school aged people from even viewing them on film without parental accompaniment, even though millions of them actually commit those very acts every day, or at the very least, see them in real life, in public. How many more times do I have to explain that an R Rating is not merely a warning? Didn?t we already know that? Is this news to you folks?

It ain’t news to me — I agree completely. The fact that the rating doesn’t serve simply as a warning is the problem.

Aaron -

Glad we agree, by and large. One final word on obnoxiousness, though…

“Maye’s comment about not wanting her kids to watch someone smoking in a PG-13 movie does not even approach the level of hostility of the responses that called her names and accused her of being someone else.”

I re-quoted it because of the part about “Viggo Mortensen or whoever you’re friends with”. It’s not an out-an-out slam, but it certainly reads to me like some sort of clumsy swipe at Olson, and an unprovoked one at that, along the lines of (I think) “Oh, you made that lousy violent rated R movie with Viggo, so of course you’re best buddies with him, so of course you’re fine with him SMOKING onscreen, but us civilized, non-Hollywood people out here in the real world simply won’t tolerate you corrupting our children!” (And as I say, she got LESS civil from there.)

So, ya know…Hate to play the “She started it” game, but…

Arthur:

That is not an accurate restatement of my position.

Aaron,

“A lot of name-calling and accusations of dishonesty were hurled at someone who was posting quite civilly. “

You can’t possibly be referring to Maye. Her first post was a direct, rude attack on me personally. I have no problem with that, it’s par for the course. But I DO have a problem with someone coming in and blithely asserting that her comments were civil. They were not. She’s a hair’s breadth away from going on a tear about how Evil Jews run Hollywood.

I also have to question the cognitive abilities of someone who can’t see how obviously phony “she” is. If anything, your post is making me wonder if perhaps the real Maye has just outed herself….

“Arthur:

That is not an accurate restatement of my position.”

Well, you said the movies SHOULD be rated R if Sparrow smoked. No qualifications. Flat-out “yes” to that one.

Well, Sparrow doesn’t (if I’m recalling correctly) smoke. But he drinks. And he makes it look cool and fun and harmless. Now, Drinking is arguably as health hazardous as smoking, it is certainly as addictive, and what’s worse, it impairs your driving. And makes you throw up and pass out. And so on.

So if you think Sparrow’s drinking does not mandate an R, but his smoking would, I would say that’s inconsistent, or at the very least, sort of odd, and ask you to explain it. Pretty please with sugar on it.

On Apollo 13Ron Howard was told, by their technical consultant Gerry Griffin, that everyone smoked back then, so ash trays were everywhere in the film.

As a smoker watching the film, I started to feel uncomfortable with the attention on all those ash trays filling.

And, what does this mean for historically accurate films? An automatic “R” for all filmmakers that attempt, as Howard did, to be as accurate as possible in depicting history?

Well, you said the movies SHOULD be rated R if Sparrow smoked. No qualifications. Flat-out “yes” to that one.

Astonishingly incorrect. You’re not worth debating.

Craig -

Here was the question:

“If Jack Sparrow were a smoker (and made it look cool), should the PIRATES movies be rated R (putting aside for the moment whether or not you already feel it should be rated R for violence)?”

Here was your answer:

“Yes.”

Then I said:

“Well, you said the movies SHOULD be rated R if Sparrow smoked. No qualifications. Flat-out “yes” to that one.”

Which is the “astonishingly incorrect” part? I didn’t mention “made it look cool” the second time? Fine. I’ll modify. (Jesus, I didn’t realize nothing was allowed to be implicit here.)

“Well, you said the movies SHOULD be rated R if Sparrow smoked and made it look cool. No qualifications. Flat-out “yes” to that one.”

NOW will you explain? Pleeeeeeease?

Mind-boggling. You got both the answer and the question wrong.

Here is my actual answer (in context of its question), which was not merely “yes,” as you state, but:

I presume the question you want to ask is “Do you think the glamorization of alcohol abuse ought to warrant consideration when rating a film R or PG-13?”

My answer to that is “yes.” I do. Not an automatic R, but consideration toward an R. Yes. The ratings board should be free to take quantity and context into consideration, as they are with smoking.

You have wasted my time, and you’re wasting everyone’s time with this tired and bizarrely inaccurate game of “gotcha.” The above is a copy and paste (with added emphasis for the reading-impaired). It’s startling to me how you can waste so much energy demanding an answer to a question that you then fail to bother actually reading.

I have no interest in furthering this exchange. This is my last comment to you on the matter.

Arthur:

Do you have any proposed solutions or ideas regarding the MPAA and/or finding a different way of rating movies?

Dave –

“And, what does this mean for historically accurate films? An automatic “R” for all filmmakers that attempt, as Howard did, to be as accurate as possible in depicting history?”

No, the film rating board is quite specifc on that point:

“Three questions will have particular weight for our rating board when considering smoking in a film: Is the smoking pervasive? Does the film glamorize smoking? And, is there an historic or other mitigating context?

I feel dirty now.

But if there’s one thing I hate more than unasnswered questions (hint-hint-nudge-nudge, Craig…), it’s when people ask questions that have already been answered.

Craig

Jesus Christ, if I’d known you were going to do this much of a dance so as to not give me a straight answer, I wouldn’t have bothered. Though apparently you won’t respond, I’ll review one last time:

I asked you two questions. One was about smoking, and one was about drinking.

You gave a flat-out “yes” to the smoking one, and a more elaborate answer to the drinking one. With regard to the smoking question, you did not say anything about quantity and context, you just said: YES. Jack Sparrow smokes, makes it look cool…YES, I SUPPORT THAT GETTING AN R. Says Mazin.

My point is that a) to not feel the same way about Sparrow’s drinking is to be inconsistent, whereaas b) to indeed feel the same way about Sparrow’s drinking is to say that you support the movies getting and R for it.

Rather than acknowledge this, you chose to belittle me and delay and finally repeat your previous answer. And then refuse to discuss it amy further.

Fine. Thanks so much for your time.

Kevin -

I’ve stated my position on this. I think either take away the absolute “restriction” of R-rated movies, or lowering the age for the restriction, would be a good start. Now I’ve answered you. Care to answer MY question about the Pirates movies, putting aside the violence issue this time? Thanks.

You can get conjunctivitis that way.

Arthur:

I thought I did answer you. I think if the movie glamorized smoking it should be rated R. I think if the movie glamorized drinking (which it does), it should be rated R.

But I don’t understand your answer to my question. Are you saying that we should do away with the R rating entirely and/or lower the age for the restriction? What age would you propose that we lower it to? 16? 15? Are you saying that no movie should ever be rated R, no matter what?

Before this thing relegates into gobbledygook, can we resolve the following two issues:

1) Why do theater owners vigorously enforce the voluntary MPAA guidelines?

There MUST BE a theater owner reading this thread. Or an acquaintance of a theater owner who can direct him or her to this site. I believe the answer could hold the key to the Gordian Knot… or rather the blade.

And Ted –

2) Do you truly believe (or suggest) that the MPAA budged on the smoking issue to avoid other, more controversial, “community standards” being forced upon the rating board by ominous outside entities?

“I thought I did answer you. I think if the movie glamorized smoking it should be rated R. I think if the movie glamorized drinking (which it does), it should be rated R.”

I don’t recall you answering it, but thank you for doing so now. So you feel that the Pirates movies should be Rated R. Does it trouble you, then, how many millions of kids have seen these movies? Repeatedly? Many of them unaccompanied? Do you believe they are all being inspired to drink? Do you believe that if they eventually become alcoholics, the movie will be partly to blame?

“But I don’t understand your answer to my question. Are you saying that we should do away with the R rating entirely and/or lower the age for the restriction? What age would you propose that we lower it to? 16? 15?”

I’m saying we’d be just fine if the R rating were a GUIDELINE and not an actual restriction, like calling it PG-17 or something…or if we lowered the restriction to age 13. The latter, I’ve already explained above, to Maye, so feel free to scroll up.

As to the former: For the most part, if a kid, once he becomes autonomous enough, really wants to see any given R-rated movie that his parents won’t take him to, he’ll figure out another way. It really is not that hard to sneak into movies these days, with cineplexes being so huge. I’m willing to bet that if I brought a 12-year-old to the Grove, bought him a ticket to a G-rated movie, and told him that he could go in by himself and see any movie he wanted…he’d have less than no trouble wandering into “Grindhouse” unobserved. And if by chance he were somehow foiled, there’s plenty more R-rated material out there that he would have no trouble getting his hands on, on cable TV, in the video store, on the internet, and so forth.

So I find the whole idea of the R restriction rather silly. If a kid is old enough, determined enough, and independent enough to get into an R movie, he’s old enough to handle the content (as I and all my friends did in our younger days, many times over). Those who are too young for the content of Rated R movies are not independent enough to sneak into them, and probably not old enough to even want to.

Don’t believe me? Ask the nearest 7-year-old if he’d rather see “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” or “Captivity.”

But if there’s one thing I hate more than unasnswered questions (hint-hint-nudge-nudge, Craig…), it’s when people ask questions that have already been answered.

Johnny,

Too eager to post, and had searched the page too fast, with too few search terms.

Thanks for pulling out the relevant quotes for me.

No problem, Dave - JUST DON’T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN!!

Arthur:

So I find the whole idea of the R restriction rather silly. If a kid is old enough, determined enough, and independent enough to get into an R movie, he’s old enough to handle the content (as I and all my friends did in our younger days, many times over). Those who are too young for the content of Rated R movies are not independent enough to sneak into them, and probably not old enough to even want to.

Ahhh…so you think that if a kid is determined enough to sneak in somewhere, they’re old enough to see that movie. So a 13 year old watching 300 is fine for you because he can figure out how to sneak in?

Well…I guess that’s that. Last question. Are you an anarchist? (not a joke question, by the way).

“Ahhh…so you think that if a kid is determined enough to sneak in somewhere, they’re old enough to see that movie. So a 13 year old watching 300 is fine for you because he can figure out how to sneak in?”

Not exactly, but close. To put it another way:

Kevin, the R rating suggests that it’s perfectly fine for a 13-year-old to see that movie if his parent is next to him. I’m just taking it one step further: It’s perfectly fine for a 13-year-old to see that movie if his parent is NOT next to him. I’m pretty sure it’s the same movie either way. I’m pretty sure it will effect him the same way, either way. If the parent is allowing the kid to go to the movies by himself, then yes, he’s old enough to decide for himself if he can handle the content of “300.” Worst case scenario? a) The kid decides it’s too violent for him after all, and he leaves; or b) He sits through it and has a few nightmares and wishes he hadn’t seen it and decides to hold off on seeing violent movies for a while. Are either of those really so bad?

“Last question. Are you an anarchist? (not a joke question, by the way).”

Nope. Just a realist. And realistically speaking, Kevin…I don’t know how old your kids are, but if you had a 13-year-old son who really, really wanted to see “300”, but you wouldn’t take him, I’d bet you any amount of money that he would’ve figured out a way somehow.

And he’d be none the worse for it, other than having seen what I’m told is a pretty dumb movie.

Mr. Tiersky,

I think you should try to relax is all I was saying when I mentioned Robert Cohn in “The Sun Also Rises.” He was this pesky guy who no one wanted around because he was so needy all the time. You get so shrill with your responses and you repeat yourself so much it’s like that little dog in the cartoon who is constantly yapping while the big dog just walks around. Your “everyone’s doing it” argument is the same one I hear from Cody and Nolan. And you know what I say to them? That doesn’t make it right. Just because a lot of people steal things — believe me, I have one foot in the hotel business and I know all about thieving — it still doesn’t make it right. Just because you think all the kids sneak into rated-R movies, and you’re wrong about that mister let me tell you — doesn’t mean we should just do away with the system that works for parents as I’ve said to death. And your experiment with 7 year olds on which movie they want to see is so wrong it makes my head spin. Do you even know any 7 year olds? They want to see Shrek and Harry Potter (no thank you.)

Kevin

“I thought I did answer you. I think if the movie glamorized smoking it should be rated R. I think if the movie glamorized drinking (which it does), it should be rated R.”

I love how you just toss this out as though it’s a simple issue of fact. When you typed the word “glamorize,” did you not pause for a moment and consider just how subjective that term is?

You seem to think that it’s easy to agree on what glamorizes smoking and what does not. You’re extremely eager and willing to hand over complicated and subjective moral decisions to an anonymous body.

Now, you’ll say, “If you had children, you’d understand,” but I like to cling to the notion that if I had children, I’d be even LESS trusting of large, mysterious and anonymous AUTHORITY than I am now.

Anyway, I’d love to know how one arrives at a mathematical solution to the question, “Does that movie glamorize smoking?”

Oh Lordy, Lord, a Maye post at last…This could take a while…But it must be done.

I think you should try to relax is all I was saying when I mentioned Robert Cohn in “The Sun Also Rises.”

And I responded that I read it back in high school, along with watching a lot of violent, sexy movies, just like your sons are watching whenever you’re not around. What’s the problem?

He was this pesky guy who no one wanted around because he was so needy all the time.

You’re welcome for correcting your misquoting of your beloved Bible.

You get so shrill with your responses and you repeat yourself so much it’s like that little dog in the cartoon who is constantly yapping while the big dog just walks around.

a) I don’t know of this cartoon of which you speak, but it sounds fascinating. Is that what your kids are telling you they watch? b) I’ve repeated myself on here in cases where I was asked a question that I’d already answered, or was addressing someone who was too dense to understand my relatively simple prose. Case in point…

“Your “everyone’s doing it” argument is the same one I hear from Cody and Nolan. And you know what I say to them? That doesn’t make it right.”

I have not made any “everyone’s doing it” argument. My argument is that the “restriction” that the R rating puts in movies is generally ineffective, and thus rather pointless. If you put up a “Stop” sign, and then everyone completely ignored it, I would say, “Gee…that Stop sign isn’t doing anything. Might as well take it down, eh?” Call me a crazy anarchist…

“Just because you think all the kids sneak into rated-R movies, and you’re wrong about that mister let me tell you — doesn’t mean we should just do away with the system that works for parents as I’ve said to death.”

Oh…So you’re saying you’ve…REPEATED YOURSELF? Goodness! How annoying! You’re like (insert reference to one of the “great books” I read in high school). You should really read that one.

“And your experiment with 7 year olds on which movie they want to see is so wrong it makes my head spin. Do you even know any 7 year olds? They want to see Shrek and Harry Potter (no thank you.)”

Boy oh boy, you not only missed my point, you hopped on a rocketship and sped out of the galaxy just to avoid it. What is so wrong about this? You ask a 7-year-old whether they want to see a kids movie that all the other kids have seen and loved, or an adult movie that they’ve never heard of. I’m guessing they’re gonna say the kids movie. That was my whole (hypothetical) point: We don’t have to lose sleep over 7-year-olds sneaking in to see “Captivity” because they don’t have the autonomy to do so, and even if they did, they still wouldn’t, cause they’re not interested.

Well, okay, maybe yours are, if you’ve beaten them enough and they’ve developed a sado-masochistic fetish…

Maye,

“They want to see Shrek and Harry Potter (no thank you.)”

Ah, because of the Satanism, no doubt.

And I love all the little biographical details that flesh out the character. Very rich. Very well conceived. Soon, we’ll be introduced to a best friend who has some really interesting idiosyncracies(perhaps Myrtle, from the hair salon, or maybe someone she knows from one of her church groups.).

Back when I used to make up folks on the internet, I could never be bothered to do this much work. I like to keep that sort of creativity on the page, where I could get paid for it. I preferred to stick to interesting voices. But to each his own.

And am I the only one who sees a little hint of palindromization in the name Maye Cunningham? I dunno. Maybe a bit of a stretch. Maybe not. It would be something a cat with a sense of humor would do to amuse himself, and they tell me Mazin’s a funny guy….

Anyway, I have enough of an ego that I want to make sure folks know I called it, but I also don’t want the fun to stop, so Maye, you go girl. We’re hanging on your - and God’s - every word.

Lawsey…

“That’s nice, don’t allow kids to see violence in movies, but beat the shit out of them at home.”

“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.”

“In spite of the fact that I’ve revealed nothing on the level of your revelation that you beat your children…”

“Well, okay, maybe yours are, if you’ve beaten them enough and they’ve developed a sado-masochistic fetish…”

Kind of ironic that the folks who can’t resist the urge to turn (what is likely) a simple spanking into all of the above garbage, end up sounding no better than children, themselves, falling back on ridiculous insults that they surely don’t believe. (Right?)

A cheap shot at the end of a post is kinda like going to see a movie that has a real turd of an ending… everything that came before just means so little, after that.

(shrug)

I’m just sayin’…

RP

Smoking happens. Sure. But when i fight smokers, cigarette smokers, I always win. It’s not just because of my fighting skills, it’s because they can’t breathe goodly like me.

So I takes them down.

Once I get a smoker on the ground, I immediatly shift to my smash game. I smash and beat craps out of them. Then, when they’ve crapped everywhere, I stand over them and say “get up!” “GET UP, SUCKA!”

They cry and smell like shit. They try to stay laminated upon the cements that they’ve been pummeled to by me, but I make them stand up.

9 out of 10 times, when they stand, crap is falling out of their pant-cuffs. It smells horrible, man. But they’re smokers, and i’m a known fighter. So I fight ‘em up real good.

But that’s just me.

That’s just Young Pimpin’.

Back when I used to make up folks on the internet, I could never be bothered to do this much work.

Please tell me you’re joking.

Her first post was a direct, rude attack on me personally. I have no problem with that, it’s par for the course. But I DO have a problem with someone coming in and blithely asserting that her comments were civil. They were not. She’s a hair’s breadth away from going on a tear about how Evil Jews run Hollywood.

How could I not have seen it?

I don’t want my boys seeing Viggo Mortensen or whoever you’re friends with smoking on a screen in a PG-13 movie!

Friends with Viggo Mortensen? Them’s fightin’ words for sure. Come to think of it, that line’s taken almost verbatim from the Turner Diaries.

BTW, I only know the Turner Diaries because I’m a figment of Maye’s imagination.

Ronson -

I actually find the fact that several contributers to this site take great issue with the beating of a child very comforting.

And no, Maye Conningham did not talk about a little loving spanking, she specifically said her husband - Mason Conningham? - would “wear out their behinds”.

Isn’t the rating system meant to protect the children? Who protects them from abusive parents? Don’t answer that.

Oh…

And do you happen to know any theater owners ?

Nevermind.

And no, Maye Conningham did not talk about a little loving spanking, she specifically said her husband - Mason Conningham? - would “wear out their behinds”.

Maybe — just maybe — that was a figure of speech.

Dear Maye,

Consider this, and bear with me. So far we have discussed the use of ratings for parents, like yourself, right? We have established that ratings help parents discern what films are appropriate for their children to watch, right? Right. Great.

What about the other side?

Are you, personally, after all you’ve read on this screenwriting blog, at all concerned that there may be some shenanigans going on that prevent filmmakers from bringing their vision to the screen without the risk of harming the commercial potential of a film they’ve worked on for the past three years? Does that bother you at all?

Some folks have argued that the rating system is a form of censorship. If that were true, would it trouble you?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

P.S. You don’t know any theater owners, do you? Just checking.

Josh:

When did I ever say that it was easy to categorize things? Subjective? Well, yeah, you mean like…most everything? Ever watch a sporting event on television? The calls that referees make can be very subjective. But that doesn’t mean that you don’t try.

But Jesus, you are so much more interested in arguing than coming up with something useful. I asked you if you had any solutions and not only did you not bother to answer with one, you felt it necessary to just harp on my answer to someone else.

Suggest something useful. Anything.

I have a suggestion - instead of having smoking affect the rating - have a warning under the rating that “scenes containing smoking” are present.

That way parents get their information, and can do with it what they like. And the filmmakers don’t have to worry about their films being messed with.

Johnny -

“I actually find the fact that several contributers to this site take great issue with the beating of a child very comforting.”

…and if spanking a child were actually synonomous with beaing a child, I think we’d all agree with you. But there is a difference between discipline and abuse. A big difference.

The above is me.

Mr. Olson,

I had a chuckle out loud this morning when I read your posting about my name. I think maybe you’ve read the DaVinci Code a few too many times. You’re starting to remind me of King Lear right before he goes howling in that storm. Mr. Hartmann, I find it difficult to believe after all I’ve read here from very interesting people on both sides of the fence that any “shenanigans” are keeping movies from having all the junk in them they want. Did you see Mr. Olson’s movie? I did. Did he want more scenes of decapitated heads and eyes gouged out and people shot in the face than was already in there? No thank you. If you’re talking about editing stuff out to make it more of a financial success then that’s just economics 101. People paying their hard-earned money in the real world just like being entertained and forgetting their problems and don’t want to see all that. They let you know with their wallets. And Mr. Tiersky, I know this isn’t a board about religion but some of us are respectful of religion unlike you and maybe you should spend a little less time on the god delusion and a little more time on the God Solution!

“But Jesus, you are so much more interested in arguing than coming up with something useful.”

Kev,

Let’s not forget, you’re the one who started the name calling. Then, after much hissy fitting on your part, you concured with Olson’s point of view. And then tried to make nicey nice…

*Yo moronic oscar-nomiated screenwriter! Everything you say is retarded! Except it’s not!! And…um…I agree with it! Let’s have coffee and talk about bringing down the MPAA!!!

Hello-?

Where did he go-?!*

“And Mr. Tiersky, I know this isn’t a board about religion but some of us are respectful of religion unlike you and maybe you should spend a little less time on the god delusion and a little more time on the God Solution!”

Maye, you’re right in saying that it would be inappropriate to get into a religious debate on a thread about smoking in movies, so I’ll just say that I am as respectful of another person’s religion as I am of their politics, no more, no less, as it should be. Which is to say that I feel that others are welcome to their beliefs, as I am to mine, but I have no compunction about blasting holes in their implausbilities, inconsistencies and prejudices, nor should they about mine. (Fortunately, atheism doesn’t really have those, so it saves the other person a lot of time.)

It deserves no more respect than that, and in fact, probably a lot less, but after all, I’m a gentleman, so all I’ll say is that your quote above is beautifully, transcendentally insipid, and it will have me giggling all day. Thank you, ma’am.

Ruairi -

They’re doing that anyway, the CNN article (the one apparently no one read - told you the link was sorta hidden, Craig) states: “Also, when a film’s rating is affected by the depiction of smoking, the rating will include such phrases as “glamorized smoking” or “pervasive smoking.”

But I agree with the notion to warn - instead of “censor”.

Some brilliant mind suggested earlier that the producers and the stars of a film should create a PSA targeting the subject of smoking (or whatever affects the rating) to be shown before the movie. That way kids (who sneak in or whose parents accompany them) will be educated about what they see.

Trey,

“But there is a difference between discipline and abuse. A big difference.”

I’m sure there is. But there’s no way I will start that discussion.

Just let it be noted that I think it’s an incredibly dangerous line that on can easily steer clear of by, well… not laying hand on a child PERIOD.

“Just let it be noted that I think it’s an incredibly dangerous line that on can easily steer clear of by, well… not laying hand on a child PERIOD.”

I take it hugs are exempt, below a certain velocity…

Sorry Ruairi - I said NO TOUCHING! Perv.

Johnny -

“Just let it be noted that I think it’s an incredibly dangerous line that on can easily steer clear of by, well… not laying hand on a child PERIOD.”

Good job not starting the discussion.

It’s not really a dangerous line. The two actions are as far apart as you and me on this issue. As far apart as Josh Olson and the MPAA.

To reiterate what Craig said to you up top, “you are [once again] talking about parenting the way people without children talk about parenting.”

Craig,

Mother of God. Please tell me YOU’RE joking. I am truly baffled by you sometimes. Ostensibly a comedy writer, you find the notion of using the internet for its comic potential to be shocking…. I hate to break it to you, pal, but the primary purpose of the internet is comedy. See also: wikipidia

Kevin,

“But Jesus, you are so much more interested in arguing than coming up with something useful.”

Well, let me see. A while back, I suggested there be an investigation into the way tobacco companies peddle their wares in movies, and you called me a child-hating moron who didn’t care that they were selling cigarettes to your children, so I gotta say…. You may not be the second coming of Ben Hecht, but you HAVE mastered irony.

Maye,

In the time you’ve spent telling giving us Hollywood So And So’s what for, you could have found out exactly how many nipples were in Knocked Up, how many impaled zombies are in Pirates 3, how many fart jokes Shrek 3 has, and whether or not Kevin Costner flashes his dick in Mr. Brooks. Hell, you’d even have had time to watch the mister beat the holy hell out of your kids a while.

By the way, I got your God Solution right here:

http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/

Give it a whirl. The free DVD’s worth it. (It’s unrated, though…)

Johnny:

This is the last time I will ever address you. If you are really so interested in everything that comes out of my mouth then I will meet you in person and we can talk about it once and for all. I’ll gladly give you my e-mail address so we can talk locations. Lucky for you I’m here in LA this week.

Otherwise…have a nice day.

Trey,

My old man maintained he was “spanking” me when he was beating my ass with a stick that had my name painted on it.

My junior high principal beat students with a paddle and called it “spanking”.

My middle school gym teacher beat me with his fists and called it “spanking”.

So yeah, it is a dangerous line - don’t cross it.

You, or the lovely Maye, may say that you do spanking the “right” way, I’m gonna say you’re full of it … I don’t believe that there is one, when it comes to violence … and while one can abuse a kid without touching them, true … but one can definitely NOT beat their child, in the strictness definition of the word, if they’re NOT spanking them.

So we don’t have to start a debate because, well, there ain’t one when it comes to this subject.

You hit a kid, you’re abusing that kid.

When I worked in a high school, if we saw evidence that a kid was being hit at home, we called the cops.

Hitting anyone is assault. You hit your kid, you’re assaulting your kid, under the definition of the law.

It’s violence, it’s abuse, that’s what it is.

End of story.

“Did he want more scenes of decapitated heads and eyes gouged out and people shot in the face than was already in there? No thank you. If you’re talking about editing stuff out to make it more of a financial success then that’s just economics 101. People paying their hard-earned money in the real world just like being entertained and forgetting their problems and don’t want to see all that.”

So movie violence is only acceptable and lucrative when it’s done to Jesus?

(That was me, by the way, Maye. Wouldn’t want you to chastise the wrong hell-bound soul.)

(Seriously, did you see “Passion of the Christ”? I do believe it was about 1000 times as violent as Josh’s movie. Did you take the kids?)

Now Kevin,

No spanking allowed!

Can I add that I walk into Tower Records at Union Square in New York City a lot, at least a couple times a week -

It’s a two story deal, and they always have multiple movies playing on about twenty different TV’s.

But they have a big screen that reaches the entire store … bigger than some screens in multi-plexes …

Yesterday playing on it was PAN’S LABRYNTH, which is rated R for extreme torture and violence … previous films include THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND and THE DEPARTED (Jack and his dildoes) …

Kids go in and out of there all day (play the Xbox 360’s downstairs) and yet there is no outcry … no one picketing the store … can we not believe that if movie theatres operated the same way, people would be all right?

Maye, do you have a Tower Records in Fresno?

If I recall, when I was in London, they show movies on television unedited for content and no one is the least bit scarred by it. Evidently those parents who care turn the telly off, and those who don’t, don’t.

I said Tower, I meant Virgin, damn it!

Virgin Records, playing sexy and violent movies at a store near you.

Joshua:

I’d go easy on him.

Joshua.

Your personal experience with the issue is terrible, heart breaking and worthy of every ounce of ire that you can muster.

However, to hang the sign of “child abuser” around the neck of every parent that believes discipline takes many forms, including spanking, because of that personal experience is ludicrous and boarders on libel.

So be careful just how far the ire takes you.

Let’s use the original purpose of this thread as an example. Does the MPAA say, “All smoking in movies warrants and R rating”?

No.

Because they know there are actually uses of smoking in film that either don’t glorify the act or are using it in a hisorically accurate way. There are uses of smoking in film that aren’t harmful to general audiences.

In short, they know the world isn’t black and white. They have made concessions for the wide chasm of gray.

In your house, I will give you that spanking is probably best not used. And I won’t question your parenting skills or your character or your reasoning. It’s your house.

But this isn’t a black and white issue. Don’t let your personal experience and the emotions connected to the experience interfere with your ability to reason.

For sure you’re right in that context matters to a degree … and I’m not necessarily letting my emotions cloud my reason … I share it as a point of context.

My point was, my old man and gym teacher and principal said the same thing you did. It’s not abuse, it’s spanking, there’s a difference.

Contextually we know now that they were greviously wrong, right?

So who’s to say that you are not also greviously wrong about spanking? How can I accept the word of any person who strikes a child that it’s “only” for their good? How can we callibrate the love or hate in any individual strike?

You can’t, not any more than you can measure the strength of someone’s prayers.

As an added measure, children cannot defend themselves, they can’t really stand up and say, “you’re hitting me TOO hard, you’re hurting me TOO much” they’re defenseless and dependent on their parents for protection, not strikes.

It’s really just this. You strike someone, you’re assaulting them. If I hit Kevin, or Kevin hits me, that’s assault.

Though we would probably just grab a beer and talked trash about comics, like the first time we met.

But assault is assault. You can, and should get arrested for it.

You strike your child, you’re assaulting them. When it comes to violence, you have to have a starting point.

The starting point, by rule of reason and law, is the strike.

Unless you’re defending yourself, it’s against the law to strike a child.

Again, end of story.

“When Caroline was little, it seemed like I spanked her every other day,” Princess Grace once said…. “Albert didn’t need as much. A sharp word was enough. Stephanie? I should have been beating her like a gong long ago.”

Hitting anyone is assault. You hit your kid, you’re assaulting your kid, under the definition of the law.

It’s violence, it’s abuse, that’s what it is.

End of story.

You’ll find this story under “fiction.”

Really, fiction?

So if I were to hit you, that’s not assault?

First I’ve heard that was fiction. Evidently those police officers were lying to me.

You can, and should get arrested for it.

I don’t know about should, but no, you can’t be arrested for spanking a child. California law wallows parents or caregivers to spank with an open hand on the butt.

Seems Aaron beat me to my next point.

Olson:

Oh.

I thought the purpose of the internet was to talk tough to people, because it’s too scary to do in real life.

Cormac Wibberley still tells one of the funniest stories I’ve ever heard.

Joshua,

“So if I were to hit you, that’s not assault?”

Aaron’s not your kid.

You’re wading a little too far out into an ocean I don’t know you’re ready or willing to swim in.

You come right off the cuff a little too much. If I’m not mistaken, you at one point through Jack Valenti was in the car with JFK.

Stop speaking about stuff you feel passionately about but don’t have the knowledge to back up.

I knew that damn Valenti thing was gonna bite me in the ass - LOL!

Well, it’s ain’t ALL off the cuff, Trey … and really, how CAN one calibrate the level of love or hate in a strike?

But I allow that it appears the definition of assault varies from state to state, it seems, though if a caregiver, such as a nanny or teacher, were to apply an open hand to the rear of my child, I believe I could have them arrested for it, could I not?

Aaron is right, Joshua — your comment is absolute fiction. Putting aside everyone’s opinion about what is “right” and “wrong”, the right of a parent or guardian to use “reasonable and appropriate physical force when and to the extent he/she believes it necessary to maintain discipline or promote the welfare of the child” is widely protected.

So if I were to hit you, that?s not assault?

Technically, that’d be battery. ;)

My “fiction” comment referred to the idea that striking a child is always abuse.

I don’t blame you for not trusting anyone using the word “spanking,” based on your own experience, but you can’t just go from “some people call abuse spanking” to “all spanking is abuse.”

“But I allow that it appears the definition of assault varies from state to state, it seems, though if a caregiver, such as a nanny or teacher, were to apply an open hand to the rear of my child, I believe I could have them arrested for it, could I not?”

I honestly don’t know.

I remember when I was in public school (in Texas, where I live… just down the road a piece from Maye. lol.) they sent home forms that parents had to sign either allowing or disallowing corporal punishment.

my parents always signed the “sure, hit my kid” line. but i didn’t really get out of line, and never gave them a reason to hit me.

not that you deserved what happned to you.

anyway. let’s be done with the hitting kids talk. and discuss smoking in movies. or the MPAA. or cool movie posters.

oh, and Craig. point taken.

Fair enough …

and dang, Trey, if I can’t be “off the cuff” on a comment string on the internets, what is the world coming to?

I should be able to make Jack Valenti mistakes here, as long as I own up to ‘em, LOL!

You know I’d suggest a group hug at this point, but I’m not sure what the legal boundaries are any more…

Btw Hello Mr. Susco. How them Zombies treating ya?

Ruairi:

Group hugs around, all about the velocity, right? :)

Zombies are piling up, running out of ammo. We should chat…

I just wanted to add, in my defense, that I was aware of this -

““reasonable and appropriate physical force when and to the extent he/she believes it necessary to maintain discipline or promote the welfare of the child””

When I worked as a direct care worker … the understanding of the above did not include striking, rather it pertained to physical restraint …

I understand it’s interpreted differently.

As a Mom who raised 2 kids I can say for certain the biggest influence on children is their PEER GROUP.

Whatever particular peer group your kid resonates to this will be their biggest influence.

Not films, not even music.

The only way to counteract it is to TALK to your kids — clearly, non-judgmentally — and address the issues which concern you.

In this way, they internalize your parental voice and it will be louder than any message they’re getting from peers or popular culture.

Of course, this would require parents who actually take time to speak to their children in a meaningful way - every day.

If you abdicate this responsibility the peer group will fill the vacuum.

Joshua,

While most movies shown in the UK on television are unedited, we do still get the odd censored versions here and there. They mostly stem from the late 80s and 90s when almost every movie was cut for swearing, violence, what have you.

I swear to you, some of these versions were truly scarring. They’d dub stuff on, cut stuff out - I once sat through a version of RoboCop where they edited the word scumbag. (It was hysterical - everyone was a “melonfarmer”, Emil never crashed into the acid, let alone got killed and Murphy killed Boddicker at the end by appearing to push him into the water)

A print of Airplane! the other day missed the old lady snorting cocaine too, but it was shown before our watershed - after 8/9 at night depending on certification, they pretty much show stuff uncut.

It used to be really bad here though - in the late 90s I used to import all my movies on NTSC laserdisc because the BBFC kept cutting things out of them. Now they only do that if you’re going for a PG/12-A rating and your film is on the violent and sweary side.

Anyone see Kirby Dick’s “This Film Is Not Yet Rated” (which was not surprisingly slapped with an NC-17 rating by the MPAA out of spite)?

There are two very interesting perspectives here. Perspective being the key word; Is anyone surprised that Olson’s position is that of the filmmaker as artist, while Craig and Ted take that of the paid employee participating in a commercial endeavor? The fact is, while all three are members of the same union, with the same job title written on their tax returns, these are three very different types of writers. Josh’s commitment is to story first and foremost; Craig’s and Ted’s to the product.

And that’s not a knock against Craig and Ted; one perspective is not necessarily right and the other wrong. However you all should at least all be able to admit that you’re limiting your perspective based on your personal approach to the craft.

However what still boggles me - the question raised after reading Craig’s initial post - is why the heck would anyone want to willingly subject themselves to MORE guidelines? It’s a given that the MPAA exists and will continue to exist. You can get huffy about it or you can resign yourself to working within the (albeit somewhat arbitrary) rules. But why applaud the additional restrictions on how you do your job? Craig, don’t you think that at some point you might actually find yourself wanting to depict a cinematic world closer akin to reality than what the MPAA will allow, without having to sacrifice your film’s commercial potential? And please, leave your kids out of it. I’ll assume that your kids exist in this reality, the one where people smoke. What aspects of this reality you choose to shelter your kids from is your business, but it’s not the civic duty of every American to see the world through similarly Mazin-tinted glasses.

Seriously, from a strictly creative point of view, doesn’t it bother you at ALL to have to write from within this MPAA-fabricated version of reality, not your own? You’re never ONCE gonna write a character that needs a cigarette with their morning coffee, or after sex, or while they take a dump?

As they say, the truth is in the Pudding…

But Ronnie, keep in mind, the MPAA will not slap every movie submitted to the board from hereonforth with an R rating just because it has a guy crossing frame with a cigarette dangling from his lips.

Kevin, there’s nothing I care to discuss with you that we can’t discuss here.

”Of course, this would require parents who actually take time to speak to their children in a meaningful way - every day.”

Thank you SusanC !! Thank you. Thank you, thank you.

Josh’s commitment is to story first and foremost; Craig’s and Ted’s to the product.

If by “product” you mean “movie,” then sure. I think everyone’s should be, since that’s what we’re supposed to be writing. Movies.

why the heck would anyone want to willingly subject themselves to MORE guidelines?

Because being a screenwriter doesn’t exempt me from parental concerns.

Craig, don’t you think that at some point you might actually find yourself wanting to depict a cinematic world closer akin to reality than what the MPAA will allow, without having to sacrifice your film’s commercial potential?

Now who’s the commercial money-grubber? My answer is “no.” I believe I have an obligation as an artist to participate in a system that protects both my work and certain basic moral principles…like “12 year-olds shouldn’t be able to choose to see anything they want.”

Dear Maye,

Thanks for your reply.

“I find it difficult to believe after all I’ve read here from very interesting people on both sides of the fence that any “shenanigans” are keeping movies from having all the junk in them they want.”

That’s cause you think it’s junk and you don’t want it in there yourself. But what about the people who do want that junk? Like the filmmaker who filmed that junk for an audience who want to see that junk?

“Did you see Mr. Olson’s movie? I did.”

I did, too. Loved those mutant flies swarming out of the guy’s gashing throat - brilliant. Unless you’re speaking of A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. I saw that as well. Best movie that year. It was robbed of its adapted screenplay Oscar by a film about gay cowboys – did you see that one?

“Did he want more scenes of decapitated heads and eyes gouged out and people shot in the face than was already in there?”

I don’t know, you’d have to ask him. Having read the source material, I can tell you that a lot of the graphic violence from the book did not make it into the film.

“If you’re talking about editing stuff out to make it more of a financial success then that’s just economics 101.”

It’s that simple, uh? Then why are we having a 300+ thread on the matter? Maybe the world is a little more complex than you’d like it to be, Maye, maybe?

”People paying their hard-earned money in the real world just like being entertained and forgetting their problems and don’t want to see all that.”

I could argue that you watched SCHINDLER’S LIST just to be entertained by the problems of others, but that would be facetious. Again, YOU don’t want to see all that. Plenty o’ folks do. Why do filmmakers have to make a choice between art and cash - when the audience can just make a choice whether to see a movie or not?

”They let you know with their wallets.”

Then why do distributors release UNRATED versions of films on DVD? Because there’s a market, Mrs. Cunningham. Because people want to see what you refer to as “junk”. They want to see the filmmaker’s original vision - before it ran through the community standards filter.

Forgive my curiosity, but why do you not approve of HARRY POTTER-? The rating board deemed all of those magical movies suitable for children (PG-13). Could the rating board, that anonymous group you seem to trust in your decision making as a parent, gaaasp, be wrong-?!

The phrase Maye used was, “My husband would wear out their behinds.”

In the year 2007, do we really need to discuss how fucked up that is?

Ronnie,

Craig’s non-answer notwithstanding, good points, one and all. Ted, especially, seems to work under the belief that once you’ve accepted money to ply your trade, you cannot complain about compromise.

It’s like saying, once you’ve accepted that you have to have dinner at your boss’s once a year and flatter his wife’s awful cooking, you can’t complain when Mike Tyson ass-rapes you.

Craig,

Hey, if you want to do this here, I’m game.

I was at a meeting at an agency a few months back, and a couple introduced themselves to me. There are three factors here:

1) I’m bad with names to begin with. 2) I’ve met more people in the last year than I’d previously met in my entire life, which compounds the problem of 1) 3) I only know the Wibberlys in context of the wife, and from this page, and WA. I’m not the Variety junkie some people are, and don’t know the names of most people in this business, unless I’ve worked with them (or, obviously, if they’re household names)

They seemed pleasant enough, and genuinely pleased to see me. The encounter lasted about thirty seconds, and then my producing partner and I got into the elevator. He asked me, “How do you know them?” I answered honestly, “I have no idea.”

When we got to the meeting, they came up, and the agent said, “Oh yeah, they wrote National Treasure.” At which point I realized that she was the woman who’d taken offense when I suggested that the Razzberries should be treated lightly and with humor, and that if you write Charlie’s Angels 2, that sort of thing comes with the territory (Who knew it was her passion project?). The man, I’d never encountered before in any way shape or form, as far as I know.

So the upshot is, I was very polite to them for the thirty seconds we encountered them, because believe it or not, I don’t automatically assume everyone I meet is some hostile twit who’s said nasty things about me on the internets (She is the woman, I believe, who maintained that my script for History had been massively rewritten, which was a completely libellous statement.)

So if your funny story is that when I met the Wibberlys I was nice to them, there’s the backstory. Hate to break it to you - I’m nice to most people, unless I know for a fact they’re assholes.

That said, had I known who they were, I doubt I’d have lunged for their throats. My ego can handle jackasses saying stupid and untrue things about me on the internet, for the most part. And besides, they have enoughproblems without me causing mischief offline.

To this date, I have no idea why someone who had such an antagonistic relationship with me would come up to me and act so obsequious and friendly. It stands as one of the stranger encounters - in retrospect - that I’ve had in this town.

I’m not Arbouet. I don’t get so hot under the collar that I want to hit people who say crap to me online. As childish and goofy as this medium and these exchanges can be, I find I have a hard time sinking that low. If I find myself in a situation with someone I’ve had those sorts of run ins with, my tendency is to ignore them.

But to the question of do I behave this way offline? Depends. Sometimes. Context is everything. I hear that off line, you actually have a sense of humor.

Johnny,

“Forgive my curiosity, but why do you not approve of HARRY POTTER-?”

The witchcraft thing. Good, Bible-thumping Christians HATE Harry Potter.

I believe I have an obligation as an artist to participate in a system that protects both my work and certain basic moral principles like ‘12 year-olds shouldn’t be able to choose to see anything they want.’

That’s fine when it’s YOUR work and YOUR moral principals - which both seem to peacefully exist within the MPAA’s guidelines. But how about everybody else? Believe it or there are parents out there who WOULDN’T put cigarette smoking on the same “activities I don’t want my children to witness” list as decapitation and bukkake. But your position becomes especially dubious when you consider that your children (and everyone else’s children whom you seem bent on parenting) are seeing people smoke on a regular basis ANYWAY. Car chases? Gunfights? Your children might go their entire adult lives without witnessing these things anywhere BUT on screen. But smoking is something they’ll see if they GO OUTSIDE.

Josh -

“The witchcraft thing. Good, Bible-thumping Christians HATE Harry Potter.”

Is there a difference in your mind between the one’s that thump their Bibles and the ones that read their Bibles?

Because, most Christians I know actually LOVE Harry Potter. Including my wife, who boarders on being a bonafide saint.

Then again, maybe we’re just bad Christians and I didn’t get the memo.

Ronnie.

You’re on an argument that’s been made. Craig answered it about 25 posts in, if you scroll up you’ll find it.

Trey -

“Is there a difference in your mind between the one’s that thump their Bibles and the ones that read their Bibles?”

Yes, there is. By definition ‘bible-thumping’ pertains to a person who aggressively expounds the teachings of the Bible, i.e. not all Christians.

Not that Maye would fall into that category. Tell us it isn’t so, Mrs. Cunningham-?

Trey,

“Is there a difference in your mind between the one’s that thump their Bibles and the ones that read their Bibles?”

If there wasn’t a difference, wouldn’t I have just left out the qualifier BIBLE THUMPING?

Do you think that it’s news to me that all Christians aren’t small minded, hate filled lunatics who want to destroy everything that’s good in the world? Do you think it’s possible to live in America and not actually know anyone who belongs to the most popular religion in the country?

I can’t speak for your friends, but most of MY friends are even more fed up with these types than I am, because on top of all my grievances with the Children of Falwell (Yay!), these idiots make them look bad.

No, Trey. I do not need a lecture on how not all Christians are intolerant bigots.

But if the day should ever come in which Christians become an aggreived and powerless minority, I’m sure they’ll be glad to have you to defend them.

Olson:

Are you married?

Josh,

It was just a question with no forthcoming lectures or defenses. I know plenty of people who can’t tell the difference and rather than assume you’re one of those types, I thought I’d ask.

Glad to know otherwise.

Trey —

Sorry, got busy.

Help me make sense of something you said: “the stick the MPAA wields is the threat of limiting the commercial viability of a movie.” Is you argument that the MPAA’s rating actually limits the number of viewers or is it that the audiences stay away from certain ratings, or a healthy combination of both?

It’s more insidious than that. The mistake people make in discussing ratings is in imagining the relationship as being filmmaker-MPAA-audience. This is why I brought up exhibitors, and the idea of an alternative distribution system — because, under the current distribution system, exhibitors are the ones who actually decide what movies audiences will see. There’s a finite number of screens; if you show a movie in an auditorium, it means you’re not using that auditorium to show a different movie. So, for exhibitors, the question isn’t “What’s the greatest art?” or “What kind of content don’t I want people to see?” — it’s “Which movies out of all available movies will make the most money?”

An NC-17 rating means that virtually none of the major chains will exhibit the movie — if an NC-17 movie is exhibited, it’s usually in an independent one- or two-screen theater. Some chains present this as a moral choice, and maybe in some cases, it’s also a moral choice, but the real reason is stricly commercial: an NC-17 movie has the smallest potential audience possible — over-17s only. So booking an NC-17 movie into an auditorium pretty much guarantees lower ticket sales than if an R-or-under movie had been booked into that same auditorium. It also cuts into the potential concession sales as well.

Also, most major media outlets and newspapers will not accept advertising for NC-17 movies, and a lot of newspapers won’t even include them in their listings. It’s possible someone who would buy a ticket for an NC-17 movie could live down the street from a theater showing it, but couldn’t even find it was playing there from the newspaper, let alone get the showtimes.

When we get to the R-and-under ratings, the “no advertising accepted” stricture is gone, but there is nonethelles a stricture on advertising R-rated movies, one imposed by the MPAA: they cannot be advertised during programming that children are likely to watch. This was the result of that whole “Studios are targetting kids in their R-rated movie marketing? Won’t someone think of the children!” crap that came up a few years ago. What does this accomplish? The best I can think of is, it marginally reduces the number of things that a kid might whine about if parents say “no” to something he/she wants.

Also, contrary to the impression a lot of “No one should get to do anything I don’t want them to do” pressure groups might give, R-rated movies are not crowded with 6-year-olds. Although people of any age could see an R-rated movie, the actual audience is still more limited than a PG-13 movie.

So, an R-rated movie will likely sell fewer tickets per auditorium than if the same movie were rated PG-13, and also sell less concessions than the same movie rated PG-13.

With PG-13 movies, there’s no stricture on advertising and the potential audience is adults, teens and kids, so those are the ones that are likely to sell the greatest number of tickets and the greatest amount of popcorn — so exhibitors, given a choice, no other consideratoins, would book a PG-13 movie over an R, PG or G movie (or NC-17, natch) (if the knew a G movie was from Pixar, it would likely be a more difficult decision).

PG movies draw the largest kid audiences, because that’s often the movies consider the most tolerable of ones they have to sit through with their 5-year-olds. But, of course, kids’ tickets are lower-priced than general admissions — not as much as they used to be, but some.

G is a near-death kiss, not quite the same as NC-17, but typically not a desirable rating for exhibitors (unless: Pixar).

So the MPAA ratings have enormouns influence on the movies that exhibitors will actually book into theaters — ie, the commercial viability of the movie.

So the MPAA gives a movie an NC-17, it pretty much makes it commercially unviable. R is better, but still not as commercial viable as PG-13.

It’s a rare instance where a filmmaker will re-cut a movie to get a less commercially-viable rating, but it does happen. But, in most cases, movies are re-cut to receive a more commercially viable rating.

Meaning: a rating that has the best chance of being booked into the greatest number of auditoriums by exhibitors, and so the best chance of generating the most revenue for the exhibitor and the filmmaker.

And that’s the basis for the real argument against the MPAA ratings system: not the censorship stuff, that’s both too easy, and too easily refuted; and its such an unoriginal argument, it’s just noise at this point.

Whtether by accident or design, the MPAA has de facto control over the traditional movie distribution system. It has become the gatekeeper and regulator of the marketplace of ideas — a marketplace that should be self-regulated.

And that’s why the MPAA system needs to be revamped in its entirety, if not just dismantled. There are a number of sources nowadays where parents can get information to guide the choices they make for their kids; the MPAA’s supposed primary purpose is no longer necessary.

-

Arthur:

So apparently, if it were up to Craig, your Pirates movies would be rated R for Jack Sparrow’s boozing.

Could you quote the post where Craig said this? I can’t find it.

Edited to Add:

Never mind. He didn’t say that.

-

Ted:

Pretty amazing, huh?

Olson:

I enjoyed your version of that Cormac story. His is different.

And certainly funnier.

But mostly just different.

Just deleted another comment.

Keep it civil, guys. I know you know how to do this. Threatening each other with violence is sort of the definition of uncivil, no?

I’ve closed this comment section because the length of it all is slowing down the site.

Go here for a new (hopefully faster) place to continue the discussion.

Thanks,

C.