dan glickman Tagged Articles at Cinematical

The most we can hope for now is the unrated director's cut of Kevin Smith's Zack and Miri Make a Porno, because the filmmaker has won his appeal with the MPAA and received an R rating, according to the Associated Press. It's been a long road for Smith's movie, which was unsurprisingly smacked with an NC-17 last month -- as if we didn't see it coming due to Smith's track record and the fact that it's a movie about a couple who, yes, that's right, make a porno. Oh, and of course there was that raunchy trailer, which gave us some semblance of the material the movie is dealing with (coprophilia jokes are likely always deemed adults-only content, at least in the initial ratings board screening).

So much for the MPAA and National Association of Theatre Owners' plans to remove the stigma attached to the NC-17. If ever there was a popular filmmaker to usher in a new wave of non-porn adults-only fare, Smith would be that person. And considering that Zack and Miri is about porn, it would be an appropriate gateway for the rating. Last week, when Smith spoke to AICN about the appeal, he seemed fine with the need for an R rating, stating that it's just "part of the process." Of course it is. The process consists of toning down a film to ensure an R and then releasing the original raunchier version on DVD in order for Hollywood to get the most buck for its bang.

Update: When Cinematical reached Smith for a quote, he had this to say on the decision: "I'm very happy with the result of the appeals process. Sadly, however, it doesn't cure my biggest headache: I'm still grossly overweight."

If someone were to get caught illegally recording a movie in New York City today, he would get charged with a violation (like a speeding ticket) and hit with, at most, a $250 fine. Not much of a deterrent, I daresay, for folks who make a criminal enterprise out of making and selling bootlegs. Furthermore, only the folks actually in the theater with the camcorder would get in trouble -- everyone else, like the people doing the selling, get off scot-free, assuming they're not breaking any other laws.

New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was joined Monday by Tina Fey and a couple of other movie types for the unveiling of the "Piracy Protection Act," which would make piracy either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on whether you're a first-time or repeat offender, and punish it with actual, y'know, jail time (up to a year for first-timers). They're hoping to have the law in place within the month. So, uh, if you're in New York City and you're planning to bootleg something, I'd recommend doing it now.

This law is obviously a result of movie industry lobbying, as evidenced by MPAA president Dan Glickman standing by Cuomo's side at the press conference. Does the new punishment fit the crime? Will harsher punishments make a difference? (I'm not so sure -- especially not if New York law enforcement doesn't dedicate more effort to actually ferreting out the bootleggers.) And are you surprised to hear that up until now people could record movies with virtual impunity, even if they got caught?

ed note: Corrected Attorney General's name

I find it kind of interesting -- no, funny, actually -- that while tons of movie fans were down in Austin for SXSW, enjoying the greatest cinema experience available, at the Alamo Drafthouse (Ritz and South Lamar), exhibitors from all over the country were piling into Las Vegas for ShoWest, the annual convention and trade show, where discussion and conversation often turns to the question, "how can we make moviegoing a better experience and, more importantly, a more lucrative business?"

Maybe some of the suits should have made the trip to SXSW instead, had a beer and a burger (ahem, a Royale with Cheese), and started lobbying their districts, if need be, to begin following the business model of the Alamo. I know that in my state of New York, it's not technically legal to serve alcohol in a cinema, but surely it is part of some antiquated law that needs to be adjusted (like how technically you're not allowed to dance at many bars in NYC).

To quote an official MPAA movie ratings poster: "THE SYSTEM CAN'T WORK UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM."

How many NC-17-rated films did you see in the theater in the past year? Maybe one? That is if Ang Lee's Lust, Caution even played in your 'hood. And considering the most screens it ever played on in any single week was 143, I highly doubt it (understandably, it could have played in more than 143 locations over the course of its 20 weeks in theaters, but I doubt many more).

But if there had been more NC-17-rated films, and they actually played near you, would you have gone to see them? And if so, why? Because you expect something more titillating than the other releases to choose from? And if not, why? Are you afraid of others thinking you are going to see something dirty? Are you embarrassed about both attending and watching graphic sex on screen? Do you correlate the experience to going to a porno theater?

"A friend hooked me up with it." This is what a fifth-grade teacher told his class right before he showed them a bootlegged copy of Shrek the Third. And he may have even gotten away with it if one of his female students didn't run home and write Dan Glickman a scathing email. Okay, I'm kidding -- but she did tell her father what had happened, and he subsequently told MSNBC that he is pissed -- not because his daughter was shown an illegal bootleg of a film still in theaters -- but because the teacher in question was actually screening this film in replace of whatever the lesson plan should've been for that day. And I whole-heartily agree.

The school, located in Peekskill, New York, is currently investigating the issue, and Superintendent Judith Johnson issued a statement saying that, essentially, it is against school policy to show a pirated video. No word yet on what will happen to the teacher, Lovell Quiroz, but personally I feel he should be sent to some sort of moron jail. I mean, c'mon dude -- was it that important for you to look "cool" in front of a bunch of fifth graders? Next week, during show and tell, will you pass around that bag of pot your friend hooked you up with as well? And it's actually quite comical, because this is exactly where I think the MPAA should be focusing a lot of their efforts. In a couple of years these kids will be wizards of the online world (if they aren't already), and they'll most certainly learn how and where to download illegal movies. If you want my opinion, the MPAA should set up some sort of program where actors (or what have you) travel around to different elementary schools to talk about the disadvantages of movie pirating. Get to these kids while they're still young and naive.

And as far as this teacher goes, I'm not sure what should happen to him. Should the guy lose his job over this? Should he be given a warning? If you were the parent of a child who was in that classroom, what type of penalty would you suggest?

MPAA leader Dan Glickman had a lot more to say about the ratings system this week during the ShoWest film exhibition and distribution convention. As you remember, the MPAA unveiled revisions to its system earlier this year, and since then it has had to continually explain, clarify, defend and fine tune its changes due to confusion and dissatisfaction. One thing that continues to be unclear, though, is if the MPAA is more interested in removing the stigma of the NC-17 rating or in altering the perception that an R-rated film is perfectly suitable for all ages. On Thursday the Classification and Ratings Administration, which operates the ratings system for the MPAA and the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), revealed a new advisory for the R rating that it hopes will be a better warning to parents. It will read: "Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures."

Additionally, some theater chains are looking to go further and ban very young children from R-rated movies, a practice already observed by many art house cinemas. NATO head John Fithian also spoke about the ratings system at ShoWest, and it is apparent that theater owners have their own ideas regarding the subject. First he stressed the importance of having theatrical releases rated by the MPAA in order to perform well. Even though the NC-17 rating has a stigma attached, movies released with that rating earn more money than those released without a rating. He also claimed that without the ratings system we'd possibly have to deal instead with a government-run system of censorship.

Finally he made a request for Hollywood to stop releasing special unrated editions of DVDs -- or at least stop marketing them as being better because they are uncensored. He said that this practice undermines the authority and purpose of the ratings, plus it emphasizes the idea that for some movies it is better to avoid the theater and to wait for the more complete DVD. I guess we'll have to see if the studios abide by this request, but just be warned there may only be one version of Knocked Up, so you might as well just go see it in the theater. Grindhouse, on the other hand, will probably need an unrated DVD no matter what.

According to an article in today's Variety, MPAA chairman Dan Glickman is trying to find a new rating that will group together the movies that currently tip the dirtier scale of the R-rating -- the 'hard R' films that contain copious amounts of nudity, the f-word every three seconds, or gruesome torture-horror imagery, for instance. The move is apparently being motivated by outraged parents who can't believe what is allowed under today's R-rating and demand there be something new between PG-13 and R to let parents know whether they are allowing their teenage children to see a 'soft R' or a 'hard R.' The article reminds us that this debate has been had over and over throughout the years, and that X-rated films like Midnight Cowboy even won Academy Awards before the rating was 'overtaken' by the adult film industry.

The MPAA is also under pressure from the studios to get rid of the NC-17 rating, because its association with heavy sexual content has made it almost worthless -- Blockbuster refuses to carry any DVDs rated NC-17, for example. Many daily newspapers also refuse ads for NC-17 films, even though unrated films with similar content can sometimes skirt by, the article notes. Cinematical recently interviewed Kirby Dick, director of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, about the pros and cons of the current ratings system, if you want to know more.

Forget about whether or not the MPAA is actually making improvements to the film ratings system. You can believe that it is, or you can believe that it isn't. The important thing is that the board should be communicating more clearly to moviegoers the point of film ratings and the reasons for a film being rated what it is rated. The worse thing for independent cinema is not that films may unfairly receive an NC-17 rating; it is that the public misunderstands the NC-17 rating. This problem is still mostly the fault of the MPAA, along with the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO). Fortunately, the MPAA may be finally acknowledging this.

Last week, when the MPAA's ratings revision proposal was announced, there was mention of a plan to provide more specific descriptors for R-rated films, addressing whether they are more or less inappropriate for children. I wrote hopefully that this was a plan to steer away from the poisonous NC-17 rating. But in his official declaration of the new policies, Dan Glickman stated the opposite. The MPAA, he said, would like the world to love and embrace the NC-17.

Some of us were pretty excited yesterday after hearing that the MPAA and NATO (and CARA) is reforming the film ratings policies, procedures and practices. But two people aren't buying the whole "change" part of the announcement. This Film is Not Yet Rated director Kirby Dick and producer Eddie Schmidt have released a statement saying that they are grateful their documentary has put uncredited pressure on the MPAA, but that they see through the B.S. of the ratings revisions, calling all but one "cosmetic."

For each supposed "change" to the system, Dick and Schmidt gave a response that exposes the real meaning, and explain the continuing problems with the ratings system despite the MPAA's claim that things will be more fair and honest from now on. It is great that we are getting such quick commentary from these guys, since they are the experts on the issue (as much as any documentary filmmaker is an expert of their subject). Such a public reaction also can't hurt the guys with regards to their upcoming DVD release.

Check out the responses (lifted from the official press release) after the jump ...

One year ago, the MPAA's film ratings system was exposed for being unfair and inconsistent. This was thanks primarily to the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, which screened at Sundance. Now, without acknowledging that film's possible influence on the decision, the MPAA is announcing a change in the ratings process and procedures. A campaign is set to begin at Sundance on Monday, when Dan Glickman will be joined with Classifications & Ratings Administration head Joan Graves to officially go over the revisions.

Variety has the list of changes, which includes the decision to publicly post the standards that must be met to receive a particular rating. Also added to the appeals process is an allowance for a filmmaker to compare his film's content with another lower-rated film's content in order to make a consistency argument. Other parts of the revision include a description of the still-anonymous ratings board members and new rules for the eligibility of those members.