As usual, I'm not going to pretend to understand the technologies behind modern home entertainment. And so, before I begin, I'd like to prematurely thank any commenters who choose to weigh in on things such as "selectable output control," "the analog hole" or any other terms I might misuse or incorrectly explain. The only thing I comprehend about those electronic doohickeys in my living room is that they each somehow connect to my antiquated analog television and through the magic of, well, I don't know, I'm able to watch the occasional classic movie and mindless cake design program.

Those familiar with this column should know that I'm not here to necessarily explain how threats to movie theaters work. I'm just here to yell, "the sky is falling!" from within the lobby of the local cinema and hope that you Henny Pennys and Goosey Looseys are listening to my rants and ramblings and at least try to go to the movies more often (and hopefully buy at least one thing at the concession stand). This time, however, I feel even less knowledgeable about the latest threat, and I feel even more fearful that this is the beginning of the end. The cinemapocalypse, if you will.

What Silent Bob giveth, Silent Bob taketh away... or, at least, taketh down, which is why one can no longer give the Zack and Miri Make a Porno teaser a look-see until the MPAA gives it the once-over.

The online-only teaser, while filled with writer-director's Kevin Smith expectedly raunchy dialogue, does not actually feature any footage from the finished film, but according to Smith's recent News Askew post, that is a stipulation unseen by the Ratings Board, which must approve all marketing materials for any film.

"We're now officially submitting the teaser to the MPAA for rating," said Smith. "If they approve it, we'll put it back up." He does make a point of mentioning how a mere two years ago, he posted similarly crude internet-exclusive trailers for Clerks II with nary a complaint.

Until the MPAA hands down its formal red-band (or is it yellow-band?) decree, here's a link to our initial post on the teaser's arrival last week -- a post on which the teaser just so happens to still work...

[via /Film]

It is not immediately obvious why The Strangers is rated R. The horror film, about a young couple (Scott Speedman and Liv Tyler) terrorized in their home by a group of sadistic masked assailants, is reasonably violent, but not very graphic: aside from a brief glimpse of a pretty nasty gunshot wound and some stabbings that are either obscured or off-screen, there's not much here that would ordinarily raise rating board eyebrows. (The elaboration states that The Strangers is rated R for language in addition to violence, but there are, at the most, one or two muttered F-bombs.) In terms of content, PG-13 films have gotten away with worse. Hell, the PG-rated Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian featured a decapitation, which is more than we see here. What, then, explains the MPAA's harsh (and no doubt economically damaging) treatment of The Strangers?

I am convinced that the film broke the R threshold in the eyes of the MPAA for one reason: it's pretty good. Tight, intense, often legitimately frightening, and committed to its suburban-nightmare premise, The Strangers may not be gory, but I wouldn't wish it on too many kids under fifteen. It's a classical, no-frills, 85-minute blast of cold air, a refreshing bit of professionalism in a genre whose mainstream, at least, has been plagued of late by lazy pandering and general shoddiness.

Warning: This post contains excessive grasping at straws.

Most knowledgeable folks seem to think that the upcoming Wanted looks like a piece of junk. I can understand their position: the trailer was kind of a sensory assault, and didn't exactly make the film seem original. For my part, I'm not ready to write it off. I like James McAvoy, director Timur Bekmambetov is a fellow Russian, and I tend to enjoy the wildly implausible brand of action that the film seems to be going for. So I'm happy to report a piece of news that kind of surprised me: Wanted has been rated R by the MPAA for "strong bloody violence throughout, pervasive language and some sexuality." That elaboration makes it seem like they won't be trying to trim the bad parts to earn a PG-13.

Now, okay: obviously that doesn't mean much. I mean, the similarly (identically?) themed Hitman was rated R too, and look how that turned out. But for me, the R rating speaks not directly to quality, but to the kind of film Wanted is likely to be. Seeing the trailer (and not knowing the source material), I thought that while it looked kind of cool, it also looked like a broad, inoffensive, second-rate action romp -- my first association, probably due to the presence of Angelina Jolie, was with Lara Croft Tomb Raider. But maybe it won't be. Maybe it'll turn out to be harsh, and sexy, and over-the-top in ways that are actually interesting. Maybe it'll be more like Running Scared or Shoot 'Em Up than like Ghost Rider. You might think that those comparisons don't help and that it still looks like crap, but it seems to me that an R rating for a movie like this increases the odds of it being worthwhile. Or am I off my gourd?

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?

UPDATE: The Daily Variety story was incorrect; the MPAA actually rejected a trailer for Taxi to the Darkside, and not the poster. Here's the Variety clarification: "The MPAA did not approve a theatrical trailer for Alex Gibney's documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" that contained scenes with nudity and images that the org deemed inappropriate for all audiences. ThinkFilm has not yet officially submitted the one-sheet art referenced in a Dec. 19 story, but Daily Variety failed to indicate that it was the trailer that was rejected and not the one-sheet artwork."

ThinkFilm is prepping an appeal to the MPAA, but this one doesn't concern a film's rating. It's about a poster. The poster art for Taxi to the Dark Side -- a documentary about the pattern of torture practice that is on the short list for Academy Award consideration -- is causing a stir due to its depiction of a hooded man being led by American soldiers. The original news photo was taken by photographer Shaun Schwarz, and had been censored before -- when the military erased it from Schwarz' camera. (He later retrieved it from his hard drive.) Variety is reporting that the MPAA has officially rejected the poster, and if ThinkFilm goes forward with the marketing, they could have their "R" rating revoked. Taxi to the Dark Side is due for release on January 11th.

An MPAA spokesman says "We treat all films the same. Ads will be seen by all audiences, including children. If the advertising is not suitable for all audiences it will not be approved by the advertising administration." Alex Gibney (Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room), the film's writer, producer, and director says, "Not permitting us to use an image of a hooded man that comes from a documentary photograph is censorship, pure and simple. Intentional or not, the MPAA's disapproval of the poster is a political act, undermining legitimate criticism of the Bush administration. I agree that the image is offensive; it's also real." I've got to side with Gibney on this one. This isn't horror movie imagery cooked up to sell tickets, this is really happening in the world today. And considering the explosive subject matter, I feel the poster is tastefully done. What do you guys think?

And while we're poking fun at the MPAA today ...

... I remember catching the first two episodes (I believe) of the UK show The IT Crowd, and it was pretty hilarious stuff ... especially for those who actually work in the IT department. From what I hear, an American version of the UK show will hit NBC as a midseason replacement -- and based on the popularity of The Office, I don't blame them for looking to our friends across the pond for quality humor. That being said, a friend of mine pinged me with this video over on YouTube earlier today. Apparently it was created by the folks behind The IT Crowd, and it's a play on all those anti-piracy ads we've been exposed to lately. You know, the ones that start out with "You wouldn't steal from ... " And then it's at that point the ads get progressively stranger, and you're left asking yourself how in the world this relates to you downloading a crappy version of Live Free or Die Hard. Yeah, those. I've included the video above, enjoy.

Over at Offsprung.com (who snagged the list from allmovie.com), there's a humorous collection of ten of the most ridiculous reasons the MPAA has ever given for film ratings. You know, the list of offenses they put underneath a "PG" or an "R," to give parents a better idea of what exactly their child will be subjected to. (And then the parent can say, "Hmm, 'extreme pervasive graphic violence, including shootings, stabbings, beheadings, disembowlings, and castrations?' Oh well, as long as my son won't see a boob!"). I personally love it when the MPAA has to go all out with their rating descriptions, when it's clear that they just find a movie wrong on every level. When I see a full paragraph under that "R" rating, I know that it's probably a film I need to see. Take Grindhouse, for example. Rated R for "strong graphic bloody violence and gore, pervasive language, some sexuality, nudity and drug use." A grand slam!

My favorite MPAA reason on the allmovie list is probably the one for Twister, which was Rated PG-13 back in 1996 for "intense depiction of very bad weather!" The 1994 Jamie Lee Curtis thriller Mother's Boys was Rated R for "language and a mother's sociopathic behavior." Number one on their list is the Nick Nolte snoozer Jefferson in Paris, which was rated PG-13 in 1995 for "mature themes, some images of violence, and" -- get this -- "a bawdy puppet show!" That's fine and good, but while we're on the subject of hardcore marionette action, I prefer the reason given for Team America: World Police's R Rating -- "graphic crude and sexual humor, violent images and strong language - all involving puppets." The allmovie list is a solid one, although I'm fairly certain I've seen even funnier rating descriptions elsewhere. If you guys know of any, please share in the comments.

It was May when we learned that the MPAA was going to take smoking into account with their ratings, but now Variety is reporting that the anti-tobacco American Legacy Foundation is saying that the attempt is an "empty policy." From their point of view, I'd have to agree -- all that the association has done is add a descriptor to their ratings. For example -- Hairspray got a "momentary teen smoking" label listed in their PG ratings -- as if that would do anything at all. Now a study has been published linking smoking in movies with teens, and ALF's Cheryl G. Healton says this "is the first national study to indicate that exposure to smoking in movies predicts whether young people will become lifelong smokers."

She went on to say: "Smoking in movies continues to influence American youth to become addicted to one of the most deadly products legally available for consumption." That being said, they are willing to make exceptions for flicks that show the dangers and consequences of smoking, and when "it is necessary to portray a real historical figure." Even with some compromise, I think the two sides are going to be warring for a while.

So, I have the solution. The ALF would be happy with films that show the consequences, but if a 20-something is smoking in a film that takes place over a month, or even a year, you can't really expect consequences to play a part. I, therefore, suggest that every film put one of those bonus scenes at the end of each movie, once the credits wrap. The scenes can jump into the future, regardless of plot appropriateness, and show each and every one of those super-cool smokers succumbing to the dangers of tobacco. Or, even better, get special 3D glasses that kids have to wear -- anyone who smokes on the screen can look like an alien through the glasses -- just like They Live! Okay, both are completely unrealistic, but at least they would be funny.

I don't believe anyone has ever accused the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) of consistency. Their film ratings receive the most attention and cause the most consternation, most recently for the NC-17 rating given to Ang Lee's Lust, Caution and before that for their decision to consider cigarette smoking when assigning a rating. But the MPAA also approves all advertising for rated films to ensure that the material is "appropriate for viewing by the general public." That includes "all print ads, radio and TV spots, press kits, outdoor advertising such as billboards, Internet sites, video or DVD packaging, and trailers for both theatrical and home video releases."

Within the past year alone, controversy has arisen about the advertising for The Hills Have Eyes 2, Hostel II and Captivity (and probably others that I'm forgetting). With that in mind, Ray Pride at Movie City Indie notes a curious common theme among three MPAA-approved posters he's recently seen in Chicago. Pride comments on the 'huffing and puffing' that's "expended on how the MPAA makes sure that every piece of publicity and advertising for ratings-approved movies pass muster ... Strange, though, to see how many current wild-posted one-sheets are allowed to demonstrate a pronounced testicular fixation." Check out his post to see which posters he's talking about.

Now we circle back to the idea of consistency, or the lack thereof. Where the films themselves are involved, the MPAA seems to most often have problems with sexual matters. But when it comes to the posters, the MPAA appears most leery of violent images. I realize that the MPAA's Ratings Board and Advertising Administration are two separate groups within the organization, but c'mon, guys, which is it? Are the movies too violent or are they too sexy? Somehow I think the MPAA would answer that the problem isn't the movies, it's those darn pirates!