ratings Tagged Articles at Cinematical

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?

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!

Last month, I brought you news of the Harvard School of Public Health's proposed plan to take depictions of smoking out of movies marketed to young people. This February, Harvard and Johns Hopkins academics made a presentation on the matter to the MPAA, as well as executives from all the major studios. (You can read in-depth notes on the materials presented and view PowerPoint presentations from the meeting here). In 1999, a similar meeting had little to no impact. But times have changed, and today the HSPH's plan is being put into effect. Smoking will now affect movie ratings. It was just announced that the Motion Picture Association of America "is expanding its current consideration of teen smoking to all smoking when evaluating and assigning a movie rating."

Said Harvard School of Public Health Dean Barry R. Bloom at the meeting that brought the change about: "No one has died from hearing the f-word. But 438,000 people in U.S., and five million worldwide, die each year from tobacco-related illness. We appreciate that movies are expensive, complex and demanding to make. If you are honest I think you will admit that most smoking in movies is both unnecessary and cliched, and serves to make smoking socially acceptable to kids." The MPAA agrees, releasing a statement today saying: "In the past, illegal teen smoking has been a factor in the rating of films, alongside other parental concerns such as sex, violence and adult language. Now, all smoking will be considered, and depictions that glamorize smoking or movies that feature pervasive smoking outside of an historic or other mitigating context may receive a higher rating." I'm no fan of censorship, but I can agree that smoking should be held to the same standards as sex and violence. A kid's a lot more likely to start smoking than he is to blow up a building based on seeing it in a movie. What do you guys think?

A new documentary called The Hip-Hop Project, executive produced by Bruce Willis and Queen Latifah, "follows a once-homeless rapper as he helps a group of poor New York teens deal with their frustrations by making a hip-hop album." (You can read Christopher's review of the film here). Sounds like a great story, and one that has the potential to inspire a lot of kids -- assuming they're allowed to see it. Trouble is, hip-hop by nature tends to dabble in some pretty rough language. No one wants to listen to "Back That Posterior Up" or "I Don't Particularly Care for Tha Police." The final cut of The Hip-Hop Project contains 17 uses of the word "F**k," a number that guaranteed the movie an R-rating. But director Matt Ruskin and Chris "Kazi" Rolle -- the film's subject -- appealed the rating. And won.

"We decided to appeal the R rating to allow teenagers access to see this film because they are the ones who need it most," says Rolle. "After years of working with teens, I know you have to reach them when they are young. Just as I didn't have a parent to take me to the movies when I was a teenager, many of the young people who would benefit most from this film would have been denied access if the R rating stood." Ruskin told the ratings board: "This motion picture is a call to end the destructive forces of violence, misogyny and criminality that dominate the music our children are listening to." Rap mogul Russell Simmons, who helped fund studio time for this film with Willis, recently called for the elimination of the "n-word," "ho" and "bitch" in rap lyrics. (On an editorial note, I guess we're not supposed to notice that Simmons has amassed an incredible amount of wealth from music containing those very words).

The Iraq War documentary Gunner Palace set the precedent for this sort of appeal. That film contained a whopping 42 "F-words," and received an R-rating that the filmmakers appealed in order to get a PG-13. (This was discussed in detail in Kirby Dick's highly entertaining This Film is Not Yet Rated). That appeal had no precedent, and so the filmmakers had to argue the context and purpose of the offending language. They succeeded, and because of recent revisions to MPAA rules, the makers of The Hip-Hop Project were able to cite Palace as a precedent in their appeal. Gunner Palace is now available to be shown as part of high school curriculum. The Hip-Hop team hopes their movie gets into high schools as well, and all net profit from the film will be donated to youth organizations. And that's a rap.

'R' you shocked? We told you last week that Grindhouse was teetering on the edge of the dreaded "NC-17" rating. A studio insider reported that "Some cuts definitely will have to be made. There's no question." Well, I don't know if they made the trims or not, but Grindhouse is officially being released with an "R" rating. The rating is for (and this is hardly surprising) "strong graphic bloody violence and gore, pervasive language, some sexuality, nudity, and drug use." That about covers everything, doesn't it?

So it's official. The trailers will no longer say "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." You'll see ads for Grindhouse in your local newspaper. And you'll be able to check it out at the local mall -- might want to avoid the food court beforehand! I suppose we'll learn in a couple weeks if any major deletions were required by the MPAA, but for two experienced envelope-pushers like Tarantino and Rodriguez, I'd imagine working the ratings board couldn't have been that big of a challenge. Wouldn't it be great to sit in on these ratings conversations? "Take out one pelvic thrust here and one exploding eyeball there and we'll give you your 'R'." It just seems so ridiculous. You can see all the "strong graphic bloody violence and gore" for yourself when Grindhouse blasts its blood-drenched, drugged-up, foul-mouthed, totally naked, sex-havin' self into theaters on April 6th!

It seems a little strange that as current pop culture becomes more and more comfortable with adult films, a porn company in Australia is going to court this Thursday to fight the current system of film classification, as reported by Reuters. As it currently stands in Australia, film ratings fall into three major categories. G ratings are applied to a film that would be open to anyone, an R rating is given for films that contain violent or disturbing images, and finally an X rating is given to any sexually explicit film; which brings with it a heavily restricted distribution policy. So while it isn't illegal to watch or own pornographic films, only two territories (including the capital Canberra) can legally sell pornographic films.

Adult film company AdultShop.com Limited is asking the Federal Court to overturn the X category, arguing that "The Office of Film and Literature Classification is required to take into account current community standards in relation to explicit erotic films,". The company commissioned a survey back in September from ACNielsen that "found 70% of Australian adults were not offended by explicit erotic films and 76% thought they should be available on a restricted basis." Already, family groups are concerned that if the ban were lifted, porn could start appearing on the shelves of local video stores and shops. But until the court rules, Australians can get their porn the same way everybody else does -- the Internet.

Last month at TIFF, I reviewed a film called Out of the Blue, about the massacre that took place in the quiet town of Aramoana, New Zealand in 1990. David Gray, a lifelong resident of the town whose mental health had been deteriorating for some time, snapped and killed 13 of his neighbors, including four young children. The film is extraordinarily well-done and handles the events of that awful day with considerable restraint; even so, it was difficult for me to watch, and I wasn't a part of the tragedy. Director Robert Sarkies, a New Zealander who lived in a town near Aramoana at the time of the massacre, was very aware of the need to be sensitive in making this film, and as part of the process he met with residents, allowed representatives of the victims to read the script before filming began, and agreed to the conditions the people of Aramoana requested, including that he not film within the town itself.

When Sarkies spoke before the screening of his film at TIFF about working with the people of Aramoana in the making of Out of the Blue, and noted that, for the most part, the people who thought the film shouldn't be made were people who weren't directly impacted by the tragedy. Several of the actual survivors, in fact, met with the actors who were playing them. The New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification has given the film an "R15" rating, and Chief Censor Bill Hastings has added a descriptive note that "violence and content may disturb."

Mary McNamara opens up her article on The Envelope with, "And the Oscar nominees for best picture are ... five movies most people haven't seen." While the nominees didn't exactly surprise, everyone is now wondering whether or not these "small" films will spell disaster for ABC and one of the most watched shows of the year.

Not sure about that one, but I will say this: Something tells me the Red States won't be watching. We have political films, we have gay cowboys and we have Jon "Three Bush jokes per minute" Stewart - oh, a shot of Michael Moore riding off into the sunset as the credits role would just totally seal the deal for me. I mean, we're at war, should we expect anything less? However, although it may not be splendid for ratings, most feel the trend towards recognizing "the little ones" is definitely a step in the right direction.

Co-President of Sony Picture Classics, Mike Barker, seems to think so...even if they're responsible for the film Capote, which took home five nominations (including Best Picture). "The [nominated] films remind me of the studio movies of the '70s — 'The Last Picture Show, Five Easy Pieces, Shampoo — all of which won lots of Oscars and ended up grossing very well."

Personally, I like that there isn't a Lord of the Rings or a Titanic this year. Sure, Brokeback Mountain is the favorite, but the field still feels wide open. In an effort to bring more eyes to these films before the awards, all of them (except for Crash, which is out on DVD) will be expanding, marking their widest release to date. Will people go see them if Leonardo DiCaprio isn't featured? Hard to tell. I know ABC are crossing their fingers.

By a narrow margin of 4-2, Australia's Classification Review Board voted to affirm Mysterious Skin's R-rating, saving the film from a possible ban in the the country. Despite the fact that Araki's film in no way endorses the sexual abuse it explores, Christian and "family" groups across Australia have been demanding that it be banned. (No, they haven't seen it. Thanks for asking.) One of the main sources of complaint has been Festival of Light, a "Christian ministry...promoting true family values in light of the wisdom of God." Hey – so it's not only Americans who use religion to excuse intolerance? In a weird way, I feel better.