Yog
Apr 7th, 2007, 03:35:29 PM
I watched the documentary <a href=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/>This Film is Not Yet Rated</a> earlier this year (I really recommend this), and it was astonishing to see how MPAA rationalize their rating procedures and the frustration of young filmakers trying to avoid the dreaded NC-17 rating, which effectively bans the film from most theater chains, making it a non viable release from box office perspective. Some of the revelations made the MPAA rating system look absolutely ridiculous. For one thing, allowing the most intense and violent scenes, yet the smallest hints of nudity gets slammed with the NC-17. Now it looks like, the MPAA is taking the critisism seriously, and is reviewing the system:
http://dreadcentral.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1231
In a move that probably would not have ever happened if it weren’t for movies like This Film is Not Yet Rated, which attempted to discover the truth behind the mysterious MPAA, Variety reports today that chairman-CEO of the group Dan Glickman announced in a closed-door session at Sundance some major changes for the ratings system in the pipeline that could mean very good things for horror.
For the first time in history, the Classifications & Ratings Administration will be allowing filmmakers a look at the ratings rules, which describe the entire process that goes into rating a movie and their standards. They are also going to allow filmmakers to reference specific scenes in other films that mirror their own, though a heavy consideration will still be placed on context.
This and other moves are being done in an attempt to both make the ratings process easier to understand for filmmakers and help remove the stigma associated with NC-17 rated films, as they believe it will allow some of the more extremes of filmmaking to find its place in theaters without having to be cut down to meet R-rating standards.
<a href=Variety article>http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117960864.html?categoryid=13&cs=1</a>
In the past three months, MPAA chairman-CEO Dan Glickman has been working to fine-tune the movie-ratings system. But this week at ShoWest, he will face his biggest hurdle yet: trying to make NC-17 respectable.
The awkwardly named rating, which originated in 1990, has become synonymous with tainted goods. Distributors and exhibitors blame each other for the fact that the category is virtually nonexistent for Hollywood product.
Parents have been pressuring Glickman and his cohorts at the Motion Picture Assn. of America, along with National Assn. of Theater Owners John Fithian, to find a solution to the dilemma. Naysayers claim that the R rating is too broad, encompassing everything from a few swear words or brief flashes of nudity to repeated scenes of stomach-churning mutilation and disembowelments.
The biggest complaint is that, with parental permission, children and teens are allowed to see R's, and parents think the definition of R is too wide-ranging to guide them.
The goal is to find a category for some films that are now informally called "hard R's" -- i.e., content so graphic that no one under the age of 17 should be allowed to see it at all in theaters. The new generation of horror pics, namely, the "Saw" and "Hostel" franchises, are pushing the limits of the "hard R" category.
While most sides agree that there is a need for a change, the big debate is whether to create a category or to revive -- and make respectable -- a rating that's been around since Universal's 1990 "Henry & June." Because of the realities of the marketplace, one idea that has been floated is to create a disclaimer for R-rated pics, saying it isn't appropriate for children, period. And there's been talk in the past of creating a rating between PG-13 and R.
Glickman, along with Fithian and Classification & Ratings Administration topper Joan Graves, will raise the subject of NC-17 when briefing exhibs at ShoWest this week on overall changes being proposed to the ratings system that are designed to make the system more transparent.
What will happen to the R rating and the NC-17 rating now? Is this the beginning of the end of discrimination of brief nudity content in movies compared to violent gore masacre orgies now allowed under Restricted rating? Or is this too deeply entrenched in american culture?
http://dreadcentral.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1231
In a move that probably would not have ever happened if it weren’t for movies like This Film is Not Yet Rated, which attempted to discover the truth behind the mysterious MPAA, Variety reports today that chairman-CEO of the group Dan Glickman announced in a closed-door session at Sundance some major changes for the ratings system in the pipeline that could mean very good things for horror.
For the first time in history, the Classifications & Ratings Administration will be allowing filmmakers a look at the ratings rules, which describe the entire process that goes into rating a movie and their standards. They are also going to allow filmmakers to reference specific scenes in other films that mirror their own, though a heavy consideration will still be placed on context.
This and other moves are being done in an attempt to both make the ratings process easier to understand for filmmakers and help remove the stigma associated with NC-17 rated films, as they believe it will allow some of the more extremes of filmmaking to find its place in theaters without having to be cut down to meet R-rating standards.
<a href=Variety article>http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117960864.html?categoryid=13&cs=1</a>
In the past three months, MPAA chairman-CEO Dan Glickman has been working to fine-tune the movie-ratings system. But this week at ShoWest, he will face his biggest hurdle yet: trying to make NC-17 respectable.
The awkwardly named rating, which originated in 1990, has become synonymous with tainted goods. Distributors and exhibitors blame each other for the fact that the category is virtually nonexistent for Hollywood product.
Parents have been pressuring Glickman and his cohorts at the Motion Picture Assn. of America, along with National Assn. of Theater Owners John Fithian, to find a solution to the dilemma. Naysayers claim that the R rating is too broad, encompassing everything from a few swear words or brief flashes of nudity to repeated scenes of stomach-churning mutilation and disembowelments.
The biggest complaint is that, with parental permission, children and teens are allowed to see R's, and parents think the definition of R is too wide-ranging to guide them.
The goal is to find a category for some films that are now informally called "hard R's" -- i.e., content so graphic that no one under the age of 17 should be allowed to see it at all in theaters. The new generation of horror pics, namely, the "Saw" and "Hostel" franchises, are pushing the limits of the "hard R" category.
While most sides agree that there is a need for a change, the big debate is whether to create a category or to revive -- and make respectable -- a rating that's been around since Universal's 1990 "Henry & June." Because of the realities of the marketplace, one idea that has been floated is to create a disclaimer for R-rated pics, saying it isn't appropriate for children, period. And there's been talk in the past of creating a rating between PG-13 and R.
Glickman, along with Fithian and Classification & Ratings Administration topper Joan Graves, will raise the subject of NC-17 when briefing exhibs at ShoWest this week on overall changes being proposed to the ratings system that are designed to make the system more transparent.
What will happen to the R rating and the NC-17 rating now? Is this the beginning of the end of discrimination of brief nudity content in movies compared to violent gore masacre orgies now allowed under Restricted rating? Or is this too deeply entrenched in american culture?