Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, August 30, 2006 09:15 PM

  This isn't censorship on the part of the MPAA, and it doesn't owe anyone a wide release

  The fact is, theater chains decide what they will and won't show, and newspapers decide what they will or won't advertise. You can criticize them either for censorship or unfair business practices, but it isn't the MPAA's repsonsibility.

  If filmmakers decide to deal with greater sexual content, or a level of violence great enough to garner an NC-17 (or enough that they choose not to put the movie before the board), that is their choice. And as with any choice about content, it's going to effect the potential for the movie to make a profit. Complain about our puritan society, or the willingness of the American people to only gravitate towards the most highly commercialized projects, but it is not, absolutely not, a case of censorship on the part of the MPAA. These movies are not halted from being made, and to my knowledge this doesn't interfere with a DVD release.

  It means that a kind of movie has been made that some business owners don't care to be associated with. That's what happens when you push the boundaries. And I support doing that if you believe in the movie you're making. But there are obvious consequences to making a more graphic movie, just as there are consequences to making a quiet, complex work of art vs. a loud, crass commercial project. All considerations about the kind of movie you make will effect distribution and profits, and even potential word-of-mouth. No one is owed a mass-market nation-wide release.

  —Chris
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel