Letters to the Editor
-
Being offended is a choice
I never understand why people get so mad over any liberal position unapoligetically expressed in a movie. Turn on any cable news show and tell me that there isn't bullshit coming out of it? Yet people talk about filmmakers (Michael Moore, or Spike Lee for example) as if they are the devil because of their biased leftist slant. I understand this criticism does not aply to most Salon readers, but in the red state, downtown office where I work, even liberals attack liberal movies! It's obsurd!
And then we wonder why the Democratic party doesn't take a firm stance against the war! It's patheitc! Liberals are always going on about "You can't say that, it's biased!" Has it ever occured to anybody that It's impossible to not be biased? EVERYONE IS BIASED... yes you too.
I say if our culture has to endure Rush, Hanity, and O'Riley without a second thought, then when a liberal filmmaker wants to take a position, let him take it. If it's flaud, smart people will point the flaws out (as the were pointed out in the article by the way). They can still listen and enjoy even if they don't agree 100%. Let's not have a double standard when it comes to public debate, one standard is enough.
-
I've seen NC-17 Films in theaters
Maybe it's me, but I do recall seeing NC-17 films in theaters, and adverts in papers and on television, as well as ads for films not yet rated. In fact isn't that why this film is titled "This film is not yet rated" because we have heard that phrase repeatedly on TV?
I think that when there is significant interest in a film it gets played, and the news outlets and the theaters make the exception. That does disadvantage smaller films, but aren't smaller films disadvantaged from the start? Is a small indie going to get play in Peoria if it has a G rating? If there is not interest in a film, there is not interest in a film, why would a distributor make space in his theater for a film people aren't going to see?
Do filmmakers actually think what makes their film die at the box office is the rating? Maybe a large swath of Americans weren't interested in the story in question, or the way the story was presented.
I find it funny to see filmmakers in one breath talk about art, and their ability to make money. If you're in it for the art, make the art, and if you're in it for the money make the money. Somehow, hundreds of movies are made every year with artistic merit that manage an R rating. Still other films are made with little or no artistic merit that go right to internet distribution and DVDs. Money is made, works are created, audiences are happy.
This whole MPAA thing strikes me more as sour grapes than anything else, like when the networks complain about the way Nielsen calculates ratings. Yes it makes for a nice whipping boy when your film fails, and yes they are an archaic and outdated organization, but to elevate them to the diabolic villains destroying the American Film Industry seems a little misplaced.
To reiterate the fact upon which Hollywood was built, Show Business is the Business of putting on Shows. You can make a profit selling anything, whether it is Barney videos or tasteful snuff films, it is just a question of how it is sold. If a product is not right for broad release, releasing it broadly will only cost you money and diffuse your profits. A joke is made that on the appeals board are V.P.'s from the Theater chains, that theoretically the filmmakers are looking to get the wide release in. Wouldn't these be the exact people to say, "Sure the film is dirty, but I can see it will have appeal, o.k. we'll bump you down to R and put you in our theaters"?
In the end, I agree the MPAA is probably not the best arbiter of taste, but that's for the industry itself to decide, not me. I would rather Ford didn't make SUV's, but that's why I drive an escort. Likewise when I want to watch a directors cut, or an art film I rent it and watch it at home. No one stops anyone from watching anything, if nothing else you can always get distribution for Troma if you really want your film seen, that you can't make a decent living on your art, well, welcome to being an artist, and don't quite your day job.
-
Movies are a small problem
Reading the letters, it's pretty clear who has kids and who doesn't. Having two young daughters, I'm in the MPAA-has-some-value camp. Listen, it's hard enough to research G-rated movies to see if they're appropriate. This is not about conservative, Puritan ethos, etc., it's about knowing your child, making your best guess at what's right and wrong, and about protecting innocence.
The real problem isn't movies, of course, it's T.V. You can't watch a kids show or worse, a sporting event, without being bombarded with violent TV and movie promos, crass commercialization, powerful sexual images, etc.
Remember when you covered your eyes and went "eeww" when you saw adults on TV hugging and kissing? It didn't have to do with sexual repression, it has to do with being young!
The real world is revealed to my daughters beyond my control as it is. I don't need to rush it.
-
Ratings are copout for lazy parenting
It's easy to figure out what movies are appropriate for small children without using a ratings system. In fact, you can google movie descriptions on parents' websites in less time than it takes to write a LTE on Salon.
-
What is a "far-left attitude toward film content"?
D.P. Pare--
Why bring political labels into this, equating "far left" political views with exposing children to graphic sex, violence, and substance abuse in films? I'm a big old lefty, and am very cautious about what media I allow my child to view. In fact, an opposition to things like, oh, the War Machine and nihilism are staples of leftist philosophy.
Do you think it is just Green Party parents bringing their 4-year-olds into War of the Worlds? Or that only Kucinich supporters bring their grade schoolers to see American Pie?
Every time I go to the multiplex, I see parents toting kids to movies that, IMO, are wholly inappropriate for their age (usually because of graphic, callous but oddly bloodless violence, because that gets a pass by the MPAA). I bet plenty of them vote Republican!
Both parents on both wings--and non-parents on both wings--should be concerned about what sorts of images and content we are exposing children to at a young age.
Any excuse to demonize leftist politics, I guess, but this is really a dunderheaded statement.
Low-Media Leftist Mama