NC-17: Fatally Flawed

[silversolitaire]

Just read this article on Entertainment Weekly and I must say I'm mightly impressed. I've always taken a keen interest in ratings and movie censorship issues. I always valued to great achievement of Jack Valenti when he finally abandoned the goddamn Code of Decency and actually introduced a ratings system. However, it is critically flawed as Mark Harris points out. Go ahead and read it! It has some minor spoilers for Hostel II I suppose if you don't like gory scenes to be spoiled.

NC-17: Fatally Flawed
When a film as violent as ''Hostel: Part II'' can get an R -- that is, it's deemed okay for kids to see with an adult -- it's obvious the ratings system is in serious need of reform

By Mark Harris

Jack Valenti has gone to that great screening room in the sky, but his legacy persists — for better and for worse — in the form of the movie ratings system. Back in 1968, Valenti's ratings replaced a capricious code of self-censorship with labels designed to help parents make choices. That's still a worthy idea — at least, it would be if it were applied with anything resembling sanity.

Last weekend, Eli Roth's Hostel: Part II opened. According to the raters, it contains ''sadistic scenes of torture and bloody violence, terror, nudity, sexual content, language, and some drug content.'' Kids should stop reading now, because they could have added: ''Bound man's penis and testicles visibly severed with shears and fed to dog'' and ''Nude woman suspended, bound and gagged, throat slashed as another nude woman below bathes orgasmically in her blood.'' (Oh, uh, spoiler alert, I guess.) Hostel: Part II is rated R, which means it's perfectly okay to take a 5-year-old to see it if you can't get a sitter.

The ratings system is supposed to serve the interests of parents. Help me out, moms and dads: How'd they do this time?

Having seen Hostel: Part II, I'll spare you my feelings about why can you top this? horror comedies about torture are not my idea of a fun night out (although contrary to rumor, Roth is neither untalented nor the Antichrist). I'd rather expend my indignation on the people who gave the movie a rating that, in practical terms, is no different from a G. All that an R rating mandates is that a child doesn't walk into Hostel: Part II alone, as if the presence of a grown-up ''guardian'' magically renders a movie more appropriate for grade-schoolers. Of course, the raters could have given it an NC-17, which would have kept all children out. But they looked at that nude, tortured woman and genital mutilation, and decided it didn't cross the line. For that — and in the spirit of Roth's movie — I say off with their heads.

The hypocrisies of the ratings system are familiar: Indies have it harder than studio films, naked men are naughtier than naked women, and almost any sex is worse than almost all violence. But the problem runs deeper. The MPAA has never decided whether its job is guidance or rule making. As a result, four ratings — G, PG, PG-13, and R — are merely advisory: The raters tell parents what's in a movie and let them decide whether to take their kids. But the fifth rating — NC-17 — carries the force of law: It's the only stage at which raters decide their judgment should overrule yours. It's a sharp distinction, and Hostel II's R rating proves that they're manifestly incompetent to make it.

Cultural conservatives in both parties are itching to step in; they're whipping up invective about that convenient demon ''Hollywood,'' and the FCC is making a pandering attempt to start overregulating TV content. But congressional intervention is, aside from being a First Amendment violation, a waste of time. I'd rather have lawmakers work harder to stop actual torture than huff and puff about the fictional kind. Besides, as conservatives are so fond of saying when it comes to issues like welfare: If you have kids, don't expect the government to raise 'em for you.

So reform is up to the industry. Some have suggested that the U.S. adopt the tiered system of age cutoffs at, say, 8, 12, and 17 that some European countries use. But that's unfeasible in an era of understaffed multiplexes and Internet ticket purchases. There's also an argument for putting more teeth in the NC-17, taking a harder line about what's unsuitable for children. But I'd give that about five minutes before every interest group in America presents its own petition of topics they want to be automatic NC-17s, and we're back to a prudish laundry list of do's and don'ts that was abandoned decades ago. (The current campaign to make cigarette use in movies an automatic R illustrates how even people with an intention as decent as curbing teen smoking can be grievously misguided in attempting to use the ratings system to legislate content.)

That leaves one solution that's both radical and sensible: Dump the NC-17 completely. Provide maximum information about movie content, create a website with plot specifics and exact age recommendations, and leave it at that. The X rating was invented at a time when hardcore-porn movie houses were springing up across America. But those theaters are gone, and kids who want access to porn are only a Google away. Today, the NC-17 protects nobody and preserves the illusion that R-rated movies like Hostel: Part II are okay for kids because if they weren't, somebody would have rated them NC-17. If Hollywood places the decision about what children should see in the hands of their parents, where it belongs, many parents will, of course, make those decisions irresponsibly. But overall, could they possibly do a worse job than the people who are now paid to do their thinking for them? On the evidence of Hostel: Part II, I doubt it.

[source]

Now, I must say I've always been bothered about this particular aspect. What the hell is the MPAA trying to do? Their self-professed aim is to provide guidelines for parents. As a matter of fact, a prerequirement to get on the MPAA board is to be a parent. I've liked when the MPAA started explaining just why they've awarded a movie with a certain rating. As a matter of fact, it's what I try to adopt for my own writing. I don't just go "adulz only lawl" but I explain why I gave that rating. I think that's important. Is it not suitable for kids because they're shagging like rabbits or because limbs get cut off gorily? That's important!

However, what is it that the MPAA really wants to do? Guidelines or protecting the innocent? Hm? It doesn't work in a country with a constitution like the US. I'm sure as soon as you actively start keeping kids out of movies that aren't suitable for their age, someone is going to sue somewhere for violation of their First Amendment Rights. Should they though?

I really do think they need to make up their fucking minds. And like Harris suggests, they should just make do with being advisors, and being good ones. I would totally love the idea of a comprehensive website where concerned parents (and queasy moviegoers) can check beforehand whether they'll like a movie or not. Take me. I like horror. I don't mind gore as long as it's clearly fake. I do however hate violence against animals. And zombies. God, can't stand them. Would be good to have a site that warns me about that.

That actually brings up long forgotten childhood dreams... When I was a teen I wanted to invent this all new movie rating system, giving points for ick-factors, boo-factors, smooch-factors and what not... LOL. I would love to have that. Rate every movie reliably for content. Don't attach censorship or a ban to it. Just say it like it is. "This movie contains explicit violence, sudden shock killings and zombies". That would be a wonderful rating for me. Hah...

Of course I realize that this is near impossible to achieve. Even moreso, the movie industry would oppose it violently. They'd fear viewing figures going down with people being scared of, or maybe spoiled. So, too bad.

Even more so, why don't we have a rating system for books? I've been wondering about that ever since. In fanfiction we always meticulously rate our fics, warn for any kind of matter that could arouse the slightest bit of issue. Yet, when you buy a book it's often a stab into the dark. When I was 13 I accidentally read a horror story collection that dealt with zombies in a way that is still inconceiveable to me how anyone would ever write that. I still remember every detail and could puke when I think about it. How come I was able to buy that, nobody even asked me if I really wanted that, and I was totally blindsided, thinking I'd read something along the lines of Stephen King! Some romance novels are extremely raunchy, borderlining porn. Yet it's open for sale.

I think there needs to be a rating for books too. Not one that actually prevents a mature, informed 13 year old from reading the book he or she wants, but one that will ensure that they know what they're getting into. It wouldn't even need to be as anal and inclusive as we fanficcers do, but would it be too much asked to just print on the back "violence", "sex", "intense horror" or whatever? I really wonder why nobody's thought about that yet. Everybody's bludgeoning the movie and gaming industry over this, but why does nobody bother with fiction? From personal experience, I've found fiction a lot more terrifying and impressive than the worst movies. But that might just be me...

Comments

[no-ron.livejournal.com]

"Indies have it harder than studio films, naked men are naughtier than naked women, and almost any sex is worse than almost all violence."
that so completely sums it up.

i wouldn't go see any of the 'Hostel' movies not even with two adults, since i consider it too violent for me. (the fact that anyone can go and watch a movie like that, let alone produce it (!!!) just stops my mind for a moment. but that's beside the point now..)

and good point about the books. it did occur to me as well..

[silversolitaire.livejournal.com]

I have Hostel on my waiting list, but so far I haven't had the guts to watch it yet (haha pun). Although I will admit I'm curious and I'm not really bothered since it's all fake. There are other horror movies from the 70s or so where they actually slaughtered animals to achieve more gore and those I can't even bear to think about. But why should I be bothered about a couple of gallons of fake blood, rubber skin and CGI.

I think the reason why these movies are being produced (and watched) is because horror movies have always been a response to recent fear and culture. Eary horror movies... fear of science, of the perversion of mankind, experiments gone wrong. Then the cold war, aliens as a metaphorism for the unknown invader. Film noir and the homosexual as an allegorism of the undetected evil among us. Splatter, the reaction to liberation of youths, punishment of the morally depraved.

And now what do we fear? Terror in our own homes, terrorism, idealistic murders. Who hasn't heard of or even seen public executions, beheadings, mutilations. Our lives are getting gorier and more terrible than anything a director could come up with. So this is kinda a way of dealing with these things. It's not really that sick and depraved as it seems at first.

[no-ron.livejournal.com]

thing is, i don't mind any kind of bloody gory horror with zombies, vampires, ghosts, demons, werebeasts.. you name the monster.. it's all fairy tales.

my problem with the Hostel-kind of movies is that they portray human perversion, sadism, torture, whatever.. it could all happen and has indeed happened many times. watching that from your free will as a kind of entertainment seems a bit sick to me.. but what do i know..

>>>Who hasn't heard of or even seen public executions, beheadings, mutilations
i'm reminded of a maybe not so great movie called 'The Gathering' with Christina Ricci, but with a basic idea that really moved me. i won't elaborate on it more so as not to spoil it if you eventually get to see it..
ok. this was a kind of pointless paragraph.. :)

[deadinfrared.livejournal.com]

1) i read through your entire profile
2) i read through the disclaimer linked there
3) we have a few interests in common
4) i found this particular entry very interesting (and i agree with your opinion with the books -- by the way, what horror collection were you referring to? i'm genuinely curious)
5) i have an 11 icon too...

i think this means we should be friends.

[silversolitaire.livejournal.com]

Hi there! Thanks for taking the time actually comment! X3 I like knowing why people add me and I have to admit it makes sense that you added me! *g*

So let's see if we can be friends then! Hehe... I gave a summary of what I tend to post about, so enter at your own risk.

I'm in a bit of a rush right now since I need to get ready for work, which is why I can't research the exact title of that horror collection. I'm actually not even sure if I want to because I've managed to repress the memories of it quite effectively. I just remember that it didn't sound suspicious at all. It was something like "Masters of Horror" or whatever. It was a collection of short stories by the grandmasters of horror writing. I was totally into Stephen King then. Some where just a bit weird and bizarre, but then I stumbled upon this one... Getting queasy just thinking about it.

The title was something about "The Feast" or "The Banquet" or something. It definitely had something to do with festive eating. And it was about this couple that gets attacked by a serial killer in a park and then the killer drags the girl off to have his way with her, but he ends up being overrun by a pack of zombies who take him apart in the most gruesome way... *shudder* It really wasn't nice to read as a 13 year old... Urgh.

I think that's why I'm so queasy and traumatized about zombies now! Haha... the entire collection dealt with undead, coming back from the dead, zombies etc. It was very weird. I don't recommend trying to find it! >.>;

[(Anonymous)]

just a simple question, why did you read on? I can quite understand that you wouldn't know what the book was about initially but once you got to the presumably 'unmentionable parts' or just plain wrong parts, why did you even bother read all the way through to find out what happened with zombies and all. So yeah, just a simple question.

p.s. i just wanna say that i totally agree with what you were saying about the ratings about books. ^^

[silversolitaire.livejournal.com]

That's a reasonable question. Thing with me is, I can't just step away from something. I'm the type of person who freeze-frames on the truly horrific parts in horror movies to look at them for a long time, just so I can get the pictures out of my head. I have a very good memory and it especially works well with flashes.

I remember one of the most traumatizing events I had as a kid was when I walked in on American Werewolf and there was this scene where the wolf-guy changed on the hospital bed briefly. That scared the shit out of me and I kept seeing that image in my head over and over again for months until I got my parents to rent to movie for me. Then I sat through it, went "Oh, so THAT's what it was" and could move on.

So if I had just stopped reading I would have thought about it over and over again, wondering what else would happen, imagining worse scenarios. So I read on. Unfortunately, this time reality was worse than my own imagination >.<;. So yeah, in retrospect I should have stopped reading, but I thought it'd be easier this way.