To say the least, the MPAA is not a great organization. They’re homophobic, misogynistic, their rules are arbitrary (the one-fuck rule for PG-13 is perhaps the most infamous), and they really love to screw over indie filmmakers. They started off as a great idea during the new Hollywood movement, helping to lessen the effect of Hays Code-era censorship, and without any commercial stigma. Believe it or not, R-rated films could make gazillions of dollars decades ago without a comic book IP to fall back on. But of course, it got used and abused. Violence is more than okay (as long as there’s no blood!) but god forbid you show a nipple or pubic hair!!!! If it’s in an action flick it’s a PG-13, but if it’s in a French art film it’s an NC-17. Deep down they don’t have the interests of parents and children in mind, they have those of studios and lobbyists in mind. No wonder they’re so secretive and shady about the board members’ identities. And no wonder they gave this film an NC-17; they got triggered by a filmmaker willing to critique and reveal about them. Deep down they are censors, worried about commercial success and deep down anti-art.
Ranting aside, this is a pretty solid doc. It presents its arguments clearly with some notable talking heads, mainly filmmakers whose works have been affected by MPAA stipulations. The only thing I would’ve liked to see more from is how they got to the research for the board members’ identities, which isn’t made completely clear.
To say the least, the MPAA is not a great organization. They’re homophobic, misogynistic, their rules are arbitrary (the one-fuck rule for PG-13 is perhaps the most infamous), and they really love to screw over indie filmmakers. They started off as a great idea during the new Hollywood movement, helping to lessen the effect of Hays Code-era censorship, and without any commercial stigma. Believe it or not, R-rated films could make gazillions of dollars decades ago without a comic book IP to fall back on. But of course, it got used and abused. Violence is more than okay (as long as there’s no blood!) but god forbid you show a nipple or pubic hair!!!! If it’s in an action flick it’s a PG-13, but if it’s in a French art film it’s an NC-17. Deep down they don’t have the interests of parents and children in mind, they have those of studios and lobbyists in mind. No wonder they’re so secretive and shady about the board members’ identities. And no wonder they gave this film an NC-17; they got triggered by a filmmaker willing to critique and reveal about them. Deep down they are censors, worried about commercial success and deep down anti-art.
Ranting aside, this is a pretty solid doc. It presents its arguments clearly with some notable talking heads, mainly filmmakers whose works have been affected by MPAA stipulations. The only thing I would’ve liked to see more from is how they got to the research for the board members’ identities, which isn’t made completely clear.
