|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rice Thresher
Phone:
|
What's wrong with this picture? Today, Darren Aronofsky's film Requiem for a Dream was released to nationwide audiences. It might be difficult for many people to see it, however, since Aronofsky and Artisan Entertainment, who distributed the film, did a very daring thing: They refused to release the film with a rating from the Motion Picture Association of America. After Artisan lost its appeal to have the rating reduced from the stigmatic NC-17 to a more reasonable R rating, the MPAA told them that they would have to edit the film for content if they wanted the lesser rating. Rather than compromising Aronofsky's artistic vision, Artisan courageously decided to release the film without any rating whatsoever. The MPAA's rating system is strictly voluntary and anyone who wants to release a film without one of their ratings is free to do so. Of course, the consequence of taking such a stand is virtual excommunication from the screen. Mainstream media treats unrated films like a leper infected with the Ebola virus. Many corporate-owned theater chains will not show Requiem and many national newspapers will not run advertisements for it because they're terrified about promoting a film that lacks the MPAA's approbation. Certain theater chains have decided to show the film only after forcing Artisan to note that no one under the age of 17 will be admitted even with parental consent. In the absence of a rating, they assume the worst. Even when you subvert the MPAA, their mandates are still enforced by proxy. The long and the short of it is anyone who doesn't conform to the MPAA's guidelines for appropriateness has little chance of having anyone see their film. That means that the MPAA has the de facto power of censorship over any director or studio that does not mold their films to the MPAA's dictatorial regulations or does not agree with the rating that their film has been given. I see a disturbing trend developing here. The MPAA has autocratic authority over how movies are rated and thereby have equally totalitarian control over what movies are seen and by whom. If they object to a film, they can railroad it so that the objectionable aspects are removed or publicly vilify the film so that no theater would dare show it. Congress no longer needs to pass a law abridging the freedom of speech. Now we have the MPAA. The president of this fascist organization, Joseph McCarthy - I mean, Jack Valenti - has put himself in a position of extreme power; he gets to dictate which movies people under the age of 17 can see and which ones they can't by setting the ratings standards as he sees fit. Valenti has appointed himself judge of how much reality our children can handle. Shouldn't we be harrowed by the fact that a private organization, which answers only to itself, is dictating to our children what they can and cannot do? The MPAA's draconian restrictions are banning children from films even if their parents accompany them. Am I the only one who sees this as blatant and unjustifiable age discrimination? Now that civil rights have been extended to women and minorities, kids have become the last legitimate second-class citizens. The MPAA wasn't satisfied with their role as an adviser to parents. Tattooing a scarlet letter across the chest of provocative films is no longer enough. Now they have overstepped their bounds by assuming the parental role themselves. They have insured that important, relevant and powerful films such as Requiem or Larry Clark's brutally honest Kids will never reach the eyes of the young and impressionable. Otherwise, such explicit depictions of real life might actually make them think, and we can't have that now, can we? You may think that if you're over 17 this doesn't concern you. But if no theater in your area is courageous enough to show movies without one of the MPAA ratings, then it doesn't matter how old you are. Your inability to see such films echoes, in a most realistic sense, every filmmaker ever blacklisted, every book ever burnt and every voice ever silenced.
Garret Merriam is a graduate student in philosophy.
- back - |
|
|
Search the Thresher pages:
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of: The Rice Thresher, Rice University MS-524, PO Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251-1892, USA. The Thresher Online Project -- ethresh@listserv.rice.edu |
