Stunslinger.com Blog

A while ago I watched the movie This Film Is Not Yet Rated, a documentary put out in part by the Independent Film Channel.  In it, the director investigates the current rating system employed by the MPAA.  Apparently the current rating system developed as a way to avoid outright censorship by the government, and to provide some sort of guidance as to what type of content a movie contained.  Sounds like a good idea, right?  Unfortunately, the documentary argues that the rating system has failed.

The movie brings to light numerous inconsistencies in ratings, especially when content involves homosexual couples.  For instance, they show similar sexual activities being performed by a heterosexual couple in an R rated movie and a homosexual couple in an NC-17 film.  It also points out that violence and sex seem to have different values, with sex raising the rating much quicker than graphic violence.  Lastly, the director hires a PI to investigate the actual raters employed by the MPAA, since they have no accountability, hide their meetings/identities, and seem to misrepresent the qualifications of being a rater.  I think my favorite part of the film is when the director sends the movie he has made, complete with the investigation into who is on the MPAA ratings board, to the MPAA for a rating.

All in all it was a thought provoking film.  Obviously many of the directors interviewed are probably not the most unbiased group of individuals, but they have some good points.  Also, the comparisons from movie to movie, while seemingly showing a huge discrepancy between heterosexual and homosexual acts impact on ratings, don’t take into account the movie as a whole.  I’m not saying there is no hetero-bias in the MPAA, there probably is, but I wish there was some better way to clearly illustrate the bias than showing small sections of movies side-by-side.  For instance, you could show a short kissing clip from a porn movie and one from an R-rated movie and argue they are the same.  But the rest of the movie is definitely on a different level.

No matter what, I do think it is scary that there is no accountability or objective standard for movie ratings.  I do think we’re sending the wrong message that sex is far more “dangerous” or whatever than graphic violence.  And I do think it is unfair if there is a hetero bias to the ratings.  Watch the movie and draw your own conclusions.

So a couple of weeks ago I watched a documentary which made a small point that the military will not allow filmmakers access to military vehicles/equipment/whatever unless they pre-approve the script and have a final approval of the film before release.  Now, this movie argued that this is really no different than censorship, and said that there were a number of wonderful films which were not allowed to use military equipment because the films were critical of the military.

Does this make sense?  The more I thought about it, the more I realized that we don’t expect any other organization to provide the means by which somebody criticizes that same group.  I, for one, never expected McDonalds to provide the use of their premises freely to Morgan Spurlock when he made Supersize Me.  Of course, that was a documentary that he was able to make without any official endorsement from McDonalds.  What about Borat?  Would we expect the country of Kazakhstan to allow Sacha Baron Cohen access to official diplomatic vehicles or embassies, to provide more realism?  And really, that movie was not really a criticism of Kazakhstan…the crosshairs were aimed primarily at the citizens of the US.  Even so, I certainly didn’t expect their government to be involved in the film.

On the other hand, the United States Military is not exactly a private company.  So maybe people feel that as citizens they should be allowed every access to services provided by their tax dollars national debt.  If this section is short, it’s because I can’t really think of a good reason we should force the military to allow the use of their equipment in a movie that criticizes the military.  Maybe you, good reader, have some more reasons than I.

Now, I should point out that I’m not saying movies shouldn’t be made that criticize the military, the government, chili cheese fries or whatever.  I’m just saying it seems like a big stretch to say that the military needs to help its critics out.

So I went to see Nacho Libre, the new Jack Black movie.  Ok, so I’m guessing because of all of the advertisements and cross-promotions you’ve heard of it by now.  It was enjoyable, I laughed, but overall I wouldn’t really call it more than “pretty good”.  I felt like they tried unsuccessfully to appeal to too broad of an audience (something School of Rock did very well).  In the rush to add more farts and obvious site gags they forgot to develop the characters and the story a bit more.  But, like I say, I did laugh quite a bit…so it was pretty good.  A moderately enjoyable time.

But what I really wanted to bring up was a minor sub plot in the movie and its implications about our society.  Granted, I’m taking a Gender Issues class so these types of things are primed for me to notice right now, but bear with me.  So Jack Black is not what we would consider traditionally handsome, in fact he’s on the plump side.  In Nacho Libre there is a romantic story line that develops with an attractive female coworker.  JB’s character has a sidekick who is sort of the Laurel to Black’s Hardy.  At a party an overweight woman becomes enamored with said sidekick and hilarity ensues as she tries to force him to make out with her while he runs away.  This is obviously funny because even the kids who thought JB farting was the highlight of the movie were laughing hysterically.  Why is it funny?  It isn’t so much that he doesn’t want to kiss a girl who is chasing him, rather it is that this obviously fat girl would dare to think that she could attract a man.  Jump cut to JB (no stranger to the dinner table himself, as is displayed by the large number of shots of him sans shirt) wooing the thin, attractive woman who is the “romantic lead.”  So, it’s funny if a fat woman wants to go out with a thin man, but romantic if a fat man wants to win over an attractive woman?

And remember, even the young children picked up on this.  This is the legacy our media is promoting to society: physical attractiveness is very important to women, not so much to men.  Try this: how many TV shows/movies have an overweight male lead romantically paired with an attractive female lead?  Ok, now how many have the reverse?  Now I know things are changing somewhat.  It’s more common to see a “hot guy” gratuitously walking around shirtless than it was in the past, but things are far from equal.

I know this isn’t funny or pleasant to read, but that’s kind of the point.

Two hours. Lost. Gone without a trace. The last thing I remember was sitting on the couch and pressing play on my DVD remote. What happened after that remains a pitch black void.*

Well, maybe I wish it was a pitch black void, instead I actually sat through this worthless piece of “cinema” known as Date Movie. Looking back on it, I’m actually surprised I didn’t turn it off halfway through. I know what you may be thinking, and no, I was not offended by it (even though I had to rent the “unrated” version, more on that later), I was just… bored by it. It was like the car crash phenomenon where you can’t help but look at the disaster. The best part is that I actually missed a meeting while watching it. Somehow, in the span of an hour and a half, I completely forgot that I had a meeting and had to call the person an hour late to apologize. The rest of the day I had this weird feeling I get after I take a nap. You see, I don’t get along with naps. For some reason, no matter how I try to structure it, I always wake up groggy and with a discomfort at the base of my skull. This feeling tends to last the rest of the day, so I just decided to avoid naps and deal with being tired. Somehow watching Date Movie replicated this feeling, complete with the time disorientation that made me feel as if someone had turned the clock ahead an hour when I wasn’t looking. Surreal. Thanks a lot Date Movie. Of course now I see that it had a 2.7/10 on IMDB, and I think that’s being generous. It’s actually #67 on their bottom 100 movies.

Now to the fact that this was the unrated DVD. It seems like all of a sudden I’m seeing all kinds of movies being rented as unrated. Half the time this is the only option at the rental store. What is the fascination with seeing these movies with “5 extra minutes of footage!” Ooh. Big deal. I also rented the 40 Year Old Virgin in it’s unrated version, and I honestly don’t think it added anything to the movie. With Date Movie it most certainly did not. Then I see a TV ad for the unrated version of Mr. & Mrs. Smith, a movie which I thoroughly enjoyed and which has been on DVD for a while now. Is this just a way to sucker people into buying a whole new DVD, or re-renting it just for a few extra minutes that probably make the film less interesting? I wish I had a more profound point against the unrated fad, but it really is just something that seems pointless.

* In case you caught it, the opening paragraph was an obscure reference to the movie Mysterious Skin, which was thought provoking and interesting. Raw, but worth the watch if you aren’t offended by homosexuality.