I unwisely asked leechboy about why we don’t rent video’s from Blockbuster, I understood they did something bad with censorship but didn’t really know the full story.
His explanation got quite lengthy and involved and me being Ms Short Attention Span lost interest halfway through. Then he started talking about ‘Clerks’ and I sort of tuned in again. From what I could figure out (having missed half the discussion) it seemed that the American censorship system was revised to include a new classification because they just couldn’t fit ‘Clerks’ in anywhere.
Leechboy seemed to think there was something evil about Blockbuster that they didn’t stock certain movies that belonged to a particular censorship category.
Now I am very confused and also want to know more. I hesitate to ask leechboy because
A. He’ll know I didn’t listen to him.
B. It will turn into another “sermon on the mount” kind of lecture again.
So I’ve got a few questions really
was there a new classification invented for ‘Clerks”
does Blockbuster really censor certain movies (or to put it another way do they not stock certain movies because they show things that Blockbuster don’t agree with)
whats the deal with the American censorship system? It seems so weird to this Aussie who is used to G, PG, M, M+, R and X
They didn’t need a new classification, Blockbuster are well known for practising “voluntary censorship”. They just decide they won’t stck any video they disapprove of. That is why you don’t want them killing off every independent around.
I put “Blockbuster Video” +censorship into Google and got a heap of hits on large organisations (K-Mart, Wal-Mart and Blockbuster, among others) refusing to stock movies or music for “moral” reasons.
There’s an interesting online article on the practise in The Netizen.
Blockbuster’s Australian website makes me wonder how seriously the local franchises take any corporate edicts about “morality”.
-No, a new classification was not invented for Clerks. It was just that it had to be edited down to an R, lest they get the kiss of death that is the NC-17 rating. (More on that later).
-“Censorship” wouldn’t be the correct word. Blockbuster does have intriguing standards, though: they will not carry NC-17 rated movies, and will force the movie studios to edit them down to an R. (This happened most famously with Showgirls.)
-Whereas Australia’s rating system (“censorship system” isn’t really the term) is run by a division of the Australian government and is mandatory, the American rating system is run by the Motion Picture Association of America and is optional. (One has to pay to register their film. Most major films are rated, as “unrated” films tend to be pornographic. Also, some movie theaters will not show a film that has not been rated.) The MPAA is very lenient, and their decisions are often argued about (I see the OFLC has very strict guidelines-probably since they’re a government agency).
MPAA System:
G-General Audiences. This means anyone is admitted, and the film will not offend.
PG-Parental Guidance. A parent may send their children to this movie alone if they so wish, but should consider it first.
PG-13: Similar to PG, but the content is stronger, and may be inappropiate to children under 13.
R: Restricted. Minors must be accompianied by an adult.
NC-17: No one 17 and under can be admitted, period.
Of course, these ratings are not always enforced, and parents can misjudge them and do nutty things like taking a small child to a PG-13 film.
I see the Australian system is even more strict, with more categories. There is a G, a PG, an R, and an X (what we used to call NC-17 until 1990), but PG and X mean different things in Australia than they do in the U.S. (although “X-rated” has become a synonym for “pornographic” over here, although not all X/NC-17 films are. Clerks would have gotten an NC-17 for harsh language). Australia’s PG seems to be a mix of our PG and PG-13, and we have no equivalent to M or MA.
Hmmm looking at that Blockbuster link they have the video game Grand Theft Auto III in stock - i thought that was banned in Australia due to its violent content.
I’m curious as to what exactly these corporations deem “Immoral” is all sexual content out or only certain types?
Originally rated NC-17 for language. Miramax hired Alan Dershowitz of OJ Simpson Defense Team fame to appeal the rating. The rating was successfully appealed without any cuts.
Thanks mobo85 and reprise its slowly becoming clearer.
So films like ‘Clerks’ which are independent and low budget may be effectivly bullied into changing their content because the big corporations wont carry certain ratings?
I did a google on William Bennett and C. Dolores Tucker who were mentioned in an earlier link. They sound like a couple of interferring busy bodies, are these people really as influential as all that (I feel so clueless here). One article here said that they had influence the Texas government to sell shares in Seagram which was Universal records parent company in an effort to force Universal to conform to their moral standards. How can they do that?
Grand Theft Auto 3 was originally refused classification by the OFLC, the version available now (which has a considerable amount of the original game play removed) is classified MA15+. As the OFLC hasn’t updated their website, I can’t link you to the classification, but the game is certainly available to buy now.
Whoa - I had a look at the American Cinema Foundation site and I can start to see how these censorship or should I say “morality advocate” groups get their power. One quote from the site regarding how they give out awards for achievement:
A bit further down the page they comment on having to live under tyranny - what sort of tyranny are they refering to. Damn i hate it when people can just come right out and say what they think.
Ergh ignore that last bit - apparently they are talking about films from countries with oppresive governments such as the old eastern european bloc. That makes sense.
Blockbuster often doesn’t have movies I would like to rent – most recently they didn’t have an A&E adaptation of Vanity Fair. However, my local Blockbuster here (in Virginia) does have Clerks. I just rented it a month or two ago. My sister’s local Blockbuster (in Utah) also carries it – or they did when we rented it there four years ago.
Like belonging to a union, the rating system is voluntary, but if you want to work or your film to be seen…
The point I was making with Clerks was about how the system works not that the new rating was made for it. (The first was Henry & June Btw)
The problem is, the MPAA’s “leniency” seems to waver according to taste and the amount of money behind the film. Anything that deals with drugs or sexuality in a frank or honest way will be rated NC-17 and finanicially throttled, (See Reqiuem for a Dream) but if you take it to a puerile juvenile level you’ll get an R (See American Pie and the recent spate of teen gross out comedies) and adults get screwed for not being as financially appealling as a the mind of a 17 year old boy.
Ah, so Clerks is the one. This article, which I quoted in this thread, says that only one film in history has ever successfully appealed an NC-17 rating and won; everyone else has had to edit.
Y’all should read that article, it’ll enlighten you to the hypocritical ways of the MPAA. For example, they say that members are required to have a “shared parenthood experience”, but of the 8 to 13 members of the board, two (at around the time the article was written) were priests. Oh, sure, priests are representative of the general makeup of the nation…and stuff deemed “excessive” in independent films glides right by the board if it’s in a studio release, and so on.
Clerks is an interesting example, because it has no nudity or violence. It was going to get a NC-17 purely for language, which is honestly pretty impressive in its own way.
If I recall correctly Your Friends and Neighbors had no nudity or violence and was rated NC-17 based on language. Seeing as how Clerks was ultimately rated R, I think Your Friends and Neighbors (interesting film by the way), might be the only film to be rated NC-17 for language only.
A couple of other interesting examples of the MPAA system are Happiness by Todd Solondz and the South Park movie Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, both of which were originally rated NC17 for reasons other than graphic sexual content or violence.
South Park earned its rating strictly on language. I’m pretty sure that it managed to get downgraded to an “R” by removing some bestiality references from the “Uncle F**ker” song.
Happiness was a really well made movie that I never, ever want to see again. It earned an NC17 based on one of its plots dealing with pedophilic rape. The movie’s producers (or whomever decides such things) actually surrendered their MPAA rating, so it was released as “unrated”.
Happiness, by the way, is NOT carried by Blockbuster. Let’s be surprised. I have to second don’t ask’s comment about not letting the major video chains putting the independents out of business.
leechbabe