I see from the front page on http://www.michaelmoore.com/ that at least one theater isn’t enforcing the R rating for F911.
Are there actual federal or state laws being broken? Or do they just risk industry reprisals, such as distributers refusing to do business with them or something like that?
(let’s not debate F911 here, OK? This is a factual question that simply uses it as an example.)
I’m sure the threat of litigation by angry parents would be enough. I wouldn’t see it above someone sueing the movie theathers for emotionally traumatizing their underage kids by allowing them to see R rated movies :rolleyes: . After all the recent lawsuits (Mcdonalds, Tobacco, etc…) I see it as very plausible.
The system is voluntary. It was set up by the movie industry to avoid censorship by the government when the old code died out. I think you’d probably piss off a lot of parents if you let their kids in to see some movies. Why does anyone think a teenager would be interested in Fahrenheit 9/11 anyway?
Leases for movie theaters will often impose restrictions on the theater, such as prohibiting the exhibition of x-rated movies. Anyone know if they require enforcement of the MPAA ratings?
I don’t know about where you live, but there were a lot of teenagers in the theater when I saw it. 
You can argue their views, but they are politically aware.
Follow-up question here-- showing an X-rated movie to a minor would be ‘distribution of obscene materials to a minor’, but an R-rated movie would be fine?
If you are a kid a couple years away from draft age, you will be extremely interested in seeing this movie. Similarly, if you are sub-baby boomer in age (which includes teens), due to the mammoth tax increases Bush has imposed on you. Etc.
This is a movie for those concerned about the future of the US. That should definitely include teens.
As to ratings enforcement: Many states have laws requiring theaters to enforce ratings restrictions. Note though: The First Amendment supercedes all state laws. A really good case could be made that enforcing such laws, at least in this case, denies teens of their First Amendment rights. (The First Amendment is generally interpretted to include both stating ones views as well as being able to hear the views of others. Otherwise the government could just stick all vocal opposition in Guantanamo and say “talk all you want.”)
It depends upon why the film got an X rating. Hardcore porn is one thing, but a violent movie is another. It also depends upon your definition of obscenity. Henry & June was originally slapped with an X rating, then the MPAA agreed to create the NC-17 rating, which the film was given. This didn’t stop some folks from suing to stop the film from being shown in certain theaters because of it’s original X rating. IIRC, the theaters caved in and refused to show the film, rather than risk the court fight. Martin Lawrence’s You So Crazy got slapped with an NC-17 because of language. Wide Sargasso Sea got slapped with it’s NC-17 rating because of a 1/10th second shot of some guy’s wang (though I suspect the interracial sex had more to do with it than anything else). Scarface was originally rated X, but had some scenes recut to get the R rating. None of those films can be truly considered pornographic, and as far as obscene goes, well, that’s as an arbitrary decision as the whole MPAA ratings system.
As WAG, a theater not enforcing MPAA ratings runs the following risks: 1.) Lawsuits from angry parents. 2.) Lawsuits from angry local government officials. 3.) “Blacklisting” by movie studios wishing to project a “We care about the children.” image. In the case of MM’s movie, I think that the only people who’re going to be bent out of shape over kids seeing it are ones who’ve got such an axe to grind with Moore and this movie, that they’ll get torqued off about anything.
If this movie had come out when I was a 15-year-old political activist you can bet I would have been pretty darn interested.
Nitpick: the MPAA has abolished the X rating. It has been replaced with NC-17.
I’m surprised that nobody has stated the obvious here yet. With the exception of not letting kids in to see X rated films, there has been no serious enforcement, voluntary or involuntary, of movie ratings for decades. The “slasher” R rated films (the “Friday the 13th” series, “Nightmare on Elm Street”, etc.) were hugely popular with teenagers long ago. And those films were very graphic. Given F911 is genuine political speech, THAT would be more controversial?
Incorrect. The X rating still exists; they just added NC-17 and registered it legally. Since the beginning, anyone could self-rate a film X and the MPAA was quite happy with that. They didn’t want to waste their time reviewing obvious hard core porn. NC-17 was created for films that were thought to have artistic merit, but included some sexually graphic content.
You’re wrong there. In TN there’s been periodic “sweeps” by the police to check the levels of enforcement going on there. When I went and saw Henry & June the first time, there was a Metro Nashville police officer in uniform checking IDs. Currently, there’s talk of legal action against theaters for not enforcing MPAA age requirements in this area.
I think the enforcement generally falls under local jurisdiction (if any). Violations could get the theater fined or have their license pulled.
I’m not sure when the last time I ever heard of a local teen being carded to see an R rated film. There have been splashes of enforcement stories in the local Central Illinois media over the years, but nothing ever came of it that I could see.
Wasn’t Henry & June given an NC-17 rating? My post specifically mentioned enforcement of the R rating, and excluded adult erotica films. F911 is rated R. Can you cite any recent cases where a theater owner was hauled into court letting minors in to see R rated films? When I was a teenager in the 1970s nobody at theaters batted an eye about letting me in to see R rated films.
I got carded the other day :). Funnily enough, one of the people in my group bought a ticket with mom’s credit card at one of those automatic ticket machines, and another person bought it from the same teller I did just moments before I did and wasn’t carded. Maybe it’s because I just had to shave the night before, heh. We saw Saved! instead, which was a wonderful movie that the type of teenager who wanted to sneak into Moore’s film would have enjoyed just as much instead. Coincidentally, the theater it was showing in was right beside 9/11. Too bad there was an armed cop standing in front of it though.
Henry & June was given an NC-17, but I’ve seen cops checking IDs at R rated movies in Nashville as well. And Henry & June is more a biopic than adult erotica. As for court cases, no, but given that most theaters are now owned by multinational chains, many of them barely breaking even, I can see them bending over backwards to eliminate the risk of going to court. Sen. Lieberman was threatening legislation a while back to deal with the movie industry and it’s rating practices. That’s why the MPAA rating code now has things like “Violence, Sexual Language” listed below the ratings.
Apparently, you missed the hue and cry which broke out over Gremlins and inspired the PG-13 rating. Many folks felt the film was too violent for the PG rating, and bitched about it fiercely enough that the MPAA created the PG-13 rating.
No, I remember that. The problem there wasn’t kids going by themselves to the theater. Under the MPAA guidelines, a 12 year old can go to a theater unattended and see a PG-13 film. The problem was that in the mind of a lot of parents, PG = Perfectly Good. Thus they split the PG rating.
Wow, that’s my neighborhood theater! It’s probably a 3-minute walk from our house.
It should be noted that this theater is independently owned and operated, and is not part of a chain or franchise of any sort. Also, the marquee typically has a political statement of some kind–always of a decidedly leftist stance (the current one goes off on Bush stealing the election, etc. and runs on the right of the marquee, around the corner from what’s visible in the picture).
Given that we’re in a decidedly liberal area (Jerry Brown’s our mayor, Barbara Lee our congresswoman), I don’t think anyone will raise a complaint that the proprietors will deem worrisome. They also already get most of the major movie bookings (4 of the top 6 current b.o. leaders are playing on its four screens) so I don’t think they’re worried that advertising F9/11 as such will impact their relations with distributors.
Was it Gremlins? I thought it was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (the scene where someone has his heart ripped out) that prompted the creation of PG-13.
It was both: