Wrong. The MPAA initially created four ratings categories: G; M; R; X. It registered G, M and R, allowing anyone who did not want to submit a film to be rated to self-rate with X as you said. The MPAA abolished the X rating as part of its scheme, which is what I said. The MPAA does not issue an X rating for any film and within the MPAA scheme X has no meaning as a rating except in those rare instances when a previously X-rated film is re-released, but I am unaware of any instance in which the film was not resubmitted to the MPAA for a new rating (see for example Midnight Cowboy which was rated X by the MPAA when it was released but was re-rated R). Certainly any filmmaker is free to self-rate a film “X,” just like they can self-rate a film “Z” or “22” or “Fred” but within the context of the MPAA’s rating system, which is the system I was discussing, such self-rating is meaningless and the film will be considered by distributors, newspapers and probably the general public as unrated.
Wrong again. NC-17 is not a measure of artistic merit, nor is any other MPAA rating. All NC-17 means is that the film contains material which parents would consier unsuitable for minor children. This usually means sexual content but may also mean “adult language” or extreme violence (or a combination of factors).
I think you’re misinterpreting slightly, Otto. No, the MPAA doesn’t rate for artistic quality (obviously - I mean, they let little children in to see Garfield. :)) but part of the legal definition of obscenity is that it doesn’t have any literary or artistic value. I assume that the MPAA doesn’t bother to rate obscene films - after all, I believe such cinematic masterpieces as Big Butt Bimbos VI are unrated. So the NC-17 rating presumably only goes to non-obscene movies, which, if they contain a lot of sex, would have to have artistic value of some variety.
I’ve heard that the R rating for F911 is because of violent scenes from Iraq, which makes sense. They never give R ratings because of non-profane speech, do they?
Also, I wonder how successful Moore would have been if he had simply made it unrated. I suppose since many theaters don’t show unrated movies, it would have hurt the film.
In a related vein, a few days ago I read about a theater chain in the midwest that offered the “R-card”. If a parent bought an R-card for their child, the child could go see R-rated movies without an adult escort.
And IMO, Fahrenheit 9/11 probably merited a “strong PG-13” more than an “R”. The gory scenes tended to be only a few seconds long, at best, and the profanity is nothing that most 15-year-olds haven’t heard already.
Most cinemas in the US have multiple screens. When my son (then 15 or 16) was in the US, he and his friends used to get into R-rated movies by buting tickets to another movie being shown at the same time, then just going to see the R-rated movie instead of the one that they’d bought tickets for. (Or at least, so he told me afterwards.) They only way to stop that happening would be to have somone check ID as they went into the specific part of the cinema where the R-rated movie was being shown.
From my experience, it’s up to the owner’s discretion. Where I grew up, the theater owner didn’t really care if kids saw R-rated movies. The only time he enforced the rule was when he showed Pulp Fiction.
Also, can’t let this go by without a comment:
I think you meant to say the “cut in taxes Bush has pushed through.” Bush cut taxes; he didn’t raise them.
The MPAA has nothing to do with the legal definition of obscenity. Obscenity, as defined by SCOTUS in Miller v California, is determined by a three-pronged test:
It’s entirely possible that the MPAA could rate a film (for example, R) and some local prosecutor decides to file charges and a local jury returns a guilty verdict. The reason Big Butt Bimbos VI is unrated is because the producers of BBB4 didn’t submit it to the MPAA to be rated; if the producers submitted it the MPAA would rate it. All not submitting it to be rated means is that BBB4 can’t legally be marketed with one of the MPAA’s legally-protected ratings attached.
Or to check tickets at the door to make sure that the title of the film being shown matches the title on the ticket bought. A theater close to me does this for shows they know will be popular with teens.
I once worked at a movie theater briefly. We didn’t try real hard to enforce the “R” for most films; lots of films have “R” ratings. But there was this one Paul Verhoeven film we considered very nearly an NC-17, so for that film the policy was stricter.
I remember there being an armed cop (as opposed to one of those unarmed, touchy feely ones, but I do appreciate the flair for the dramatic you guys) when I wanted to sneak into an alternate R rated movie from my ticket with lots o’ pretty nipples in it but not being able to, again due to said cop, so I don’t think that this is anything new.
Of course the great Michael Moore will no doubt decry the existance of any cop within 500 feet of a theatre showing his film as a product of a vast right wind conspiracy against his film.
At the same time, although I doubt I will care much for the film when I finally get a chance to see it, it seems as though youth should have a particular right to see this film in spite of the violence, etc. within. It seems okay to restrict The Terminator from every potential audience member (although maybe stupid), but certainly Moore’s film has more political merit than a film like The Terminator. This seems to be a gray area because the MPAA ratings are self imposed, and it seems like movie theatres should be able to deny service to anyone they feel like for reasonable reasons, like age, but then what are all of these public agencies like cops doing helping to enforce them in the first place then? Why is a resource like a police officer wasted on something that theatres should be doing themselves if they really want to? Are the cops being paid overtime by the theatres a la special events when they hire off-duty cops?
Certainly a lot to ponder. Anyone have more clear explanations?
In the Nashville area, a lot of the theaters hire off-duty cops as security. These cops will be there, in their police uniform, checking IDs, keeping the riff-raff from causing problems, and this has ben going on long before Moore’s current film.
Well, can’t realy speak for MPAA sanctions, but when I worked at a theatre here, we not only carded people at the box office, but checked tickets and carded again at the theatre door. Of course that was motivated by the fact that in Ontario, at least in 1992, not only could the company and specific theatre be fined for letting a minor in to an R rated film, there was also a personal fine of CAD5000.00 to the cashier who sold the ticket.
Thus being very picky when checking people. Now, I don’t think they care much.
Don’t really know. Last time I was popped for ID at a movie was for Henry & June, so I haven’t paid much attention to the cops checking IDs at which theater (and I haven’t been to the movies since Moore’s latest opened, so I can’t tell you how they’re handling that).