Censorship

personally, i feel very, very strongly about censorship. to a point that i have chosen, at my own free will to write a few papers and present them in school in front of my english class and civic participation class. frankly, i think censorship is the alternative to good parenting, and there should be no alternative to good parenting. i wish the person who started this thread would have specified whether they meant government-sponsored censorship, personal censorship, or what. censorship can occur on many different levels, and the effects are totally different with each different type. i think personal censorship (ie. checking out a child's movies for them, deciding to boycott a movie because it devalues your system of morality, etc) is totally acceptable, and even admirable. however, there are a lot of people out there who believe that the state should issue regulation or legislation of some sort in order to enact censorship on the arts. i can't even describe how wrong i think this is, or how badly i hate the idea of basic human rights being flushed down the toilets by washington, dc lobbyists. people who make movies are artists, and the right to express oneself artistically should not be compromised in ANY WAY. i don't think kids should see **** that is bad for them, i just think that no one, not a movie studio, not a senator, not the president, and not some law should ever take away my right to express myself in whatever manner i choose. if you decide you don't like what i have to say, or how i have to say it, that's your decision, and i would definitely respect that. but no one can tell anyone else how to live. i think the current movie ratings system is stupid, pointless, and unreliable, so what's the answer? monitor what your kids watch, and help them make intelligent desicions without completely controlling their thoughts and lives. that's hard to do, but that's what being a parent ought to be about. trusting some stupid organization to make sure your kids aren't being influenced negatively is naive. at least the damn ratings system keeps idiots like tipper gore and hillary clinton happy. on the negative side, it lulls parents into a false state of security. "well, if he's going to see a pg-13 rated movie, there's no need to talk to him about right and wrong, right?" anyway, i know there are a lot of people reading this right now who think "but a lot of movie directors/stars/producers don't give a **** about art, they're only in it for the cash. why should i support those worthless idiots?" the answer: dont. america needs to start realizing that there is **** in hollywood and there is art. the people who only release crap to shock you and make few bucks dont' deserve your money, so show it to them by not opening your wallets for them. you can't take away their basic human and constitutional rights, like it or not. the freedom of speech is at risk, and you may not think that a little censorship is going to hurt, but i guarentee it would just fuel the fire. we have to take the bad along with the good (in my eyes, living in this country is an amazing thing, and the goods of freedom of speech outweigh the bads of seeing some bad movies) and accept that there are morons out there who only make movies to get money. tell everyone you know not to see crap movies, don't call your senator and tell him to protect you. protect yourself. protect your kids. teach your kids to love and they will grow up in a positive environment, even if they see a few r rated movies. censorship would stop people like scorsese, coppola, kubrick, spielberg, and a thousand others from making works of modern art.

if anyone wants to read my essay that i wrote for civics, i will probably be posting it tonight.

An artist's work should NEVER have to be censored in any way, shape or form. Do you think the parents in Shakespeare's time didn't let their kids watch Titus, because of all the bloodshed? Hells no! Of course they did!

I'll use Natural Born Killers as an example, because it's being blamed by everyone for causing murders. Did Oliver Stone put a gun in these kids' hands? Did he tell them, 'go shoot up your school, commit murder'? What do you think? In the case of that movie, the people who saw it and wanted to kill people missed the point, just like the people who got in fights after watching Fight Club missed the point. Most always a movie that criticizes some aspect of society is going to be the scapegoat. Has there ever been any claims that the Friday the 13th movies made someone commit murder?

Natural Born Killers is blamed because it shows people a side of themselves that they would rather pretend doesn't exist. I won't deny the fact that children are impressionable, but saying that a film CAUSED them to do something is bullshi t. There are fundamental things that people of a certain age know, and it's a combination of parenting and enviroment that brings about this knowledge. If someone does something because of a movie, it's because there is some sort of problem fundamentally with that person. People know right from wrong. It's a basic instinct, if you will.

I think there is a place in our society for a ratings' system, but not a corrupt one. For example, Almost Famous is rated R. So is Hannibal. How those two films are grouped in the same category is astonishing. Freddy Got Fingered didn't get an NC-17 rating. What does this tell us about the MPAA, and our society in general?

I'm sorry, artistic expression comes above all. The rules placed on a filmmaker in this society are absurd. Just because some soccer mom complained that her daughter picked up the nailgun doesn't mean that Spike Lee or Martin Scorsese should have to edit his film. If someone does something because they saw it in a movie, nothing else, then there was something wrong with that person BEFORE they walked into that theater.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

excellent post. i agree completely.

ok, i just read over my essay, and i'm not going to post it, because mostly it just is exactly what i typed above. also, it has a lot to do with the music industry, which is important to me, being a musician, but has nothing to do with movies, so i'll save it for a completely different forum.

Another thing I don't like about the ratings system (besides being inconsistently applied) is that theaters use the ratings to decide which films to show. I think it's unfortunate that some films get parts cut out to please the MPAA in order to get the R rating so it can get into theaters and into Blockbuster. I understand that these private companies have the right to play whatever they want (or don't want) to play at their theaters or video stores, but I think it's unfortunate that some art is compromised because of the ratings system.

By the way, Clerks originally got slapped with an NC17 rating when it was presented to the MPAA. If anyone other than Miramax was distributing that movie, we might well have never seen it (because it wouldn't be in our video stores or in our theaters), or some of the funnier stuff would've been cut out to get the R.

I have no problem with people/review boards posting ratings on what they deem appropriate for their particular group of readers, etc. But, I wish that people would take these ratings with a grain of salt! But, with these ratings, that does not mean that there should be censorship of films. Or any sort of publication for that matter. God forbid someone have a voice and wish to use it. It's up to one's parents and/or own good judgement to decide if you wish to hear it.

I was irate, for example, when Hollywood Video refused to carry the Uncut version of REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. I completlely understand their reasoning for having an edited version, but not to release it for rental is absurd and a discredit to Aronofsky's creative intellect. If a person wishes to see a film that he knows deals, in great part, around a group of people whose lives dwindle as their drug addictions soar, then he should at least be given the choice to see the original film, the way the director intended to present things.

A lot of the problem with censorship has to do with the fact that it undermines the overarching message of a film, novel, or the like, to have parts taken out. Like when you can't include a curse word in an argument - if you don't want to see/hear the word, find a way to remove them from your own viewing. But, don't deprive other people of their right to see, hear, and speak.

it's good to see there are a lot of people against censorship. i thought that this thread would be flooded with the "concerned parent" type that want nothing other than artists to be deprived of their craft, but i'm pleasantely surprised by the responses here. that's pretty cool.

Okay, I see you all have strong opinions but you're all wrong.
First off, what is art? Is Friday the 13th art? I don't think so do you? How about Scream? Some kids were killed by people in Mike Myers masks and Scream masks. So what is and isn't an art film? How about porno? The plot is, I'm from PlanetX and I need to find a mate to save my species. Is that art? Would you let anyone walk into a movie theatre to see it? Censorship is needed, and so is responsible parenting. Getting rid of the rating system so people can be parents isn't gonna work. Like Twt said, parenting sucks. I see it all the time. People now a days have kids just 'cause they think it's the thing to do. Grow up, get married, have kids.

Second, let's say I'm a responsible parent. I care what my kids watch. I go get the movie schedule or go to Blockbusters. What is acceptable? Gee, there aren't any ratings anywhere. How do I know if it's safe or not? Doh!
Gotta go to that website, or see the movie myself first I guess. Deep Throat? Oooh, a political mystery. My son Twt might like that.

Third, Sorry. The average kid sees how many acts of violence before they're 10? And why can't kids watch smoking ads? Gee, I guess commercials don't work. People are never influenced by things they see. Media shapes society and visa versa. I can give you so many examples it's not even funny. How many people ever said, Go ahead, make my day? Or, I'll be back. How many people went into a new dance craze with every Travolta movie. How many kids joined the Air Force because of Top Gun? On and on and on...

Forth, Blockbuster should also enforce the rating system by not allowing kids to rent movies that are not age appropriate for them. You don't see kids renting movies too often 'cause you need a license and credit card to get a Blockbuster card, but someday Blockbuster will figure out how to rent to teens. They are losing out on some serious money there so you can bet they'll figure out how someday. And when they do, I hope they enforce the ratings system.

Fifth, what is the point of showing the gory details? Why be so extreme? There are times a director wants to show the horrificness of a situation. But look at Psycho, not a drop of blood. Or Saving Pvt Ryan. I sure got the point about war. Your talented directors will find a way to work within the system. Natural Born Killers was a harsh movie. It was great but what else did you need to see? Did you want to watch them drink blood or eat intestines? Would that have made it better? It was violent, it was excellent, and it fit into a ratings category. What's the problem?

They drank blood & ate intestins in Natural born killers? I havent seen that either becuz Pigsnie wont rent it. Im missin a lot. A year ago Pigsnie made a list of movies I MUST on NO ACCOUNT ever see until I am 17 and THE HITCHER was on there. Well I disobeyd, I watched it at my mates place & that night I woke up screamin about eyeballs & frightenin the cat & Pigsnie found out. He grounded me but I kinda think he did the right thing.

__________________
God save Freddie Mercury!

Just FYI, but Deep Throat doesn't have a rating now. The MPAA doesn't rate porn, and the XXX rating is not actually a rating at all, it's an advertising device.

Also about movies influencing people? Sure it does, but does it harm them? Studies say no. Studies say that seeing television violence doesn't harm kids. Studies say seeing televised sex doesn't harm kids. I've not even heard of a study that said hearing bad words (which is enough to get a R-rating and possibly even an NC17. It was the "37" sequence that the MPAA objected to in Clerks. That's entirely verbal) harms kids at all.

Even if someone adopts something from popular culture and does something bad, the causal link is not established and has not been established. When (actually "if") we establish that these things are harmful, then we can talk about censoring them (and by the way, I object to the use of the term in relation to acts by groups other than the government. It's not really censorship if a theater doesn't show a movie or if Blockbuster doesn't carry a title. Censorship implies a government ban). Until then, it's much ado about nothing.

And by the way, my real problem is not that there is a voluntary rating system. My problem is that it is not applied the same to everyone, that some studios can complain until they get their way, and that theaters and video stores use the rating to keep out films that may well be worth seeing. Context is often not considered (for example, the drug use, even though it was presented as bad, would've gotten a movie like crazy/beautiful an R-rating, so they cut it out and they lose part of the message that drugs can screw up your life. Yet we have plenty of TV commercials that put out the same message and that are aimed squarely at kids). Why is saying the "F" word (usually an automatic "R") worse than showing someone getting gunned down (violence alone is not usually enough to get an "R") Why is showing a naked breast worse than showing someone getting chopped in half? Why are things worse when in independent films than when in studio films (Studios can get things passed by the MPAA that Indies cannot), etc., etc.

Like someone else said, the ratings system is corrupt. If we're going to have a ratings system, let's have one that works instead of this one that quite obviously doesn't. I don't think one is necessary at all, but if we must have one, I'd rather have a fair and honest one rather than the one we've got.

Rating system corrupt? I'd describe it as lacking, but not corrupt. Any rating system is going to fall short...ANY rating system, simply because not everyone is the same. All you can do is visit ScreenIt.com and decide for yourself.

Steve: I'm sorry, but I don't see your point here. Surely you are not implying that a chain of theatres here or there should be forced to carry movies they don't like? Because, quite frankly, anyone who doesn't like a movie, shouldn't have to help it along. What I'd like to know is where all this censorship IS?

I'm seeing all these long posts about how horrible censorship is, but who's being censored here, and by whom? I'm not seeing it. If it's just some theatre chain not carrying an explicit movie, then ya'll don't have a leg to stand on.

Oh, and yes, a 10 year old watching Natural Born Killers can get messed up. As I said before: 99% of all these wackos would find a "reason" to kill anyway, but there will ALWAYS (nearly be definition) be exceptions, who are pushed over the edge by a particular movie. This is practically a fact.

Let me also add that I don't really care about movies as a form of art. Art is such an abstract word now, that I've given up caring about it at all. All I can do is give my opinion on individual things.

Shouldn't be censored? Well, if a film is made by committing illegal acts, then perhaps it should be censored. Murder on tape is far from artistic expression. If we're going to get involved in this discussion, let's cover all the bases.

As for legislation barring these things: I think what you might be hearing, guys, is about works of "art" (such as "Yo Mama's Last Supper"...which is a sick, twisted, piece of junk) that are being placed in museums, paid for in part by PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS. If this is the case, then it'd be wrong to NOT bring legislation in. It's the same mindset that says the government cannot simply hire all people of a specific race, or make other such decisions based on prejudice.

Uh... no, they didn't eat intestines in Natural Born Killers. That was just an example. Would it have been better if it was totally uncensored? Actually, I think they did show some guy holding his intestines in, I'm not sure.

When I was little The Exorcist came out on tv and my parents sent me to bed. I snuck out and hid in the hallway so I could watch it. I cried and cried, I had nightmares for a week. I'm still scared to see that movie. After that whenever they said don't watch something, I didn't. Lol!

This is how I see it:

Movie theater chains refuse to show an NC-17 film, and that in turn has made the rating synonymous with porn. This corrupts the ratings system, so we get a film like Eyes Wide Shut being edited so that it can get an R rating. We don't get to see Stanley Kubrick's original cut of the film because some 13 year old might see it and go start a cult with masked orgies. That's a bunch of crap. There's no adult rating that can be worked with, and the fact that politicians are breathing down the necks of studio heads about marketing to teenagers, we get films like Coyote Ugly (not referring to it as art) being edited so that there's no sex to get that PG-13 rating. That isn't right.


Films shouldn't have to pay the price for things that are fundamentally wrong in our society, the lack of parenting for example. You've said yourselves, that the parenting in the U.S. leaves something to be desired. But just because Mommy X uses the theater as a babysitter and doesn't teach little Joe right from wrong, should a movie have to suffer for it? Especially a film that is making some sort of attempt to be artistic?


Or take Requiem for a Dream, for example. This is a film that was almost unable to find release in the U.S., because the ratings board refused to give it an R rating. (Yet Hannibal got one, no questions asked ) The movie had to be released UNRATED in the theaters, where it could only play in art houses and independent theaters, therefore crippling its box office chances. And guess what? You can't see the original version now without paying for the DVD, because financially molesting Darren Aronofsky wasn't enough: Blockbuster and Hollywood Video were scared off by the lack of a rating, and now only stock the edited version of the film. Have you seen this film? It's a work of art if there's ever been one. But these people are so scared that some kid's going to see it and be effected, that they won't even HAVE it in their stores. Not even under the goddamm counter.


Everyone is blaming the movies for things as simple as a lack of good parenting. Why should Martin Scorsese's vision be compromised because Daddy's always working? THe war should be waged on the lack of values in society today, not somebody's art.

By the way, I do think that artistic responsibility is important (though to an extent). A filmmaker never should intend something graphic in his/her film for immature audiences, but the combination of the studios' marketing systems, what our society deems appropriate for children, and ratings systems often prevents this from happening.

hey, sunfrog, before you go posting stupid crap, read what people have said before you. you said "is porno art? is friday the 13th art?" no, they're not. my above statement says basically that you should NOT SUPPORT MOVIES THAT YOU FIND OFFENSIVE. NOT CENSOR THEM. people in this country are f*****n facists, i swear. of course there is a lot of trash out there, i'm not denying that. but the people that make that s**t are only after money, so the best way to combat that problem is to not pay for them. tell people, start a campaign, or patriotically boycott these types of movies. censorship is a violation of the first and most important amendment, not to mention basic human freedoms.
[Edited by TWTCommish on 07-05-2001]

also, twt says "i've given up caring about it at all"... art, that is. jesus, that's really f****n sad, that's what i think. art is what separates people from animals. if it weren't for art, how could mankind ever express itself? emotions, complex ideas, dreams, hopes all are expressed by way of art. chances are, there are tons of people who just want to go to movies cause they think they're kind of cool, and have a couple hours to kill, but i think movies, music, theater, and other forms of art are designed for a deeper purpose. if i have something to say, i'm gonna say it. that's why i live in a free g*****n country.
[Edited by TWTCommish on 07-05-2001]

http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/0..._extreme.shtml

If this "play" was made into a movie, it'd be guaranteed at least an R, and the film would not be allowed to be marketed toward minors. A church puts it on and markets it specifically to minors, and there's no hemming and hawing about it. (That's not to say that I don't support the Church's right to put on this presentation, and perhaps it is a good thing. I don't know. But if seeing these things in movies is so bad that we have to shield anyone under 17 from it, shouldn't we also prevent our kids from seeing it live at the Church? If something is bad, isn't it always bad. Why is it worse at 24 frames per second projected on a movie screen?)

This play can be compared to that movie I was talking about, Requiem for a Dream. It's insane that something like this can be put marketed to minors, yet it sounds every bit as graphic as that film or countless others. What is the problem here?

Brodie, you will be warned [red]once and once only[/red]: do not use that language again, and do not act so disrespectfully towards other forum members either. Rest assured, you will be banned if you cannot control yourself. How's that for censorship?

Oh, and I suppose it's better to force movie chains to carry movies because poor Mr. Director wants his work seen? I'm sorry, but people, even if it's a bad idea, should have the RIGHT to not carry movies in their theatre chains, or not parent their children. It's not always nice, but it's their freedom.

Censor them how? By a chain of movies not carrying them? Uh, carrying a movie would be supporting it. How about giving me ONE (just one!) decent example of this censorship you're writing speeches about?

Please READ (really, really read) what people say before you say things like that. I've given up caring about what art is, because it doesn't matter. I don't have to define art. Did I say for a second that we shouldn't express ourselves? No...so please do not jump to outrageous conclusions.

I've given up on worrying about what art is. The fact that some people think a movie is a "work of art" means nothing to me. That's what I'm saying. The movie should be judged for what it is technically. Just because a dozen people think it's life-changing, that doesn't mean it should be shown to all, or made available to all. People are different, forms of art are different (and believe me, there's a lot of crap art out there), so I've given up caring about it. If something seems beautiful or interesting, great, but I don't really make judgements on that.

Gimme a break. Plenty of s**t is created with the creator thinking of how beautiful and artistic it is the entire time, I'm sure. Major generalization there.

WHERE IS THIS VIOLATION OF CENSORSHIP? I see no amendment violation here at all, and no one in this thread has provided any of us with information on one. What are you ranting on and on about? Where is this illegal violation?