A few years ago, there was a kerfuffle in Christian movie-critic circles over the revelation that "Dr." Ted Baehr is sometimes paid to promote films that he reviews for his magazine, Movieguide.
I was reminded of that yesterday while watching the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which notes that the MPAA's ratings appeal board includes two religious representatives, one Protestant and one Catholic. And while the film doesn't mention it, both of these church representatives write film reviews, too.
The Protestant rep since 1968 has been James Wall, a Methodist minister (incorrectly identified in the film's "dialogue" as an Episcopalian priest, but correctly identified in a titles sequence later on) who reviews films for The Christian Century, a magazine that he edited from 1972 to 1999; and the current Catholic rep is Harry Forbes, a layman (incorrectly identified in the "dialogue" as a clergyman) who reviews films for the Catholic News Service.
Wall and Forbes are obviously not being paid to promote films, so their situation is different from that of Baehr; and for all I know they might not receive any payment for their work with the MPAA. But still, I cannot help but wonder: Is it possible for film critics to be so cozy with the industry -- to the point where they have a say in determining what a film is rated, and thus an indirect say in how films might be re-edited before they are shown to the public -- without being in some sort of conflict of interest?
I don't know about conflict of interest, but I'd be interested to hear what you thought of This Film is Not Yet Rated generally. I saw it a few weeks ago, hoping that it would be an interesting documentary on the process of rating films. Its main concern, however, seemed to be bawling about restrictions on sexually explicit films. It all seemed so childish and irrelevant that I didn't bother watching the whole thing. Should I have persevered?
ReplyDeleteIt seemed to me that the film didn't say anything that I hadn't already read -- or written! -- in numerous newspaper and magazine articles. The thing that sets this film apart and makes it more than just a retread of the existing conversation is that the filmmakers tracked down the various ratings-board members and exposed their identities, which has a certain entertainment value but doesn't address some of the key principles at stake here.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I think the film could have paid more attention to the times when films have been rated X or NC-17 for violence, rather than sex -- an example of this would be the original European cut of Robocop (1987) -- and I think it could have explored the nature of the PG-13 rating in a little more depth. Why, for example, is it PG-13 and not R-13? Most parts of the world, including Canada, have multiple enforceable age categories, but for some reason the United States treats all children and teenagers the same.
And why doesn't this film look at how ratings are done in other parts of the world? The MPAA keeps saying there needs to be an industry-controlled ratings system, otherwise the government will step in... and the MPAA's opponents, including This Film Is Not Yet Rated director Kirby Dick, say there shouldn't be any ratings at all, just descriptions of the various contents of the films. But here in Canada, each province has its own ratings board, and the ratings boards in most other countries are run by government agencies too -- and if films have survived the ratings process in those countries, why couldn't they survive a government-run process in America, too?
I can think of a few possible answers to that last question, actually. But it still would have been nice if the film had at least asked it.
Oh, and let us not forget the debate over how the MPAA deals with ideological and/or religious content, a la what happened last year with Facing the Giants -- a controversy which, admittedly, probably came too late to be incorporated into this film. But given how this film goes on and on about the moralistic influence of church groups, it could have added some nuance if the film had also acknowledged that, say, films with crucifixion scenes tend to get PG-13 or R ratings now, rather than the G ratings that they got in the 1970s.
I AM curious about whether the MPAA gets paid or not. Certainly they must, I would imagine their work load is immense. How many people are on the board at any one time?
ReplyDeleteI expect the regular ratings board is paid. But the appeals board, I'm not so sure. It might depend on how often filmmakers appeal the ratings that their films get. And it looks like most of the people on the appeals board are representatives of the theatres or have similar jobs elsewhere -- so they are already on someone else's payroll.
ReplyDelete