With fiction films, it is easy to make changes to suit the overly critical requests of the MPAA, because as real as a filmmaker believes their characters to be, they are fictional characters. Editing out a few “fucks” or a sex scene may soften the film a bit, but it does not turn it into something it is no. It does not turn gritty truth in to chocolate-coated reality, or even worse, into fiction. With this in mind I must ask whether editing a documentary to appease the MPAA and get a rating that allows for wider distribution is even ethical. One of the biggest debates in documentary film is about how much creative freedom the filmmaker can take in portraying their subjects, so why shouldn’t the same rules apply to the ratings board? Just because reality makes them uncomfortable does not mean it doesn’t happen (or in some cases hasn’t happened), and there is no reason that they should be allowed to prevent a film from opening the eyes of the audience.
A few documentaries other than Gunner’s Palace that the MPAA has attempted to censor include “The Tillman Story”, “Taxi to the Dark Side” and “A Film Unfinished”. The Tillman story is a film about football star turned soldier, Pat Tilllman. During a tour of Iraq, Tillman was killed by friendly fire, and the death was covered up by many layers of the government until his mother made them all stand accountable for their actions. While she failed in seeing justice through the judicial system, the filmmaker helped her bring justice in the eyes of filmgoers who received the opportunity to see the film. I was one of those people and the only thing I remember feeling after seeing the film was “wow, I’m really angry at the government and the people who let this happen,” which is why I was shocked to find that the MPAA had given the film and R rating for “bad language”. I tend to be sensitive to really bad language in the sense that I notice it, not in the sense that I am offended, and I don’t really remember any foul language in that film. This doesn’t mean that there wasn’t any foul language, it just means that because I didn’t watch the film intent on finding something wrong with it, none of the language struck me as inappropriate. Apparently, however, someone from the MPAA did notice the foul language and the board decided it needed to receive and R rating, shrinking its potential audience.
Another documentary that has been given an R rating is “Taxi to the Dark Side” a film by Alex Gibney. This film was given and R rating by the MPAA due to “disturbing images and content involving torture and graphic nudity” (mpaa.org). What I find so disturbing about this rating is that the images the film was criticized by the board for were the same images that the American public could turn on their televisions and see every night before eating their dinner. The only thing that I can think of that were different between the two mediums is that the news may have blurred out the genitalia of the detainees, or had black boxes over them, while the film did not. The pain in the pictures is the same whether we see these or not, so what made the MPAA so uncomfortable? Was it the fact that there were genitalia exposed? Are they that afraid of the human body? Even if they are, the level of comfort the board members have with nudity should not limit the filmmaker’s right to show the atrocities that happened in Abu Grhaib at the hands of American soldiers to any audience willing to listen, yet that is exactly what happened. As for the “content involving torture” issue raised by the board, they need to understand that this film is about actual events. This is not a fiction film like “Hostel” or “Saw” that is created for a scare factor, and it is not something we can argue should not be shown to youth because it might encourage them to do it to other people. Those receiving torture in the documentary are real people, they were tortured and some were killed, and without the filmmaker’s ability to show that, the story dissolves and the issue is swept under the rug. Youth will not see this film and decide to try it because they understand that these are not fictional characters that exist only in the world of the film, Gibney does a marvelous job of depicting the victims as real people, no different than any of us, which gives the violence a completely different connotation.
I think the reason the idea of censoring facts is so disturbing is best described by the Jeffrey Bloomer in “Adam Yauch’s Holocaust Documentary’s MPAA Appeal is Today; Does it Deserve and R Rating?” when he sums up director Yael Hersonski’s argument again the MPAA’s rating system as “an inherent unfairness in the system, which fails to draw a distinction between a gross-out comedy and a holocaust movie but makes an influential decision on what is appropriate for young eyes”. The documentary “A Film Unfinished” is about an unfinished Nazi Propaganda film that was intended to be used for anti-Semitic purposes. The film is currently “unrated” on the MPAA website, which most likely means the filmmakers have yet to accept the “R” rating they have been given based on “horrific footage of death camp atrocities – some of them showing Jews, both dead and alive, stripped naked” (Noah 1). The intention of director Yael Hersonski was to have the film “shown in schools to educate children about the Holocaust” (Noah 1), making its motivation for intense scenes and nudity more noble, but the question is whether or not that nobility should be a reason to soften the censorship on the documentary. In an objective light, the films motivation would have no bearing on how the content is taken. Members of the board would simply watch the film, count how many breasts and genitalia are seen, as well as how many swear words are used, and then issue a rating based on these numbers. This is not how the ratings board works.
(The picture on the left is from theguardian.co.uk used for reporting the crimes at Abu Ghraib. The one on the right is from "American Pie". Both use the same amount of nudity, both give very different impressions. The Abu Ghraib photo, because it is a form of journalism is not censored, the one on the right is censored in the same way that the same photo is when it becomes a part of a documentary. Are these the same kind of image?)
Yauch’s number one defense for “A Film Unfinished” was the precedent set by Steven Spielberg’s Shoah Foundation Holocaust documentary “The Last Days”, which “features similar footage but received a PG-13 raging” (Noah 1). Both films are about the terrible crimes committed during the Holocaust. Both films use graphic images to convey the horrors of the Nazi enforced ghettos. The difference? One has Steven Spielberg’s name attached to it, the other one belongs to the independent production company Oscilliscope. This issue is another brought up by Kirby Dick in “This Film is Not Yet Rated” through interviews with filmmakers in the independent world, but according to Timothy Noah in “The 7 Percent Solution” the issue can be proven with numbers from a study at The University of Maryland that shows “films distributed by MPAA members are, on average, about 7 percent less likely to receive an R rating than films that aren’t distributed by MPAA members”. While Kirby Dick may have been trying to cause an uprising against the MPAA, the numbers have no motivation behind them, they are simply telling the truth, and that truth brings up a scary realization when applied to the film industry. Documentary films, by nature, are not films made by or produced by Hollywood or the masses. They are films regarded as “educational and boring” in the words of most people. Paramount, Warner Bros, and Disney rarely make documentaries, and when they do the subject matter is often times light hearted and unimportant in the realm of world suffering. This leaves all other documentaries in that category more likely to be rated R because they are not part of “popular culture”, which means that the people who make the films we need to see to understand the suffering in the world are being censored unfairly because their films are not more popular.
In some cases, documentary filmmakers have been able to repeal their ratings from an R. According to Jeffrey Bloomer, “there is some history of flexibility, especially when it comes to documentaries steeped in history and conflict. In 2005, for example, the MPAA granted a rare PG-13 rating on appeal to a movie with multiple uses of “fuck”. That film was Gunner’s Palace, the one made by the only documentary filmmaker featured in “This Film is Not Yet Rated”. On it’s recent appeal, “A Film Unfinished” was not as lucky. The MPAA “voted to maintain the R rating, 12-3” (Noah 1). This decision means that it will be hard for teachers to show the film to students, as it was originally intended to be, because an R rating requires parental supervision or consent before the student can watch a film, and with schools under so much scrutiny already, sending home permission slips would welcome even more undesired attention about the ethics of the administrations.
In the end, it’s hard to say whether or not the MPAA should have the right to censor reality because there are many factors to be considered. What I can say for sure is that many of the things they try to censor people from are things they see on the news or the internet when they read about current events. It is also safe to say that documentary filmmakers also have an obligation to show the lives of their subjects, no matter how gritty and unpleasant they may be, and no one has the right to take the opportunity away from them. Taking away a documentary filmmaker’s ability to create a true portrait of their subject is like taking away a lawyer’s right to argue their case or a doctor’s right treat their patients. They believe in their cause and they should be allowed to do what they see necessary to get their point across.
Works Cited
Bloomer, Jeffrey. “Adam Yauch’s Holocaust Documentary’s MPAA Appeal is Today; Does it Deserve an R Rating?” Paste Magazine. 5 Aug 2010. Web. 27 Feb 2011. http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2010/08/adam-yauchs-holocaust-documentary-has-its-mpaa-app.html
Noah, Timothy. “The 7 Percent Solution: A recent study proves MPAA ratings really are biased against independent films”. Slate. 24 Feb 2011. Web. 27 Feb 2011. http://www.slate.com/id/2286404
“Film Ratings”. mpaa.org. Motion Picture Association of America. n.d. Web. 27 Feb 2011. http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatings_Cara/#/home/
No comments:
Post a Comment