How To Solve the Problem of the MPAA, or an activists reaction to "This film is not yet Rated"

In November last year, a movie called The Kings Speech was rated R by the MPAA. The reason?

The Kings Speech - f**** speech


Yes, swear words.

British director Tom Hooper has lashed out at the MPAA ratings board after the board slapped his critically acclaimed movie The King’s Speech with an R rating for a scene in which a speech therapist encourages the future King George VI to let loose with a torrent of four-letter words as part of the therapy to cure his stuttering. Noting that the ratings board routinely gives films depicting horrendous violence PG-13 ratings, Hooper told Los Angeles Times columnist Patrick Goldstein, “What really upsets me is that the boundaries for violence have been pushed farther and farther back while any kind of bad language remains taboo. … I can’t think of a single film I’ve ever seen where the swear words had haunted me forever, the way a scene of violence or torture has, yet the ratings board only worries about the bad language.” MORE

The Kings Speech is a movie about friendship through speech therapy. There are no sex scenes and no violence. The words in question are things that kids hear and use every day, from at least primary school, and they weren't gratuitously used. And yet the movie was placed in the same category as American Psycho and Kill Bill Vol. 1.


The Kings Speech won the Academy Award for best movie, R-rating and all, but in order to capitalize on this, the distributor (The Weinstein Company) decided to reedit the film to remove that scene so that kids could watch it. Tom Hopper flatly refused to cut the scene, and sothe MPAA decided that if 3 of the 5 instances of the word "fuck" were muted, they could get a PG 13 rating. In addition, a waiver was granted that allowed the R verion of the film to be withdrawn and replaced by the PG13 version almost immediately, instead of the usual 90 days.


Blue Valentine was hit with an NC-17 rating for one sex scene.

Blue Valentine Trailer

This sex scene was between a married couple who were trying to repair their relationship. In contrast Passion of the Christ and the SAW film franchise had a boatload of torture in them, but managed to snag an R rating, This film was also distributed by the Weinstein Company and so they hired a set of lawyers to combat the rating. Eventually, they too managed to get an R rating. For a sex scene between a married couple.

The 2006 documentary This film is not yet Rated focuses on the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA) work in deciding how to rate movies so that movie goers can decide what to take their children to see.

Jack Valenti, who created the MPAA system, says it wasn't designed for producers, major studios, directors or critics. It was designed for parents, he says.

This Film is Not Yet Rated Trailer


These ratings are important because they dictate whether your movie can be played in certain cinema chains or advertise on network television or in certain newspapers. Of course, the ratings also restrict the audience of the movie as well. Unsurprisingly, as Director Kirby Dick and his stable of interviewed directors point out, there are some serious problems with the decisions that CARA makes. Violence is allowed more latitude than sex. Sex is graded on a heirarchy which sees heterosexual missionary position penis in vagina intercourse and male masturbation being given a less harsh rating than LGBT sex of any kind, non missionary position sex or female masturbation. (And they don't like people of color having sex either.) In addition to the talking head directors, Mr. Dick spends a lot of time filmimg the work of his private investigators to

The articles given were a mix of conservative reaction which could be boiled down to "oh shut up liberals!!" and progressive reactions which could be boiled down to " right on" plus a surprisingly thoughtful interview with Mr. Dick in which he expounds on the themes of the film.

Useful Questions

1. Was the film successful in portraying its message?

2. Was the use of humor including the cartoon images of the head of the MPAA a fine attempt at humor or ill-advised?

3. Did the private investigator subplot add to the documentary or was it a distraction?

4. Why a rating system anyway? Who should decide what your child is capable of watching, an individual parent or some faceless and not very qualified or representative board members with a couple of random religious leaders on the "side"?

Class Questions

1. How would we go about pressuring the MPAA to make the classification board more diverse and transparent?

2. If we were to make a new classification system, how would it work?

3. What is about the American culture that makes us so much less comfortable with sexuality than violence? Is it that violence can be impersonal, and sex can be very personal? Is it our religious roots?


Analysis.

I think that film and tv entertainment plays the dual role of being a shaper of reality, as well as being shaped by it. I think that censoring entertainment because of our discomfort with what it portrays in terms of different sexualities while allowing much more violence to be portrayed is bigoted and speaks to the privilege hierarchy in our society. Privileged white men’s ways of viewing the world are fed to consumers and they help to shape what we think and feel and how we act. It narrows our collective ideas of what could be, because the people who have those ideas did not have access to the megaphone that Hollywood does. Hollywood is in the business of making money. And thus their actions when faced with the possibility of government and citizen-led censorship were predictable and sensible, according to their goals of making sure that they had an environment that they could sell films in.

Activism against bigotry doesn’t pay the bills, after all, so I don’t really expect Hollywood to be the vanguard of change. But I do believe that we the people of these United States are less reactionary than Hollywood thinks, and so I have come up with a list of ideas that activists can do to challenge the MPAA:

1. Find out if movie theatres don’t carry NC 17 film, and ask why not. Make it clear the demand exists. Of course, make sure you support the films when they come through.
2. Work on getting television stations and newspapers to play NC 17 and higher films after 9pm as a compromise between those who are worried about kids and those who are mature.
3. Join groups that are working on the equalization of GLBT and other minorities, and that are seeking to change the way societal sees currently uncomfortable topics like women’s sexuality. Societal change is one of the strongest ways we will have to undermine the rationales of the MPAA.
4. Work on getting a diverse set of people to review films, including knowledgeable scientists, psychologists, lgbt, a range of religious leaders from conservative to liberal and as large of range of class, race and other signifiers in order to make sure that the vast diversity in America is represented.
5. Work on a much more transparent system. Less appearance of studio collusion because they fund the organization. Much less ridiculous secret meetings and intimidation. Chairlady of the board does to get to intimidate her staff.
6. Work to change the rating system, maybe to just drop ratings and say that what is in it: sex, violence and language .
7. Pressure stores to carry NC-17
8. Make your own films and boycott the MPAA in protest. It’s worked before!

Casey Martin Self Evaluation

Self- Evaluation

Wynde and I worked on creating a short Kick Starter for a long term project that Wynde has been working on. This project is for the third graders of Robert Lee Elementary School. To brief you on what has already been done prior to this kick starter, Wynde did a fund raiser at blue fugue, which raised enough money to buy all of the third graders each a camera and film. Then she collaborated with their art teacher and began teaching them photography. The kids all shoot pictures and write stories to go along with them.

At this point, the kickstarter which we are doing is to raise enough money (close to 800 dollars), to create a book for the kids photography. The purpose of this project is to show the children what an effect art can have on people, and to broaden their learning experiences of art.

We filmed the majority of footage at Robert Lee Elementary and then used animation to fill in the blanks. I also spoke with the owner of Beale Street, who is considering making a donation to the project after one of the graduation parties Friday night. We are proposing that a drink special be made, and that a portion of those earnings go to the project.

Along with a few television and radio stations in town as well as online media and social networking, we hope that this kick starter will be enough to raise the money needed to make this project work.

I think that it is a fantastic project and I am glad to be a part of something that is going to make such a difference. Wynde and I worked really well together, and I was proud that she let me be involved in such an honorable cause.

Self-Evaluation

For my final project, I worked with Lydia and Kelsey on the short film Normal, which gives a brief look into the lives of two young girls coming to terms with sexual abuses that occurred in their pasts. The film was originally a scene from a longer script that Lydia had written a few years ago, and she adapted it to work as a stand-alone short piece. We knew from the beginning that Lydia wanted to run the camera, that Kelsey would operate the boom and do sound design, and that I would edit. Lydia asked me to direct, and I agreed, but I asked her to co-direct because she was already close to the project and because there were logistical reasons for both of us to direct: She could decide if the shot was good while looking at the camera, and I could give notes to the actresses, so neither one of us would have to worry about a lot of things all at one time. The idea was sort of to give both of us a break by working collaboratively. We wanted to make it dogme-style because a) Lydia wanted to make another dogme film before she graduated and b) because the subject matter called for a gritty, raw style to make it more real.

Lydia was the one to suggest Melissa Boatright as one of our actresses, and I had no arguments about it. I had just worked with Melissa on Paper Girl, and she let us put her in a paper dress and spray her with a hose in 30-degree weather, so I knew she was up for anything. She was also wonderful to work with; she was always positive, never complained, and respected the decisions I made as director. We were originally going to use Mariah Lee as well, since Lydia (and by default, Kelsey and I) had worked with her on all three senior projects and knew her well, but she had some scheduling conflicts, so we used Monica Wood in her place. This was an excellent decision because Monica and Melissa were wonderful.

Of course, there were things that we could—and should—have done differently. We should have thought more about the lighting we had available and blocked our actresses according to that. Most of the scene is very dark, and when I attempted to color correct it to make it lighter, it ended up looking washed-out. I returned it to its original state with only a few minor adjustments, and I don’t think the dark quality takes away from the power of the story at all, so we ended up lucky in that department. However, there were instances when watching the footage in the lab when I thought, “We should have moved them closer to that light,” or, “We should have turned them further or cheated them towards us a little.” There were also things I wish I had paid more attention to during filming, such as continuity. I was not focused on where they were setting the bottle down, so there were a couple of shots where the continuity was off with that; I managed to work around it pretty well, so I don’t think it was very noticeable, but I had some trouble deciding where to place some shots: specifically the shot from behind the actresses, looking over the pool. They had the bottle in between them, so I had to place it around shots in which we couldn’t see the bottle at all, so we could pretend that it had always been in between them. We also should have positioned the actresses or the camera a little better so that we could see entire faces; in some shots, specifically more close-up shots of Melissa, Monica’s face and hair obscure part of Melissa’s face.

Overall, we received positive feedback from the class. There were some comments about lighting and color, which I expected (especially about the color), but no one really had anything entirely negative to say about the project. This is encouraging to me, especially because I had just come from directing Paper Girl, which is 110% different than Normal in almost every possible way; it’s reassuring to know that I can get positive feedback from two projects that are almost complete opposites. I enjoyed working with Lydia and Kelsey. The atmosphere on set was very lighthearted, especially considering the subject of the film, and we had a good time making the project. I loved working with Melissa as well; she has amazing range and is willing to do almost anything she is asked to do. Monica also did a fantastic job, especially considering she jumped in on such short notice when Mariah’s schedule turned out to be an issue. The subject matter of the film is difficult, but we tried very hard to not make it a preachy, in-your-face kind of film, but rather just a portrait of two young girls dealing with similar traumatic experiences. I hope that this film can make a difference for someone, and I am happy to have been a part of bringing it to life.

Final Project Self-Evaluation

For our final project, "Normal", I knew from the beginning that I wanted to run the camera. I wanted to take a step back from directing and have someone else call the shots. It had also been a while since I had done a dogme '95 project, and since that seems to be where I do my best work, I wanted to get some more practice.

Since I knew that Sydney Haven wants to be a director, I asked her to be part of my group. I knew that I could trust her to carry out her responsibilities as a director, and I knew that she would respect the story and do it justice. This piece could have easily been overdone, and since the script is something that I have been working on for about three years now, I wanted to make sure that the director didn't make novice mistakes that would cause it to be melodramatic. Sydney was the right choice.

Kelsey Eick is a great person to work with because she is so versatile and easy going. She is also a great sound person, both as a boom operator and sound editor, so we inviting her to join our crew was an obvious decision.

The idea for "Normal" actually came from a feature length film that I wrote as a sophomore at Stephens, and since I have always been interested in films that impact people, I had written this one specifically for that purpose. Once the group decided to go forward with the idea, I rewrote one of the more pivotal scenes and sent it to Sydney for revision. This was easy to do because I trust her opinion and know that any changes she makes is in the best interest of the script.

Casting the film was fairly easy, because we already knew that we wanted to use Melissa Boatright. Sydney had just worked with her on "Paper Girl", where she was delightful on set, and I had wanted to work with her since her freshman year, so we decided to ask her to join the project. After she was onboard, we wanted to have her perform opposite Mariah Lee, but when schedule conflicts made that impossible, we chose to use Monica Wood. I had worked with her in several projects, so I knew she could pull off the part, and she turned out to be an excellent decision.

During pre-production of "Normal", Sydney and I decided that we would co-direct the film. She could tell that I was really close to the project, and she was feeling a little burnt out after "Paper Girl". This was a decision we made together, and it was not because I thought she couldn't do the job. We collaborated on everything to make things easier on ourselves, and to try and get the best product. With this in mind, we decided that I would make the original shot list (which makes since considering that I was the one running the camera), and Sydney would change whatever she thought needed to be changed, and if there was something we disagreed on, we discussed it until we could find a solution. On set, Sydney did most of the working with the actors, leaving me to watch the camera and decide if a take was good or not, and to give the actors notes when there was something that visually stuck out on camera.

The scene that we chose for "Normal" was originally set in an abandoned train car. Since there isn't one of these in Columbia, we went back to the drawing board and brainstormed. As a team we agreed that the environment should not be a warm, comfortable one, because the conversation was not one you would have in your bedroom or living room where your parents could overhear. We wanted to environment to reflect the way these girls felt, and that was cold and abandoned. With that in mind, we decided to use the pool, and although there wasn't a lot of light in the space, it worked perfectly for the scene.

During the shoot, most of my focus was on running the camera. Everything was handheld, so I had to try and keep the camera steady, but also give it just enough shake to make it seem like a documentary. If I had let the camera rest on the ledge or something like that, it would have seemed like it was on a tripod, and then it would not match the other hand held shots, so the entire things was shot with me holding the camera. Another call that I had to make was when to use zooms. I didn't want to zoom during a character's lines, because if it didn't work we would have lost the line, but the scene called for a visual shift towards intimacy as the conversation grew more intense. Zooms would also add to the more documentary feel of the piece, since they are often used when the camera cannot be moved in due to time restraints and practicality. Luckily I knew when the tone of the scene was going to shift, so I could anticipate and plan when to zoom in. Ultimately I think the point at which I zoomed worked nicely, because even though you don't actually see the zoom in the film, the shots do get closer to the actors throughout the conversation.

One thing that I wish I had thought of while we were filming was cheating the actors more towards the light sources we had. The reason we put them in the pool was that it looked brighter, during test shots, than having them sit on the ledge of the pool. Once we discovered that we could turn on the lights inside the pool, I wish that we had thought to move them and turn them more towards those lights. We did cheat the actress a little towards the light source, but it just wasn't enough.

Overall I think our group did a great job. We worked together nicely, and we all pulled our own weight. There weren't very clearly defined roles for most of us because the crew was so small and everyone cared about the project enough to want to help improve it. We didn't have issues on set because we respected each other's opinions and we also put together a group that had nice chemistry. The finished product received good feedback, and in my opinion did justice to the real people dealing with the same issues.

Self Evaluation- Final Project

As you all know by now, Katie and I chose to do a five minute preview or trailer for what would be a documentary focusing on the representation of sex in the media, sex education in schools, and safe sex options. Naturally, Katie was the first one to come up with the idea of what to work on.

Originally, we thought we were going to make a modern-day sex education video that could be used in schools and for organizations promoting safe sex rather than abstinence only. That idea evolved into what we actually made, which was less educational and more informative. There is a difference. We wanted to focus on personal experiences, video examples, and voice overs. We touched upon several topics relating to sex and the media, just to show an example of what subjects would be in the longer finished product. The subjects we touched upon include sexual violence, sexual education for children, the glorification and stigmatization of sex in the media, and the use of sexuality in all forms.

Kate and I started by finding videos we wanted to use, spanning from music videos to commercials to movie clips to television shows. We spent about three to four hours just doing this "research" to prepare for the project. Although it was a lot of fun and it hardly felt like research because of that. From there, we decided who to interview. Katie and I interviewed Brenda and Brendan together, and she interviewed Sophia and Tiffany by herself. I also interviewed my mom and sister, but the tape was corrupt so the video quality wasn't good enough to use. This was fine, though, as we felt we had plenty of material to put together a short video. I had my dad record the VO for the beginning.

Once we had all the materials together, we got together to put it all in order in the editing lab. This was done over a few days, sometimes with just Katie and sometimes just me. But mostly we tried to edit when we could both be there since it was a collaborative project. We made decisions together and worked very well as a team. I guess we had already figured this out since we enjoyed working together for the TransCinema event.

We were very happy with the finished product, though didn't anticipate the audience reaction. Everyone seemed to be confused by Brendan's background. We chose this green screen background because Brendan uses this and other similar backgrounds for his show, Scientific Station, on CAT-TV. I guess we didn't realize that people may not know this if they don't watch his show, so we learned a lesson there. We also made some stylistic choices that were criticized, so another lesson learned. I personally still like the editing style and chose it because we wanted to have a fun, light-hearted, quirky video... Though still with a serious message. We will have to be more precise in the future and careful about how to execute this style on future projects.

Overall, I really enjoyed the project and loved working with Kate again. It feels good to have this project done and to feel proud of it.

Normal

“Normal” Outreach Plan

Sydney Haven, Kelsey Eick, and Lydia Lane

“Normal” is a short film about two high school girls dealing with the aftermath of being sexually abused as children. Kay is a goody-two-shoes who is just starting to remember what happened to her, while Jay has already begun to cope with her memories. Together, the two make an unlikely pair, but all you need is one thing in common.

In order for this film to truly have an impact, there are two audiences that need to see it in very different settings. Girls who have been the victims of sexual abuse need to see the film in environments that support recovery. In our research, we found several different organizations that would be able to use the film as a tool for helping young girls. “Girl THRIVE (Teens Heal Rape Incest Victoriously Emerge)” is an organization founded by Dr. Patti. The goal is to “offer more stories from more girls who have been reaching out” (girlthrive.com), allowing girls to heal not only through coping with their memories, but also by connecting with other survivors. The organization is also “the only one to honor teen girls and young women who have survived incest and all sex abuse through scholarships, opportunity and education. Girlthrive Inc. empowers girls by providing tuition scholarships, laptop computers, funds kickboxing, art classes and more.” (girlthrive.com). We would like to contact Dr. Patti and have her put the film up on the website so that the organization can use more types of media to reach their target audience with their message. Girlthrive is about connecting with other survivors, which is also the idea behind “Normal”. If girls can learn to find strength in each other, then maybe they can learn to be normal again.

The Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, also known as RAINN, is another organization that could benefit from the film “Normal”. RAINN is a prime candidate to benefit from “Normal” because it “is a frequent resource for television­, radio, and print new outlets” (rainn.org). Since the film is short, the organization can play it through many different outlets, allowing it to become a conversation starter online and in public sessions. Once the topic has been brought up, it will allow a smooth transition into the organization’s resources for abuse victims, including “the National Sexual Assault Hotline, and the National Sexual Assault Online Hotline” (rain.org).

The other audience that needs to be educated about sexual abuse towards children are those who have no idea what it is, or how often it occurs. Both GirlTHRIVE and RAINN, along with the Child Sexual Abuse Response Team, also known as CSTART, aim to educate people about sexual abuse so that they can help prevent it from occurring. GirlTHRIVE is “reaching out to… [those] who just want to know the truth about sexual abuse” (girlthrive.com). In the mission statement of CSTART, the organization dreams of “utilizing our community and resources to foster community involvement in prevention and intervention of child sexual abuse” (cstart.net). “Normal” can be used by both groups to educate the community through a narrative interpretation of what it is like to begin the journey of healing after being sexually abused. Instead of asking young victims to tell their stories to strangers or loved ones, the film allows two fictional characters to become real enough that their stories can touch the audience.

In order to get the film out to more people, we would also like to post it online on several different websites, including youtube.com and vimeo.com. To further the grassroots advertising, we would also create a Facebook fan page that would host discussions on the issues raised in the film by both survivors and non-survivors, allowing an open network of information to be displayed in a public space.

Normal from Lydia Lane on Vimeo.

rainn.org/​get-help/​national-sexual-assault-hotline
girlthrive.com/​
The facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Normal/169326236455164

In the United States, 44% of sexual assault victims are under age 18.
1 out of every 6 American women have been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime.
Onlyt 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail.
Approximately 2/3 of assaults are committed by someone known to the victim.
THE GOOD NEWS
In the last ten years, 2,546,420 sexual assaults have been prevented in the United States. Knowledge is one of our biggest weapons in fighting this crime.

Born Into Flames

Films that truly express the power and diversity of women are hard to find, not only in contemporary cinema, but in films all throughout history. The film industry has been dominated by men since it became clear that the medium would be popular enough to generate staggering profits. This comes in spite of the fact that the first director was, in fact, a woman by the name of Alice Guy Blanche. After Alice made several films, she moved to the United States, only to return to her home country of France to find her work had been credited to a man. Lizzie Borden's "Born into Flames", however, is a film that gives women a proper sense of power and entitlement, and one that has become very influential in history.

With a very raw, documentary style, this narrative piece takes on a sense of truth and importance that is often times denied to fiction films. It was hard at times to tell whether the film was real or not, especially since I am from another generation and unfamiliar with what the times were like when the film was made. Granted there are parts where everything is just too off to be mistaken as truth, there is still an undertone that says this film could have been a documentary. The circumstances are not unimaginable, in both the society of today and yesterday, and that is a bit disturbing.

One of the most powerful scenes in the entire film was the one where the woman is being raped and several other women ride in on their bicycles with whistles to save her. This was a visually stunning scene because the rape itself was intense, and the women riding in to save her were very determined and in controll. This scene, however, is also one that gave the film away as a fiction piece. There is no way that a woman making a film like this would stand by and watch another women be raped as she rolled the camera. There is also no way that two men would do this in front of a camera. On top of that, the odds of just happening to stumble upon an event like this are astronomical. With that aside, however, the scene is still powerful. We are able to forgive the obvious staged action in order to accept the larger issue, which is that women need to help one another because no one else is going to.

Bringing everything full circle, it should be noted that the young Katherine Bigelow who appears in "Born into Flames" became the first female director to ever win an academy award in 2010 for her film "The Hurt Locker". This is a sign that we are taking back the film industry, and gaining respect from men everywhere.