Conference bookie::movies

    (Moderator hat on): This sounds like a good movie-related discussion
    topic, but let's try to keep it focused; there are plenty of active
    discussions elsewhere re censorship-in-general and definitions of
    Constitutional freedoms, and I'd rather save my disk space for movie
    stuff.
    
    As for permission-to-name-names: that's up to individual noters. Any
    reply that does not explicitly state "You have my permission to use my
    name/city in your paper" should not be so used. [Though if you want
    permission and it isn't explicitly given (or explicitly denied), you
    could send mail to the author and ask.]
    
    (Moderator hat off): The main problem I have with the ratings system is
    that it's totally useless for indicating _to me_ whether or not I'll
    find a movie offensive, or whether the movie includes something that I
    think children would find disturbing (and this doesn't even touch on
    how good I might be at guessing what would disturb a particular kid).
    There are lots of PG films out there that I find degrading to some
    group or other, perpetuating negative stereotypes, or generally
    offensive on grounds of lack of quality. Heck, some of my earliest
    nightmares were spawned by scary scenes from Disney movies...
    
    I realize that it's hard for people to find out, without watching the
    whole thing, whether a given movie is something they'd want their kids
    to see, so it's tempting to come up with a shorthand way to sort things
    out. But the ratings codes as currently implemented just don't cut it
    in my book.
    
    -b

I rather think I agree with you. In general I oppose censorship of any kind
and while rating films may not technically be censorship it is in affect.
The thing about an NC-17 rating though is that it prevents no adults from
attending, only 17 and under. I can agree with this on the subject of violence,
not on sex, nudity, or language. Drug use only if not portrayed in a negative
manner. So I guess I agree in a limited area and disagree in all others.

On second thought, after giving it more thought I'm not sure that I do agree
even on the limited terms above. The NC-17 because of it's effect commercially
prevents films that qualify for it being released at all. Offending scenes
are cut. While this may be ameliorated (sp) to some extent by later releasing
a "director's cut" on tape or disc that's not always the case. So the NC-17
rating would prevent adults as well from seeing what the ratings board deems
unsuitable to minors. 


Randy

    I aggree that more movies should have ended up with an NC-17.
    
    I have my own personal outlook on the ratings of movies.  First of 
    all, it is a fact that movie makers see an NC-17 rating as a marketing
    nightmare for their movies.  NC-17 cuts out a rather large percentage of 
    the possible viewing public.  Secondly, (and this is how I see it)
    the way movies get rated seems to follow the trend of society's
    acceptance of graphic violence, sex, etc...  Movies are considered art 
    (although whether or not some of the garbage out there can be called
    art is another topic) and art reflects perceptions of society.  For
    example, it is amazing how less and less affected we are when we see
    or hear about violent deaths or sex crimes on the news.  We just absorb
    it all numbingly.  Unfortunately, I don't see it getting any better.
    Rather I see more and more graphic scenes making it into rated R movies
    that would not have been accepted 5-10 years before.  It is not just 
    between the R and NC-17 ratings either.  This can be seen all the way
    down to PG and (G maybe???).
    
    I am curious to know about the rating process.  Can there be any
    pressure put on those "raters" from the production people?  If not
    legally, than maybe quietly behind closed doors?
    
    Sorry about such a lack of human faith....maybe it is just the weather.
                                     
    
    -steve torchia
     Hudson, MA
    (you can use my name if you wish)

> The thing about an NC-17 rating though is that it prevents no adults from
> attending, only 17 and under.

	Isn't that prevents 16 and under (ie. under 17)?  At least
	that's how I interpreted it since PG-13 means you should be
	at least 13.

	Does NC-17 really prevent under 17 from seeing the film?
	Aren't under 17 still allowed in if with an adult?

	Are there even any laws to prevent someone under 17 to
	walk into a NC-17 movie (w or w/out an adult)?  I was
	under the impression that this was voluntaraly enforced
	by the movie houses themselves?

  I've spoken elsewhere about how I'm against censorship entirely so I won't go
into that again. There are some other points to make about the rating system
and about NC-17 in particular. 

The Rating System
-----------------

  Historically the rating system has changed somewhat over the years. When it
was 1st started there were 4 ratings that looked something like this:

  G  - General (no restrictions)
  GP - General Public (?)
  R  - Restricted
  X  - Excluded (?) no one under a certain age allowed.

  Very early on GP was changed to PG for Parental Guidance. More recently
PG-13 was inserted between PG and R and X was changed to NC-17. 

  The reason that X was change to NC-17 was that porno films adopted a rating
called XXX as a marketing gimmick. No one ever actually rated a film XXX, it was
done for advertising only. It did, however, have the effect of passing a stigma
on to any serious film with an X rating and so they changed the rating to NC-17
to try to convince people that they were not watching porno films. 

  As it turns out, it was a bad idea. No one bought it. They would have done
much better to leave the X rating in place and invent a new rating between R
and X. As it was, most states and communities just shifted the rules against X
rated films along to NC-17 films instead of modifying the rules.

  Regarding the levels of sex and violence I disagree with a previous note that
claims that movies are much more violent today. Back in the late 60s and early
70 producers were far more graphic then they are now. Many films that got R's
back then would be rated NC-17 today. What happened was that during the 80's
the standards were tightened and now they are loosing up a bit, but they are
still more strict than they were in the 70's. 

Pornography and the Supreme Court
---------------------------------

  At some point back in the late 60's or early 70's, the Supreme Court got
involved with pornography. Various local and state governments were making laws
against these films and the distributors went to court claiming that these laws
were an invasion of their 1st amendment right to freedom of expression. 

  In what they later admitted was a terrible decision, the Supreme Court
decided that a film was protected by the 1st amendment if it had "Socially
redeeming value". As for a definition, the Supreme Court was unable to come up
with specifics but Justice Stewert wrote "I can't define pornography but I know
it when I see it". When he retired, he pointed to that line as the thing he
most regretted about his stay on the high court. 

  The reason this was a disaster was that it gave the courts responsibility to
decide on a movie by movie basis what was pornographic and what was not. Of
course they all decided different things depending on the mood of the judge or
jury, so many of these films bubbled up to the Supreme Court and for several
years the Justices had to assemble once a year to view a collection of porno
films. 

  For a rather hysterical write up of this see the book "The Brethren" by
Woodward (of Woodward and Bernstine). By the way, that's a great book for that
and many other reasons. 

  One other comical side to that story was that several producers put out
movies especially designed to meet the "socially redeeming value" criteria.
What they would do would be to produce a movie that had a lot of sex and nudity
with not much of a plot at all.

  Then at the end, after the "story" had ended, a guy would come on wearing a
white smock labeled Dr. Something or Other and give a brief speech about
medical issues related to the film (i.e. birth control, VD, etc). It was an
obvious ploy to duck the restrictions, but it worked and was good for lots of
laughs at the Supreme Court's expense.

Selling various rated Films
---------------------------

  Commercially X and NC-17 films have not done well at all with the exception of
a small number of movies. Back before the 80's the two movies "The Last Tango
in Paris" and "The Midnight Cowboy" were both commercially successful as X
rated films and more recently "Henry and June(?)" was a reasonably successful
NC-17 film. Madona's Body of Evidence made it to the big screen but was panned
by critics and generally not accepted by the public but that was probably for
reasons other than the NC-17 rating. 

  I hope that helps. You may use my name and copy this note if you wish,

  George

    The rating system should be eliminated.  Or it should also be applied
    to sports stadiums, school playgrounds, and that great Marcel Duchamp
    peephole in the Philadelphia Museum.
    
    No, too expensive.  Just eliminate the damn / goshdarn (dubbed for
    network viewing) thing.  It's a waste of time and energy.  Let people
    show what they want and let people see it if they want to.
    
    Ray, the San Francisco Threat

    As far as NC-17 movies go, I recently saw BAD LIEUTENANT (which will
    eventually get its own topic) in Dallas and was impressed that people
    were getting *carded* before seeing the movie. The NC-17 rating means
    NO ONE under the age of 17 admitted, PERIOD. The particular theatre
    where I saw the movie had BAD LIEUTENANT on the lower level of the
    theatre and three other movies on the upper level. To get in and
    out of the BL theatre area, you had to pass the "guard." There was a
    person not actually posted at the doors, but obviously observing the
    people coming and going. I was impressed at the theatre for enforcing
    the ruling.
    
    Now, after seeing BL and so many other "controversial" and borderline
    R-rated movies, I believe that the NC-17 rating should extend to
    depiction of drug use, excessive cursing, near-pornographic sexual
    acts, and excessive violence.
    
    Another reason I've though so much about this rating is that I am a
    parent. With the difficulties parents face nowadays, we don't need the
    movies to make our parenting jobs any harder than they are. I have a
    6-1/2 year old daughter who is growing up to enjoy movies as much as
    her mother. I monitor her TV watching as well as her movie-watching. We
    do not curse in our home, and I don't permit her to see movies or TV
    series that have cursing in them (that I know about). Even E.T. was 
    memorable for her: she remember the _one_ line in the movie when Eliot 
    called his brother "penis breath." If she can remember that one line of 
    one of the best movies of all time, is it any wonder that I am concerned
    about what she might remember from other, not so good movies?
    
    Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. Keep going.
    
    Catherine
    
    

    From what I recall, in the original rating scheme the rating "M" 
    (for "mature audiences" - fill in you own joke here) followed 
    "general" and came before "restricted".  It was soon changed to GP or 
    PG or something equally useless.  The only realistic way to solve the 
    stigmatization of the X rating is to do away w/ the rating system all 
    together. NC-17 is censorship. Pure and simple.  It creates a tribunal 
    system where the ultimate power of distribution and artistic license 
    is in the hands of functionaries and bureaucrats.       

When the whole NC-17 issue came about due to the refusal of the studio releasing
"Henry and June" to cut it to get an R rating, I read an article 
which contained an anecdote showing how ridiculous the rating board was.

Some director - I don't remember who or what the movie was - said that he had
sobmitted his movie to the rating board and they refused to give it an R rating
because of a particular sex scene - and they insisted he cut a little of the
scene to get the R rating.  Instead of actually cutting any of the scene, he
re-edited it so that the different positions the couple were using were shown
in a different order.  He resubmitted the film and they gave him an R rating.

    I am against the NC-17 rating.  The movie Henry and June was rated
    NC-17 and I enjoyed it a lot and, frankly, it contained nothing that I
    wouldn't want my daughter to have seen when she was very young.  I
    don't believe in shielding children from life.  I believe children
    should know what the world is really like from a very young age so that
    they can begin to learn how to deal with it.  When I was young I was
    sheltered from many aspects of life, and I have always felt this put me
    at a disadvantage.  Because of this I decided not to try to hide the
    real world from my daughter, only to have it sprung on her when she's
    18.
    
    We have, also, never made a big deal about cursing in our house either. 
    It's just words afterall, and I had completely forgotten that the word
    penis was said in E.T., and I'll bet my daughter has long since
    forgotten it, too.  I sometimes think that if less is made of that type
    of thing, that, overall, children will be better adjusted.  Swearing is
    not a big deal to my daughter, since it wasn't made a big deal of in
    the home.
    
    I don't enjoy seeing violence in movies, but I do think that parents
    should be able to decide whether their children can see a movie, and
    not censors.
    
    Lorna
    

  Oh yeah, I had forgotten all about M.

  So let's see if we have this right I think it went something like:

  G      G       G      G      G
  M      GP      PG     PG     PG
  -      -       -      PG-13  PG-13
  R      R       R      R      R
  X      X       X      X      NC-17

with XXX appearing fairly early as a marketing gimmick only.

  I believe that if they had changed


          G                G
          PG               PG
  From    PG-13    To      PG-13
          R                R
          -                NC-15
          X                X

  It would have worked much better. Actually now that I think of it, they could
still add NC-15 between R and NC-17 and accomplish their original objective.

  George

    How about:
    
    	FN  - All swear words replaced by doofy euphemisms
    	GG  - Features pubescent girls and middle-aged Frenchmen
    	M   - Contains child murders
    	MS  - Some feminist implications
     	M&M - Blatant merchandising tie-ins, parental discretion advised
    	PR  - Blatant political tie-ins, pacifist discretion advised
    	R-14-15 - Viewers between the ages of 14 to 15 inclusive allowed
    		  when movie is at a drive-in
    	PDQ - Docudrama trash
    	IOU - Glorifies materialism
    	IUD - Contraceptives mentioned (this was enough to get a movie
    	      banned in most countries until the mid-'60s)
    	NC-18 - Viewers over the age of 18 have no comment
    	X   - Uses any means necessary
    
    Really, what's the point of this stuff?  It's just lip service which
    has taken over the brain...
    
    Ray

RE        <<< Note 151.12 by ESGWST::RDAVIS "Some justice, some peace" >>>

>    Really, what's the point of this stuff?  It's just lip service which
>    has taken over the brain...
    
  This is a good question. I believe that the rating system came about because
it benefited three different groups, zealots, scared parents, and the studios. 

  Zealots want the rating system because they believe that movies with the wrong
type of material will warp the minds of young and old alike. Although they have
never come up with a shred of evidence to support this, they tend to be very
persuasive and are well enough connected to have some influence. 

  All parents worry about their kids and often get persuaded that a danger
exists weather it is real or not. Where as the Constitution suggests that the
benefit of the doubt should go towards individual freedom, parents feel that
the benefit of the doubt should go toward safety. And with censorship there is
nothing but doubt since nothing has been proven. 

  Finally the studio's have recognized that there is actually a large marketing
benefit to giving a movie a lower rating. In fact, XXX was invented for
marketing purposes alone. No rating group ever gave a movie an XXX.

  And it's obvious that studios often go after the R rating for marketing
purposes since they often will have one scene lasting only a few seconds
revealing just enough to go "down" to the R rating. In fact, 90% of the R
pictures I've seen were R rather than PG-13 but for the lack a thin piece of
cloth in a couple hundred frames. 

  It is bizarre but then when ever you try to map 17th century morality on
modern day art and economics, sparks are bound to fly.

  George

The ratings are strictly voluntary which is why some movies get released
"unrated".  The industry, fearing government intervention, adopted this
voluntary rating board to police themselves so the government wouldn't have
to - and as .13 said, it is largely to appease parent groups and zealots.

Also, it is not strictly downgrading which the studios try to do - from what
I've read, the R rating is the most commercially viable - PG-13 is kind of
a kiss of death - so the studios will cut NC-17 films to get the R rating and
enhance PG-13 films to get an R.  I don't know if this is strictly true, but
I've heard that if a film has the f word 4 times it gets an automatic R so that
studios will stometimes use it gratuitously just to get the R rating.

I would like the NC-17 (and other ratings) to consider violence as much as
sex.  When you consider all the studies highlighting the effect of 
media violence on children, it's an important issue.  

If they don't, the ratings game continues to be a joke.

    I wouldn't mind more films getting get NC-17 if there were agreements
    to protect studios again ratings discrimination. I think there are some
    stories that deserve an adult veiw but can't be made because of the
    NC-17 stigma. 
        A number of critics headed by Siscle(sp) and Ebert tried to insert a 
    rating between X and R called A or A-17. This rating was to allow adult 
    themed movies to be distinguished from adult movies. The issue was pushed 
    and the rating bord director created the NC-17 rating. Not wanting to 
    define pornography, they replaced the x rating instead of inserting a new 
    rating. He also ask movie theater owners not to transfer the x bans to the
    NC-17 rating. This lasted for a short time this allowed Henry and June to 
    get a fair showing. This lasted till the first porography movie was 
    submitted to the ratings board which gave it and NC-17. Movie theater 
    owners promply banned all NC-17 movies. The NC-17 fiasco killed another 
    adult rating sort of like the Susan B Anthony dollar killed the idea of 
    a non paper dollar. A number of studios were watching the new Madona
    movie here was a new NC-17 movie with a big name. If this movie could
    be comercially sucessful then maybe other NC-17 movies could be
    released. The movie went to distribute and the movie couldn't get a
    wide release move movie theater chains refused to carry an NC-17 
    movie even with Madona. The movie was re-cut to make an R rating 
    and released. The movie was a disaster many the producer said the
    re-cutting killed the movie and the studios saw NC-17 is truely
    the kiss death. Another movie called Lovers was a world wide hit
    won critical aclaim and the cann film festival best movie award was
    released in the US got the NC-17 rating. The movie went into limited
    release made no money and got a limited video release cause no one ever
    heard of the movie in the US.
        To give an NC-17 to a movie means that version of the movie will
    not be availible to ve seen by a large percentage of the us adults market.
                     Jeff Peters (Hudson Mass permission given)  

    I have no problem with the ratings.  It gives me a good barometer on
    which to judge a movie beforehand.  This doesn't mean that I will only
    go to movies that are rated a certain way; it just alerts me to what I
    may be facing.  Some of my favorite movies are PG or PG-13.  I do not
    need to be aroused, titillated, scared stiff, or violently assaulted in
    order to enjoy a "film."  In my opinion, a movie's first goal should be
    to entertain.  If we are really a society who grooves on violence, we
    can read the paper and watch the news, which becomes a sadder
    commentary to what we, as a society, have accepted as "normal life"
    more and more.
    
    I feel that children have a hard enough time in life without having
    their childhood robbed from them by throwing "reality" in their faces. 
    I wouldn't put a mobile of Charles Manson and his followers over my
    baby's crib; why would I show them movies about violence and a
    director's view of sex (aka "lovemaking" to some of us) to them before
    it was appropriate?  Treating children like mini adults does a
    disservice to them.  I consider my most painful childhood memories
    those that were thrust at me from an adult's point of view.  I had to
    live through the adult's interpretation of "reality and life" and
    although I lived through it, I still preferred the activities I enjoyed
    in innocence as only children can experience it.
    
    I'm getting so old that I remember when there were OCCASIONAL fights at
    school; they were always between boys, and they were always one-on-one. 
    If someone else jumped in, we interfered.  We called the one who made
    the odds uneven a "coward" and a "bully."  Now, when we see one person
    being attacked by a crowd, we don't respond at all, or we stand around
    watching.  Pretty pathetic.
    
    Swearing is something our kids are going to hear routinely; if not from
    us, then from their friends or their friends' families.  We can't do
    anything about it.  But we don't have to exalt the four-letter words. 
    Can't we think of better adjectives?  I'm not a prude by anyone's
    stretch of the imagination, but what I'm hearing in this conference is
    that nothing can be done, so why bother?  It still doesn't make it
    better.
    
    Leslie

Re .17:  I have no problem with parents using ratings as a guide for selecting
movies for their children to see or for adults to use it for themselves in
the same way.  Personally, I think it would be more meaningful if instead of 
a single letter code, there was some indication of whether the movie contained
sex, violence, strong language, etc. so that people could make a more informed
choice.

What I strongly object to is the ratings being used as a form of censorship to
tell me what I can and cannot see.  I too enjoy seeing PG and even G rated films
but I also enjoy seeing films with adult themes.  I do not like some board
branding a movie NC-17 and then being unable to see it because some theater
owners refuse to show it.  It still appalls me that the unrated version of
David Lynch's "Wild at Heart" which won the Cannes Film Festival is not
available in the US, even on video.

Fortunately, living in the Boston area, the major movie chain here, Loews, is
willing to show NC-17 and unrated films and there are still a few independent
theaters left that are willing to do the same.  

When "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" was playing at the Loews Mickelodeon,
they handled it very sensibly.  When I bought my ticket I was told by the
ticket seller that the film contained scenes of extreme violence and that some
people had walked out - they would not give a refund if I walked out which was
why they were warning me - it was then my choice to see the film.  I agree that
no one should be forced to see things they don't want to see but neither should
anyone be prevented from doing so by any form of censorship.

	Did anyone catch Siskel & Ebert last week[-end]?  They reviewed
	a new film coming out shortly (may already be out?) that has
	a NC-17 rating.  Can't recall the film's name, or if they gave
	it thumbs up or down.

	[Side note, they both turned there thumbs the same direction for
	every film reviewed, a rare sight indeed!]

    I don't like ratings.  They are too "short-hand and broad-brush".
    Better would be the sort of one-line summary seen in TV Guide:
    "nudity" "adult situations" "violence" "strong language" etc.
    
      John (Nashua NH, permission given)

    I suppose this reply isn't so much about the NC-17 rating as it is
    about the 'political' difference in the ratings. 
    	I have to agree with an earlier noter (I'm sorry I wasn't paying
    attention to 'who') that this *society* needs to put an *equal* level
    of importance/tolerence/view of so called 'sex scenes' as it does to
    violence. In my opinion, it the 'sex-scenes' that will give a more
    'risque' rating than the violence scenes.....which the 'sex-scenes' are
    *usually* frontal and crotch shots of females. *Honestly* when can you
    remember a movie that showed a frontal shot of a man?!? 
    	In fact the 'standard' used for the Playboy channel is absolutely
    no shots of an erect penis or penetration (I'm sorry to be so explicit
    but that *is* theree standards) will be shown. Which to me (as a
    female) protects the male AND the male ego. Please don't understand me
    that these are shots that I'm looking for BUT continue the *adolescent*
    mentality that female bodies are not to be valued and in fact
    dehuminized/demoralized/degraded to be nothing more than viewing/using
    pleasures of 'men'.
    	We are so conditioned now to accept violent behavior and *still*
    view *anything* 'sexual' as 'naughty' that "we" as a society tolerate
    and 'blame' crimes and such in an inadequate double standard!!!
    	Now I'm willing to accept that movies or T.V. are only a reflection
    of society and do not set the standards, BUT *even* if you viewed this
    differently you have to see that someting is not right!!! When we can
    accept so many violent acts (I don't have the statistics) on t.v. let
    alone in the movies but get riled over 'explicit' sexual context scenes
    something is not 'kosher'!!!!! Sex *is* a natural instinct, violence
    especillay murder is not!!!!
    	Okay I've done my preaching......SORRY!!!!
                                           Natalie

    Geez after all that I forgot to add that I feel instead of a 'rating
    system' they should do what HBO used (maybe still do) and just put
    add-ons like....'Sexual Content', 'Violence', 'Nudity', 'Profanity',
    ect....... although I realize these are subjective points it would at
    least give some idea what to expect and wether it's appropiate for you
    or your children.
                     Natalie

re: 22

  Gee you're right... and it's exactly what I want as a parent and viewer.

  

    Count me in as another person who'd prefer annotations along the
    lines of .22 to ratings.
    
    		-John Bishop

  I've found that when movies are listed in the paper they often do have a
phrase indicating the reason why it got the rating it did. Many seem to be
complaining that their papers don't have those descriptions. Maybe it's time to
start reading a different paper. 

  Someone said that there were studies showing the negative effects of media
violence on children. Where? I've hear a lot of gripping and complaining by
various people in various publications but I've never seen an objective study
finding any negative effects of violence on children.

  Someone else said that a movie could rob a child of their childhood by
throwing reality in their face. Wow, I never knew that seeing a film could have
that impact on an individual. Does anyone know of one single example of a kid
who's childhood was robbed by going to see one movie? I've heard people talk
about kids having bad dreams for a few nights, but I've never heard of an
entire childhood being lost by a trip to the flicks.

  George

    I think the 'negative' effect that violence has on *all* viewers not
    just children, is that it numbs us to the point of not having the
    compassion or outrage we should to violent acts of crimes and whatnot
    around us......we just simply accept it as part of life.
    
                                                 Natalie

>    I think the 'negative' effect that violence has on *all* viewers not
>    just children...


Children have less life experience and can't distinguish as easily between
fantasy and reality, hence the legion of samll children who throw themselves
out of windows after seeing Superman.

There is an advert in the UK to encourage parents to stop young children 
watching unsuitable TV: word-imperfect summary follows.

				-*-
A boy of about four hears a struggle and walks into a lounge that has
been ransacked: an man holding a pistol throws a gagged man and bound
man (father?) to the ground in the ransacked room.

"Get out, its nothing to do with you!" The intruder fires his pistol at point 
blank range into the other mans head. We see the boys reaction. Cut back to the 
intruder, his face spattered with blood, turning the gun on the boy.

"Had to get involved didn't you!"

Pan out to see that the boy is watching the scene of the 'camera' being blown 
away on TV, and had merely been projecting himself into the TV show. He is not
dead, just scared sh*tless.
				-*-


Sex and violence is a problem for children as its difficult for them to comprehend how
nice sex can be and how nasty violence is. I'm not opposed to censorship: if I
may be as bold to suggest that many of the US noters are proud of their 
constitution and have a knee-jerk reaction to defend freedom of speech in much 
the same way as some defend their sad (to this UK noter) gun laws. I don't
see why the government shouldn't take care of childrens interests when parents
are frequently so bad at it. In the UK the ratings of 12,15 and 18 are enforced
and the only public outcries are over cuts to '18' rated films (though this may
mainly be because its so easy for kids to see 18 rated films on video if they
get an adult to hire them). A few seconds of arm disassembly was cut from
Terminator 2 to give it a 15 rating, which is a shame as it would have been nice
to see if it was more convincing than the similar scene in the first film, but
the real downer is Resevoir Dogs being banned from video: I was too scared to
see it in the cinema!

What I *do* object to are the British Board of Film Classifiers who are not 
answerable to anyone and who is presumably self-perpetuating (I didn't vote for
them!). In other words, I have no objection to people (who I naively hope have
the public's interest at heart) telling me what I can see at the movies, as long
as they know what they are doing and accept individual appeals for exceptions, 
which is currently not the case...

As for film violence being mimicked in real life: maybe someone knows better than
I the reasons behind Kubrick pulling A Clockwork Orange from Britain?

RE  8269::MARTINN

>    I think the 'negative' effect that violence has on *all* viewers not
>    just children, is that it numbs us to the point of not having the
>    compassion or outrage we should to violent acts of crimes and whatnot
>    around us......we just simply accept it as part of life.

                            -- AND --

RE  43050::BOYES

>Sex and violence is a problem for children as its difficult for them to
>comprehend how nice sex can be and how nasty violence is ...

  The problem I have with these arguments is that they are just opinion, not
the result of an objective study. Does TV numb us to violence or do we just
think it numbs us to violence? Is sex and violence on TV a real problem for
children or does it just cause bad dreams for a few nights? I'm not claiming it
does or doesn't, I'm just asking. 

  All of the cases we hear are anecdotal. It was not a "legion" of children who
jumped out windows because of superman, it was one or two isolated incidences.
And in fact, plenty of kids have fallen out windows without mimicking Superman
so it's not clear it wouldn't have happened anyway to those kids left near open
windows.

  Someone mentioned knee jerk reactions to constitutional freedoms, well you
bet I'll defend those freedoms. Plenty of people have lost their lives fighting
for the right we have to be free and plenty of other people who rely on that
right take it for granted. Still others want to chip away at what few freedoms
we have left.

  Opinions are great and I hope people will go on expressing them but it is my
belief that you don't take away someone's constitutional freedom of expression
unless you have solid proof based on objective studies showing that a type of
behavior should be controlled. 

  And although I've asked this a dozen times in each of a dozen different
forums, no one to my knowledge has ever come up with an objective study proving
that children suffer long term effects from seeing sex or violence on TV. 

  George

    I don't care about ratings.
    
    That's probably because I am well over 18 and can see pretty much any
    movie I want.  However:
    
    If the question is: how informative are the ratings, I'd say somewhat. 
    The best thing one can do if one is trying to ascertain if a movie is
    for them or someone else is to read a review.  Most reviews will tell
    you what you need to know, although you have trust their judgment.  If
    you want to go by the ratings, then you have to trust the judgment of
    the ratings board.
    
    Now, I explain "somewhat": 
    
    
    Generally, one knows a G movie is going to be about as squeaky clean as 
    one can get without actually having to bring their own saccharine to 
    the theatre.  PG's are general film fare, with perhaps a few cuss words, 
    perhaps lots of women-skin and MAYBE a breast or two, but nothing too 
    graphic.  Perhaps some violence but again, nothing too graphic.  
    
    {we take a moment to state that graphic kinda varies with the viewer.  
    Some might find any simulated gunshot wound 'graphic' while others, like 
    me, didn't consider say, the violence in Resevoir Dogs particularly 
    graphic, although it probably *was*, in the grand scheme of movie
    violence.} 
    
    Anyway, probably only a modicum of blood, no guts, no exploding heads,
    etc.  PG-13 means a higher chance of sex and violence, maybe a wee bit
    more graphic depiction of one or both.   
    
    R movies we can expect to see steamy sex, or a lot of sex, or a lot of
    naked parts of people or a lot of violence and details thereof.  
    
    NC-17 means the film went way out in sex or violence and will be
    released in a 'director's cut' on your local video shelf and you will
    find that it wasn't such a big deal after all.  :)
    
    XXX means porno.  Everybody knows THAT.  :)
    
    
    If the question is, what do you think of the NC-17 rating only, it
    seems silly.  One, nobody released this damned things anyway, except
    onto video.  Two, why not just go for Unrated?  If the movie house
    isn't going to play it with an NC-17, then you have nothing to lose by
    Unrating it, either (they probably STILL won't play it, and unrated
    sounds even nastier than NC-17, for those video rentals/sales!)
    
    
    kim  
    

.21> when can you remember a movie that showed a frontal shot of a man?!? 
    
    If I were to answer this I'd be giving away a BIG SECRET.  :-)
    
    Dunno why we don't see more naked men; I've heard more women rent
    "XXX"-rated films than men.  But is that cause or effect?
    
    ----++++----
    
    I don't think every parent has to abide by the same, or even similar,
    standards for what they permit their children to see.  Personally I
    feel "social diversity" is just as valuable as genetic diversity.
    
      John

re .27


The problem with the ratings as I see it is throwing out the baby with the
bathwater. I could go along with some limited regulation as to what's 
available to children if it weren't for the fact that it presents a definate
chilling effect on what gets released for adult consumption. An NC-17 film
is just not very commercially viable. A director (or the releasing company,
bypassing the director if they legally can) will change or alter his original
vision in order to "bring it down" to an R. Now in some cases this is no
loss, in others it is. No one, adults or children, are required to see these
films, in fact they have to pay for the privilage.


If anyone is interested in the history of censorship in the film industry
the classic reference is "The Dame in the Kimono" by Leonard Leff and
Jerold Simmons.


Randy

Put in another vote for either supplementing or replacing the current rating
scheme with some kind of indication as to what the movie contains.  The 
present rating system just doesn't give enough information for someone to
make an informed decision about whether or not to see a movie (or let a 
child see it, etc).

--Chris

Full frontal of a guy (that I can remember seeing):

American Gigilo (not worth having to watch the movie even if it is
	Richard Gere exposing his nekkids)

Porky's Revenge (again, not worth the price of admission)

Betty Blue (you get hit with this right at the beginning, ugly guy but great
	movie).

FWIW, I have to remember to write a letter of congratulations to A&E for
showing THX-1138 and leaving the nudity intact (they ran a disclaimer
before hand).

Lisa

    So where's all the supplemental information going to go - and won't
    that leave all the reviewers with too little to do? [I envision movie
    ads looking like real estate ads: "Artsy, dcdnt flck w/ttl m&f ndty,
    sctlgcl refs., & cyncl rmks re U.S. frgn plcy. For ages 9-11, 22-26,
    and 41-43; nobody else will get it."]
    
    I'm not inclined to be particularly protective of kids' viewing, but
    I've seen too many G-rated movies that I shudder to think are being
    shown to innocent children (or even guilty ones) to have any confidence
    in any kind of ratings system. Forget the NC-17 stuff; ban the G!
    *Everything* ought to be "parental guidance suggested".
    
    In fact, I think I'll call Mom and Dad now, and ask 'em whether I
    should have seen "Reservoir Dogs".
    
    -b

    In the Joe Bob Brigg's newsletter "We Are the Weird", movies are
    routinely broken down into an ingredients-style list -- ie. 4 breasts,
    3 murders, etc.  It's stupid and funny, and that's its intent. Perhaps
    a team of enterprising statisticians locked in a room with notepads 
    could service the market looking for a "part lists" on which to base
    their entertainment choices.  But I doubt it.  A list of disassociated
    ingredients assembled by some regulatory board is an intensely horrible
    idea. The boards that would construct these things would invariably be
    comprised of complete dolts. Who else would do it?  Now a private 
    enterprise, funded by the people who want this service, would be a far
    more agreeable proposition. Doomed to failure, but more agreeable. 
    

    re: .25
    
    I was the one who mentioned children being conditioned to violence ...
    I NEVER said kids lost their childhood from seeing one movie!!!  Where
    did you get that?
    
    Another frontal nudity (male): the very first one, before "American
    Gigolo" was "Buster and Billie" with Jan-Michael Vincent.  Great movie. 
    There was sex, there was violence, but there was also love.  And it was
    rated R and in those days kids didn't see R movies.
    
    I would rather my child see lovemaking on screen than violence.  And
    violence can also come in the form of sex, such as the "supposed" sex
    scene in "Basic Instinct" between Michael Douglas and the brunette who
    played his ex-girlfriend, which was a thinly-veiled "permissive rape". 
    I agree with one of the noters who said that sex is natural, and
    there's nothing we're ever going to censor that will keep what's
    natural from happening.  (And why should it?)
    
    As far as studies that never proved there was a link between visuals
    and violence, what have I been reading?  It seems to me I've read
    PLENTY on that subject. Do I have to quote a particular study?  I'm
    sure the library must have some data on it ...
    
    Leslie
    
    P.S.  Natalie, I agree with all your notes.
    

    Virtually every Peter Greenaway film contains some full-frontal male
    nudity - I think it is very silly (and very indicative) that the US 
    routinely features female nudity but extremely rarely male.
    
    A story on NC-17:  Warner Bros(?) was recently considering a re-issue
    of Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch" which would restore Peckinpah's
    original submitted film (released in the European market).  The new
    release mostly added character development scenes and microseconds of
    additional violent footage dropped from early American prints.
    The film was re-submitted to the MPAA, who responded that the film 
    would receive an NC-17 rating (it was originally "R" in 1969).
    Warner Bros dropped their plan for re-release.
    
    - Dave

RE                      <<< Note 151.36 by 32198::KRUEGER >>>

>    I was the one who mentioned children being conditioned to violence ...
>    I NEVER said kids lost their childhood from seeing one movie!!!  Where
>    did you get that?

  From here:

>    Note 151.17
>    I feel that children have a hard enough time in life without having
>    their childhood robbed from them by throwing "reality" in their faces. 
>    I wouldn't put a mobile of Charles Manson and his followers over my
>    baby's crib; why would I show them movies about violence and a
>    director's view of sex (aka "lovemaking" to some of us) to them before
>    it was appropriate?  

  It sounds to me as if you are suggesting that movies can rob someone of their
childhood. I was just wondering if you could point to someone who had lost
their childhood to movies?

>    As far as studies that never proved there was a link between visuals
>    and violence, what have I been reading?  It seems to me I've read
>    PLENTY on that subject. Do I have to quote a particular study?  I'm
>    sure the library must have some data on it ...

  I've read plenty on the subject too, but it's always been assumptions and
claims written as if it were fact "of course we all agree that violence numbs
the child ...". 

  I've never heard of a case where anyone actually did an objective study using
the scientific method where they divided kids into a test group and a control
group, showed the test group violent films, observed the behavior of both
groups over time, and found any significant long term effects on the test
group. 

  Without that type of analysis, it's all just conjecture. And I don't believe
you should ever deny anyone their constitutional rights based on conjecture.

  George

    re. George
    
  >All of the cases we hear are anecdotal. It was not a "legion" of children who
>jumped out windows because of superman, it was one or two isolated incidences.
    
    
    I think you just proved it here for us........in other words it would
    take "legions" of children injuring themselves or dieing for you (and
    the rest of society) to get worried or upset....since when is *just*
    one kid's life less important than "legions"?
    
    re.Leslie
    
    Thanks! :^)
    
    				Natalie

RE       <<< Note 151.39 by 8269::MARTINN "Prior to that I was a person" >>>

  >All of the cases we hear are anecdotal. It was not a "legion" of children who
>jumped out windows because of superman, it was one or two isolated incidences.
    
>    I think you just proved it here for us........in other words it would
>    take "legions" of children injuring themselves or dieing for you (and
>    the rest of society) to get worried or upset....since when is *just*
>    one kid's life less important than "legions"?
    
  No, and in fact you are demonstrating the way in which most pro censorship
arguments are emotional rather than scientific by using the "one kid's life"
argument. It's not how many kids jumped out the window, it's why they jumped
out the window.

  The thing you are confusing is large numbers v. cause and effect. The
question is, did watching Superman cause kids to jump out windows or were there
other factors involved? Could we say with certainty that no kids would fall out
windows if Superman were taken off the air? I doubt it, kids seem to fall or
jump out windows even without seeing episodes of the man of Steel. 

  One other point, as I remember the story, there was one kid who went out on a
ledge and he didn't jump. A workman across the street saw him in the window
wearing his superman suit, ran across the street and stopped him from jumping.
It's not clear if he would have jumped or not. 

  George

    Re: Full frontal nudity, female vs. male

	There's actually more male FULL frontal nudity in the movies
	than female FULL frontal nudity.  Sure there is alot of female
	top frontal nudity, but everyone has breasts (a judge in NY
	even ruled that male & female breasts are the same, and hence
	if men can go topless, so can women).

	The only movie I can even remember showing female lower frontal
	nudity was the recnet film "Basic Instinct".  Every time else
	all that is really shown of the female frontal nudity is the
	pubic hairs.  While on the other hand, when lower male frontal
	nudity is shown, more than just pubic hairs are visible (except
	for that one scene in "Silience of the Lambs").

	As far as rear nudity go, these days I believe you see the naked
	butts of just as many men as you do woman.

	FWIW, another movie with male full frontal nudity was Monty
	Pytons "Life of Brian".

Oh there's plenty of full frontal nudity on the female front (baahaa...)

In Revenge of the Nerds, they even showed a telescopic view....

What is so awful about male genitalia anyway?  It seems that most of
the cuts in NC-17 movies have to be made because of excessive male buttocks
bouncing around.  

Could it be something about perceived stereotypes in Hollywood?
Like that women just want to see sappy love stories, but that men want 
macho action like bouncing babes and busting heads?  Could shots of
male genitalia embarrass men, who movie studios assume are making the decision
on what movie will be seen that night?

Other than Thelma and Louise, has there ever been a non-love story ever
aimed directly at women?  Has there ever been a jiggling male movie made
especially to pander to women's base desires?

I know this sounds sinister, but I'm always amazed at how traditional
male things like large weapons and boobs even get into PG movies, but 
show a hairy, squishy male butt, and you've ruined your child forever.

(I'm still trying to figure out how the nude body warps children's minds...
I was warped more by reading H.P. Lovecraft, which is freely available to
anyone at their local public library)

Lisa

    re: -1
    
    Please don't confuse me with someone who is concerned about children
    seeing NUDITY!  I never said that, any more than I said "a movie" would
    ruin someone's childhood.  I was using multiples and was referring to
    violence and adult themes.
    
    I hate seeing children treated as short adults and I stand behind that,
    constitution or not. If they were ready for the "real world", then why
    do they have to wait until they're 18 to leave their parents' homes? 
    Why have parents at all?  Why have civilization at all?
    
    Nudity and sex are natural; it's how the movie portrays it that
    concerns me ... not for myself; I can get up and leave if I find
    anything boring or offensive.  But without any kind of guidelines (and
    isn't this what this note was all about anyway?), how can we be sure
    we're not giving our kids a warped view of either the "real world" or
    "entertainment"?
    
    To say a child is not, in any way, affected by its environment, is more
    than just ignorant ... it's dangerous.
    
    Leslie

    FWIW, there's full male frontal nudity in the Fisher King, too,
    although I suspect the ah, area of interest was shadowed up a bit so as
    not to offend, I guess.
    
    kim

    It was interesting a few moths ago a clinical study was completed on the
    long term effects of violence on kids. The study showed that violence 
    shown to kids over on long term works up kids make them more energentic 
    short term within a hour or so of viewing but has no long term effect. 
    It has NO effect to make children more prone to violence. We have enormous
    organizations who fight violence on televion and a large number of 
    concerned parents(who I beleive they are doing their best) who haven't 
    heard or acknowledged this report. I heard it as a minor note on CNN. I 
    wonder if this report would have made bigger news if the conclusions had 
    shown violence viewed incourages violence.
        I wonder if this report is going to be treated as the first
    reports on the danger of smoking were. Ignored disreguard until 1000
    other reports say the same thing. The view of what right and wrong will
    change from day to day. Smoking was incouraged by society as late as 25 
    years ago now it is discourage. The ratings board was set up along the 
    idea that the morality of the most conservative people should set the 
    rating to error on the side of caution. That means progessive view of
    what's right and wrong will always lag in the ratings. When the
    conservative view changes to sex is less shocking than violence then
    the ratings will reflect it. I think the rating advisory board was and 
    is a good idea. We can quible over where the line should be drawn but
    the fact is they were a very welcome relief from the blatent censorship
    of the Hays Commition. The problems everyone seems to have is- 
    one: 
     It does reflect their morals but a commitee's moral. It is uneven
     at at some point illogical.
    two: 
     The rating don't say why the movie was rated the way it was violence,
     nudity, sexual situation or language.
    Three:
     The theaters are using the rating to censor what film are shown and
     not shown.
    Four: (Probibly the biggest problem) The rating board is making decision
     on what you can and can't see but the board is completely atonomous
     no group has control over the ratings board. Theater owners as a group
     could disreguard rating from that rating board but that would only open 
     a big can of worms. What do you replace the ratings board with and who 
     would controls it? 
     
                        Jeff Peters

RE          <<< Note 151.45 by 28218::PETERS "Be nice or be dog food" >>>

>    It was interesting a few moths ago a clinical study was completed on the
>    long term effects of violence on kids. The study showed that violence 
>    shown to kids over on long term works up kids make them more energentic 
>    short term within a hour or so of viewing but has no long term effect. 

  The one objective study I saw about some 5 years ago said the same thing. A
group of kids were observed before, during and after watching violent movies.
What the researchers noticed was that for about 20 minutes after the film, the
kids were more violent, but none of them got violent beyond their normal
behavioral range. After about 20 minutes they all calmed down and no adverse
effects from seeing the movie were ever observed again. 

  George

    
    Re: On Studies....
    
    To be worth any salt the studies would have had to last 10 - 15 years
    to learn what they are *want* to learn about children. 
    
    Long term exposure means "long term" --- that is years and years of
    viewed violence, in uncontrolled conditions. Not an easy study to do.
    
    Also, for every study there is *another* study saying the opposite thing.
    So don't believe every thing you read -- better yet, don't believe
    anything you read... which brings me to this....
    
    You don't need studies to tell you something you are experiencing.
    People can sense violence and the acting-out of violence by their
    children. And... we can feel it in ourselves. When someone says they
    think that violence is de-sensitizing their children, they may also mean
    it is de-sensitizing them, too. 
    
    Violence is always going to be a human trait. 
    But how we feel about violence, how we precieve it as part of
    our society -- is shaped by the society. If kids grow-up thinking
    violence is something that happens 50 times a day on TV, they begin to
    think that violence is normal and acceptable. How can they not? 
    
    And this is where you are being misled by the studies. They are testing
    whether violence being watched - makes the viewer more violent, when what
    they really should be testing is whether it makes the viewer feel
    differently *about* violence and the negative aspects of violence. 
    Does "hurting people" now become "not such a bad thing, because we show
    it all the time" to children?
    
    It's funny because we say things like "role models" and "set a good
    example" etc. We believe we shouldn't swear, or drink, or smoke in
    front of our children. We believe that to teach children we show them
    what is good -- like schooling, church, etc. We show them love between
    mother and father, between parent and children.... and we believe this
    is good for the child --  *without* --- the studies. It is an accepted way 
    of child rearing. 
    
    Yet... parents will turn their back on a child and let him or her watch
    violence against women, children, innocent people.... and claim it's
    not hurting them? 
    
    Don't you see the contradiction?
     
    
    This said, let me state that personally I don't believe in outside
    controlled censorship. We are our own censors. If you don't like it, don't
    watch it. Ask your children not to watch it. We don't need ANYONE to
    tell us what we can and CANNOT watch. 
    
    Read the Constitution. It says: "Freedom of Speech." It doesn't say:
    "Freedom of Speech... except for things the Government, or Clergy, or
    Michael Medved, think we shouldn't hear/see."
    
    Until the Constitution is changed any Censorship is unconstitutional.
    
    
    -James                                       

    With regard to the "descriptions instead of ratings" dialogue.  Here in
    Australia, we use both.  The equivalent to your NC-17 is R18
    (Restricted to people over 18).  Not that many films get that rating in
    the cinemas, but plenty of videos do.  The sort of thing you'll see on
    the video box will be:
    
    R18 - nudity, sexual scenes, violence
    M15 - graphic violence (M15 - Recommended for people 15 and over)
    PG  - language, occasional nudity (PG - parental guidence recommended)
    R18 - completely concerned with sex (our version of XXX)
    
    (Note that the descriptions aren't bound to the rating, and change
    depending on what the censor sees in the film.)
    
    These ratings and descriptions also apply to cinema releases, although,
    as I said earlier, it is very rare to R18 in the cinemas.  Most "adult"
    theme movies get the M15.
    
    My general view on censorship, is that most of the time, it is someone
    else's opinion of what I should or shouldn't see.  I consider myself
    to be fairly discriminating, and if I see something I don't like, I
    stop watching it.  Censorship and children is more of an emotional
    issue - we like to think we know what is "good" or "bad" for them.  I'm
    not a parent, however, I have a few friends from my childhood who 
    wouldn't dream of letting their children do what they did when they
    were kids.  Once again, it comes down to opinion and belief.
    
    The ratings system, IMHO, should be used as a guidline, not as a rule.
    
    cheers
    
    ..klaas.. 

    re: 151.47
    
    James, take a bow.  You said it beautifully and I applaud you.
    
    Leslie

     <<< Note 151.47 by 32880::LABUDDE "Denial is not a river in Egypt" >>>

>    You don't need studies to tell you something you are experiencing.
>    People can sense violence and the acting-out of violence by their
>    children. And... we can feel it in ourselves. When someone says they
>    think that violence is de-sensitizing their children, they may also mean
>    it is de-sensitizing them, too. 

  One problem I have with this is the question of cause and effect. Yes there
are violent things on TV and yes we see violence, but are the things we see
causing us to be insensitive to violence or is the fact that we are insensitive
to violence causing demand for violence on the screen? 

  Perhaps another way of putting would be to ask, is society a reflection of
art or is art a reflection of society? 

  My feeling is that art is a reflection of society. Ancient Egyptians painted
pictures on their walls depicting their life style. It was not a case of
painting things then having every behave like the pictures. Ancient Greeks made
statues of things they saw, people didn't try to make themselves look like the
statues. European painters painted what they saw of life around them, people
didn't go to museums and try to live the way they saw someone paint. 

  My intuitive feeling is that the same is true today. What we see in the
movies mimics what goes on in real life and reflects someone's impression of
how people behave. People do not base their behavior on movies or TV programs
today any more than Egyptians based their lives on the paintings found on
ancient walls. 

  George 

     Many, many thanks to all of you for responding to my question. My 
     speech went very well. It went from something along the lines of 
     "defending the existence of the NC-17 rating" to "Why I Support the 
     Dallas Motion Picture Classification Board."
     
     I wasn't sure where I wanted to go with my topic, and all of you 
     really helped me with the focus. I was hoping for a lively 
     discussion, and I definitely wasn't disappointed.
     
     Dallas is the only city in the U.S. that has a _city_ movie 
     classification board (I didn't know that...). The board does not 
     "censor" any movies; it only rates their suitability for children 
     under 16 to see the movie with or without a parent. The guidelines, 
     and they are just that -- guidelines, are extremely strict, probably 
     much more than a "censor" would be. 
     
     After talking with the chairman of the board, I have to agree with 
     its existence. It's nice to know the reasons for a movie's rating, 
     whether it's for sex, drugs, violence, nudity or language. And now 
     that I know HOW strict (one F* word for [V] warning), it will also 
     help me with choosing movies for my daughter (age 6-1/2). 
     
     The bottom line came to: Parents are responsible for what their 
     children watch at the movies (or television, for that matter). As 
     long as my daughter is living at home, I accept responsibility for 
     and take an active role in what she sees and does, to the best of my 
     ability. Sometimes I will be wrong, but hopefully, she and I will 
     have enough respect (and love) for each other to "feel" what's right 
     and what's wrong. We shouldn't have to rely on an outsider's opinion 
     or rating or censorship (or lack of) to determine what we will and 
     will not see. If she wants to see something I would prefer her not to 
     see: age 6-1/2, she better listen to me ;*); at age 12 or 13 or 16, 
     let's talk about it, and I'll go see it with her (if she'll let me).
     
     I know some of you may not agree with my thoughts, but that is what 
     this discussion is all about!
     
     Thanks again for your feedback.
     
     Catherine
     

    re: .50
    
    You REALLY believe that movies depict what goes on in real life??!!??
    
    

RE                      <<< Note 151.52 by 32198::KRUEGER >>>

>    You REALLY believe that movies depict what goes on in real life??!!??
    
  In a sense, yes. I believe that in general art is a reflection of life. The
reflection may be distorted by the lens through which the artist sees life,
but it is a reflection of life as seen by the artist. 

  Life reflects art only in the way that a reflection can be bounced from
mirror to mirror. When someone mimics what they see in the movies, they are
really mimicking what others do in real life as seen by an artist. 

  To blame art (including movies) for the behavior of people is yet another
case of killing the messenger.

  George

It's an interesting and age-old argument.   Like the "great man" question.
(i.e. do great man create the times or do the times create great men?).  

As usual, I think's it's probably shades of both, BUT I'm convinced that 
at this point in time, the power of the media is so strong, that it does effect
our culture more than we would like to think.  I mean look at Madonna.  Is
that a case for style over substance?  I mean she's just no THAT good a singer.

Was the collapse of communism accelerated by the fact that images of western
culture and affluence were everywhere via TV, radio and the movies.  I think
so.  Despite the fact, that the soviet union tried to control images of the US
as a violent society (and succeeded to some degree), "typical" shows of American
life like Cheers, Cosby et. al. contradicted those images without even trying.

I can't think of a million more examples, but I'm sure they're there.

So, for me, it's hard to believe that 20 versions of Halloween and Freddy don't 
have SOME effect on people's psyche.  

  The reason Madonna is popular is the reason many cult performers are popular.
It is because the real world contains a new generation which in turn contains a
group looking for an icon. Madonna represents rebellion and naturally appeals
to teenagers for whom rebellion is a passage of life. 

  Also there are certain older folks who get a chuckle out of the way she makes
the holly rollers and other moralists turn red and squirm but that's another
discussion. :*)} 

  Again those teenagers would be rebelling and looking for icons and those
older folks would want to see the moralist's chops busted regardless if Madonna
were on TV or not. 

  As for the Communists, the Russians showed us back in 1917 that they were
perfectly capable of booting a repressive dictatorship out of office without TV
or movies so it's no surprise that the economic failure of Communism in the
U.S.S.R. and their failure in Afghanistan during the late 70's and early 80's
caused the people to shuffle the cards and deal a new government once again. 

  Sure the press and movies can cause things to happen quicker, but they are
still reflecting what already exists. When ever an artists work becomes
political it always seems to be based on a movement or feeling that is already
present in the population. 

  There may be millions of cases where an artists work became the focus of an
existing political or social movement and other cases were an emerging movement
took it's style and appearance from a work of art, but I doubt that you could
come up with a single case that involved a social or political condition coming
about simply because someone wrote a book, made a movie, or painted figures on
the wall of a tomb. 

  George 

> I mean look at Madonna.  Is that a case for style over substance?
> I mean she's just no THAT good a singer.

	And Dylan is? :-)  Madonna is one of the few mid-to-late 80's
	rockers that I actually enjoy listening to.  And to keep
	this discussion related to movies :-), she's one of the few
	rockers who is also a decent actor (given a decent script :-).

> ... "typical" shows of American
> life like Cheers, Cosby et. al. contradicted those images without even trying.

	American life?  I love Cheers (though admit I never liked the Cosby
	show) but it's far from reality.  "Mad About You" and "Rosanne"
	(though I don't watch the latter) would be much better examples.

    When you get to the point in a conversation where the debate has turned
    to whether Madonna has better vocal chops than Bob Dylan, it's time for
    a new topic.

Actually, that's the point.  "Cheers" and "The Cosby Show" aren't really 
"typical", they're just presented that way.  I know I wished I lived as well
as the Huxtables.  It's easier for me to separate out the stylized vision of 
America than someone else in another country, because I live here and know that
all conflicts aren't resolved in 30 minutes, that two-income families can stress
a family as much as benefit it, etc. etc.  Not as easy for someone without
the same context and experience (i.e non-USA)

Which brings us back to media violence.  It's easier for me as an adult to
separate the "comic book" violence of the movies from real life. I don't 
think we can say what someone younger actually processes and assimilates.  Maybe
they understand at a gross level that the person "didn't really lose their head",
but perhaps the impression that "women make good victims" remains.  Hard to say.  
I just think it makes no sense to say nothing is happening.

Let's forget the media, how about computers?  Has the computer changed the way 
we behave or do computers reflect changes in our culture?

		Bob 

>Let's forget the media, how about computers?  Has the computer changed the way 
>we behave or do computers reflect changes in our culture?
    
    Too broad.  How about, say, Computer Dating?
    
    Uh-oh, I sense the long crook of the mod--

    Hey, was that a cue, or what? ;-)
    
    This discussion does seem to have diverged a wee bit from ratings-as-
    related-to-movies (or movies-as-related-to-ratings/censorship/The
    Morals Of Our Society), and I don't want to give disk space to the
    fascinating but potentially lengthy topic of how/whether humankind's
    arts and technology reflect human society vs. changing it - although if
    you can phrase it in the form of a screenplay I'll think about it.
    [Note: There are heaps and heaps of movies about this very topic. Feel
    free to discuss those at will.]
    
    -b-the-immoderator

    RE: .21  by 8269::MARTINN 
    
    >when can you remember a movie that showed a frontal shot of a man?!? 
    
    "World According to Garp"?
    
    RE: .38  by 25415::MAIEWSKI 
    
    >I was just wondering if you could point to someone who had lost their
    >childhood to movies?
    
    Me.  Every Saturday.
    

    re. 21 by 8269::MARTINN
    
    And "A ROOM WITH A VIEW"
    
    ***
    
    I'm with the non-censorship crew here.  I have been personally offended
    by the *way* in which I've seen things portrayed, but I would not say
    they should not have been made.
    
    While I hope I never see "The Cook the Thief, His Wife, Her Lover"
    again, I would not stop others from seeing it.
    
    --Kim

RE             <<< Note 151.61 by 3270::AHERN "Dennis the Menace" >>>

>    >I was just wondering if you could point to someone who had lost their
>    >childhood to movies?
>    
>    Me.  Every Saturday.
    

  Dennis, we are only allocated one childhood per person. How come you get a
new one to lose every Saturday? 

  George

    RE: .21  by 8269::MARTINN 
    
    >when can you remember a movie that showed a frontal shot of a man?!? 
    

_Life_of_Brian_

.21> when can you remember a movie that showed a frontal shot of a man?!? 
.64> _Life_of_Brian_

	Already mentioned (see .41)

    RE:  .63 by 25415::MAIEWSKI 
    
>>    >I was just wondering if you could point to someone who had lost their
>>    >childhood to movies?
>>    
>>    Me.  Every Saturday.
    

    >Dennis, we are only allocated one childhood per person. How come you
    >get a new one to lose every Saturday? 
    
    I lost my childhood to the movies 'cause I spent every Saturday of my
    childhood at the movies.
    

  ... that doesn't sound like such a bad way for a kid to spend their time,
especially if you go with some friends and sit up in the balcony during the bad
flicks throwing popcorn at the grown-ups below. 

  Somehow that doesn't sound like a lost childhood at all,
  George

    re .66, .67, really!  Woody Allen's dream childhood!
    
    Lorna
    

Quoted without permission from the Atlanta Journal/Constitution:

"With its release only two weeks off, the $40 million Sharon Stone-William
Baldwin movie "Sliver" has received an R rating after Paramount Pictures
toned down numerous scenes to please the Motion Picture Association of
America ratings board."

"The steaminess of the film, which depicts a voyeur training his camera on
tenants of a Manhattan apartment building, had prompted the ratings board
to initially recommend 110 editing changes to escape an NC-17 rating (no
one under 17 admitted). After arguing their case, director Phillip Noyce and 
producer Robert Evans agreed to make at least 15 changes to satisfy the
ratings board. No entire scenes have been removed."


Folks, if this isn't censorship I don't know what is.


Randy

    *.68 - I'm with you, Lorna!  Some childhood!  Woody could relate ...
    
    *.69 - I don't think that's censorship ... I think it's "ratings" ...
    the studio didn't have to make the cuts; they could have gone with an
    NC-17 (it didn't say the movie wouldn't be released, did it?) but in
    order to make more MONEY, they edited so that an "R" could get the
    bigger audience.  It's capitalism, it's ratings, but it's not
    censorship.
    
    Leslie

  Actually you are both half right. It is "Defacto" censorship. 

  It is not really a case of ratings based on capitalism alone because many
local areas have rules against NC-17 films so the rating effectively censors the
movie in those areas in fact if not in law. 

  They blew it. They should come up with a new rating between R and NC-17
called something like RP (R-Plus). Just changing the name from X to NC-17 was
too obvious. 

  George

And being red-blooded capitalists, they can promote the uncut version in the
video stores for really big bucks...

re .70

Not censorship? Big time films like _Sliver_ cost tens of millions of dollars,
plus millions more for promotion. An NC-17 rating makes it likley to lose
many millions of dollars. The cuts weren't made because that's what the
film makers thought should be done, they were made to avoid financial and/or
professional suicide. To say that they didn't have to make them is ignoring
reality. In fact they did have to make them, there was no other remotely
viable choice.


Randy

    I noticed a reference to "The Cook, the Thief, his Wife, and her
    Lover"; there was male frontal nudity in this, too!  (does glazed
    count?)
    
    Carl
    
    ps. Ratings; What a Crock!!!  I have children 11, 13, and 18; the films
    I would prefer they see are almost all R rated; most PG and especially
    PG-13 I would hope they avoid like the plague.  
    
    
    In short, a good film is a good film regardless of rating.
    
    
    
    

RE Note 200.38  The Last Action Hero 38 of 39 17655::LAYTON

>    Steve's (valid) point is that the promotion for LAH very much
>    downplayed the PG-13 rating, and very much "sold" those aspects of the
>    movie that appeal to kids under 13.  Jurassic Park did the same.

  I don't think the rating would have helped in this case. Steve said that it
was the adults, not the children, who were bothered by the movie. He said the
boy liked it and the girl was bored but the parents were upset.

  So maybe the advertising was correct in suggesting that this was a movie for
children. Their problem was that they neglected to say that some adults, in
particular parents, would be bothered by the film. 

  George 

    re: .38
    
    The rating didn't help because we either ignored it or weren't aware.  
    Our opinion is that (so far) we have lucked out after having been 
    intentionally misled.  As for what's good and bad for our kids, that's 
    our responsibility and we do it as best we can.  We have decided
    that movies like LAH are not appropriate for our kids and appreciate 
    ratings and reviews that appreciate our decision.  When our kids
    are old enough to be responsible for themselves, they can decide for 
    themselves.
    
    Steve

  Ok that makes more sense. I must of misunderstood.

  I thought that you had said that the movie didn't seem to effect your kids
but it made the adults upset. I didn't see where you said that regardless of
the effects on them you didn't want them to see it anyway.

  I agree, that's your choice until they are of age.

  George

    I do not nor have I said that I don't want kids to see certain things
    regardless of effects.  I did indicate that LAH seemed to upset us more
    than the kids.  And, I've said that I figure we "lucked out" with
    regard to LAH.  We have not "lucked out" with respect to other things
    our kids have seen and have witnessed adverse effects on our kids 
    (nightmares, fighting, swearing and so forth) that they got from 
    entertainment that is like LAH.  In other words, we have basis for 
    objecting to certain forms of entertainment for our children.  We don't 
    want our kids to be entertained by certain things BECAUSE of the 
    effects they have proven to us to have on our kids.
    
    Steve

  Ok that makes sense.

  I do have a question. The only study I saw showed that a group of kids would
fight after seeing a violent film, but their fighting was no worse than their
normal fighting. The only effect from seeing the film was to cause their normal
type of fighting to happen right after seeing the movie. That in turn was
followed by an unusual quiet period since they had all gone through the
fighting part of their normal cycle. 

  You mentioned that some films cause kids to fight. Are you 100% sure that
they would not have fought anyway? Was their fighting any worse than their
normal fights?

  Also, you mentioned swearing. Was that any worse than what they pick up on
the playground?

  I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious. 

  George 

    George, you sound like you may not be a parent.  Trust me, parents DO
    know when their child has picked up an influence from a particular
    source; children can mimic very subtle nuances that you might have thought
    went right over their heads, kinda like a parrot.  The parrot repeats
    with the same inflection, even though it has no clue what it is saying.  
    It isn't any more pleasant to hear rough language from a man, woman,
    child or parrot.  
    
    Steve, like many parents, couldn't care less about studies of violence
    and its effect on children; they know their child, and they know what
    things affect them.  
    
    Carl

    
    re: .79
    
    I mentioned that some entertainment causes *MY* kids to have nightmares,
    fight, use bad language and so forth.  Of course, they may fight over
    lots of things.  I never claimed to link all nightmares, fighting and 
    bad language to entertainment.  I claim to have observed a cause and
    effect relationship between some forms of entertainment and errant
    behavior on the part of MY kids.  Other parents I know observe the same 
    in their kids, so I'm suspect of studies that claim the contrary.
    (Similarly, I'm suspect of studies that show that commercials affect
    people, but that program viewing does not.)
    
    Role playing is NOT limited to fighting.  While acting out what they 
    have seen, someone usually gets hurt when they act out violence. 
    Similarly, they don't necessarily use "bad language" when they are
    angry.
    
    Some of where they get this is obvious to us because we sometimes ASK 
    them where they learned such behavior.  Sometimes it's from other kids.  
    Sometimes it's from their entertainment.  Or, it's obvious because they 
    are acting out what they saw because they use the names of characters they 
    saw and so forth.  
    
    The evidence that we "lucked out" regarding LAH has (so far) been that 
    there have been no nightmares and the acting out seems to be limited to 
    the stuff they've seen in the promotions and not the movie -- probably 
    because my daughter slept through the movie and can only relate to the 
    events depicted in the promotions.
    
    The playground can also be a source of learning of errant behavior.  I
    am limited in how much I can control what they are exposed to on the 
    playground, nor am I given much control.  They know that.  I DO have 
    control over what entertainment I'm willing to have at home and when 
    we go out.  They know that, too.  So, the entertainment that they are
    exposed to and that I provide for them carries a different message than
    what they might find on their own in a playground.  If I'm not careful,
    my taking them to a violent or promiscuous movie may be seen by them 
    as some kind of endorsement.  And, that makes it hard for me as a
    parent to teach them right and wrong.
    
    Steve

RE last 2

  I think we may have found common ground, you seem to agree with the study
in part.

  The study I saw suggested that kids do not act outside of their normal range
of behavior after seeing a violent film. It suggested that they act within
their normal range of behavior at the violent end. 

  Note .80 brings up the point that kids parrot what they hear. This is in
essence what I am asking about and suggests that the study is right. The kids
do not actually learn more extreme ways to be violent, they just behave like
the characters in the film parroting their words. 

  For example, the study suggests to me that if it is normal for Kid A to yell
and wave his arms when angry, seeing Dirty Harry say "Go Ahead Make My Day"
will cause Kid A to wave his arms and yell "Go Ahead Make My Day", but it won't
cause him to hit someone. 

  If, on the other hand it is normal for Kid B to punch someone with his fist
when he is angry, seeing Dirty Harry will cause him to say "Go Ahead Make My
Day" after which he will punch someone, but it will not make him pick up a
brick and bean someone over the head. 

  If, it is normal for Kid C to pick up a brick and hit someone over the head
when he is angry, seeing Dirty Harry will cause him to say "Go Ahead Make My
Day" after which he will heave a brick, but it will not make him pick up an
AK-47 and waste half the town. 

  As for dirty words, if I understand the study and what you are saying, the
kid may use the new dirty word but his intended meaning will be the same as the
words that he is already using. Since sticks and stones may break bones but
words don't cause abrasions, it sounds like no real harm is done by kids
misusing these words unless they happen to encounter a particularly sensitive
adult. 

  Does that gell with what you have observed?

  George

P.S. It is correct that I don't have kids, but I have step kids that I observed
     during visitation time from the time they were about age 8 to young adult.
     I also have 3 cats who seem undisturbed by the TV unless it starts making
     bird sounds.

    Let me just throw in my $.02 as a parnet, fwiw.  My two boys (age 2 &
    4) are for the most part gentle, non-violent, etc.  I've seen the
    studies both ways as well, but I KNOW this: I can sit my guys down in
    front of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (for example) and when it's over,
    they will be bouncing off the walls, kicking & punching each other.

    And no, I've not observed this sort of behaviour from them any time
    EXCEPT after watching voilent shows.  

    I've talked about it with them and they understand the affect that the
    shows have on them and WHY we don't like them watching that sort of
    stuff.  They say they understand.  The four-year-old probably really
    does understand.  But they still can't control it.  SO, no TMNT for
    them, period.  THAT they definately do understand.  Its my job as a
    parent to recognise what affects my children and react accordingly -
    rating or no.

RE        <<< Note 151.83 by 29065::S_VORE "Once More Unto The Breach" >>>

>    And no, I've not observed this sort of behaviour from them any time
>    EXCEPT after watching voilent shows.  

  This goes against what the study found. I would be interested to hear
if other people found this to be true as well.

  My experience with watching my girl friend's kids was that they punched
kicked, and yelled but never used weapons of any sort on each other when ever
they were angry. Violent films would cause them to parrot the characters
behavior, punch, kick, and yell, but never outside of their normal behavior.

  George

    re: .83,.84
    
    My wife and I have observed errant behavior out of our kids after
    seeing distasteful stuff on TV.  However, it would be hard to prove
    that our kids form habits because of it because we intentionally AVOID 
    providing this kind of stuff for their entertainment.  I know little
    about the "study," only that the conclusions described seem suspect.  
    
    I do know that my kids mimic what they are entertained by.  That's 
    pretty easy to prove since they role play pretty much every day.  They
    tend not to be violent, but when they are engrossed by violent shows,
    their role playing reflects this.  My son has kicked his sister in the 
    face and they both have poked each other with sharp sticks while 
    imitating ninja turtles.  They were just playing, not fighting (until 
    someone got hurt, as seemed to always eventually happen).  
    
    Steve

    AGGGGGGGGGGH!  
    
    I've got a new editor and can't move back!
    
    Rather that a 'rating' I'd like to see something like a label.  I've
    been married, I've had kids -- seeing sex (unless it'r brutal) doesn't
    bother me.  But I wouldn't have wanted my daughters to see some of
    those movies until they'd reached an age where they'd be able to handle
    it maturely.  This age seems to be different with each child so it's a
    parent's job.  But we can't do it without the info.
    
    On the other hand, I hate seeing people carved up and especially hate
    seeing them in flames.  Those movies I skip.  I remember a sceen from a
    movie I saw as a child (haven't a clue as to the name) where a person
    got run over by a train.  I had nightmares for weeks.
    
    If I have a clue ahead of time that Jack and Jill go from bed to bed to
    bed, I can decide if I think the story is good enough to overlook the
    non-entertaining features of the film.  If I know ahead of time that
    Jack and Jill are going to be skinned alive, then you couldn't pay me
    to sit through it.
    
    

  One thing I've noticed is that the ratings may be aimed at the wrong ages. In
movies people are divided into adult, teenager, under 13. From what people are
saying, there's tv that may be ok for kids in the 7-9 bracket that is not good
for kids in the 3-5 bracket. But it would appear that all of TV is bland enough
for teenagers. 

  Perhaps a new type of rating system is needed for TV that attempts to give
advice about younger ages. 

  George

    re: .84                                     
    >This goes against what the study found. I would be interested to hear
    >if other people found this to be true as well.
    
    I understand it goes against the studies, that's why I mentioned it. 
    I'm sure that there are others who've seen the same as I (.85, for
    example)...  I would guess it depends a lot upon each child's
    personality, impressionability, etc.  My point is that parents should
    recognize these traits if they exist in a child and take that into
    account as much as, if not more than, the rating that's tagged on a
    movie.  In other words, the ratings board may say it's OK for my child
    to see something, but I have to be responsible enough to still judge
    for myself and my family.
    
    Steven
    
    Geez, I seem to be soapboxing quite a bit today.  George, please don't
    take this personally.  I've enjoyed reading the "long discussions" of
    which you've been a part in other Notes files, I'll try to keep this a
    bit more civil than some of the others.  :-)

    What George I and others are saying is make your own choice but make an
    INFORMED choice. Don't assume that that flying machines are impossible
    after a few people like the Wright brothers proved it is possible. All
    the studies say violence may or may not cause long term affect. The
    ones against say look at the pattern it is not a long term effect. 
    SO keep an open mind and watch what happens. 
        I agree most parrents do err on the side of caution but that is not 
    a bad thing. But your kids live in the real world and I hate to say 
    it but kids today are exposed to a lot of things I never had to endure
    as a child. Prepare your child to deal with it.  There are not enough
    hours in the day to be a perfect parrent. Try to identify the real 
    and imagined threats and focus on the real ones.
               Jeff Peters