|
|
Posted by Adam H. Kerman on 03/26/07 10:03
At 1:28am -0400, 03/26/07, Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:52:10 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>There's nothing voluntary about complying with the requirements of an
>>>>outside party to receive the desired rating.
>>>Yes there is; the studios could chose to *not* to comply with the outside
>>>party. That they do so is purely voluntary on their part because they
>>>desire something from the outside party, namely the rating.
>>How do you suggest studios get unrated movies exhibited? Shall they set up
>>their own chains of theaters?
>That's what they used to have actually.
I know. It's been illegal for 50 years.
>However, some film producers have released films as unrated, and they have
>gotten limited release. That there's strong economical incentive to get a
>film rated by the MPAA to make it easier to get it distributed doesn't mean
>the situation isn't voluntary.
You offer no other option.
>>>>Again, it's one thing for locals to refuse to see a movie. It's quite
>>>>another for them to prevent people from seeing a movie using
>>>>extraordinary legal means.
>>>What's the "extraordinary legal means"?
>>How many more times do I have to say this? Backlash from a powerful
>>segment of the community pressures the municipality into shutting down the
>>exhibition of a movie. The municipality suddenly discovers fire code
>>violations at the theater. Protesters picketing a theater do not do so
>>peacefully, attempting to intimidate patrons from seeing a movie.
>These methods are illegal, or at the least unethical, and are wrong. A
>peaceful protest isn't.
Did I say people acting peacefully aren't within their rights?
>>Some states had boards of film censors. Studios and exhibitors don't want
>>these boards set up again, let alone a national board.
>Again, fear of something that hasn't happened yet doesn't make a
>voluntarily decision "manditory."
Some states had board of film censors. Did you read what I wrote?
>>>I'm not saying they weren't treated harshly. I'm saying the treatment they
>>>received, boycotts and bad publicity, was all within the bounds of the free
>>>market.
>>You keep pretending, because of your refusal to acknowledge recent history,
>>that it's not possible for protests to go beyond boycotts.
>I'm saying that boycotts are within the bounds of the free market. If it
>goes beyond that then that's something else.
No, you're not arguing against it because you lack a counter argument. So
you just keep repeating the mantra that boycotts and peaceful protests are
acceptable, ignoring the real threat of censorship at various levels of
government and methods of intimidation to keep people from seeing movies.
Even though I quoted an explicit statement from Valenti that CARA was set up
to counter political arguments in favor of censorship.
>>>No, again you're really misunderstanding what the term free market means.
>>If free market doesn't mean freedom for buyers and sellers to form
>>contracts, then what does it mean? When third parties prevent buyers and
>>sellers from forming contracts, do explain how that's still a free market.
>It means freedom from government interference.
Then you failed Economics 101 if you believe that. My definition of free
market is the correct one.
>>>You're correct that there is a significant difference between the two
>>>situations. You're incorrect in thinking the latter isn't part of the free
>>>market system, at least the protestor part.
>>A protestor blocking access to a business is an exercise of the free
>>market? Do you want to explain your insane position, given that the
>>protestors are using criminal means no different than a mobster offering
>>protection?
>As long as the protest is legal, it's part of the free market.
I note that you don't answer my specific question.
>>>>>If someone wanted to create an alternative film classification, they're
>>>>>certainly free to do so.
>>>>That's not how monopolies work. There is no other rating system followed by
>>>>exhibitors, so that is why CARA is a monopoly.
>>>How would the MPAA actually stop an alternative rating format?
>>I don't know,
>So it couldn't, and by logic if someone wanted to create an alternative
>film classification, they're certainly free to do so.
I didn't say that.
>>>Because I wasn't talking about the past, I was talking about a very
>>>current situation.
>>Current situations like "Passion of the Christ", "Basketball Diaries" and
>>more recent movies in which children were imitating violent behavior they
>>saw on screen?
>Children were imitating "Passion of the Christ"?
I certainly hope not. I have read that passion plays are performed in the
Philipines with actual men portraying Jesus nailed to a cross.
>>Oh, gosh, I'm sure you could name a thousand movies that weren't
>>controversial but that doesn't disprove that the rating system exists
>>because theater owners fear censorship and municipalities enthusiastically
>>policing their businesses to shut them down, and in turn, studios fear any
>>limitations on distribution of their movies.
>Even if everything you said above is 100% true, it doesn't make the ratings
>system any less voluntary.
I suppose you believe that filing income tax returns is voluntary, too.
>>Goody, since the curent ratings are allegedly about WHAT MOVIES ARE
>>APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN TO SEE, so a movie had to be rated to get a
>>recommendation as to age appropriateness for children (G, M-GP-PG and
>>later PG-13) or whether children should be accompanies by parents (R). In
>>theory, if a distributor chooses not to have a movie rated, then he's
>>making no claims of suitability for children.
>In theory, yes. However, the vast majority of "unrated" films released
>theatrically have some suggestion of age-appropriateness, typically a
>recommendation not much different than the "official" NC-17 rating.
The ratings they received in their country of origin is known, but every
country has different standards.
>>The old Production Code.... was about enforcing a nationwide standard of
>>morality of movies exhibited to adults, taking the position that adults
>>are not free to make up their own mind.
>Actually, it was about enforcing a nationwide standard for movies exhibited
>to *everyone*.
I don't think they were too worried about what children were exposed to.
Most movies were aimed at adults, except for what was shown on Saturday
afternoons.
>>>However, only an idiot would've applied the X rating to any film that
>>>wouldn't have otherwise received the rating from the MPAA themselves, and
>>>the MPAA also applied the X rating to films they reviewed. So X never
>>>meant "unrated by the MPAA," since the film could most definitely had
>>>been.
>>Of course you say that, ignoring history again. For the first five years
>>of the rating system, studios released specific movies not claiming
>>suitability for children applying the X rating. Famous examples were "Last
>>Tango in Paris" and "Midnight Cowboy".
>Both "Last Tango in Paris" and "Midnight Cowboy" were given their X ratings
>by the MPAA. So you just gave two examples of why X never meant "unrated
>by the MPAA," contrary to your earlier claim that it did.
Were they classified? Not aware that either movie expected an R rating.
>>>>This supports my contention that ratings exist out of fear of local or state
>>>>film censorship or other actions adverse to theater owners under law.
>>>It doesn't change it being voluntary.
>>Just because you are under threat or intimidation, it's still voluntary.
>>Perhaps you should try that as an affirmative defense the next time you
>>commit robbery or rape.
>You didn't say local or state authorities had used any actual threats or
>intimidation, you said the local theaters did it out of *fear* of such.
I've said repeatedly that there was both formal censorship (state boards of
film censors) and censorship disguised as something else (building and fire
code enforcement to close theaters), but you choose to ignore me. I've said
repeatedly that there is, today, formal censorship of movies on tv.
>>>Fine, they deliberately left the X untrademarked so filmmakers could
>>>self-apply the rating if they so chose.
>>>They obviously regretting the decision later on.
>>No. The Spanish Inquisition is never at fault. CARA is not a serious
>>effort to get movies aimed at an adult audience into widespread
>>distribution, deliberately so. Both the studios and exhibitors are too
>>timid.
>How is that CARA's fault exactly?
I don't blame CARA, any more than I blame FCC for being a censor when they
should be a techical agency. CARA has a particular mission. it doesn't
involve making it practical to distribute movies to an adults only audience.
>>Actually, NC-17 was an attempt to appease film critics, particularly Roger
>>Ebert who had been using his nationwide syndicated television show for
>>years to beg for an "A" rating for movies that weren't pr0n but meant for
>>an adult audience. But MPAA didn't want to embrace Ebert's idea, coming up
>>with NC-17 which was doomed from the start.
>How is NC-17 different from Ebert's idea of a rating for adult audiences?
>The letter used?
Yes. Ebert suggested "A" for a positive connotation and was certain that
pornographers wouldn't use it for marketing.
>>>I initially said that they didn't and you jumped down my throat with the
>>>hypothetical "but they COULD!!"
>>Yes, that's the point. In the last year or so, criticism led Comcast to
>>offer "family tier" packages that left out tv shows whose programming
>>isn't appropriate to young children.
>And that's wrong.... how?
The criticism was by elected officials; Comcast got the message.
>>>>I honestly don't know if pornography would quality for NC-17. As far as I
>>>>know, a movie must still be submitted to receive NC-17 as, unlike X, it is
>>>>not self-applied.
>>>That's what I said. "A porno could get a NC-17 rating if *submitted* to
>>>the MPAA." There's no possible film that's so extreme that it wouldn't
>>>merit an NC-17.
>>No, we are saying exactly the opposite. You assume a pornographic movie
>>could receive NC-17, and I assume it cannot. I suggest that neither of us
>>knows what might happen.
>I *do* know though, because the MPAA has it in their policy that NC-17 is
>the highest rating that a film submitted to them can get, and their own
>rules state that "CARA will rate *any* picture at any time before or after
>it is exhibited or distributed in the United States." Ergo, a porno would
>get an NC-17 if submitted to the MPAA CARA, provided, of course, it doesn't
>receive a *lower* rating.
Thank you for the information.
>>>>>Up to PG-13, the decision is completely up to the parent. For R and
>>>>>up, the theater enforces the rules as they see fit. For example, one
>>>>>theater chain I went to banned *all* children 6 and under from R rated
>>>>>films, accompanied by parents or not.
>>>>Good. I hope that theater increased its business.
>>>This is contrary to your claims of wanting consumer freedoms.
>>No. Little children aren't able to form contracts.
>But their parents are, and you think parents should be able to determine
>what films their kids can see unaccompanied, so it's the same logic.
I don't believe that they should feel free to inflict very young children on
an adult audience.
>>As I said earlier, parents should have the choice as to whether teenagers
>>should see R-rated movies unaccompanied since age 17 is an arbitrary
>>cutoff.
>And how is the parent's choice going to be enforced if not by the theater?
I expect parents to do the best that they can.
>>>>Depending on the nature of the protest, it could lead to blocking the
>>>>theater entrance
>>>This would be an attempt at persuasion via economic factors, and thus the
>>>free market. I'm not saying it's right that people do this in order to
>>>persuade the theater to enforce certain rules, but it is the free market.
>>No, you're saying it's legal means of economic persuassion, rather than
>>illegal criminal intimidation.
>OK, fine, I am.
Sigh.
>>A producer, expecting an adverse
>>reaction to his movie in parts of the United State, is voluntarily
>>submitting to censorship and extreme harm to a film exhibitor?
>Are you sure you wrote that part correctly?
I guess not.
>>>>What is it you don't understand about a free market? In a free market, all
>>>>adults are free to enter into contracts, assuming the contract isn't for an
>>>>illegal action.
>>>A free market doesn't dictate that those contracts have to have terms
>>>favorable to both sides.
>>Absolutely does not in any way address what I just said. Let me repeat
>>since you cannot understand what a free market is: All adults are free to
>>enter into contracts (assuming the contracts are not for illegal actions).
>That in no way contradicts what I wrote.
Unless each party finds some favor in the contract, they won't contract with
each other. It does contradict what you wrote, in part.
>>>When you buy a ticket, you're agreeing to the rules the theater enforces.
>>>If one of those rules is the age restrictions, so be it. You can refuse
>>>the contract, which would mean not going to see movies at that theater, but
>>>you can't dictate they change the contract.
>>None of this applies to a free market. You're getting into the area of
>>"adhesion contracts" which courts have ruled are unenforceable as
>>unnegotiable contracts means there's been no meeting of the minds and thus
>>no contract.
>So a person can go into a restaurant that has a "no shirt, no shoes, no
>service" policy with no shirt, no shoes and demand service, and sue and win
>if he doesn't get it?
No. It typically has to do with denial of liability claims.
>>>>Some protests are an attempt to interfere with other people
>>>>from freely entering into a contract.
>>>So? Would you be in favor of breaking up labor protests because they
>>>interfere with people getting business from the company in question?
>>I favor labor organizing as long as no illegal intimidation is involved.
>So you should favor protests of all kinds as long as no illegal
>intimidation is involved, correct?
Why not? People are free to assemble. Says so right in the First Amendment.
>>You do keep saying that protestors may block access to someone's business.
>I don't think protestors may forcably block access. I do think they have a
>right to be in front of the business though, provided they're assembling in
>a legal manner.
You're wrong. If the business's main entrance is on the public sidewalk,
it's not legal to block it in protest. It's legal to picket near the
business as long as access isn't blocked.
>>>Saying a theater should have the right to decide what rules to enforce is
>>>different from what you originally wrote though: that the parents should
>>>have the right regardless of what the theater decides.
>>Yes. I said that in an earlier paragraph. Have you forgotten already? Two
>>seperate but related issues. I didn't say parents have the right
>>REGARDLESS of what the theater owner decides. For there to be a contract,
>>both parties have to enter into it.
>OK, so most theaters enforce the age restrictions. Why do you have problem
>with them doing so?
I object to the reasons why it's done.
>>>> Do you remember the level of sex and violence in "Mystic Pizza"?
>>>Please, this is veering far enough away from Casino Royale as it is. I'm
>>>not going to nitpick every possible error the MPAA has made in the past.
>>Of course not. You reject any evidence I have in support of my position...
>It's not in support of your position at all. Arguing about a film's rating
>is separate from whether the ratings are voluntary among the studios and
>exhibitors and whether editing a film to receive a different rating is
>voluntary or not.
I'm saying it led to a situation in which a movie, appropriate for teenage
(girls) to see by themselves, got a rating in which they couldn't. Theater
owners and/or parents should have been free to exercise their own judgment
about whether teenagers should see that movie. Maybe it was released at a
time when distributors weren't too worried about teenagers seeing R rated
movies if they wished to.
>>>>Censorship is an official act. Ratings exist for fear of censorship. The
>>>>effect is pretty much the same.
>>>So if you had a choice between the MPAA being dissolved and the
>>>government taking over and it staying like it is, you'd have no problem
>>>with the former?
>>I favor free markets, so those are two bad choices.
>That didn't answer my question. Do you truly feel that government
>censorship would be the "same" as the current MPAA CARA rating system?
I have every confidence that government would come up with something worse.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|