Posted by Adam H. Kerman on 03/25/07 19:52

At 8:42am -0400, 03/25/07, Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:56:50 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>At 10:29pm -0400, 03/24/07, Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:

>>MPAA is the gatekeeper in this instance.

>The MPAA did not restrict the exhibition of this film in any way. What
>"gate" did the MPAA "keep" in this instance?

R rated movies are not as widely exhibited. You'll argue 50 more rounds that
it isn't true, but that's your problem. btw, the R in the rating stands for
"Restricted".

Movies have to be rated to get into NATO theaters and others that enforce
ratings, nearly every screen in the United States except exhibitions at
festivals and colleges and what few art houses remain. To get onto even more
screens, movies can't be rated R.

>>>None of which changes the fact that it's a voluntary system.

>>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?

>>>And the distribution is a decision of the studio and distribution company,
>>>not the MPAA. The film 300 made it into more theaters than some PG-13
>>>fair.

>>You're the guy who keeps claiming it's a free market, despite there being
>>only one rating board.

>>How can there be a free market when the ratings determine whether
>>unaccompanied children may see movies, rather than their own parents?

>Because the exhibitors chose to restrict access to the films voluntarily.
>Would you argue that it's not a free market when restaurants require their
>customers to wear shirts and shoes for service, rather than letter the
>customer decide for themselves?

No. It's unlikely the restaurant is doing this out of fear that community
backlash would pressure a municipal authority to make it a health code
violation. If we go 50 more rounds, you'll still refuse to acknowledge the
difference.

>>>The ratings may not end up be voluntary for the consumer, but that's
>>>because the consumer isn't in charge of the theater. It's like how a
>>>consumer doesn't have control over what films are in stock at their local
>>>video store. It doesn't make their reduced selection "mandatory"
>>>somehow.

>>No, it isn't, because stores that sell and rent movies are not subject to
>>a rating system and some will sell unrated versions of movies.

>Some exhibitors will show unrated movies as well. So by your own logic for
>video stores, the exhibitors' restrictions aren't mandatory either.

No, that is not my argument. There's competition for video distribution that
doesn't exist in film exhibition.

>>>An exhibitor could chose to ignore the movie ratings completely and let
>>>anyone into any movie. They'd most likely learn from local reaction though
>>>that it's better for their business to play along though.

>>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.

Some states had boards of film censors. Studios and exhibitors don't want
these boards set up again, let alone a national board.

>>You keep refusing to acknowledge exactly the harsh treatment
>>that theater owners who showed movies out of favor with the locals were
>>treated to.

>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.

>>>Just because the free market can be exploited to impose certain morals on
>>>businesses doesn't mean it's not the free market that's driving it though.

>>Again, when one group imposes its will on another group by preventing them
>>from doing something otherwise harmless, there's no free market.

>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.

>>You really don't understand. Choosing not to show a movie because one
>>doesn't think it will sell tickets (because people in town probably don't
>>go for that sort of thing) is entirely different from choosing not to show
>>a movie because you fear having the theater shut down or protestors
>>blocking your door.

>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?

>>>>What free market is that? Is there a choice of classification, or is there
>>>>exactly one classification for the entire country?

>>>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, but it's irrelevant to the point that it's the only rating
system and thus a monopoly.

>>>>Exactly such things happened in the past.....

>>>I really don't care about the past though.

>>Why is that, exactly?

>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? I can't think of anything in the last two years, since Janet
Jackson's left breast has dominated media nonsense on this issue.

>>If you don't think that there are still public protests and sometimes
>>involvement of elected officials in attempts at regulation of popular
>>culture, then you have your blinders on.

>Did that happen to Casino Royale?

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.

>>>>Recall that "X" meant an unrated movie;

>>>No, a complete lack of rating from the MPAA meant an unrated movie.
>>>X meant nobody under 17 could see the film, exactly the same as NC-17 when
>>>it first came into being.

>>Wrong. Each of the other ratings were trademarked by MPAA. An X rating was
>>self-applied to movies that couldn't qualify for R ratings. The official
>>history of the current rating system backs my memory of this:
>>http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_history1.asp

>From that site:
>"The initial design called for four rating categories:

> * X for no one under 17 admitted"

>X meant nobody under 17, just like I said.

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.

The old Production Code (which shouldn't be called the Hays Code since Mr.
Hays when he ran it did whatever the studio bosses wanted) 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.

>Also from the site:

>"Under the plan, anyone who did not submit his or her film for rating could
>self-apply the X or any other symbol or description, except those
>trademarked by the rating program."

>So someone could rate their film an X without it actually being rated by
>the MPAA.

Didn't I say that several paragraphs back?

>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". Sometimes foreign films don't get submitted
for rating, not because of unsuitability for children (even though they've
already passed censorship in their country of production) but because the
distributor doesn't want to edit the film for whatever reason, assuming it
won't make any difference on the art house circuit where children don't
attend movies anyway.

But two things happend in the '70's. Teenagers became the preponderance of
the movie-going audience while adults stayed home, so with too few adults
in the audience, producers began aiming at younger and younger audiences.
And pornographers self-applied the X or XXX "rating" to their cheap movies
as marketing. The introduction of NC-17 in 1990 failed to overcome the
stigma that X took on.

>>I find this statement significant:
>>.....
>>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.

>>>The reason why they changed the name was because
>>>they forgot to trademark the X rating, which meant anyone could use X as a
>>>rating for their film if they so chose.

>>They didn't forget to trademark X.

>Fine, they deliberately left the X untrademarked so filmmakers could
>self-apply the rating if they so chose.

Yes.

>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.

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.

>>>>NC-17 isn't commercially viable as nearly no exhibitor will show such a
>>>>movie. It is the kiss of death.

>>>Right, so it's driven by market forces.

>>Because theater owners fear the same backlash resulting in local censorship
>>or action hostile to their business because such movies are assumed to be
>>pornographic.

>It's still voluntary. "Fear of local censorship" would mean there's not
>actual censorship, and "action hostile to their business" would be free
>market forces. Some exhibitors choose to risk it and show NC-17 or unrated
>fare. That's their prerogative.

Fear of censorship is real because we've had censorship of movies and do
have censorship of movies on broadcast television, which you would know if
you didn't refuse to ignore history.

>>>You're correct, they could if they decided to. The main point was that
>>>they don't currently, contrary to your earlier blanket claims.

>>I didn't make that claim.

>Yes you did. You said that "Congress does censor television and radio." I
>pointed out the errors in that statement, namely that it's the FCC, not
>Congress, that doesn't the actual censoring, and that said censoring only
>applies to broadcast television and radio. Your initial statement covered
>*all* television and radio, an incorrect blanket claim.

Are we having a serious discussion, or are you trying to win little tiny
points on the semantics of whether the term "television" refers to
broadcasting or both broadcasting and cable/satelite?

>>I've stated repeatedly that movie ratings exist
>>because studios fear laws that would impose censorship.

>It's still a voluntary system. If I chose not to bungie jump because of
>fear of heights, is my action not voluntary?

I choose not to bungie jump out of fear of the consequences for attempting
to defy the three laws of thermodynamics. But then, Congress isn't in a
position to repeal those laws.

>>And I gave examples
>>of official censorship of popular entertainment, including the very same
>>movies that studios produce. They become subject to possible censorship when
>>sold to broadcast television.

>Of course, selling it for broadcast television is a voluntary action the
>studio takes with the knowledge of said censoring.

"It's censored but it's voluntary." How do you keep a straight face?

>>>The FCC doesn't supervise satellite and cable because while broadcast is
>>>considered "public," free for anyone to receive, cable and satellite are
>>>"private" and require a person to subscribe to the service to receive it.

>>FCC doesn't due to lack of jurisdiction. You did admit that it might be
>>possible, someday, under the wrong political climate.

>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.

>But fine, if you want me to clarify that statement, amend the opening to
>read "The FCC doesn't *currently seek to* supervise...."

I don't take the position that throughout its history FCC sought power of
censorship, but that's a minor point.

>>>>I suppose there may be examples of a producer making a movie that he is
>>>>aware would not qualify for an R rating forced to make cuts for NC-17.

>>>There are absolutely *zero* examples of a film having to make cuts to
>>>earn an NC-17. There is no maximum limit in terms of content to what an
>>>NC-17 film can provide. A porno could get a NC-17 rating if submitted to
>>>the MPAA, but no porn producer is going to bother.

>>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.

>>>>MPAA states that rating are advice TO PARENTS.

>>>No, they say they created the system *for* parents.

>>No. Read the official history.

>http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_history1.asp

>"The Classification and Ratings Board was created in response to a national
>cry for some kind of regulation of film content."

>"Valenti felt that parents ought to be able to *accompany their children*
>to any movie the parents choose"

Do you see the word "choose"? I don't find Valenti's statements credible
given the conflict with what was actually implemented, but officially,
Valenti felt adults should be free to see any movie they wished, and to take
children to see any movie they felt was appropriate. I am not
misinterpretting his claimed sentiments.

>"NATO urged the creation of an adult-only category"

>There's nothing on that page to suggest that MPAA CARA ever felt that
>parents had the right to let their kid see *any* movie unaccompanied.

Rights? Wrong word, dude. In any event, this is starting to contradict your
earlier position.

Valenti is insincere. CARA is advice, not enforcement. But he knew he was
setting up something that would likely be enforced by exhibitors, which was
the point of setting up the ratings in the first place, a simple system
that's readily enforceable (at least once they renamed M, which was found to
be confusing).

>>>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.

>Shouldn't the rating system allow the *parents* decide whether or not to
>bring their 2 year old, or even allow the 2 year old to watch
>unaccompanied? That's what you were claiming a few lines before.

No, I'm agreeing with you that theaters that ban very young children from
movies are not enforcing ratings but common sense on parents who have no
sense. With the exception of that Richard Pryor movie from 1981 "Bustin'
Loose", a family comedy to which the studio inexplicably added banned from
PG movie swear words so it would get an R rating, such movies aren't
appropriate for very young children let alone unaccompanied children. 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.

>>I'd also like there to be a rating banning cell phones.

>Most theaters do ban the use of cell phones. People can be removed from
>the theater for excessive cell phone use, just like they can be for any
>other behavior if the theater chooses to enforce its own rules it
>voluntarily chose. Kicking out an obnoxious viewer is the exact same
>restriction of customer "freedom" that the enforce age restrictions are.

Free market doesn't mean freedom to prevent two parties who have entered
into a contract from getting full benefit from it.

>>>The "adverse reaction" is typically in terms of boycotts or bad publicity.

>>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.

>>or trying to get the municipality to shut down the theater.
>>All these things have happened, some in recent years.

>Shutting down a theater would be a form of censorship on a local level.

Is this like the voluntary censorship you claimed existed when movies are
distributed for television braodcast? 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?

>>>The theater owner typically decides it makes better business sense to
>>>conform. This is the free market in work, although for some of us probably
>>>not the way we *wished* it worked.

>>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).

If Pastor Cornelius Witchhunter of the Church of the Wacky Christian has
riled up his congregation against "Chick Flick", a passionate romantic
comedy that he claims promotes sex outside of marriage, then he might
instruct them to shut down Roger Friendly's Palace Theater that is currently
showing the movie. The congregation might block all access to the theater
during their protest.

Joe Smith is dating Mary Roberts. Both are high school juniors whose parents
allow them to date and see movies. Mary insists on picking the next movie
and chooses "Chick Flick"; Joe agree reluctantly, thinking he might get
lucky. But the two of them arrive at the theater confronted by the protest.
Everyone who would have seen the movie goes home disappointed. Joe and
Mary's date is ruined. Mary is upset, so Joe takes her home.

In a free market, a movie patron is free to contract with a movie exhibitor
to see a movie showing at a certain time.

In the hypothetical, a third party, Pastor Witchhunter, has created a
situation in which movie patrons cannot see a particular movie. Does he
recommend that people don't see the movie? No, he prevents people who don't
take his recommendation from seeing the movie. He uses illegal means to
close the theater. The movie patron is not free to contract with the theater
owner. There's no market. With no market, how can it be free?

>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. This can come up with the proprietor's adhesion contract
attemtps to waive his liability for injury on his property. But that doesn't
apply to this situation.

>>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.
It's also protected under federal law not to mention the federal and all
state constitutions.

>How about human rights protests? Or animal rights protests? That they're
>protesting about something you disagree with doesn't mean they don't have
>the right to protest it.

One's rights ends at the end of one's fist before it strike's someone else's
nose, if I remember the old truism. As long as protests are peaceful, people
are exercising their rights. But you claim it's legal to prevent someone
else from exercising his rights. You do keep saying that protestors may
block access to someone's business. Do you also feel that animal rights
protestors may throw paint on a fur coat or destroy a laboratory?

>>>>In an actual free market, parents would be free to decide whether to allow
>>>>unaccompanies children to see R-rated movies.

>>>You're confusing free market with a much narrower focus of freedom over a
>>>theater's own rules.

>>No I am not. The theater owner enforces rules fearing outside pressure that
>>would make him do worse things. If there were a free market, a theater owner
>>might make his own recommendations to parents on age appropriateness or
>>decide that a particular rating was misapplied.

>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.

>> 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,
while offering none of your own in support of yours.

>>>>Do you recall that movies that featured black actors in other than
>>>>subservient positions couldn't be distributed nationwide? Was that an
>>>>example of a free market?

>>>Unfortunately, probably so, unless certain laws prohibited it.

>>What do you call enforcement of municipal authorities?

>Government censorship, and thus not free market.

Congratulations on seeing the light.

>>>Historical perspective is fine, just be sure it's appropriate and needed.
>>>I never said that no censorship never happened nowhere, I said that
>>>cutting Casino Royale from an R to a PG-13 was a voluntary move on the
>>>studio's part.

>>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.

[Back to original message]