Yet another Reason Why I HATE the MPAA
I don''t say Hate often- Actually only the MPAA and the Oakland Raiders get this dubious honor- this is a step too far
Per CNN.com
LOS ANGELES, California (Hollywood Reporter) -- Filmmakers now might get an R rating as a thank you for smoking.
The Motion Picture Assn. of America (MPAA) said Thursday that its rating board will consider film depictions of smoking among the criteria for assigning movie ratings.
Anti-tobacco activists have been pressing for an automatic R rating for films with smoking scenes, but MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman rejected the proposal for a more nuanced approach. ( Watch study measure the effects of smoking in movies
)
"The MPAA film rating system has existed for nearly 40 years as an educational tool for parents to assist them in making decisions about what movies are appropriate for their children," Glickman said. "It is a system that is designed to evolve alongside modern parental concerns."
In line with that evolution, the MPAA ratings board "will now consider smoking as a factor among many other factors, including violence, sexual situations and language, in the rating of films," he said.
"Clearly, smoking is increasingly an unacceptable behavior in our society," Glickman said. "There is broad awareness of smoking as a unique public health concern due to nicotine's highly addictive nature, and no parent wants their child to take up the habit. The appropriate response of the rating system is to give more information to parents on this issue."
Glickman described the move as an extension of the MPAA's practice of factoring underage smoking into the rating of films. The ratings board will ask three questions, he said:
- Is the smoking pervasive?
- Does the film glamorize smoking?
- Is there a historic or other mitigating context?
Also, when a film's rating is affected by the depiction of smoking, the rating will include such phrases as "glamorized smoking" or "pervasive smoking."
"Some have called for a mandatory R rating on all films that contain any smoking," Glickman said. "We do not believe such a step would further the specific goal of providing information to parents on this issue. Unfortunately, the debate on this extreme proposal has become heavily politicized, and many inaccurate statements have been made. While those pushing this proposal are no doubt well-intentioned, it is important that there is an accurate understanding of the declining prevalence of smoking in non-R-rated films."
From July 2004-July 2006, the percentage of films that included "even a fleeting glimpse of smoking" dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent, and 75 percent of those fetched an R rating for other factors, he said.
The Directors Guild of America was among several organizations issuing statements of support for the MPAA moves.
"The DGA supports the MPAA's announced enhancements to the ratings system and applauds their effort to provide parents with increased information on the depiction of smoking in movies," the guild said. "We appreciate that they, like us, are working to find the delicate balance between addressing important health concerns and safeguarding free expression."
The Screen Actors Guild also gave a statement of support.
"As advocates for both creative rights and child-protection legislation, we believe this is a reasonable approach to deal with a serious health issue," SAG deputy national executive director Pamm Fair said.
American Cancer Society CEO John Seffrin said he was pleased by the MPAA's "substantive effort to eliminate tobacco use as a cause of death and disability."
Seffrin cited "evidence that children and youth are particularly vulnerable to the images of tobacco use on movie screens."
But not all the reaction was rosy.
American Legacy Foundation said the new MPAA ratings policy "falls short and fails to implement the meaningful recommendations set forth by numerous organizations." Washington-based ALF states its mission as being "dedicated to a world where young people reject tobacco and anyone can quit."
Hollywood has been under increasing pressure to take steps to ease the purported effect of entertainment content in several areas, from smoking to child obesity. Next week on Capitol Hill, the Senate Commerce Committee begins its examination of the effect violent content has on children.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, is expected to introduce legislation giving the FCC the power to regulate such content -- much as it does indecent content on television. In April, the FCC approved a report on TV violence that asked lawmakers for the requisite enforcement powers.
A Senate-FCC industry task force has been convened to identify ways of forcing content producers to encourage children to eat healthy foods.
Per Afterellen.com
Hmm, an "unacceptable behavior in our society" where parents don’t want their children to "take up the habit"? Is that why films with overt gay and lesbian content have historically been given harsher ratings than those with similar, though straight, content? Anyone who has seen the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated - or paid attention to the ratings on the countless bad lesbian movies she has suffered through - will know that gay content gets flagged as "unacceptable" at an unacceptably higher rate than comparable straight content. So, to the rating board, social norms trump doing the right thing? By that logic, would smoking not be taken into rating consideration if it were still more socially acceptable, even though we also knew it was unhealthy?
Ratings are important to filmmakers and studios for several reasons, two of the biggest being 1) They greatly affect the number of people who can see your film and 2) They greatly affect the amount of money a film can make in future box office, rentals and sales. The difference between a PG-13 and R rating, or R and NC-17 can make or break a film.
So what do you think? Will this help stop children from lighting up and get adults to stamp out? Or is this change just blowing smoke, so to speak?
Per Syd Johnson
The MPAA is an evil organization which cleverly censors filmmakers. It is run mostly by white, heterosexual, conserative, religious people. It has two members of the clergy who sit on the ratings board. It also has many double standards as far as violence and sex, heterosexual vs homosexual,studio vs indy, and men vs women. I do believe that there does need to be a warning system for parents. I have been trying for years to figure out what would be acceptable and not censor filmmakers. The true victims of the current rating system are indy queer filmmmakers. Case in point - "But I am a Cheerleader" got an R rating for fully clothed self pleasure and two kissing scenes and one qusi sex scene. If it had been about heterosexual cheerleaders it would have recived a PG-13- but because of the queer content it got an R- There has been one queer movie that has recived a PG-13 and that was DEBS. There needs to be more of a balnced opinion on the ratings board. And I could go on and on about this but i have to get back to work. AHHH