By:Matt Stone
co-creator of South Park
(in response to a guest column written by Jack Valenti)
index.html
HOLLYWOOD(Variety)-The walls are closing in on the Motion picture assoc. of America and its presideent, Jack Valenti. Politicians, filmmakers, parents and critics are beginning to see through the organiztions use of smoke and mirrors. In a column for Dailly Variety, Valenti excuses the MPAA's inadequete ratings system while attacking "whiney" movie producers, directors and critics. But these groups are guilty of only one thing:The desire to live in a world where movies are not censored. The MPAA itself is the source of the current ratings system crisis. The MPAA is comprised of 7 companies: Paramount, Buena Vista (disney), Warner Bros., MGM, Sony, Fox and Universal. The MPAA is the Hollywood studios' lobby. The studios pay Valenti's salary. This explains why studio films get preferential treatment over independant films. This also explains why the MPAA ratings board fails so miserably at acheiving its two statesd goals: providing parents with information regarding movie content, and maximisingthe creative freedom of filmmakers. Valenti's assertion that his organization exists to serve the public is a lie of awesome dimension. This is not to say that Valenti is evil or malicious. It is just a pesky fact of life that you work for the people that pay your salary. The incestuous MPAA-studio relationship has escaped any liability for a system that combines uniformative ratings with a little enforcements of its own age restrictions. Even the television ratings systems qualifies its rating with labels like nudity, violence, drug use, etc. Why won't the MPAA adopt a similair system and tell consumers why a film recieves a rating? Because the MPAA, or more specifically, the studios behind it, want to hide the facts to protect revenue. With over half the movies in the U.S, recieving an R rating, it is obvious why studios want no enforcement of age restrictions. They want kids to get into these films. (the recent token stab at ID-ing kids in movie theatres was a typical publicity smoke-screen, and theatres have alreaady gone back to business as usual.) We live in the movie making caoital of the world and still have no viable way of distibuting mature movies to mature people. Valenti doesn't like the C-word, but censorship is the MPAA's primary business. He maintains," the fact is that movies rated NC-17 for violence undergo editing. All those films, by the directors own volition, not by command of the rating board, make adjustments to get the R rating." Who wants to call bullshit? Those cuts are made because an NC-17 ruins a film economically. They are not made of the directors own volition, anymore than Kosavor Albanians left their homes of their own volition. Do this, says MPAA< or pay the consequences! Just who are these people that make up the MPAA ratings board? Their identies are kept secret. Valenti thinks that this is best, so that the members aren't "badgered". Maybe we should make the supreme court anonymous too. When the hell did we get all snookered into this secret society deal? Did God appoint Valenti? Is this America? To hear Valenti invoke the spirit of America in censorship is nauseating. A hardened Beltway and Hollywood insider, he has conned everyone into thinking that he represents th eaverage American when really he is a well paid lobbyist for the studios. The MPAA's compass is guided by profts not moral conviction. Ironically, the same Hollywood circles that applaud every new regulation put upon firearms and tobbacco companies think trheir own industry should be excempt from all contrls. What if tobbacco companies were allowed to write their own warning labels? What if tobbacco companies were in charege of ID-ing people? The movie-making community is trusting its autonomy to a bumbling, irresponsible organization. As an industry, we are practically begging for government intervention. Valenti warns that without the MPAA, big, scary government would step in with their own ratings system. How could this be worse than what we have now? We have just censored Stanley Kubricks final movie. That's the price we are paying for the current system. A public ratings board would ostensibly be accountable to the people. The proceedings would be public, the guidelines published, and we could all have voice at the ballot box. Best of all, a public ratings board would be subject to guidelines of a little thing called the constitution. For the MPAA's rating process to survive, it needs to serve public interest and allow artistic freedom. Three easy to follow steps can offer parents some security, artists real freedom, and give the MPAA gredibility. 1)include symbols for nudity, violence, language, drug use, etc. next to the rating. in addition, adding qualifiers such as M for mild, and E for extreme will give parents information why a movie is rated a certain way. 2) Enforce age resrtions at theatres. We ID kids for alcohol, guns, and driving, but the MPAA and the national assoc. of theatre owners have convinced everyone that ID-ing at the movies is somehow impossible. 3)Drop the NC-17 rating altogether.Anything deemed unsuitable for people under 17 should be rated R. With the added labeling parents can make educated decisions about content. And no filmmaker would have to cut anything, ever. These changes can give the American public confidence in the MPAA's rating system. of course no substanstive will ever come from within the MPAA. The system already works for them. Ant changes will only come from the two groups the MPAA ignores: The artists and the public.-Matt Stone
