This film was actually a bit of a disappointment given the very high score it had been given by voters on this website. Nonetheless, it makes some valid points and provides some insight into the MPAA film rating system.
Unfortunately, it spends far too much time in the rather meaningless task of trying to find out the identities of the members of the ratings board. That reminds me of a con used by professional wrestling years ago: a wrestler would come to town wearing a mask. He would call himself Mr. X or some such and promise to take off his mask if anyone beat him. I remember asking someone what people thought they were going to see when he took it off - would it be some famous person? Of course not! It was some guy no one had ever heard of. Who should care who he is? The same thing with the ratings board members. I assume they keep their identities secret to avoid harassment from people like the two nut-cases in this movie.
Mostly, the film takes a rather one-sided view, spins it as if there were no other side, and provides some unhappy film makers with a chance to whine about the unfairness of it all. It implies that the studios should release whatever they create. Otherwise, it's CENSORSHIP.
In our society, no one expects the purveyor of a product to present something that may harm its reputation or lose money. A film studio has every right to refuse to release a film it doesn't like. That is in no way censorship. The film maker has the right to find another studio or to release it as an independent film. Of course, they don't get the benefit of the studio's promotion if they do that but, hey, that's life. Some of the critics seem to recognize that and merely want a chance to present their case. Others sound like spoiled children who believe they are entitled to have someone else (a movie studio) provide distribution and promotion of whatever they make. Still others want to be free to make, and have distributed and promoted for them, whatever they want, but they want others to be restricted to their standards.
The point is made that in Europe a movie is more likely to get a restrictive rating for violence than for sex, with the implication that the Europeans have it right. Well, they have their point of view. I, personally find the extremely distasteful and currently popular "comedies" that are usually rated PG or PG-13 more offensive than either the violent or the sexy. But, that's just me.
I agree with those who say that instead of a simple rating, there should be a more specific description of scenes that are potentially offensive to some (I do not consider myself to be the judge of what others should find offensive). This is available, in some cases at least. Netflix often has the MPAA rating and a link to another MPAA page that describes the violence, sex, language, etc. in the context of the film.
At a time when the major studios are not putting out very much of value, this topic is definitely a good one for discussion. Unfortunately, this film does very little of that.
Unfortunately, it spends far too much time in the rather meaningless task of trying to find out the identities of the members of the ratings board. That reminds me of a con used by professional wrestling years ago: a wrestler would come to town wearing a mask. He would call himself Mr. X or some such and promise to take off his mask if anyone beat him. I remember asking someone what people thought they were going to see when he took it off - would it be some famous person? Of course not! It was some guy no one had ever heard of. Who should care who he is? The same thing with the ratings board members. I assume they keep their identities secret to avoid harassment from people like the two nut-cases in this movie.
Mostly, the film takes a rather one-sided view, spins it as if there were no other side, and provides some unhappy film makers with a chance to whine about the unfairness of it all. It implies that the studios should release whatever they create. Otherwise, it's CENSORSHIP.
In our society, no one expects the purveyor of a product to present something that may harm its reputation or lose money. A film studio has every right to refuse to release a film it doesn't like. That is in no way censorship. The film maker has the right to find another studio or to release it as an independent film. Of course, they don't get the benefit of the studio's promotion if they do that but, hey, that's life. Some of the critics seem to recognize that and merely want a chance to present their case. Others sound like spoiled children who believe they are entitled to have someone else (a movie studio) provide distribution and promotion of whatever they make. Still others want to be free to make, and have distributed and promoted for them, whatever they want, but they want others to be restricted to their standards.
The point is made that in Europe a movie is more likely to get a restrictive rating for violence than for sex, with the implication that the Europeans have it right. Well, they have their point of view. I, personally find the extremely distasteful and currently popular "comedies" that are usually rated PG or PG-13 more offensive than either the violent or the sexy. But, that's just me.
I agree with those who say that instead of a simple rating, there should be a more specific description of scenes that are potentially offensive to some (I do not consider myself to be the judge of what others should find offensive). This is available, in some cases at least. Netflix often has the MPAA rating and a link to another MPAA page that describes the violence, sex, language, etc. in the context of the film.
At a time when the major studios are not putting out very much of value, this topic is definitely a good one for discussion. Unfortunately, this film does very little of that.