Another Bad Call from the MPAA

Posted on November 1, 2010 at 10:45 pm

The ultra-violent “Saw 3D” gets an R. The ultra-explicit and disgusting “Jackass 3D” gets an R. But how does “The King’s Speech” get an R? This is an acclaimed historical drama about the King of England (Colin Firth) who has to have speech therapy to help his stutter. As a vocal exercise, he has to say some bad words. And so it gets an R rating. The LA Times’ Patrick Goldstein has an excellent article about the arbitrariness of the MPAA’s rules and the outrageous results.

To call the decision crazy and unhinged would be to let the MPAA off too lightly. Its ratings decisions, which frown on almost any sort of sex, frontal nudity or bad language but have allowed increasing amounts of violence over the years, are horribly out of touch with mainstream America, where families everywhere are disturbed by the amount of violence freely portrayed in movies, video games and hip-hop music.

He quotes Tom Hooper, director of “The King’s Speech.”

“What I take away from that decision,” says Hooper, “is that violence and torture is OK, but bad language isn’t. I can’t think of a single film I’ve ever seen where the swear words had haunted me forever, the way a scene of violence or torture has, yet the ratings board only worries about the bad language.”

And he quotes me:

he ratings board judges violence on a far more amorphous and clearly subjective sense of overall tone. That discrepancy sets up the MPAA for all sorts of criticism, much of which has come from Nell Minow, a corporate governance expert whose must-read Movie Mom blog has frequently taken the MPAA to task for its inconsistencies.

“The ratings decision on ‘The King’s Speech’ is just another example of how completely out of touch and useless the guidance is that we get from the MPAA,” Minow told me Monday. “The one thing we want from them is a general sense of where a movie fits into our family values. But by putting ‘The King’s Speech’ in the same ratings category as ‘Kill Bill’ or ‘Scarface’ or ‘Saw,’ then it really makes a mockery of the whole system.”

Do the GQ ‘Glee’ Photos Go Too Far?

Posted on October 21, 2010 at 8:26 am

Katie Couric and the Parents Television Council are objecting to a sexy photo spread of “Glee” cast members in GQ Magazine. While Finn (Cory Monteith) is fully clothed, his cast mates Rachel (Lea Michelle) and Quinn (Diana Agron) (both 24 years old but playing teenage high schoolers in the show) are in their underwear and posing very provocatively.

The PTC says “It is disturbing that GQ, which is explicitly written for adult men, is sexualizing the actresses who play high school-aged characters on ‘Glee’ in this way. It borders on pedophilia.” GQ responded, “As often happens in Hollywood, these ‘kids’ are in their twenties. Cory Montieth’s almost 30! I think they’re old enough to do what they want.” NPR’s Monkey See blog also objected to the sexy “Glee” photos, because of the passive, little-girl signifiers of the props and poses.

“Glee” is not intended for children. It has a good deal of edgy material with frequent sexual references and situations. Agron plays a character who, despite membership in the school chastity club, had a baby last year. A teen boy has sex with older women. In another episode three characters decide to lose their virginity, though not all of them went through with it. The most recent episode showed two teen girl cheerleaders making out with each other.

At least three or four times a year there is a headline about some former child star who wants to show she is all grown up with a sexy photo shoot or music video. A new video from Miley Cyrus, formerly the squeaky clean Hannah Montana, has her posing blindfolded on a bed and giving lap dances. The only thing harder to control than a teenager is a teenager in show business. Or a publication trying to get headlines.

How should parents respond? First, by listening. Young fans of performers like Miley Cyrus may be distressed by this kind of behavior. Parents should use this as an opportunity to say that sometimes people, especially teenagers, make foolish choices, and we hope they learn from their mistakes — and that we do, too. If they feel strongly about it, help them write a letter to the performer, or post something on a fan site expressing their views. Teenage Gleeks may be willing to talk about why it is that the male performer gets to keep his clothes on, why the female stars pose in their underwear in public settings, and how props like a lollipop are used transgressively to make the images evoke both childhood and adult sexuality.

Let me know what your family thinks about this issue, either here or at moviemom@moviemom.com.

Interview: Stephen Simon of ‘The Old Hollywood’

Posted on October 16, 2010 at 8:00 am

Stephen Simon grew up in Hollywood, the son of a movie director and studio executive. He worked in movies as well, including films with Tom Cruise, Madonna, and Christopher Reeve. His new book is The Old Hollywood and he was nice enough to answer my questions about the movie business.
What’s the biggest difference between the “old Hollywood” and the “new Hollywood?”
The single biggest difference is that New Hollywood is almost entirely focused on films for people under thirty; that is, those who are experiencing Act One of life. The Old Hollywood focused on Acts One, Two, and Three of life. When we bring back the Old Hollywood, we can leave Act One to the New Hollywood and focus on Acts Two and Three.
Are there some film-makers who work with the same crews and cast repeatedly to create the old Hollywood sense of community and continuity?
As to key crew members, yes. Most filmmakers like to work with the same core crew. As to cast, only a few people like the wonderful Christopher Guest (“Best in Show,” “Waiting for Guffman,” etc.) maintain a kind of rep company so he can work with the same actors. There are other ways that some directors honor the Old Hollywood. Many years ago, I worked with Sam Raimi who went on to direct the Spider-Man films. In honor of an Old Hollywood tradition, Sam wore a coat and tie on the set every Friday.
How does the increasing role of the international box office affect the subject matter and script quality of Hollywood movies?
I have heard some foreign sales agents say that “action rules, comedy drools.” Action films translate all over the world but humor often doesn’t. In addition, international distributors put a huge emphasis on so-called “name” actors so they can have a better chance at DVD and television pre-sales. So, action films with name actors have ruled the international marketplace for many years. Doesn’t leave a lot of room for films like “Sideways,” “Little Miss Sunshine,” and other story-oriented films, does it?
What can independent producers do that studios cannot?
Nowadays, not much. Sadly, “independent” today usually means out of work. One of the biggest casualties of the New Hollywood has been the decline of independent films. In fact, one of the main goals of my book Bringing Back The Old Hollywood and www.TheOldHollywood.com is to prevent independent movies from becoming an extinct species.
Why are movies all directed at teenagers?
I address this woeful state of affairs in my book: Murder At MGM. The corporate mentality that now rules every studio has also led to a single-minded reliance on Madison Avenue demographics. Whereas the giants like Mayer and Thalberg would make films they believed in and order their marketing divisions to come up with ways to sell them, the situation is reversed today.
Marketing executives are consulted on whether the under thirty year-old audience can be lured to theaters by a film. If the marketers are dubious, the film will, in most cases, never see the light of day.
If Indiana Jones were sent to find The Holy Grail in the New Hollywood, his assignment would be to come back with the secret of how a fifteen-year-old boy decides which movies to attend over and over again.
Imagine for a moment Louis B. Mayer in a meeting with his MGM marketing team about Gone With The Wind in 1939. The head of marketing cautions Mayer not to make “Gone With The Wind.” “Sure, it’s a big best seller and all, Mr. Mayer, but the teenagers will never go for it and there are no fast food tie-ins.” The next day’s headline in Variety would have been: “MGM’s Mayer Murders Marketer.”
The tail is not wagging the dog. It has replaced the dog altogether.
Do you agree with the “auteur” theory that it is the director who is the author of a film?
Absolutely, positively, 100% not! One of the reasons that the New Hollywood is in so much trouble is that it has so marginalized writers and canonized directors. Screenwriters are hired and fired indiscriminately. As a result, the majestic power of story telling has become a lost art in the New Hollywood. And that’s another reason that we’re Bringing Back The Old Hollywood.
What is it like to vote for the Oscars?
It’s a wonderful honor and also a significant responsibility. So much Oscar voting is about politics, personalty, and jealousy. 2009 is a perfect example. While “The Hurt Locker” was admired by many, “Avatar” is one of the great achievements in film history. The only reason James Cameron didn’t win was because many people in the Academy felt the film’s success was a big enough reward and others were just jealous of Cameron’s success. Politics aside, being a member of the Academy is a great honor for which I am deeply grateful.
When did you say no to Steven Spielberg?
Well, for one, I’m obviously no genius. The story is related in great detail in my book but, in short, Spielberg was at one time interested in developing a script for “What Dreams May Come.” For various reasons, I eventually decided to go in another direction. It’s one of the more interesting and bizarre chapters both in my book and also in my life.
What do you mean by niche being the key to bringing back old Hollywood?
The New Hollywood is on a relentless hunt for movies that appeal to the widest possible audience under 30. As one studio executive said to me, they are no longer even looking for films that could be modest or even solid successes. They want blockbusters. (The fact that the video chain Blockbuster is itself teetering on bankruptcy seems lost on them.) Niches have been the key to cable television’s meteoric rise at the expense of the so-called mainstream networks and it is the key to making films for targeted audiences over 30 as we Bring Back the Old Hollywood. In fact, if the classic film “The Graduate” was made today, the word whispered to Benjamin as the key to future success would be “niches”, not “plastics.”

(more…)

Violence in Movies Shown on Airplanes

Posted on October 1, 2010 at 7:32 am

The only truly captive audience for movies is airline passengers. You do not have to put on the headset, but if you are disturbed or offended by what is on screen there is no way to turn it off. Airlines will edit the films for language or nudity and sex, but (other than plane crash scenes) they keep in the violence and parents with small children have no way to protect them from those images. A group called Kids Safe Films is calling on the airlines to do better.

On a 2006 US Airways flight, the in-flight airline movie screen dropped down from the overhead and began showing images of incredible violence. A drive-by shooting, a child crushed to death by a car, kids swapping guns. And that was in the first five minutes of the film. What’s crazy is that children on the flight were watching these images regardless of whether or not their parents purchased headsets. All because the screens were positioned so that everyone could see them. On other more recent flights, parents have struggled to protect their kids from images of murder, torture, melting faces and death – all shown on publicly viewable screens.

The American Medical Association reports numerous studies which prove that exposure to violent images is harmful to children.

And yet, here in America, in the only situation in which parents are unable to walk away from a TV screen, change the channel or even turn the TV off, their kids are force fed images of horrific violence – against their will, against the recommendation of the Medical Experts and against the guidelines set by Hollywood as put forth by the MPAA.

Their concerns are measured and their goals are modest. They applaud the airlines that either do not show movies or have 100% individual screens. They are not asking airlines to show children’s movies, they are not suing anyone (how refreshing!), and they are not raising money (even more refreshing). They are urging the airlines and movie studios to act on their own, but support legislation if that does not happen. They are gathering signatures on a petition and I support their efforts.

Don’t Trust the Toy Lady

Posted on September 17, 2010 at 8:00 am

The LA Times reports that back to school reports on a number of national and local newscasts have included commentary from “a young mother and ‘toy expert’ named Elizabeth Werner,” described as “perky and positive-plus” in her demonstration of seven recommended toys for children. She talks about all the things the toys do in her segments on the air, but does not mention one fact parents might like to know — she is paid $11,000 for each toy she presents by the same company that is hoping you will buy them.
James Rainey points out that it is a violation of FCC rules for a news program to present a sponsored segment without disclosing that it is, in effect, an ad. It is also a violation of journalistic ethics which even chirpy morning shows are supposed to uphold.
Rainey, who by example demonstrates exactly what those standards are for, notes that

Werner is a lawyer who worked for a couple of toy companies before she went into the promotion business. She told me that the company that hires her to do the tours — New Jersey-based DWJ Television — scrupulously notifies TV stations that toy makers pay for the pitches. DWJ founder Dan Johnson, an ABC News veteran of decades gone by, said the same.

So I picked three stations and morning programs that Werner visited over the summer — Fox 2 in Detroit, Fox 5’s “Good Day Atlanta” and the independent KTVK’s “Good Morning Arizona” in Phoenix to see how they plugged the Werner segments. A spokesperson for the two Fox stations and the news director at the Phoenix outlet told me they had been told absolutely nothing about Werner being paid to tout products, which ranged from a Play-Doh press to a new Toy Story video game to the Paper Jamz electronic guitar.

He notes that the burden is not on the promoter who is being paid but on the news programs, who should always be suspicious of anyone who claims to be an expert, especially one who is touring the country without any visible means of support.
The burden, unfortunately, is on parents, who must also learn to be skeptical about “experts” who are just live-action versions of Marge the manicurist or Mr. Whipple the store manager.