Sanitized for Your Convenience

Flipping through this week's issue of Entertainment Weekly, I came across the following tidbit:

Disney Kicks the Habit
"On July 25, Disney CEO Robert Iger said he expects smoking will soon be 'nonexistent' in the company's Disney-branded (read: family) films. In May, the MPAA said it would consider onscreen smoking when determining film ratings, and Disney joins Universal in stamping out cigarettes publicly."

Normally, I would just gloss over this kind of stuff. IT’S DISNEY! However, I was shocked that a larger studio like Universal was the first to do so. And had I not just finally seen Kirby Dick's eye-opening documentary, This Film is Not Yet Rated, I probably wouldn't have been quite as disturbed. But knowing that Universal is considering changes because the MPAA wants films to clean up their act makes me laugh.

Really Universal, are that you worried about smoking? You are the same company that put out the teenage sex romp that is the American Pie series, revamped the grisly Dawn of the Dead, and struck gold with the mobtastic Casino, right?

This latest small-scale salvo in the death match that is public decency versus the right to create makes me wonder what the MPAA is trying to do. How can smoking a cigar become the tipping point in a delicate moral balance? How is the graphic glorification of the 1970’s porn industry in Boogie Nights fit into the R-Rating, but Maria Bello enjoying an orgasm in a committed relationship while showing the very top of her pubic hair for a few seconds in The Cooler garners it an NC-17?

The purpose of the Motion Picture Association of America's rating system is to provide parents with advance information so they can decide for themselves which films are appropriate for viewing by their own children. They rate movies on factors such as violence, nudity, sex, and drug use. By this definition (stated on their own website), the MPAA rating serves as a buyer beware warning to those who might view/share the movie experience.

In the ratings process, filmmakers submit their work to a (formerly) faceless and nameless board and receive their ratings based on a flexible set of standards. They can appeal, if they’re slapped with an NC-17, but I think prisoner’s on Death Row get a better appeals process. There is no oversight from the industry and there are no hard standards that they have to follow and are allowed to get away with vague comments. The MPAA does what they will do.

You know…I think the Germans had something like this going in the 30’s and 40’s, no?

MPAA Ratings supporters state that they are justified in making filmmakers edit what they feel is inappropriate for others. But my question is: Why are you taking the ability to choose away from the consuming public? How come we aren’t smart enough to use the rating system ourselves and you feel the need to control what’s being put out there? It’s not like you guys have a great record of consistency!

Take for example the genre known as "torture porn". Movies such as Saw and Hostel glorify serial killers as antiheroes and sadomasochism like an addiction. I hate these movies and think they’re horrible. I think this violence is more destructive than most kind of sexual depiction that occurs in film today. But if Eli Roth gets his kicks and makes his paycheck off of it, fine! But I get a choice. I CHOOSE to not watch it. It's the best way to make an impact. Too bad too many of us act like lemmings, which gives the MPAA all it's power.

I’m all for making sure we protect our children from harmful images in the media. But for one, I don’t need a bunch of people who don’t even represent the demographic they’re trying to protect telling me what I should watch. Secondly – I don’t want a morals squad out there repressing creativity. A few more steps up and we’ll have a movie Taliban going.

And finally – if you’re going to knight yourself the protectorate – get your priorities in order. While activities such as smoking aren’t for the under-aged set and harmful to their health, the emphasis on violence (even the casual cartoon kind) and the glamorization of excess need to be address.

What good will anti-smoking be if we destroy the world before that?