Why Movie Ratings Don't Make Sense: Bias in the MPAA (24:54)

 Topic : Why Movie Ratings Don't Make Sense: Bias in the MPAA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Word

Why Movie Ratings Don't Make Sense: Bias in the MPAA (24:54)
at one point한때는
get away with(저지당하거나 처벌 받지 않고) 자기 하고 싶은 대로 다하다
a stretch: stretching your imagination, thinking something that is a little, but not very far, outside conventional thoughts.
it’s not a stretch=it's not difficult to imagine
janky(품)질이 좋지 않은
touch on~을 간단히 언급하다[다루다]
advocate(공개적으로) 지지하다[옹호하다]
formula (특정한 상황에서 쓰는) 정형화된[판에 박힌] 문구
administer (흔히 수동태로) (회사·조직·국가 등을) 관리하다[운영하다]
go over~을 점검[검토]하다
file an appeal상소하다, 항소를 제기하다
run(성공실패 등의) 연속
exhibit (감정특질 등을) 보이다[드러내다]
attend주의를 기울이다, 참석하다
sorcerer(이야기 속의) 마법사
apparently듣자[보아] 하니
customary관례적인, 습관적인
wuss쪼다, 병신
persistent끊임없이 지속[반복]되는
the last but not the least 마지막으로, 그렇지만 앞에 말씀드린 분[것]들과 마찬가지로 중요한(사람·사물을 열거하면서 마지막에 언급하는 것이 앞에 언급한 것 못지않게 중요함을 말하기 위해 씀)
lesser(크기·양·중요성이) 더 적은[작은], 덜한
Less refers to quantity, lesser refers to quality. Your sentence could be rephrased as "substitute less punishment for more punishment." Here we are saying that the amount of punishment is smaller. But if you say "substitute the lesser punishment" you are saying the type of punishment is not as severe.
typically보통, 일반적으로
aberrational일탈의, 상궤를 벗어난
squeak by간신히 헤어나다; 누군가 또는 무언가를 이럭저럭 넘기거나 하다; 그럭저럭 처리하다
inherently본질적으로, 근본적으로
in the first place 우선[먼저](무엇에 대한 이유를 말하거나, 무엇을 했어야 또는 하지 말았어야 했다는 말을 하는 문장의 끝 부분에 씀)
theoretical이론의, 이론적인
standpoint견지, 관점
biased편향된, 선입견이 있는
inconsistent(진술 등이) 내용이 다른[모순되는]
for good reason정당한 사유로, 충분한 이유로
classification분류
unorthodox 정통적이 아닌, 특이한
lessen (크기·강도·중요도 등이[을]) 줄다[줄이다]
profound(영향·느낌·경험 등이) 엄청난[깊은]
stammer말 더듬기, 말을 더듬다
zing맹비판하다
partially부분적으로, 불완전하게
improvise(보통 꼭 필요한 것이 없어서) 뭐든 있는 것으로 처리하다[만들다]
screenwriter시나리오 작가
provoke (특정한 반응을) 유발하다
stutter 말을 더듬다, 더듬거리다
swear욕을 하다
note(중요하거나 흥미로운 것을) 언급하다
counter반박[논박]하다
have had it with 더 이상 ~을 참을 수 없다,~에  신물나다
fornification: two people who are not married to eachother or dating eachother having sexual relations
script (연극영화방송강연 등의) 대본[원고]을 쓰다
let loose with[꾸짖는 소리 등]을 해대다; (소리) 지르다
(as) clear as a bell (소리·목소리가) 맑은, 명백[명쾌]한
offender기분 상하게[불쾌하게] 하는 것(말)
riff on ~을 (재즈나 대중음악에서) 리프[반복 악절]로 노래하다
sane분별 있는, 온당한
designation지정, 지명
comparable to…에 맞먹는[필적하는]
buff (합성어에 쓰여) -광, 애호가
fit욱하는 감정,발작
tirade장황한 비난, 장광설.a long, angry speech of criticism or accusation
vulgar저속한, 천박한
lewd외설적인, 선정적인
take one's word for it~의 말을 곧이곧대로 받아들이다
box office매표소
put it말하다
sin(종교도덕상의) 죄, 죄악
depravity타락, 부패
unaccompanied 동행자가 없는
outburst (감정의) 폭발[분출]
vicious잔인한, 포악한, 악랄한
fair enough(생각이나 제안이) 괜찮다[좋다]
rightly당연히, 마땅히
deem(…로) 여기다[생각하다]
relatively비교적
fail실망시키다; 도움을 못 주다
against the odds곤란[크게 불리함, 강한 저항]을 무릅쓰고
inspirational영감[감화/자극]을 주는
compare to~에 비유하다, ~에 비교하다
literally문자[말] 그대로
tear apart~을 갈가리 찢어[뜯어] 버리다
lead(연극∙영화 등의) 주인공[주연/주연 배우]
telling효과적인, 강력한
derail(기차가[를]) 탈선하다[시키다]
critically acclaimed비평가들의 극찬을 받은
arguably (충분한 근거를 갖고) 주장하건대, 거의 틀림없이(흔히 비교급이나 최상급 형용사 앞에 나옴)
slasher movie슬래셔 무비(정체 모를 인물이 많은 살인을 저지르는 끔찍한 내용을 담은 영화)
sexism (특히 여성에 대한) 성차별[성차별주의]
caricature캐리커처(어떤 사람의 특징을 과장하여 우스꽝스럽게 묘사한 그림이나 사진)
input(일사업 등을 성공시키기 위한) 조언[시간/지식 등](의 제공); 투입
entitled~라는 제목의
release (대중들에게) 공개[발표]하다
exemplify전형적인 예가 되다
negotiate협상[교섭]하다
exotic (특히 열대 지방에 있는) 외국의; 이국적인=>erotic
dread(…을) 몹시 무서워하다; (안 좋은 일이 생길까 봐) 두려워하다
initially처음에
appeal호소하다, 간청하다, 항소[상고]하다
feature (어떤 배우나, 장면 등)을 보여주다
nubile(소녀·젊은 여자가) 성적 매력이 있는
by contrast그에 반해서, 그와 대조적으로
graphically(특히 불쾌한 것에 대해) 아주 생생[자세]하게
depict(그림으로) 그리다
pleasure: give sexual pleasure to
blur흐릿하게 만들다
disturbing충격적인, 불안감을 주는
reverse (정반대로) 뒤바꾸다
have issues with ~을 마음에 안 들어하다,  불만이다
borderline이쪽도 저쪽도 아닌, 경계선상의
go off (특히 무엇을 하러) 자리를 뜨다
supervision감독, 관리, 지휘, 감시, 통제
yet another꼬리를 물고, 잇따라
indie기업개인상품이 독립된, 인디의
a whole host of수많은
take issue with~에 대해 이의를 제기하다
ghetto (흔히 소수 민족들이 모여 사는) 빈민가[게토]
anti-Semitic반유대주의의
propaganda (정치 지도자·정당 등에 대한 허위·과장된) 선전
footage(특정한 사건을 담은) 장면[화면]
death camp죽음의 수용소, 집단 처형장
atrocity(특히 전시의) 잔혹 행위
assign (가치·기능 등을) 부여하다
intense극심한, 강렬한
thrive번창하다; 잘 자라다
convince납득시키다, 확신시키다
assurance확언, 장담, 확약
dismissiveness 오만, 경멸적임
dismiss(고려할 가치가 없다고) 묵살[일축]하다
let alone~커녕[~은 고사하고]
explain oneself심중을 털어놓다
cut(영화·연극·글의 일부분에 대한) 삭제
brandish (특히 무기를) 휘두르다
prompt (사람에게 어떤 결정을 내리도록, 어떤 일이 일어나도록) 하다[촉발하다]
viable실행 가능한, 성공할 수 있는
media stunt언론이 만들어낸 주목거리,노이즈 마케팅 =publicity stunt
reclaim(분실하거나 빼앗긴 물건 등을) 되찾다[돌려 달라고 하다]
abolish (법률·제도·조직을) 폐지하다
stigma오명
gun for ~를 위해서 총쏘다/싸우다
screen (영화를) 상영[방영]하다
preserve (특정한 자질특색 등을) 지키다[보호하다]
integrity (나뉘지 않고) 완전한 상태, 온전함
kiss of death죽음의 키스; (언뜻 도움이 될 듯하나) 종국에 파멸[파국]을 가져오는 것
likely아마
mainstream 주류
media outlet(신문,방송 따위의) 매스컴
relegate격하[좌천]시키다, (덜 중요한 위치로) 밀쳐 버리다
smut외설물=pornography
gritty불쾌한 현실을 그대로 보여주는
after all(예상과는 달리) 결국에는
advocate(공개적으로) 지지하다[옹호하다]
come of age성년이 되다
nerve-wracking신경을 건드리는, 피로케 하는, 괴롭히는
set out (일·과제 등에) 착수하다[나서다]
viability 생존 능력, (계획 등의) 실행 가능성
sequel(책·영화·연극 등의) 속편
retelling다시 만든[개작된] 이야기
compilation(특히 여러 다른 책이나 음반에서 내용을 딴) 모음집[편집본]
isolated incident 단일 사건, 연관성이 없는 사건
rumor has it소문에 의하면
preteen사춘기 직전의 (아동) ((10-12세))=tween
props존경, 인정
disclaimer(책임·연루 등에 대한) 부인
stumble비틀[휘청]거리다
unwarranted부당한, 불필요한, 부적절한
take to…에 가다[호소하다]
rant고함치다, 큰소리로 불평하다
censor검열하다, (검열하여) 삭제하다
alter바꾸다, 고치다
intact(하나도 손상되지 않고) 온전한, 전혀 다치지 않은
shame창피스럽게[부끄럽게] 하다
put down (특히 다른 사람들 앞에서) ~를 바보로 만들다[깎아내리다/깔아뭉개다]
mirror (거울처럼) 잘 보여주다, 반영하다
stand up for…을 지지하다, 옹호하다
relent (거부하다가 마침내) 동의하다,  (기세·강도 등이) 수그러들다[누그러지다]
raw(충격적일 정도로) 노골적인[있는 그대로 보여주는]
shed a light on를 조명하다, 밝혀내다
by design고의로, 계획적으로
subjective주관적인
hard-core(성 묘사가) 노골적인 포르노물
skeptical의심 많은, 회의적인, 쉽게 믿지 않는
secretive(자신의 생각·감정 등에 대해) 비밀스러운
public relations홍보[선전] (활동)
in a way어느 정도는; 어떤 면에서는
ingenious (사물·계획·생각 등이) 기발한
public figure유명 인사, 공인
quantifiable정량화할 수 있는
rub ... the wrong way~를 의도하지 않게 화나게 하다
let's be real현실적으로 생각해 봅시다
given…을 고려해 볼 때
talking head : a commentator or reporter on television who addresses the camera and is viewed in close-up.
understated(스타일·색상 등이) 절제된
understate(실제보다) 축소해서 말하다
dramedy=comedy-drama 드라메디(코미디가 가미된 텔레비전 드라마)
protagonist (연극·영화·책 속의) 주인공
thematic주제의, 테마와 관련된
reference 말하기, 언급; 언급 대상, 언급한 것
in question문제의[논의가 되고 있는]
have an issue with…와 문제가 있다, 불화(不和)하다
homophobic동성애 공포증[혐오]의
tendency성향, 기질; 경향
reinforce(감정·생각 등을) 강화하다
suppress (보통 못마땅함) 정부·통치자 등이 진압하다
be on equal ground대등한 위치에 있다
advance information사전 정보
descriptor기술어(구)
prescribe (권위 있는 사람·기관이) 규정[지시]하다
focus group포커스 그룹(시장 조사나 여론 조사를 위해 각 계층을 대표하도록 뽑은 소수의 사람들로 이뤄진 그룹)
flawed 결함[결점/흠]이 있는
harsh가혹한, 냉혹한
blockbuster블록버스터(크게 성공한 책이나 영화)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Script

- Hello, everybody, and welcome back to the channel. My name is Blair or the iilluminaughtii,

and today, we're going to be talking about the MPAA ratings. In case you have no idea what MPAA ratings are, it stands for Motion Picture Association of America. In other words, this is the system that decides if a movie is rated G, PG, PG-13, R, or NC-17. I'm sure we've all wondered at one point how the hell we got away with seeing certain movies at such a young age, or maybe questioned why we weren't allowed to see it at a different time. After all, there are some seriously disturbing kids cartoons out there, so it's not a stretch to see that transition into film. Anyone remember "Courage the Cowardly Dog," for example? That shit had some lasting effects on me. But before we get into the biased and janky system that is the MPAA ratings, let's touch on where they come from and what determines which letter they get. So the history of the Motion Picture Association dates back to 1922. In the early days, the MPAA was about ensuring Hollywood remained financially stable. Will Hays, the MPAA's first president, even spoke out against censorship and made multiple attempts to create different codes or guidelines for filmmakers. While he advocated for free speech in film, he hoped the industry could, to some extent, self-regulate. At that time, it was a much smaller industry, so it may have seemed possible, but the Hays Code and the "Don't Be Careful's" codes and his formula guideline all failed. It wasn't until 1968 that the MPAA rating system we still use today was founded, and we pretty much know all the ratings: G, PG, PG-13, and they're primarily used to help parents decide what films are appropriate for their children. These ratings are administered through CARA, the Classification and Ratings Administration. The most recent rules I could find through CARA were revised in 2010, and they go over the procedure of submitting a film for a rating, the use of ratings, filing appeals, etcetera. I won't go over every single stage in the process, but I'll give a bit of an overview. Page 3 states that a motion picture must be submitted for a rating if it is exhibited or distributed in the United States. By "exhibited," they mean it must be "made commercially available for screening for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater for a run of at least seven consecutive days and has been advertised during that run in a manner considered normal and customary to the industry." And they defined "distributed," as "made commercially available for sale or licensed to members of the public for personal home use."

So that's easy enough. If a movie is exhibited or distributed, it will be rated. There's five possible ratings according to CARA. G means General Audiences. "It has nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence, or other matters that would offend parents whose young children view the motion picture." So think of movies like "Toy Story," "Finding Nemo," "WALL-E," "Winnie the Pooh." Those are your G movies. I'm not saying no parent or Karen could possibly find something wrong with them, but it's pretty hard to do. They're a pretty inoffensive bunch of movies. Then you move a step up into PG, which is Parental Guidance.

"A parent should 'investigate' the movie," according to CARA, "before letting younger children attend." "Home Alone," "Jumanji," "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," and, wait, "Poltergeist"? - They're here. - [Blair] Yeah, apparently Poltergeist is rated PG, and maybe I'm a wuss, but that shit would give me nightmares as a kid, honestly.

- [Blair] Anyway, the other ratings are PG-13, which "may include violence, nudity, language, and other elements, so children under 13 are not advised to see the movie." Think "Dark Knight," "Avengers," "Titanic," et cetera. A film rated R means it probably "includes adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, drug abuse, or all of the above."

Think of movies like "Joker," "Deadpool," "The Hangover," and "It" all fall into this category. And the last, but not least, is a lesser-known category known as NC-17 No children 17 and under can be permitted to see these movies because they're too adult, and the rating is typically based on violence, sex, drug abuse, or aberrational behavior. "American Psycho" had this rating, actually, for strong violence, sexuality, drug use, and language, but once one particular scene was cut, it squeaked by and got an R rating. "Bad Education," "The Canterbury Tales," and "Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III" all have this rating.

Now, I don't see anything inherently wrong with there being a rating system in the first place.

It doesn't exactly make financial sense for a parent to pay to go and see a movie, determine if it's right for the child, and then go with them again. So I actually kind of get it from a purely logical, practical, theoretical standpoint. The problem, however, lies in the biased and inconsistent way the MPAA does their ratings. And the MPAA has been criticized for years, and for good reason. Michael Phillips from The Chicago Tribune wrote the following about it: "I've had it with Motion Picture Association of America's ratings and classifications board.

It has become foolish and irrelevant, and its members do not have my interests at heart, or yours. They're too easy on violence, yet bizarrely reactionary when it comes to nudity and language, especially language. Last month, the new film 'The King's Speech,' about King George VI and his sessions with the unorthodox speech therapist hired to lessen his profound stammer, got zinged with an R rating. One scene, partially improvised, according to screenwriter David Siedler, provoked the R rating. 'You don't stutter when you swear,' notes Rush's character, Lionel Logue. 'I'm bloody angry!' counters Bertie, played by Firth. 'Do you know the f-word?' asks Lionel, to which the future king of England replies: 'Ffffffffornication.'

As scripted, Siedler wrote a brief exchange in which Bertie lets loose with seven clear-as-a-bell f-words and a few lesser offenders. 'That's as I wrote it,' Siedler says. But then Colin got into the moment, into the anger of the swearing, and just riffed on it. And it was wonderful. And it wasn't enough for an R. In Britain, the film has received a saner 12A designation, comparable to our PG-13." I'm not giant movie buff, but I know this movie, and I love this movie. It's about a man on a path to become king, conquering a stammer, and as dry as that sounds, it's so fantastically well done. It's in a fit of frustration that the character goes into a tirade of swearing, but it's not vulgar or lewd or violent. Literally, that's the entire reason that it got an R rating, because this incredibly well-done scene. If you haven't seen it, if you don't want to take my word for it, go check it out in the film yourself. It's gotten a number of awards, nominations, and it's made hundreds of millions in the box office. Yet, the MPA, as Phillips from The Tribune puts it, decided, "it would be a sin to allow a 12-year-old to see such depravity unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian." Meanwhile, "in Britain, 'The King's Speech' got the 12A rating because the Firth character's outbursts wasn't vicious or directed at someone else." Fair enough. "Rightly based on its tone and context, the scene was deemed relatively unharmful to the average 12-year-old. And if the average American 12-year-old, against the odds, happens to express an interest in seeing 'The King's Speech,' she or he will experience a genuinely inspirational period picture about a man with a speech disability who learns how to overcome it." I don't want to go on and on and on about this movie, but I do think it's a fantastic example of where the MPAA fails us.

I mean, seriously, the "Saw" franchise has an R rating. How does this one outburst scene compare to a movie that features a scene where a woman's face is literally torn apart?

Another bias the MPAA has been accused of is gender bias.

In 2013, Manhattan's IFC Center and art house movie theater allowed teenagers to see a movie with an NC-17 rating. It got its rating from a lengthy sex scene between two female leads, so yes, I can understand why it's not for children or young teens, obviously, but at the same time, the MPAA's reaction to these kinds of situations is telling. They warn theaters that they're derailing the whole system when they show teenagers these films, but in the meantime, this scene gives this movie a more adult rating than many different horror films.

I'm not saying "Let teens see whatever they want," but it bothers me that a critically acclaimed "Blue Is the Warmest Color" film about love, coming of age, and passion is made less accessible than arguably darker slasher movies. As Salon puts it, "The real problem in movies today isn't sex, it's sexism, often coupled with racist caricatures for an even greater effect. Imagine if our movie ratings considered sexism and racism as content that children should not be viewing without parental input. Just a thought." A book entitled "Sex and Violence: The Hollywood Censorship Wars" takes it a step further. Tom Pollard writes on page 143 that "Kramer's 'The Cooler,' a film released in 2003, exemplifies current policy of negotiating ratings. Kramer's exotic thriller received the dreaded NC-17 rating initially, but the producers ultimately negotiated an R rating after appealing to the MPAA. The Valenti Office especially disliked a scene featuring William H. Macy performing cunnilingus on a nubile Maria Bello. After hearing the studio's appeal, the MPAA finally decided to allow the scene. By contrast, Jane Campion's R-rated "In the Cut" in 2003 graphically depicts an act of fellatio in which a woman pleasures a man orally. To avoid the NC-17 rating, Campion only needed to blur some details." So if a woman is giving a man oral pleasure, that's totally fine, but a man doing it for a woman, hmm, nah, that ain't happening, son. Give it a rating that makes it seem far more disturbing and graphic than a film released that exact same year with the roles reversed. Yep, that sounds about right. "50 Shades of Gray" was given an R rating, and I have many issues with this film, and it is borderline porn. There's there's a whole bunch... I could literally go off on a video about how much "50 Shades of Gray"

just a fucked up movie and a book series and everything, but whatever. While "50 Shades of Gray" gets an R rating, and it's literally borderline porn, a coming of age story, "Blue is the Warmest Color," the one with the sex scene, that was... that one, that was given the NC-17 rating. I'm just saying, it doesn't fully make sense to me. And again, I'm not trying to advocate for teens watching these movies without any supervision at all. And if any sex scene made a film NC-17, that's fine. It's just the lack of consistency and bias that really bothers me more than anything. But why does this happen in the first place? Well, I'd like to think it's because of yet another bias associated with the MPAA, a bias against indie films. There are multiple examples of MPAA ratings, giving smaller studios unfair treatment over the years

for a whole host of reasons. One could say it's because money talks, or maybe because the public would take far more issue with "Avengers" being difficult to see, rather than a smaller, lesser-known film. Either way, the evidence is there. For example, "In August 2010, a documentary titled 'A Film Unfinished' was released by Oscilloscope, a New York-based independent distributor. The film's subject is the making of an unfinished Nazi documentary about the Warsaw ghetto that was intended to spread anti-Semitic propaganda. The director, Yael Heronski, would like 'A Film Unfinished' to be shown in schools to educate children about the Holocaust. But because the documentary includes some horrific footage of death camp atrocities, some of them showing Jews both dead and alive, stripped naked, the Motion Picture Association of America's rating division assigned the documentary an R rating. They appealed the decision, pointing out that a dozen years earlier, Steven Spielberg's Shoah Foundation had released a Holocaust documentary titled 'The Last Days' that featured similar footage, but received a PG-13 rating. It even presented the MPAA with a letter from the Warsaw ghetto survivor who urged that the film be used to educate young people. But the MPAA's appeals board voted to maintain the R rating, 12 to three." The issue here isn't that a teenager can't see an R-rated movie. With a parent or guardian, yes, it's possible. And for more intense topics, that can be a good thing for a parent to be present, but it's made more difficult for this indie film to thrive. Not only do they have to appeal to viewers, but try to convince their audience that it's educational and potentially suitable for younger teens, whereas "The Last Days" had the same rating as the first Harry Potter movie. So I doubt a parent would really need much convincing or assurance in that case. Again, if MPAA wants all violent Holocaust movies or documentaries to be rated R, that's fine, but make sure it's all of them. The fact that a Warsaw ghetto survivor, someone who went through absolute hell

and knew the real atrocities of the time advocated for this film speaks volumes about the good it may have been able to do. MPAA's dismissiveness really bothered me here, let alone how they don't explain themselves. There's even a website for future filmmakers with an article called "6 Ways to Avoid an NC 17 Rating." They state the following: "Many original cuts of popular films have been brandished with an NC-17 rating over the years, often prompting filmmakers to re-edit for a more commercially viable R. In 2011, Fox Searchlight famously refused to appeal the NC-17 rating on 'Steve McQueen's Shame.' This was seen as a media stunt and attempt to reclaim the rating and abolish it stigma. Unfortunately, most of us don't have Fox Searchlight gunning for our film. As an indie filmmaker, an NC-17 rating could mean that your film screens one midnight showing at one theater, and that's it. Artistically, preserving the integrity of your film and showing it to small audiences may be the right move, but your investors may not be pleased. Many in the film industry feel that an NC-17 rating is the kiss of death. Why? Because if your film receives this rating, it likely means that distributors won't touch you, commercial theaters won't release your film, mainstream media outlets won't advertise it, and your movie becomes relegated to smut." And that's pretty discouraging. Imagine a young, creative filmmaker that wants to cover a gritty topic and tell it without censorship. After all, that's what Hays, the MPAA's first president, advocated for, remember? So what if they want to tell a story that's coming of age with sex in it, or it's a war documentary and people are killed. A realistic story that's been told by Hollywood before, but in a different way, awards them this kiss of death? To be seen as smut? Indie films aren't a way of making big bucks in the way Hollywood does. It can be discouraging, I've got to imagine, to make a movie with a tight budget and a small crew. Now add the fact that the NPAA is making it even more difficult and nerve-wracking for indie filmmakers to even tell a story, and it feels like they're absolutely destroyed by what they set out to do, ensuring the viability of the film industry. All they're really doing is ensuring that the large studios stay happy. And seriously, you know how some people say there are no new stories in Hollywood,

like how everything's a sequel or a retelling, but never a fresh, interesting concept? If the MPAA promoted interesting indie films, instead of tearing them down, then perhaps we would be able to see some new concepts come out. But for right now, it seems like they're part of the problem, not the solution. One article from IndieWire lists some of the most notable times

they believe the MPAA got it wrong. And I went through this compilation to be sure that the examples I already went through weren't just isolated incidents.

Though "Blue Is the Warmest Color" and the oral scene from "Blue Valentine" were on the list,

there's plenty of other cases that reveal the MPAA's definite biases. One film called "Boyhood" in 2014 was rated R, and rumor has it, since it doesn't seem like MPAA said why, the rating was due to a scene where preteen boys dig through a lingerie magazine. But "Boyhood" is meant for, well, teenagers. It was written for them, with scenes they can actually relate to.

And once again, major props to new York's IFC Center because they allowed the film to be viewed by teens. I haven't seen the movie, so I'll make the disclaimer right here and now, but if a scene where teenage boys find a lingerie magazine means that teens can't see it, that's got to be a little bit frustrating for the people who worked so hard on the film, one that was 12 years in the making, by the way. Is every movie about teenagers supposed to give them very small, easy-to-digest problems? I know when I was a teenager, I dealt with a ton of really, really difficult problems that stemmed far beyond stumbling through a lingerie magazine, and I don't think this scene would be something that 16-year-old me would be like,

"Oh my God, mom, I can't believe what I saw at the movie." I just wouldn't like... no, one's like that.

But again, I haven't seen it, but by the sounds of things, it's a pretty damn unwarranted rating. Another example IndieWire uses is called "Charlie Countryman," released in 2013.

They state that "actress Evan Rachel Wood took to Twitter after she saw the final cut of her film 'Charlie Countryman.' The new cut received an R rating from the MPAA, but did not include parts of a love scene in which Shia Labeouf's character performs oral sex on Woods's character. Woods's full Twitter rant, broken up into several posts, read, 'After seeing the new cut of #CharlieCountryman, I would like to share my disappointment with the MPAA, who thought it was necessary to censor a woman's sexuality once again. The scene where the two main characters make love was altered because someone felt that seeing a man give a woman oral sex made people uncomfortable, but the scenes in which people are murdered by having their heads blown off remained intact and unaltered. This is a symptom of a society that wants to shame women and put them down for enjoying sex." And this just seems to be a mirrored example of "Blue Valentine." Seriously, does the MPAA think only men can get enjoyment in the bedroom or something? Because this happens again with the film "Boys Don't Cry," because the NPAA deemed it was problematic when Brandon wiped his mouth after performing oral sex on Lana and that Lana's orgasm was too long. Honey, have you even seen an orgasm? The fuck? I literally feel bad for every single wife of any dude on the MPAA if this is how they think, like how dare you give a woman so much pleasure? How dare you? How dare you? We're going to shame you for this one. Look, there are some other reasons why "Boys Don't Cry" got an NC-17 rating... there were other graphic scenes...

but it wasn't until Kimberly Pierce, the director, stood up for her film and asked, why the hell they would find a woman's pleasure uncomfortable, and it was then that the MPAA relented and gave it an R rating. Besides, this movie is about the inspiring life and brutal death of transgender male Brandon Teena. This film needed to be told uncensored and raw.

Yet when it was, it's the pleasure of a woman and the fucking length of her orgasm that got criticized. Vanity Fair wrote an article about the topic in 2018 and shed a bit of light on who these people are exactly. "'These ratings are, by design, subjective,' Lewis, author of 'Hollywood v. Hard Core: How the Struggle Over Censorship Created the Modern Film Industry,' says, which allows the group to anticipate what other parents might think. They're also not banning anything, with the exception of an NC-17, which isn't really a ban.

If a movie is getting a PG-13 or R rating, the MPAA's argument is they're not preventing its release. Wait: 'other parents'? It's true: though not much as publicly known about who belongs to the MPAA's Classification and Ratings Administration, or CARA, the Daily Herald did outline some basic criteria for MPAA membership in 1986. We know, according to the paper, that CARA members 'must live in California and must be parents.

Their identities are kept secret to avoid threats or bribes. They serve two-year terms.' On that last point, Lewis is skeptical. 'The MPAA are more secretive than the CIA, so the idea that they could be bribed is ridiculous. That guideline is just a matter of public relations. It's utter nonsense, which is, in a way, ingenious. If you can't argue with public figures and there are no quantifiable policy, how can you argue with a rating?" So a two-year term, identities secret, not being able to be bribed, yeah, that's all well, and good. I know there may not be a perfect solution here, but at the same time, it definitely rubs me the wrong way not knowing if these parents actually know anything about the film industry. Plus, let's be real.

People are naturally going to be biased. There are parents that come from different backgrounds with different morals and different viewpoints. We sure know they're all living in the same area, but that doesn't mean that the morals and judgments are all the same. I'm not saying their identities should be revealed, but I'm not confident the MPAA actually knows

what they're doing in terms of selection, given their history. Lewis notes that the talking heads in Dick's documentary also argue that the MPAA is generally harder on films featuring gay sex or characters than in its movies featuring straight sex. Further evidence for that claim can perhaps be seen in the PG-13 ratings. the MPAA gave to recent films, including last year's award-nominated sports comedy "Battle of the Sexes." Would the movie have been PG if its understated love scenes had involved a man and a woman rather than two women?

And this year is teen dramedy "Love, Simon." That film also follows a gay protagonist and is rated PG-13, for thematic elements, sexual references, language, and teen partying. Is homosexuality the theme in question? According to Lewis, "The MPAA's logic is simple. They are the average Americans. That's their argument. 'Most parents think that.' They're not saying that gay sex is good or bad. They're saying that parents would have an issue with their kids seeing that." So the question becomes, at least for me anyways, is where is that actually coming from? Why is there a bias against stories that have love scenes between a woman and a woman like in "Blue is the Warmest Color"? Is it because parents don't want to explain homosexuality to their teens? Is it because of homophobic tendencies? I don't know.

I don't know who these parents are, and I can't get into every detail or belief of the average American parent, but movies, films, and art shouldn't reinforce negative stereotypes, and the MPAA shouldn't suppress films that try to break that. Everyone needs to be on equal ground.

"The MPAA itself echoed this when asked to comment on the story: 'For almost 50 years,

the Classification and Ratings Administration has provided parents with advance information about the level of content within movies to help them determine what is appropriate for their children,' a spokesperson said. The rating system does not make any judgment about the content, including sexuality depicted in movies. Rather, ratoers asked the question, any parent would ask: What would I want to know about this film before I decide to let my child see it?

The rating descriptors that accompany each film inform parents what elements are present at the assigned rating level. As it states in its rules, 'it's not CARA's purpose to prescribe social policy, but instead to reflect the current values of the majority of American parents.' Elements such as violence, language, drug use, and sexuality are continually re-evaluated through surveys and focus groups to better assist parents in making family viewing choices."

That's the only answer we've actually really gotten from the NPAA. And again, let me make it clear: I'm not saying that there should be more sex scenes, violence, drugs, or swears that should be featured in movies or that children should be allowed to see them. All I'm saying is that if there is an adult scene between a man and a woman, and that gets in R rating, and an adult scene between a woman and a woman or a man and a man, and that gets an NC-17 rating, then the system is flawed. If indie movies get stricter, harsher ratings called the "kiss of death" for storytelling a similar story as a blockbuster hit that got a PG-13 rating, the system is broken. And MPAA, your system is exactly that. It's broken. So, with that being said, that's where we're going to end today's video. I want to thank the comments both inside by Discord server and on the comments just below the videos that I post every time when I do post a video of you guys suggesting topics to me. This topic was suggested through a variety of means, whether it be through the Discord server suggestion area or in the comment section. I appreciate all of you guys that took the time to suggest this to me so that we could look into it and give you a video to show. So if you liked today's video, hit that Like button. If you guys are new to the channel,