comment #1

AndrewOwens says ...

Hoping that your checking out State of Play twice signifies approval. I loved the original mini series and have high hopes for the film, heavy handed trailer not withstanding. After the failure of Duplicity, it's make or break time for grown up thrillers.

comment #2

BurmaShave says ...

Why does the MPAA exist?

comment #3

Flash Gordon says ...

Is the man he's having anal sex with Ben Affleck?

comment #4

DarthCorleone says ...

I'm completely indifferent to Bruno, but - echoing AndrewOwens above - this offhand, almost throwaway remark about seeing State Of Play twice does have me excited. Did I miss any of Jeff's previous reactions to it?

As for the blue schlong signifying a "change of values," I'd say that the disproportionately and ridiculously high level of discussion obsessing over it among the movie's viewers indicated that in many ways U.S. values are still very uptight and puritanical.

comment #5

televisiontears says ...

Burma, it exists because they are an omnipotent moral compass in a society plagued by homosexuality, cigarettes, and the female orgasm.

Before the MPAA told me, I had no idea that mass killings were more morally dubious than two people making love. They have since shown me the light, and now every time I get horny, I just shoot a couple people instead.

comment #6

televisiontears says ...

*Less morally dubious* of course.

comment #7

liz says ...

Jeff have you seen the original mini-series? How does it compare? I am absolutely dreading seeing Affleck in taking on David Morrissey's old role. I can get over Crowe, but Affleck seems like a horrible casting choice.

comment #8

mccool says ...

Aaaand Cohen has officially seized to be revelant.

Of course that wont stop some critics from spinninng this as the catylast to some great cultural awakening (the first since 'Borat,' anyway).

comment #9

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

yep, Americans are such prudes when it comes to gay male sex... but they'll be happy with two fake lesbians having sex. Hilarious and pathetic.

comment #10

Wrecktem says ...

The MPAA exists because the entertainment industry needs representation in Washington too.

comment #11

TM says ...

Televisiontears, you rock. The posting about the MPAA is right on. These yo-yo's are absolutely dangerous. I only wish Kirby Dick had gone a bit further with his expose. Even with the heinous Jack Valenti pushing up daisies, the MPAA still tries to be the "moral guardian" of the industry.

comment #12

jacicita says ...

Affleck's the casting I can't get over either. The rest I can resolve, but that one I find appalling.

comment #13

MAGGA says ...

"Why can't we be more like Scandanavia or Sweden or Denmark?"

Sweden and Denmark are part of Scandinavia, but you knew that.

comment #14

Mark says ...

I'm having a hard time recognizing potential sarcasm on this thread. Is this rating for a huge summer vehicle really so ho-hum and not news worthy?

Is two-men anal/oral really on par with two lesbians doing it on film? You do understand basic anatomy, correct? I.e., male genitalia is visible; female's not so much.

comment #15

rr3333 says ...

And he's an orthodox jew to boot. Go figure.

comment #16

KC says ...

Mark come on, get the hell out of here. Plus I think the more relevant argument is that violence against women sails right the fuck through whereas the ~physical act of love~ between men is apparently much more frightening territory

comment #17

Mark says ...

KC, I don't get the jump you made from penis phobia to apprently anti-gay. Brown Bunny got the same rating.

comment #18

KC says ...

I was using the hot man on man action as an example becz the post is about Bruno - but in either case, ratings board "penis phobia" is really not about interior vs. exterior genitalia but the female nude as a beautiful, SEXY piece of art vs. the male nude as baaaad news bears.

comment #19

EdHavens says ...

The MPAA exists so filmmakers don't have to edit their films to conform to a thousand different local film boards with their own ideas of what "community standards" means. Given the choice, I'd rather have one MPAA than a thousand Dallas Film Boards, whose ruled over studios and theatre owners well into the 1990s, mandating their rating system supersede the MPAA ratings in local advertising materials, and often their local ratings would be even harsher than the MPAA's ratings, especially when it came to sexual content.

One of the major flaws of Kirby Dick's movie was the lack of objectionable balance, refusing to show how much worse a system a city like Dallas had that shows the absolute necessity of a national organization like the MPAA, as evil as they may be.

comment #20

DarthCorleone says ...

EdHavens>> The MPAA might be a necessary part of the system, but is it necessary that it be evil? I don't think so. We need not devolve into thousands of local film boards; there are alternatives for the behavior of a single national organization. The workings of the MPAA that Kirby Dick's film exposed are simply inexcusable, and no objective balance would have changed that.

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

television: "Before the MPAA told me, I had no idea that mass killings were more morally dubious than two people making love."

And before those smoking groups told me, I had no idea mass killings were less morally dubious than a celebrity who smokes.

mccool: "Aaaand Cohen has officially seized to be revelant."

Wouldn't be surprised if they made it look like it was getting an NC-17 to generate ticket sales.

Deaf: "yep, Americans are such prudes when it comes to gay male sex... but they'll be happy with two fake lesbians having sex. "

From what I recall, American Psycho was almost NC-17, because it featured a threesome between two women and Bale's character.

Mark: "Is two-men anal/oral really on par with two lesbians doing it on film? You do understand basic anatomy, correct? I.e., male genitalia is visible; female's not so much."

They showed some suggested gay sex in Borat with male genitalia visible in that wrestling scene, so I don't see why Bruno should be exempt. Not that I actually care, since it sounds like lazy writing either way.

comment #22

Josh Massey says ...

"Any and all movies involving the spreading of male butt cheeks generally gets a pass from me."
-Jeffrey Wells, January 2009

One blue penis and all that's changed?

comment #23

hunterd says ...

btw, the MPAA doesn't like anal sex, gay or straight.

comment #24

EdHavens says ...

DarthCorleone, you can disagree all you want, but without the MPAA, the decision of what might be appropriate would need to be decided by local film boards. And each film board would force individual filmmakers to cut films to meet those standards. So seeing Bruno in Hollywood could and would be different from seeing it in Orange County, or Las Vegas or Tyler TX or Jupiter FL. The Dallas Film Board did have the authority within the city limits to mandate filmmakers either cut their films to meet the DFB's standards or not have their films released in the city at all.

Almost all civilized nations on this planet have some kind of national film rating board, and each has some kind of craziness involved when it comes to setting standards. In the UK, the BBFC has long been considered to be even more zealous about censoring films than the MPAA.

In Canada, there are six different film ratings boards for the 14 provinces, each with their own classification system, so a film could quite literally receive six different ratings in the same country. In Switzerland, each of the 26 cantons have their own rating system.

In Thailand, films are subject to the 1930 Film Act, under which films must viewed by the Board of Censors, composed of members of the Royal Thai Police and the Ministry of Culture, which can then impose cuts on the films prior to release.

Are any of these what you would prefer over the MPAA? You want the government to tell you what you can watch?

As for Dick's movie... yes, it shows the MPAA has a lot of issues that appear to not have been resolved yet. But it also shows filmmakers in an almost giddy state over how they fuck with the ratings boards to get what they want.

comment #25

Strictly From Hunger says ...

I'm not looking forward to Bruno regardless of the schlong factor. The best part about the Bruno sketches on Da Ali G Show was that he used them to satirize the empty-headed fashion industry, not to make squarejohn straight guys feel uncomfortable. I don't expect that satirical element to creep into the movie, although critics will probably read all kinds of sociopolitical stuff into it. Cohen is best when he keeps it simple, i.e. on his old TV show. The Borat movie was mediocre in comparison to the TV show.

comment #26

DarthCorleone says ...

EdHavens>> As I already wrote and you seem to have ignored, you need not convince me that local film boards are not the solution. Obviously all these alternatives you present are unacceptable.

All I said was that the MPAA as it exists has much room for improvement and that pointing out the folly of local film boards would not have excused the MPAA in the least in This Film Is Not Yet Rated. As I see it, it would have been a waste of time within the context of the film, as your argument only deflects the issue and excuses the MPAA. The last thing they should be allowed in this debate is more excuses. Local film boards are not the only alternative; the MPAA itself could and should be better.

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

Unlike other ratings boards, the problem with the MPAA is it tends to be arbitrary about its ratings. One movie's more likely to be given an R or NC-17 over another movie, simply because of the types of studios backing said movies. It rarely has to do with merit or "saving the children".

comment #28

Joe M. says ...

"Bruno" could be an important sea change. If it stays NC-17 and ends up doing well (due to Cohen's popularity), it could end the automatic "kiss of death" status for the NC-17 rating. Then, if NC-17 movies become viable in the marketplace, then who cares what the MPAA rates a particular movie? That was the whole problem, no one wanted the MPAA to give them that kiss of death rating. As a quick aside, I always loved when industry worrywarts said, "many newspapers won't accept advertising for NC-17 films!" I ask you, when is the last time you scanned the newspaper movie ads to figure out what to see or even checked a movie start time in the paper? That was one bit of fear-mongering I never understood.

comment #29

ZayTonday says ...

ooooo NC-17... very transgressive.

comment #30

maxfm says ...

Joe M is correct. It'll never happen, but if Universal DID release the NC-17 version, I happen to think it would do amazing business. It's a different world from the time Show Girls hit theatres.

The internet and pop culture machine will be all over this movie, and newspaper ads or not and NC-17 or not, it's gonna rake in the cash.

comment #31

BurmaShave says ...

Forgive my ignorance, but will major theater chains even run an NC-17 film?

comment #32

Joe M. says ...

Some undoubtedly won't, Burma, but I bet many more would now than before. Especially a film by a director with a track record and a following.

comment #33

Gordon27 says ...

"Unlike other ratings boards, the problem with the MPAA is it tends to be arbitrary about its ratings."

I would love for you cite a single example of a ratings board which isn't arbitrary in its decisions. The entire premise is false -- their decisions must be arbitrary, because they're individual opinions. Even if they have a specific set of standards, those standards are arbitrary, and applying the same set of standards uniformly to all films without taking artistic context into affect would be arbitrary, and worse than allowing for context to change things.

comment #34

Gordon27 says ...

"That was one bit of fear-mongering I never understood."

Joe - It's based on the assumption that every movie begins with the potential to be a huge blockbuster. Part of being a huge blockbuster is marketing saturation -- yes, newspapers won't run ads for NC-17 movies at all [the few that do have size limits], because the newspapers get complaints from their readers... but you also can't advertise an NC-17 movie before 9PM, you can't run trailers for an NC-17 movie before 6PM at all, or in front of any non R-rated movie... many theaters are reluctant to show them, again, because people complain about it, thinking "NC-17 = X = porn".

So it often becomes a question of, "Look, if you cut the word 'hole' so that he just says 'ass', it will be released in twice as many theaters and we can have a marketing blitz."

comment #35

D.Z. says ...

Showgirls did badly, because it sucked. And theater chains
won't show NC-17 films, because they're worried about their image being hurt by the same kind of material you can find in an R-rated film, but on a minor level.

Gordon: "The entire premise is false -- their decisions must be arbitrary, because they're individual opinions."

Individual opinions from people of the same backgrounds, generally with connections to the major studios.

"and applying the same set of standards uniformly to all films without taking artistic context into affect would be arbitrary"

So what you're saying is it's ok for general audiences to be exposed to a heart getting ripped out of a chest in Indy 2, but Max Payne has to get an R, because it has a ton of gun-fights?