|
|
Post by Michael West on Aug 6, 2005 11:22:27 GMT -5
 Directed by: D.J. Caruso Written by: Michael Pye (novel) Jon Bokenkamp (screenplay) Produced by: Bruce Berman Starring: Angelina Jolie, Ethan Hawke, and Kiefer Sutherland I’m a huge advocate of the “Unrated” DVD. Sure, sometimes it is just a marketing tool. In order to be “unrated,” you simply have to release a version that was never reviewed by the ratings board of the MPAA. If you add a scene of two people walking down the street, and you don’t submit that cut to the board, you can release it as “unrated.” In the case of horror, “unrated” has come to mean that the graphic ideas and images the old men and soccer moms of the panel found offensive can finally be seen by the fans for which they were intended. Cases in point: Re-Animator, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, Suspiria…the list goes on and on. (And we fans are still waiting on Paramount to hear our cries, and the protests of the filmmakers themselves, and finally free the “unrated” versions of the Friday the 13th series from the vaults!) So when I saw the huge “Unrated” stamp on the DVD case for Taking Lives[/b], I had to show my support and give it a spin. My problems with the film began as it faded in from black. In the background, we hear a U2 song from 1989. We are then shown a title card that proclaims it to be 1983. After a legitimately shocking prologue, we cut to an opening credit sequence that was clearly cloned from the movie Seven: scratched and warn microfiche of killings are shown with the cast and crews names typed in, and we see the killer’s hands as he dyes his hair, puts in contacts, and adjusts his false teeth. The film is the story of a psychopath who kills people and steals their identities. He does it because their lives have something his current pitiful existence lacks. How appropriate that this film should do the same—taking on aspects of other movies that achieved a level of suspense, shock, twists, and eroticism the film desperately wants, but can not generate on its own. As I watched the plot unfold, I could not help but think of Seven, Silence of the Lambs, Basic Instinct, even Wild Things. And I found myself remembering just how good those films were, and just how lame this one was by comparison. Academy Award-winner Angelina Jolie is a crack FBI profiler, Special Agent Illeana Scott. She has unconventional approaches to getting inside the head of a killer. She will lay in the grave where a victim was found and will surround herself with images of the defiled corpses—even going so far as to tape them to the ceiling above her hotel bed. She has been labeled a witch by other agents for her ability to hone in on suspects and provide vital information that leads to their capture. Montreal detectives have a morgue filled with men who have had their hands removed and their skulls crushed. They have no leads and must call on Agent Scott’s expertise. She doesn’t disappoint, quickly theorizing that their killer is a chameleon who is “taking lives” in more ways than one. The big “reveal” of the killer's identity is clearly meant to be a surprise, and that’s the film’s main flaw. Who the killer is is obvious from the very beginning. Sure, they throw several red herrings our way to try and convince us otherwise, but it doesn’t work. In the TV series Columbo, we always knew who the killer was in the beginning. The joy of the show was seeing the detective figure it out and finally find a way to nail them. If this film had taken that approach, it might have been much more engaging. Instead, it spends all its energy trying to steer you away from the only suspect that makes any sense. Taking Lives' one original and truly disturbing moment comes in the big sex scene between Angelina Jolie and Ethan Hawke—the only reason I can see for the “Unrated” brand. The two begin to seriously grind against a wall, and then on a table, before finally moving to the bed. Once there, they make love while staring up at those photos of the killer’s many dead and mangled victims. It’s a four star scene. Too bad it’s stuck in the middle of a two star film. 2 out of 5 stars |
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Aug 6, 2005 20:16:55 GMT -5
My problems with the film began as it faded in from black. In the background, we hear a U2 song from 1989. We are then shown a title card that proclaims it to be 1983. THAT . . . is beautiful. I’m a huge advocate of the “Unrated” DVD. Sure, sometimes it is just a marketing tool. In order to be “unrated,” you simply have to release a version that was never reviewed by the ratings board of the MPAA. If you add a scene of two people walking down the street, and you don’t submit that cut to the board, you can release it as “unrated.” Or you make the film you want, a film that might only have been a mild R in the first place, cut out the R-ness, and release a PG-13 movie in theatres so you can make money (I ask, Mike, when you were 14, if you could have gone to see a Friday the 13th movie in theatres, would you have? Sure). Then for DVD, just restore it to the mild R you had in the first place, releaseing it unsubmitted - unrated. In the case of horror, “unrated” has come to mean that the graphic ideas and images the old men and soccer moms of the panel found offensive You know I'm no fan of the MPAA, nor of those who consult it for guidance, but this is a mischaracterization, and those provide no good support for a point. No one rates the film on personal offensiveness, and that board isn't run by conservatives (that's what you meant, right? The old men and moms?). They have a set of criteria - X number of words, X ammount of violence, etc., and if a film hits the mark, it gets the grade. It's a checklist. Taking Lives' one original and truly disturbing moment comes in the big sex scene between Angelina Jolie and Ethan Hawke—the only reason I can see for the “Unrated” brand. The two begin to seriously grind against a wall, and then on a table, before finally moving to the bed. Once there, they make love while staring up at those photos of the killer’s many dead and mangled victims. It’s a four star scene. I think I missed something in your description (unless it's the grinding) - why is this a 4 star scene? |
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Aug 7, 2005 5:25:15 GMT -5
Taking Lives' one original and truly disturbing moment comes in the big sex scene between Angelina Jolie and Ethan Hawke—the only reason I can see for the “Unrated” brand. The two begin to seriously grind against a wall, and then on a table, before finally moving to the bed. Once there, they make love while staring up at those photos of the killer’s many dead and mangled victims. It’s a four star scene. I think I missed something in your description (unless it's the grinding) - why is this a 4 star scene? It's the grinding, Dave. ;D Seriously, the film is paint by numbers with the exception of this scene. Yeah, it's a sex scene. Yeah, we've seen a million of them. But this one was well photographed, well choreographed, and then it adds the disturbing twist that the characters are getting off while surrounded by all this...death. It was the film's only moment that made me go "ewwww." The entire film wanted me to go "ewwww," but this is the only scene that actually did it.  |
|
|
|
Post by stace on Aug 7, 2005 22:09:21 GMT -5
>You know I'm no fan of the MPAA, nor of those who consult it for guidance, but this is a mischaracterization, and those provide no good support for a point. No one rates the film on personal offensiveness, and that board isn't run by conservatives (that's what you meant, right? The old men and moms?). They have a set of criteria - X number of words, X ammount of violence, etc., and if a film hits the mark, it gets the grade. It's a checklist.<
not so sure thats the case...at least historically. there have been many cases of double standards, esp w/violence. i have read about many documented cases where it was a frame or two of gore, for example, that affected one film, but another film would be allowed much higher levels of gore.
sex seems to be affected the same way...oddly, they seem much more concerned about "movement", grinding or rutting, for example, than straight up nudity, at the present time, anyway.
as for "conservatives" runnin the panel, i certainly don't think that would be how they would describe themselves. the work, however, is most certainly intended for that audience, in so much as "conservative" means offended by violence/language/sex, at least culturally. even if one chooses to implicate the "politically correct", who often fall in this category regarding offensiveness, albeit for different reasons, the very definition of cultural conservative still seems apt. the reason for the desire for censorship does not seem to be salient, at least in terms of the definition.
is it inherent in any political belief's doctrine to support such an attitude? i dont know. i am defnitely on the left side of the spectrum, for this very reason. censorship, as defined by me, is the most extreme form of discourse, and hiding behind the way it is done (opposing govt censorship/supporting mktplace) dos not matter in my opinion. if you want to try and cut off people's sources of information/culture, you are a wacko extremist and should be black balled from civil discourse,m in that you are obviously a barbarian and unable to deal with people on a rational level...that is my opinion...
dave, who is considerably to the right of myself, has often referred to censorship as a "liberal" idea. while so called political "liberals" in america certainly seem to have come to thsi same conclusion , often through the use of political correctness. also, one tipper gore defoined herself as one of those barbarians, in my opinion, when she helped start the pmrc in the 80s...and while we never hear about that, i wonder how many people, like myself, still resent her for trying, and to some degree succeeding, to censopr music (wal mart would not carry anything w/a tipper sticker on it for awhile...this may no longer be the case, since the almost automatic stamping given to any rap album probably cut into their sales pretty deeply once rap began to dominate the charts...anyway, there are even. gasp, country records w/a sticker on them now, so maybe they have wised up), and refused to vote for her husband in 2000...given the small margin, maybe the pmrc should be blamed for the outcome rather than ralph nader.
there are certainly ideological branches of both sides of the political spectrum which violently oppose censorship. i tend to believe this falls a little more in the mainstream of the left, while the libertarian wing of the right is a bit more marginalized. also, the self styled "religious right" allow themselves to be labeled as such "moral crusaders" and take this fight up vry publicly. dave, as a devout christian, i know does not support censorship and prob does not like the portrayal of christians as such, but they do go out of their way, at least this group, to try and present their opinion as "THE Christian way."
long story short, i tend to think that, if you need a ratings system, then use it. if something says it is for adultsm be that "R" or "X", then you have NO RIGHT to be offended at anything contained therein. the idea of, say, an r-rated friday the 13th having to cut to avoid an "X" is just stup[id. if you dont want to see violence, DONT FREAKING GO!!!!!!!!!!!!! dont expect the fimmakers, or the mpaa, to try and guess what your level of tolerance is. if you cant take it, stay home, chnaces are there will be a few really extreme films, but filmmakers will probably know that extremes tend to marginalize the audience (the reason, i suspect, that land of the dead's numbers seem low, but i think the audience was specialized anyway, so it will most crtainly make its money, esp when released on dvd.)
long story short...i'm not so sure it always is a checklist...spometimes, maybe. these things are hard to quantify...except, for example, in terms of language, say...but most certainly, they are trying to gauge personal offensiveness...i dont think they looked at taking lives and said "5 seconds of grinding, but no more". they were ether personally offended, or believed the audience would be personally offended. same with, for example, the gunshot cut out of robocop (this isjust the first example that popped into my head). did that one shot push it over the top? was it really a matter of time, and they decided that too much tike had been spent on violence?
i daresay such a thing is not possible...you then end up trying to define what constitutes a second of screentime for violence...does the prosthetic head, about to be destroyed, count, or is it onbly when the obviously fake eyeball pops out that counts? if the eyeball is not married with a gush of blood, is it not as offensive as a shot of a severed bloody limb?
while the quantifiable idea is a good one, if youre going to try censoring at all, its literally not possible, so clearly these things are most certainly decided by personal opinion on what, exactly, is offensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Aug 7, 2005 23:37:31 GMT -5
as for "conservatives" runnin the panel, i certainly don't think that would be how they would describe themselves. Sure, and I was speaking of them specidfically as not political conservatives. WAY OF THE GUN was almost denied a rating at all due to its having two, count 'em two guns in... it's poster. Gun control, which I favor, is not a conservative crusade, but a distinctly liberal one (I realize I'm blurring liberal/democrat and conservative/republican here). They do the same with smoking, which I also favor stamping out in all its insidious, stinky forms. But this "We won't even rate your film [all but ensuring its financial crippling] with that stuff in your posters" crap is ... well, crap. the idea of, say, an r-rated friday the 13th having to cut to avoid an "X" is just stup[id. if you dont want to see violence, DONT FREAKING GO!!!!!!!!!!!!! dont expect the fimmakers, or the mpaa, to try and guess what your level of tolerance is. if you cant take it, stay home I agree, and I pass that along to the parents. I wish they knew that the ratings system is in no way a law, that I, as a theater manager, have no responsibility to the law, nor to them, to keep their kids from anything other than legal obscenity (clearly visible penetration). We're the only country in the world where that's the case, by the way. Everywhere else it's the law. But I'm not their kids' guardian, they are. The ratings system sets up the false notion that a 17 year old making 5.25 is going to keep a 16 year old from seeing REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. . . . only if the company says so. Didn't General Cinema once abandon this for a while? Just let anyone see anything, because the weight of the customer complaints was so clearly in that direction? I wish we would all go back to that. I *really* want parents to take some responsibility for raising their own children. This is the problem inherent in a ratings system (as opposed to an information system). It decides on broad groups who should and shouldn't experience things which also happen to be broadly grouped. There are 13 year olds who should not see SAVING PRIVATE RYAN because they are incredibly sensitive to violence, won't get a message from the film - just years of nightmares. There are 28 year olds in that category too. There are also 13 year olds who absolutely should see the film, either for its message on war, or even to be re-sensitized to violence. It's personal, not age specific. I dislike it when I get calls about a film asking if it would be "okay for a 10 year old". I . . . (oh, this is sad. Peter Jennings has just died.) . . . sorry. I, when they ask this, I tend to say something like "You know your 10 year old, what concerns you?" and then tell them whether the film meets their concerns. i'm not so sure it always is a checklist... Well, it is, but you're right that there is a subjective aspect to it - the components of the list itself for one, whether a thing does or doesn't apply to said list, and then there are the appeals. The appeals process affirms the list concept, that's the support usually given, but it also supports subjectivity - GUNNER PALACE appealed not on content, but on the basis that the film was important, therefore ignore the content. They did. It would be much better to have a descriptive thing with *no* rating. Right now there is some description with the R or whatever, but people skip it - they just look at the R. Just like people see *a* review in "the paper", and merely say, "It got four stars", without reading the review, or noting who reviewed it, then get upset when liquid sunshine doesn't drip from the screen into their mouths. ... if youre going to try censoring at all I appreciate your thoughts on censorship above, but I do want to distinguish it from ratings. I'm real delineative about these things. One is wrong, one is just terribly done at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 9, 2005 19:33:12 GMT -5
>But this "We won't even rate your film [all but ensuring its financial crippling] with that stuff in your posters" crap is ... well, crap. <
did this really happen? my goodness, that is stupid...i mean, really. i remember the uproar when dole was running for president, and how he sort of literally equated "immorality" in movies w/real life. this is the worst kind of that...i mean, the mere image of guns makes them more violent? good lord in heaven!
i guess, though, that the same kind of thing caused mr. spielberg to mangle E.T., didnt it...guns are a narrative device. they represent danger. the mere image of a gun does not make someone want to go out and shoot a gun...aw, hell, theres no point in even arguing this, its so obvious. if they did that, they are the worst kind of guilty.
>I agree, and I pass that along to the parents. I wish they knew that the ratings system is in no way a law, that I, as a theater manager, have no responsibility to the law, nor to them, to keep their kids from anything other than legal obscenity (clearly visible penetration). We're the only country in the world where that's the case, by the way. Everywhere else it's the law. But I'm not their kids' guardian, they are. The ratings system sets up the false notion that a 17 year old making 5.25 is going to keep a 16 year old from seeing REQUIEM FOR A DREAM.<
yeah...good point. i mean, this is just another excuse for legislators, who i believe did have some role in both the hayes code and the creation of the ratings system (probably they threatened legislation if the movie industry didnt self regulate) to justify their existence. the assumption, essentially about the immaturity of everyone in a country as a whole, is just astoundingly dumb. a perfect example would be the creator of this website, you (dave) and myself...we were certainly capable of seeing rated r films as young kids. i know i saw several slasher movies before i was 13. im sure you and mike did the same, as i think you both had more direct access (cable tv) than i did...and look at us...i dont believe any of us has ever killed anyone...or even wanted to. no less, i do not tolerate cruelty to any form of life. jason/freddy/chucky/michael myers/the thing/the fog/the boogens(!)/the puppets have had no negative effect on any of us whatsoever and we saw many of these when we were at an "impressionable" age.
it really all does come down to the person. i mentioned on another board the reaction of some people who saw blair witrch project (crying in the parking lot). i also witnessed a woman leave jurassic park visibly shaken after sam jacksons character was fund dead...and these were adults.
>Didn't General Cinema once abandon this for a while? Just let anyone see anything, because the weight of the customer complaints was so clearly in that direction? I wish we would all go back to that. I *really* want parents to take some responsibility for raising their own children.<
exactly...we seem to have a spearhead of people who really want sopciety to do a lot of their work for them, and this comes from both sides of the political aisle. maybe this says something about our parent's generation, as it is mostly that group doing most of the complaining.
.
>Well, it is, but you're right that there is a subjective aspect to it - the components of the list itself for one, whether a thing does or doesn't apply to said list, and then there are the appeals. The appeals process affirms the list concept, that's the support usually given, but it also supports subjectivity - GUNNER PALACE appealed not on content, but on the basis that the film was important, therefore ignore the content. They did.<
exactly...if you are really doing a "by the numbers" ratings system, then this is the only way to do it. you cant make exceptions for anyhing, be it retro puppet master or citizen kane. if the f*word is verboten, then it goes for everything...
>It would be much better to have a descriptive thing with *no* rating. Right now there is some description with the R or whatever, but people skip it - they just look at the R. Just like people see *a* review in "the paper", and merely say, "It got four stars", without reading the review, or noting who reviewed it, then get upset when liquid sunshine doesn't drip from the screen into their mouths.<
i am quite in agreement here...and hey, be really specific. describe the scenes, what exactly happens...not just a capsulized little thing t the bottom...and frankly, i dont even mind if we allow anything to go..full penetration? doesnt bother me, as long as anyone who goes in knows what theyre seeing. if they do, then they have no right to complain...i actually find it more offensive when someone tries to draw that boundary for me. i am an adult...i can control myself and my impulses, and if a filmmaker wants to use a broader palate to tell a story, have at it...lets see what youve got!
>I appreciate your thoughts on censorship above, but I do want to distinguish it from ratings. I'm real delineative about these things. One is wrong, one is just terribly done at this point.<
[/quote]
well, yeah....i think the line does tend to get blurred. didnt the state of indiana try to legally enforce the ratings system, or was that the white house? that becomes censorship right there...
the fact is, movies arent the problem. it is a waste of energy to target them, but it is also a lot more politically savvy...i mean, do voters want to hear that they are to blame for their childrens misbehavior, or do they want to be told that a nameless, faceless entity is the cause of corruption? lets face it, for the most part, politicians are cowards, way more concerned w/reelection than fixing anything...
but i know this...i will never vote for a politician, ever, who advocates any censorship, or even tries to b;ame pop culture for america's problems....
anyway, it seems like we are essentially in agreement again. as with many things, this discussion tends to hinge on semantics, who is to blame, and so forth...
|
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Aug 9, 2005 23:33:57 GMT -5
did this [WAY OF THE GUN THING]really happen? my goodness, that is stupid... Yup. the mere image of a gun does not make someone want to go out and shoot a gun Right. ...i know i saw several slasher movies before i was 13. im sure you and mike did the same, as i think you both had more direct access (cable tv) than i did...and look at us...i dont believe any of us has ever killed anyone... Nope! it really all does come down to the person. Always. we seem to have a spearhead of people who really want sopciety to do a lot of their work for them Yes, and people willing to orient society that way as a part of their job description. well, yeah....i think the line does tend to get blurred. didnt the state of indiana try to legally enforce the ratings system, or was that the white house? White House - sort of. Basically they rattled sabers. Hilary Clinton and Attn. Gen. Reno discussed making studios and distributors fiscally liable for actions taken after their films were seen, and former president Clinton made headlines about kids sneaking into theatres in early '97, causing local media to get kids to try it so they could have a news story, all of which emphasized the false notion that it's the theatres' responsibilities in the first place. It's doing an end run around the facts. ("Argument weak, pound pulpit!" - tip written on sermon notes.) ...do voters want to hear that they are to blame for their childrens misbehavior, or do they want to be told that a nameless, faceless entity is the cause of corruption?... That's pretty brilliantly put. anyway, it seems like we are essentially in agreement again. as with many things, this discussion tends to hinge on semantics, who is to blame, and so forth... Pretty much. Good points all here, Stace. |
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 10, 2005 2:47:03 GMT -5
>("Argument weak, pound pulpit!" - tip written on sermon notes.)<
really! it actually said this on the notes? oh, that is too sweet! i love the fact that this is down on paper...hell yeah, its weak.
now, let me get this straight, here...financially liable when their films were seen? youmean, if someone's kid tries to sneak into a movie, and succeeds, the idea was to have distributors pay for this...how? i mean, there is no "damage" to sue for...hell, you cant even come close to proving "psychological" damage or something. good luck...
this is a perfect example of pointless political maneauvering...and the problem is that it is such a reptilian position to take...if you oppose it, you run the risk of having to publicly support the things they are attacking, which they get to label. imagine a politician with the guts to publicly support, say, porn, or to come out and say "yeah, i love violent movies." they may actually feel this way. im sure some of them watch porn...it just proves how hypocritical poiliticians are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Aug 10, 2005 9:34:52 GMT -5
>("Argument weak, pound pulpit!" - tip written on sermon notes.)< really! it actually said this on the notes? Not in this particular situation, it's something a pastor saw on another pastor's notes. He evokes it anytime someone is using something other than the facts to support a position. I don't think former President Clinton sermonized (literally, I mean). now, let me get this straight, here...financially liable when their films were seen? youmean, if someone's kid tries to sneak into a movie, and succeeds, the idea was to have distributors pay for this... No. It was that if a kid saw a movie, say Murder By Numbers, and then did something like a thing in the film, and said he got the idea from the film, the filmmakers would be held responsible. It's what they would get for putting those ideas in people's heads. Obviously this idea didn't pass enough muster that anyone would even draft the legislation. Sorry I was (twice) unclear. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Aug 10, 2005 14:18:12 GMT -5
now, let me get this straight, here...financially liable when their films were seen? youmean, if someone's kid tries to sneak into a movie, and succeeds, the idea was to have distributors pay for this... No. It was that if a kid saw a movie, say Murder By Numbers, and then did something like a thing in the film, and said he got the idea from the film, the filmmakers would be held responsible. It's what they would get for putting those ideas in people's heads. Obviously this idea didn't pass enough muster that anyone would even draft the legislation. Sorry I was (twice) unclear. Stephen King used to say that if you saw a movie or read a book, and then went out and did the exact same thing in the same way you saw or read it, not only should you be tried for the crime itself, but also for plagiarism. I've always thought that was brilliant. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 10, 2005 15:39:48 GMT -5
i remember the king quote. i think its perfect...
so, heres a question...lets say a guy goes out and kills a bunch or people...and that this law had passed...wouldnt it be the smart thing for every single killer to claim he was a copycat of a movie he had seen? this seems like, if it were going to be a crime for the studios, then they are claiming at least some lesser degree of guilt for thos eaccused...
asinine.
also, did this go for other crimes, or just murders? if a bunch of guys robbed a diamond store, for instance, could they claim theybwere influenced by reservoir dogs? or jaywalkers could claim they were under the influence of midnight cowboy?
morons...
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Aug 10, 2005 21:08:02 GMT -5
Wow, a simple little review of a crappy movie has turned into this.  Whenever I think of censors, I remember this woman from the PMRC camp in the 80s who told a reporter: "We don't want our children to listen this trash." It really burned me. Why, you might ask? I mean, it's nothing new, right? My parents probably heard that from their parents when Elvis and The Beatles were on the radio. But this cry of the censor gets under my skin because of the actions that go with it. Censors aren't concerned about their children. If they were, they would just turn off the TV or radio, or they would not pay money to see or rent this movie or that. No, they want to stop YOUR children from seeing it too. See, you aren't capable of making decisions for your children, so they will do it for you. Now I see the lawsuits "Parents" groups are bringing to the FCC, and it throws fresh salt on this old wound. They are not bringing these suits on MY behalf. If they don't want their own kids to see something, they could turn off the damned TV. It does have on off switch--and most have the lovely V-Chip and other parental controls now as well. No, they want to make certain that all of us bad parents out there won't ruin our children's fragile minds. (For the record, my kids have spent the summer driving me crazy watching reruns of Full House for God's sake! I'm far more worried about the horrible scars this will leave on their developing psyches then anything they might happen to see on an episode of Simpsons or Buffy the Vampire Slayer!) When we have network affiliates who are scared to play Saving Private Ryan on VETERAN'S DAY, a year or two after they've already shown the same program in the same uncut form, because they now fear millions of dollars in fines from the government, something is horribly wrong with America.  |
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Aug 12, 2005 16:55:20 GMT -5
When we have network affiliates who are scared to play Saving Private Ryan on VETERAN'S DAY, a year or two after they've already shown the same program in the same uncut form, because they now fear millions of dollars in fines from the government, something is horribly wrong with America. Unfortunately this will irritate some, but I don't see self-censorship as censorship. Calling it so does a disservice to those who've endured the real thing. Some people will do this to make a point, to make people think what you just said, that something is wrong with America. Plenty of stations did play Ryan, as all of them had once before, with no reprisals, as there had not been before. Comparatively, Janet's boob hadn't been out of the box before, and the FCC spent quite a bit of time deliberating those fines. The boob broke a known rule that hadn't been tested before. Private Ryan didn't. Now maybe some stations really had fiscal concerns, and really believed they'd be strung up, in which case they either hadn't done their homework, or needed to display some intestinal fortitude, but this smacked of a sham to me. Even if it wasn't, I'm not sympathetic to the applauding of cowards as martyrs in the name of creating an illusory police state fear. |
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 13, 2005 5:00:54 GMT -5
>Unfortunately this will irritate some, but I don't see self-censorship as censorship. Calling it so does a disservice to those who've endured the real thing. Some people will do this to make a point, to make people think what you just said, that something is wrong with America. <
well, the problem is that soeone is deciding that something needs to be censored, even if they decide it themselves. no matter who is making the decision, someone is trying to gauge what someone else will find offensive, which i find unacceptable...if the reason they are censoring is b/c of fear of reprisals, tell me how that is any different than actually suffering the reprisals. either way, we are being kept from information or material that someone else is deciding is too offensive for us...
>Plenty of stations did play Ryan, as all of them had once before, with no reprisals, as there had not been before. <
the concern, of course, was that by concentrating on this issue, something even as vital and important as "ryan" might be met w/reprisals.
>Comparatively, Janet's boob hadn't been out of the box before, and the FCC spent quite a bit of time deliberating those fines.<
ah, the boob...the psych wards in hospitals are now filled with those young people who witnessed the boob and were irreparably damaged by the glimpse of the wayward boob, as are jails and juvrnile halls...not to mention the cemetaries...yes, that wasnt blown out of proportion or anything...
> The boob broke a known rule that hadn't been tested before. Private Ryan didn't. Now maybe some stations really had fiscal concerns, and really believed they'd be strung up, in which case they either hadn't done their homework, or needed to display some intestinal fortitude, but this smacked of a sham to me. Even if it wasn't, I'm not sympathetic to the applauding of cowards as martyrs in the name of creating an illusory police state fear.<
well, there was a lot of cage rattling about increased fines by the fcc. howard stern was subjected to such a fine, over something that was, in theory, less potent than private ryan. i daresay, private ryan being what it is, it was a pretty defensable target, and as such may have been chosen to prove a point. if so, it was a point that the fcc needed to have made to it, in its crazed fury following he boob...i do tend to think that it was due to real concern rather than just a political stunt, since some stations didnt show it, and if you were going to make a stand, per se, youd get further by showing it and taking on the case...but who knows.
economics do play a part in these things. for instancem the first, ( only?), band ever taken to court over the content of an album was the dead kennedys, and the suit was due to an insert in an album jacket, which was a painting by hr giger, who i know is a fave of mikes...at any rate. this suit was brought on by the pmrc, and while no one said as much, it is prob no accident that they tried this case on a band on an independent label w/o the deep pockets of a major label, like some of the other bands they would like to go after (prince, ozzy, etc)...so i dont doubt that the case of private ryan could have been brought up by an anti censorship group as a very defensable piece of work...but lets face it, most of these stations were owned by large corporations (clear channel owned a bunch, sinclair a few more), and these groups arent known for thei political courage. they prob either did it out of real, if unfounded, fear, or an attempt to overcompensate and bend to the will of the fcc...
but i agree w/mike. when private ryan is a target, for any reason, this stuff has gone too far...
bottom line, if you warn someone about the content, as they do constantly when they show something even remotely controversial, then there is no defense for the "if you dont want to see it, dont watch"...this ideam that the existence of this material will somehow cause a decay in moral fiber, holds absolutely no water w/me. and honestly, censorship scolds, at the very essence of their argument, really do believe that they have a right to dictate what others see/hear/do, because they reall do believe they are morally superior. thats the problem i have with this issue...at some place, at some level, someone has made that decision. whether it is a direct decision, like the pmrc or a more indurect (fcc thinks there is too much "smut", private ryan gets tackled) then those kinds of people have too much power or influence with someone, somewhere...
as ive said, even broaching this topic means you are an indefensabley out there nut case, and are in no way capable of a civilized conversation or discussion, and shouldbe ostracized from public discourse...thats even broaching the topic...
i do think, therefore, that mike is right when he says it is symptomatic of some big problem in america...the fact that, say, people in china and the soviet union are subjected to fierce punishment for significantly lessser "crimes" in no way makes the acts of the morality police any more stomachable, esp in a place where freedom of speech is so imporant and fundamental to our way of life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Aug 13, 2005 6:22:15 GMT -5
When we have network affiliates who are scared to play Saving Private Ryan on VETERAN'S DAY, a year or two after they've already shown the same program in the same uncut form, because they now fear millions of dollars in fines from the government, something is horribly wrong with America. Unfortunately this will irritate some, but I don't see self-censorship as censorship. Calling it so does a disservice to those who've endured the real thing. Some people will do this to make a point, to make people think what you just said, that something is wrong with America. Plenty of stations did play Ryan, as all of them had once before, with no reprisals, as there had not been before. Comparatively, Janet's boob hadn't been out of the box before, and the FCC spent quite a bit of time deliberating those fines. The boob broke a known rule that hadn't been tested before. Private Ryan didn't. Now maybe some stations really had fiscal concerns, and really believed they'd be strung up, in which case they either hadn't done their homework, or needed to display some intestinal fortitude, but this smacked of a sham to me. Even if it wasn't, I'm not sympathetic to the applauding of cowards as martyrs in the name of creating an illusory police state fear. But this wasn't self censorship, Dave. Self censorship would be adults having a conversation in a room of 7-year-olds not using the word "f**k" because...well, there are 7-year-olds around. As a parent who has been in this situation, I have no problem with this. This is fine. Self censorship would be an artist, prior to writing a story or editing a film or painting a picture, asking his/her self, "Do I need to go that far to make my point?" They may decide that they don't need to, and then they find a way to say what they want to say without being so graphic. I've asked myself this on more than one occasion and toned a scene down because it was either too over-the-top, or because my message had somehow been lost. Again, fine. What we had here were stations that were trying to guess at what a certain group of people MIGHT find offensive. These were little stations who were scared because there was a real chance they would go bankrupt with fines because the Network said it wouldn't pay for them out of its pocket. In some areas, there is no cable. All the people have to choose from are their local affiliates. These people are being deprived of something. They did not have the choice of whether they wanted to watch the program or not. That choice was made for them. This is wrong. Oh, and about that damned boob...never, in the history of human experience, has there ever been more of an overreaction to something than there was to this. Nipplegate, or whatever the hell you want to call it, was blown so far out of proportion that it almost became laughable. Except when the end result is any form of censorship, it is no laughing matter. Why are we here in America so afraid of sex? When I worked at a video store and managed a theater, parents were so worried about nudity, but violence didn't matter to them at all. "Why is this rated 'R'? Is there any nudity?" "Well...no, but a man brutally kills a whole family, records it on video, then gets off later by watching it in slow motion." "Well, as long as there is no boob. I don't want little Timmy to see a boob." Ridiculous! |
|
