SCREEN-L Archives

October 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
"Russell A. Potter" <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 21 Oct 1994 17:17:00 -0400
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (27 lines)
A question that's been floating around in my mind lately is whether or
not the MPAA ratings system is or should soon be done away with. The
issue came to a head when I heard that the MPAA wanted to give _Clerks_,
a great independent film without a single on-screen second of sex
*or* violence, an NC-17 because of its explicit *talk* about sex
(has Jack Valenti watched Oprah lately?).
My ire was raised further by the dirty looks I got when I took my
seven-year old son to see _Ed Wood_, and got dirty looks from other
patrons for taking my son to see an "R-rated" picture. Aside from
a few lines that are so funny only a moron could find them offensive
(Landau as Lugosi declaring "Karloff ain't fit to smell my shit!"),
there's nothing that wouldn't feel at home on a PG-13 film,
except cross-dressing (GASP!).  Can seeing Johnny Depp in drag be
more dangerous to the moral fabric of our youth than seeing the
bombs, shootings, and stabbings that one can readily view under
the PG-13 sign (most recently, say, in _A Clear and Present Danger_?).
I hear the ditributors of _Clerks_ are planning to sue the MPAA
ratings board.  Not that it hasn't been threatened before, but
wouldn't it be nice if it actually happened??
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies"
                                                    --Friedrich Nietzsche
=======Russell A. Potter========<[log in to unmask]>=====================