MPAA blocks posters for documentary (addendum to Cali's earlier post on Ratings)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

There was a discussion yesterday of content ratings for media, and I was talking about the ways ratings systems always end up being used, intentionally or not, to support the broad political and social views of the raters. To have fair ratings you would have to be completely literal and blind to social context, which sometimes makes the ratings system appear foolish. For instance, a mature rating for bare breasts must be uniform, applying equally to Bikini Car-Wash and a documentary about Polynesian islanders. That may seem silly, but the alternative is that the ratings reinforce the subjective world-view of the rater, full of special cases and murky exceptions... the end result is that the rating simply becomes an expression of whether the content is 'socially acceptable' and social acceptability is precisely the kind of determination that a rating body must not make. (Because it molds social acceptance, rather than merely reflecting it.)

One example I used was comparing Schindler's List to a horror film, as an example of how the same content was treated differently based on whether the subject was important... and noting that "importance" is exactly the kind of subjective determination that should play no part in ratings. Not that it is invalid in one case or another, but that having standards so subjective inevitably leads to the use of ratings to promote or punish points of view, rather than literal content.

So, in light of that I was fascinated to see this provocative real-world case jump up. The MPAA is banning posters for a GWOT torture documentary that feature a man in a hood. Their rationale is that they have an established policy of banning horror movie posters featuring hooded victims.

I support the MPAA in this instance because their seemingly silly decision is literal and view-point neutral, which anything having a nexus to limitations on expression must be. But this example also raises questions about political point of view. I do not think the MPAA is being harsh with this film because it is critical of American policy, but many people will draw that conclusion. In this case, being literal creates the impression of enforcing a political view-point.

It is an intriguing example because it touches on several different, and in some ways opposite, problems with ratings (which this essentially is... the MPAA is the same body that issues film ratings, and their decisions on promotional materials are part and parcel of the ratings function) The distributor of the film complains that this ruling misses the fact that the case is "apples and oranges." But if a ratings body differentiates apples and oranges based on importance or quality they are critics, not raters.

All free expression issues end up following this form. No matter how you set it up, people demand that ratings schemes reflect their values, rather than merely neutrally categorizing content. People wants Michaelangelo's David to be treated differently than another depiction of male nudity because it's a great work of art. But surely we don't want a ratings board to be deciding what constitutes a great work of art!! In this case, the value is that a documentary about US policy is more worthy than Saw II. I see the point, but I don't want a ratings board make decisions based on merit. Would a 9/11 conspiracy documentary receive the same "importance" rating as a Guantanamo documentary? I'm guessing not. I think 9/11 conspiracists are crazy, but that doesn't mean their arguments should be suppressed in any way...

MPAA rejects Gibney's 'Dark' poster
Org objects to hood on torture docu's one-sheet
By ANNE THOMPSON


The MPAA has rejected the one-sheet for Alex Gibney's documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side," which traces the pattern of torture practice from Afghanistan's Bagram prison to Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay.
ThinkFilm opens the pic, which is on the Oscar shortlist of 15 docs, on Jan. 11.

The image in question is a news photo of two U.S. soldiers walking away from the camera with a hooded detainee between them.

An MPAA spokesman said: "We treat all films the same. Ads will be seen by all audiences, including children. If the advertising is not suitable for all audiences it will not be approved by the advertising administration."

According to ThinkFilm distribution prexy Mark Urman, the reason given by the Motion Picture Assn. of America for rejecting the poster is the image of the hood, which the MPAA deemed unacceptable in the context of such horror films as "Saw" and "Hostel." "To think that this is not apples and oranges is outrageous," he said. "The change renders the art illogical, without any power or meaning." (snip)

http://www.variety.com/VR1117977926.html