All of the topics in this post's header are terms often used by both the MPAA and BBFC (check my previous post if you are unaware of these organizations) to rate and classify films that are ready for distribution. If you have been keeping up with me you will know my thoughts on how the BBFC is somehow becoming more progressive and the MPAA goes the other direction.
I have another paper to write regarding this topic and am having a hard time deciding the exact direction to take it. There are so many things I have noticed while doing research but a short academic paper could never encompass everything. At first I wanted to write this paper because of an article I read last year that got me thinking. Written by Brendon Connelly, it ran on SlashFilm and discussed the BBFC and MPAA in relation to Lars von Trier's film Antichrist. Check out the article here: Comparing the BBFC and the MPAA, and How Antichrist Illustrates The Differences. The article did not necessarily bring up anything new, or that I had not noticed before, but it laid out the argument in all the right words. Connelly used examples to show how in recent years the BBFC has given films with graphic violence a harder time than the MPAA, while the opposite has been done with graphic sexuality. He then leaves it up to the reader to "Infer from those details what you will about the gulf between UK and US society." Since reading this I have wanted to research the causes of that gulf. But I can't seem to stick to just violence and sex on screen, it involves so much more than that.
The other night I had the opportunity to attend a screening of the new British film, Made in Dagenham, about women's struggle for equality in the workplace in the late 1960s. Walking out, a friend and I were commenting on how the British use curse words like they are paid to do so. I noticed it while living there, mothers don't seem to hesitate to cuss in front of their children. "Don't touch the bloody wall" or "For fuck's sake, darling..."Even during the Q & A after the film when the amount of language was brought up by an audience member, my friend and I heard a lady near us comment, "What language? There wasn't any bad language." She was wrong however, there was A LOT of naughty language. But because it is used in normal conversation, and rarely just for effect, it can often go by unnoticed by those not looking out for it. The British, and Americans who aren't priggish about cursing, won't notice or be bothered. Unfortunately (at least in my opinion), the MPAA is priggish about it. There is no sex, no violence, no drug use with the exception of smoking, and yet the film gets the same rating as Hostel.
The media has been having a field day with the MPAA's recent decisions regarding language. The King's Speech, starring Colin Firth and about England's King George VI, received an R rating for language too. I have yet to see the film (though I can't wait) I understand that the controversy is over a single scene where Firth's character says Fuck multiple times in the context of speech therapy; it is not aggressive or directed at anyone. The BBFC originally gave King's Speech a 15 rating, but then even lowered it to 12a. This LA times article covers the story and makes for a very interesting read: To the MPAA ratings board, 'The King's Speech' is just as bad as 'Saw 3D'. Seriously America? You are okay with kids watching people be decapitated, shot and smashed to pieces, but you aren't happy with them hearing words that I assure you they have heard before.
Oy, this gets me feeling very uppity. Time to write this paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment