Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Asshat of the Week: Lamar Smith
From the "really bad ideas" department, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is pushing something called the Family Movie Act. This comes in the wake of the dispute over Clearplay's technology to digitally censor movies via a specially-equipped DVD player -- a move that the film industry is, rightfully, fighting tooth and nail.
"Oh, but it's for the children..." they'll argue.
Quoth George Carlin, "Fuck the children."
Here's how digital editing of movies should work when it comes to kids: Parents, put your finger on the "eject" button and push it. Or, better yet, do your goddamn homework. Read reviews of the movies. Look at that little ratings box. See where it says G, PG, PG-13, R or (rarely) NC-17? HINT: If your kids are still in elementary school, don't be renting that R rated movie to watch while they're around. What? Upset that you and spousey can't catch the latest violent action flick or that steamy romance? That's the price you agreed to pay the second the sperm hit the egg. It's called take responsibility for what your kids see, and don't dumb down the rest of the world to make it safe so you don't have to think.
Of course, the kicker is this: you can bet that the focus of the bill will not be on gratuitous violence, but on any kind of sexuality. Because that's what these prudish fucktards always focus on.
Quoth Lenny Bruce, "I'd rather take my kid to a stag film than a war movie any day."
And keep this in mind: right now, the MPAA has rated Fahrenheit 9/11 R. They claim it's because of disturbing images and language. And yet... PG-13 has become the realm of disturbing images, violence and language, as long as it's all kept in some fantasy world of muscular superheroes where the "good" guy wins. (To throw in a sideways Michael Moore reference, in Canada, films are rated more strictly for violence than they are for sexuality everywhere except Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. In Quebec, I don't think they raise the rating for sexuality at all.) Anyway, to the point of this paragraph: the first step in censorship is to try to "protect" the children, as an excuse to wedge in the controls. The second step is to apply those controls to content that is controversial for political reasons -- and (word to the Republicans) the politics are determined by whomever is in power. But censorship would be just as bad if the target were, say, an anti-choice documentary.
We already have the protections in place. Parents -- heard of the V-Chip? Learn it, love it, use it. TVs have them, and DVD players have them. Activate them on all the machines your kids have access to if you're so concerned about keeping them away from content to which you object. Or, if you absolutely insist on the family safe versions of R-rated movies, do what your parents did in the days before VCRs. Just wait 'til they air the damn thing on network TV, already hacked down to safety.
Ultimately, we need to overhaul the whole ratings thing completely. The system doesn't work because it has become de facto censorship, no matter how much Jack Valenti insists otherwise. There should be no stigma in a rating; it should be purely informational. But we've already seen that NC-17 has become a joke. All that that rating should indicate is "No one under 17 allowed." What it's come to imply is, "HEY, WHOA, PORNO!", many newspapers won't advertise NC-17 movies, and so pure economics dictate that this rating is hardly ever allowed.
The MPAA should take a clue from the TV industry, whose ratings system is a bit more informative, providing more categories and reasons. Not only do they rate by age, they indicate content with S (sex), L (language) and V (violence) tags. That's what the film industry needs, along with a little legislation of, not the studios, but the advertisers. Newspapers, TV and radio (as public assets) should be required to carry advertising for all films that have been rated by the MPAA, subject only to the content of the ad itself being acceptable for the standards of the particular advertising medium. And, of course, if the unions, particularly the DGA, had any balls, they'd force the studios to no longer require a particular rating for a film in order to ensure distribution.
Ultimately, it will be market forces that determine success. There should be more NC-17 films out there, and if there's no market for them, they'll go away. As we're seeing already with Fahrenheit 9/11, censorship always brings success. That's just part of human nature, particularly in America. As Ron and Nancy Reagan never learned, the quickest way to make somebody want to see something for themselves is to just say "No." As adults, that should be our right. As parents, you should be the enforcers of the "No" when it comes to your kids. Not Congress, not advertisers, not filmmakers, not a machine that arbitrarily censors. You. You made (or adopted) the kids, after all. Take some fucking responsibility in raising them, and leave the rest of us grown-ups alone.
And tell Lamar Smith to go to hell.
ClearPlay is the defendant in a lawsuit in Colorado's 10th District Court filed by Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Steven Soderbergh and other members of the DGA and the studios in 2002, when the filtering product first became available as a computer program. Smith said Thursday that he would introduce the legislation today if the parties in the lawsuit did [not] come to an agreement on how to settle the issue voluntarily.Well, Lamar Smith can shove his proposed law up his Fascist ass. We don't need it -- and you should contact his office, your representative's office and the members of the House Judiciary Committee, who are considering the proposed law now.
"Oh, but it's for the children..." they'll argue.
Quoth George Carlin, "Fuck the children."
Here's how digital editing of movies should work when it comes to kids: Parents, put your finger on the "eject" button and push it. Or, better yet, do your goddamn homework. Read reviews of the movies. Look at that little ratings box. See where it says G, PG, PG-13, R or (rarely) NC-17? HINT: If your kids are still in elementary school, don't be renting that R rated movie to watch while they're around. What? Upset that you and spousey can't catch the latest violent action flick or that steamy romance? That's the price you agreed to pay the second the sperm hit the egg. It's called take responsibility for what your kids see, and don't dumb down the rest of the world to make it safe so you don't have to think.
Of course, the kicker is this: you can bet that the focus of the bill will not be on gratuitous violence, but on any kind of sexuality. Because that's what these prudish fucktards always focus on.
Quoth Lenny Bruce, "I'd rather take my kid to a stag film than a war movie any day."
And keep this in mind: right now, the MPAA has rated Fahrenheit 9/11 R. They claim it's because of disturbing images and language. And yet... PG-13 has become the realm of disturbing images, violence and language, as long as it's all kept in some fantasy world of muscular superheroes where the "good" guy wins. (To throw in a sideways Michael Moore reference, in Canada, films are rated more strictly for violence than they are for sexuality everywhere except Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. In Quebec, I don't think they raise the rating for sexuality at all.) Anyway, to the point of this paragraph: the first step in censorship is to try to "protect" the children, as an excuse to wedge in the controls. The second step is to apply those controls to content that is controversial for political reasons -- and (word to the Republicans) the politics are determined by whomever is in power. But censorship would be just as bad if the target were, say, an anti-choice documentary.
We already have the protections in place. Parents -- heard of the V-Chip? Learn it, love it, use it. TVs have them, and DVD players have them. Activate them on all the machines your kids have access to if you're so concerned about keeping them away from content to which you object. Or, if you absolutely insist on the family safe versions of R-rated movies, do what your parents did in the days before VCRs. Just wait 'til they air the damn thing on network TV, already hacked down to safety.
Ultimately, we need to overhaul the whole ratings thing completely. The system doesn't work because it has become de facto censorship, no matter how much Jack Valenti insists otherwise. There should be no stigma in a rating; it should be purely informational. But we've already seen that NC-17 has become a joke. All that that rating should indicate is "No one under 17 allowed." What it's come to imply is, "HEY, WHOA, PORNO!", many newspapers won't advertise NC-17 movies, and so pure economics dictate that this rating is hardly ever allowed.
The MPAA should take a clue from the TV industry, whose ratings system is a bit more informative, providing more categories and reasons. Not only do they rate by age, they indicate content with S (sex), L (language) and V (violence) tags. That's what the film industry needs, along with a little legislation of, not the studios, but the advertisers. Newspapers, TV and radio (as public assets) should be required to carry advertising for all films that have been rated by the MPAA, subject only to the content of the ad itself being acceptable for the standards of the particular advertising medium. And, of course, if the unions, particularly the DGA, had any balls, they'd force the studios to no longer require a particular rating for a film in order to ensure distribution.
Ultimately, it will be market forces that determine success. There should be more NC-17 films out there, and if there's no market for them, they'll go away. As we're seeing already with Fahrenheit 9/11, censorship always brings success. That's just part of human nature, particularly in America. As Ron and Nancy Reagan never learned, the quickest way to make somebody want to see something for themselves is to just say "No." As adults, that should be our right. As parents, you should be the enforcers of the "No" when it comes to your kids. Not Congress, not advertisers, not filmmakers, not a machine that arbitrarily censors. You. You made (or adopted) the kids, after all. Take some fucking responsibility in raising them, and leave the rest of us grown-ups alone.
And tell Lamar Smith to go to hell.
Comments:
Post a Comment
