Forward:
I created Fudgecake Productions. I am also Co-President of the Student Filmmakers Alliance, a club at Southwestern College in San Diego, California. I love Troma and LLOYD KAUFMAN, Cannibal is my favorite musical distributed by Troma (do you even HAVE any other musicals?) and I plan to submit my short film, "Running With Scissors" to Tromadance 2003! The essay was turned in as my final research paper for a college English class during Summer 2001.
Michelle Osorio
Fudgecake Productions: Independent and tasty too!
ceo@fudgefilms.com or zincoxidegirl@yahoo.com
www.fudgefilms.com
www.michelleosorio.com
Empty Theaters, Empty Brains, Empty Ratings
Michelle Osorio
ENGL 115
Prof. Hurwitz
Final Essay
While independent movies abound in the film world, movie theater chains nationwide are going out of business. Reasons for the financial failure of movie exhibitors has to do with theaters only offering expensive Hollywood films, ignoring independent films, underestimating the artistic needs of movie audiences, and most importantly, censorship. While movie theaters stuff Cineplex's with thirty showings of Jurassic Park III every day, hundreds of independent movies struggle to get a single showing at even one theater in the United States. It wasn‘t always this way and the giant decline in movie revenues may begin to prove that audiences long for the times when they had a choice to decide what to watch. The Motion Picture Association of America‘s stranglehold on the ratings system does little to help independent filmmakers trying to get their product seen. The MPAA, mostly funded and run by a handful of major Hollywood studios, has used censorship to drive competition of artistic value into the dirt, only to be seen at film festivals or on video.
According to the official MPAA website, their board represents only seven studios. The site offers the following information about the association:
On its board of directors are the Chairmen and Presidents of the seven major producers and distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States. These members include: Walt Disney Company; Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.; Universal Studios, Inc.; and Warner Bros. (Valenti, About the MPAA, 1)
These seven studios are movie powerhouses with influences throughout the world. It has become difficult for smaller studios, especially the independent ones, to have any control over the ratings of their films. The MPAA has become infamous for rating many small films with an NC-17, while giving more graphic, but mainstream studio movies an R.
Independent Filmmaker and co-founder of America’s oldest existing independent film company (Troma), Lloyd Kaufman has been one of the biggest advocates against the MPAA‘s monopoly on the film and movie ratings industry. He says that Loews Cineplex is the result of a merger between Loews Theatres (owned by Sony) and Cineplex Odeon (owned by Universal). ABC is nothing more than a seven-days-a-week prime-time infomercial for Disneyland (Kaufman, Chains Without Balls, 1). The result is a giant merchandising scheme where studios can advertise their movies on the news and sitcom shows that their networks own. Their movies are practically the only ones offered at any movie theater. The existence of the MPAA justifies this monopoly. It poses as a watchdog to ensure all films are rated fairly. Yet, one needs only to look at the association’s board to see that it is a cleverly hidden secret weapon of Hollywood.
Jack Valenti, President and Chief Executive Officer of the MPAA, states that the MPAA is not controlling because it is made up of several chairmen. He claims, “Because the rating program is a self-regulatory apparatus of the film industry, it is important that no single element of the industry take on the authority of a ‘czar’ beyond any discipline or self-restraint.” (Valenti, Movie Ratings: How it Works, 6). Yet most movies playing in theaters today are big budget studio films. Most theaters in the U.S. will not play NC-17 movies, and many filmmakers claim that independent films are unfairly given NC-17 ratings far more often than big studio films.
During the 1960’s and 70’s, independent films proliferated, and hundreds of them flickered on movie screens across the United States. However, as the 80’s approached, art houses began to close down, and movie chains gradually returned to censorship and avoidance of independent film once again. When the 1990’s arrived, censorship grew, leaking into television as well. Those at a disadvantage from this situation blame studios for using ratings as part of their battle plan to keep independent competition from getting screen time at theaters. Kaufman states the following:
We have returned to the time when major studios dictate what movies will be seen where. Today, not only do studios once again own outright theatres and theatre chains, they can own network television. Back in 1980, Waitress!, one of the pre-Toxie sex comedies that Michael Herz and I directed, played in 92 theatres in New York City alone. Today, the universally acclaimed, and clearly superior, Terror Firmer has fought tooth and nail to get just one cinema in New York.
Kaufman considers his greatest film of all time to be Troma’s War. After watching the final cut of the film, his co producer, Michael Herz was relieved.
“That’s not going to have any problems getting an R,” he said. The two men had examined Robocop (Orion Pictures Corporation; MGM was a distributor) and Die Hard (20th Century Fox Film Corporation) to ensure that the violence of their movie did not exceed the R version of these two films. Unfortunately, the MPAA would not give it an R rating.
“Forget it. This is a horrible film,” said the MPAA representative over the phone to a Troma employee. Kaufman was appalled that the MPAA dared to critically evaluate his movie. Their only job was to judge whether the film was adequate for children under the age of seventeen. In the end, Kaufman had to alter his film dramatically. As he cut out bit after bit he felt “as if I were clawing out chunks of my own flesh. Even the scene where the woman spits endless teeth out of her mouth (each of the teeth was a cartoonish two-inches long) had to go.” While the film had originally been Kaufman’s best work, the final cut performed dismally at theaters. Viewers saw it as “mush” and thought he was selling out. The film had been destroyed in order to get an R, only to disappoint Kaufman and fans alike (Kaufman, Toxic Avenger, 213-214).
Dan Atchison, an independent filmmaker who made The Pornographer also has complaints, “it seems making people comfortable is more important than actually shielding children from images that might influence destructive behavior. Suggest a bullet to the brain or a needle to the vein, and you’ll easily get an R. Suggest a blow job—and you’re history“ (Atchison, The MPAA vs. The Pornographer, 1). Indeed, the obvious bias of the MPAA seems more geared towards pampering audiences rather than offering them useful cautionary notices about graphic films. In the end, the MPAA seems to merely be another marketing tool for the Hollywood system to keep independent films at bay and avoid competition.
When Atchison specifically asked Eric Watson, producer of Requiem for a Dream, if he felt the MPAA discriminated against independent films like Requiem, his answer was clear. "If you're a major studio film, you're in a position of having leverage over the MPAA because you're paying their budget. So, essentially, we're dealing with a paid jury. To me it's an unconstitutional concept. It's a jury that must answer to the people who are paying their paychecks. I think that's why films like Scary Movie and 8mm get R ratings, even though the content is extremely shocking and the moral content of the film is suspect" (Atchison, Separate and Unequal?, 1). Indeed, many big budget films have managed to sneak through the MPAA’s filtering system with nothing more than an R, and sometimes, even a PG-13.
The MPAA’s PG-13 rating means “parents are strongly cautioned” about the movie in question and that “some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.” An R rating means that the movie is restricted and no one under seventeen is permitted to view the movie at a theater unless accompanied by an adult, period (MPAA Official Website, Movie Ratings). PG-13 movies tend to have mildly vulgar language and more innuendos towards sex and violence then an actual display. One specific blockbuster film from 1997 contained, according to the MPAA, “disaster related peril and violence, nudity, sensuality and brief language.” It was Titanic, and it was rated PG-13 (IMDB, Titanic: 1997). This and many other intriguing cases seems, to many anti-censorship advocates, to be happening because of the partiality of the MPAA to their own studio’s movie. It is no secret that Titanic was released by Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount Pictures, two of the studios in the Big Seven that make up the MPAA’s board.
While the MPAA claims that its goals are to make it easier for parent’s to decide what movies to see, their domination of movie ratings and theatre chains make it apparent that they are attempting to steal people’s right to choose what movies they want to see. By giving a smaller studio’s movie an NC-17, the MPAA is assuring their sponsors that there is one more theatre spot open for a big studio flick. However, audiences are no longer buying it. Kaufman says:
The lesson to be learned here is painfully obvious. Movie attendance is dropping even as the number of screens is growing. It may take a bankruptcy or two for theatre owners to realize that they must wrest control of their business away from the studio cartel that provides them with product. They will not make money by filling more screens with the same soulless crap... They will make money if they offer their customers a genuine choice.
No one knows what the future holds. Hollywood studios may continue to dominate the movie chains, and multiplexes across the nation may go bankrupt. On the other hand, many may see this as a call to action. Chains may begin to offer independent, radical, or taboo films in hopes of gaining attendance. Film buffs may get a chance to see a new indy favorite without taking a bus or plane to the closest film festival. While big studios are in it for the money, so are the big movie chains. Perhaps a few chains not enslaved by the studio system will have the entrepreneurial risk-taking spirit to begin showing non-mainstream films. Until then, we will see how the audience attendance turns out to be for Osmosis Jones and Cats and Dogs 2.
Bibliography
I created Fudgecake Productions. I am also Co-President of the Student Filmmakers Alliance, a club at Southwestern College in San Diego, California. I love Troma and LLOYD KAUFMAN, Cannibal is my favorite musical distributed by Troma (do you even HAVE any other musicals?) and I plan to submit my short film, "Running With Scissors" to Tromadance 2003! The essay was turned in as my final research paper for a college English class during Summer 2001.
Michelle Osorio
Fudgecake Productions: Independent and tasty too!
ceo@fudgefilms.com or zincoxidegirl@yahoo.com
www.fudgefilms.com
www.michelleosorio.com
Empty Theaters, Empty Brains, Empty Ratings
Michelle Osorio
ENGL 115
Prof. Hurwitz
Final Essay
While independent movies abound in the film world, movie theater chains nationwide are going out of business. Reasons for the financial failure of movie exhibitors has to do with theaters only offering expensive Hollywood films, ignoring independent films, underestimating the artistic needs of movie audiences, and most importantly, censorship. While movie theaters stuff Cineplex's with thirty showings of Jurassic Park III every day, hundreds of independent movies struggle to get a single showing at even one theater in the United States. It wasn‘t always this way and the giant decline in movie revenues may begin to prove that audiences long for the times when they had a choice to decide what to watch. The Motion Picture Association of America‘s stranglehold on the ratings system does little to help independent filmmakers trying to get their product seen. The MPAA, mostly funded and run by a handful of major Hollywood studios, has used censorship to drive competition of artistic value into the dirt, only to be seen at film festivals or on video.
According to the official MPAA website, their board represents only seven studios. The site offers the following information about the association:
On its board of directors are the Chairmen and Presidents of the seven major producers and distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States. These members include: Walt Disney Company; Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.; Universal Studios, Inc.; and Warner Bros. (Valenti, About the MPAA, 1)
These seven studios are movie powerhouses with influences throughout the world. It has become difficult for smaller studios, especially the independent ones, to have any control over the ratings of their films. The MPAA has become infamous for rating many small films with an NC-17, while giving more graphic, but mainstream studio movies an R.
Independent Filmmaker and co-founder of America’s oldest existing independent film company (Troma), Lloyd Kaufman has been one of the biggest advocates against the MPAA‘s monopoly on the film and movie ratings industry. He says that Loews Cineplex is the result of a merger between Loews Theatres (owned by Sony) and Cineplex Odeon (owned by Universal). ABC is nothing more than a seven-days-a-week prime-time infomercial for Disneyland (Kaufman, Chains Without Balls, 1). The result is a giant merchandising scheme where studios can advertise their movies on the news and sitcom shows that their networks own. Their movies are practically the only ones offered at any movie theater. The existence of the MPAA justifies this monopoly. It poses as a watchdog to ensure all films are rated fairly. Yet, one needs only to look at the association’s board to see that it is a cleverly hidden secret weapon of Hollywood.
Jack Valenti, President and Chief Executive Officer of the MPAA, states that the MPAA is not controlling because it is made up of several chairmen. He claims, “Because the rating program is a self-regulatory apparatus of the film industry, it is important that no single element of the industry take on the authority of a ‘czar’ beyond any discipline or self-restraint.” (Valenti, Movie Ratings: How it Works, 6). Yet most movies playing in theaters today are big budget studio films. Most theaters in the U.S. will not play NC-17 movies, and many filmmakers claim that independent films are unfairly given NC-17 ratings far more often than big studio films.
During the 1960’s and 70’s, independent films proliferated, and hundreds of them flickered on movie screens across the United States. However, as the 80’s approached, art houses began to close down, and movie chains gradually returned to censorship and avoidance of independent film once again. When the 1990’s arrived, censorship grew, leaking into television as well. Those at a disadvantage from this situation blame studios for using ratings as part of their battle plan to keep independent competition from getting screen time at theaters. Kaufman states the following:
We have returned to the time when major studios dictate what movies will be seen where. Today, not only do studios once again own outright theatres and theatre chains, they can own network television. Back in 1980, Waitress!, one of the pre-Toxie sex comedies that Michael Herz and I directed, played in 92 theatres in New York City alone. Today, the universally acclaimed, and clearly superior, Terror Firmer has fought tooth and nail to get just one cinema in New York.
Kaufman considers his greatest film of all time to be Troma’s War. After watching the final cut of the film, his co producer, Michael Herz was relieved.
“That’s not going to have any problems getting an R,” he said. The two men had examined Robocop (Orion Pictures Corporation; MGM was a distributor) and Die Hard (20th Century Fox Film Corporation) to ensure that the violence of their movie did not exceed the R version of these two films. Unfortunately, the MPAA would not give it an R rating.
“Forget it. This is a horrible film,” said the MPAA representative over the phone to a Troma employee. Kaufman was appalled that the MPAA dared to critically evaluate his movie. Their only job was to judge whether the film was adequate for children under the age of seventeen. In the end, Kaufman had to alter his film dramatically. As he cut out bit after bit he felt “as if I were clawing out chunks of my own flesh. Even the scene where the woman spits endless teeth out of her mouth (each of the teeth was a cartoonish two-inches long) had to go.” While the film had originally been Kaufman’s best work, the final cut performed dismally at theaters. Viewers saw it as “mush” and thought he was selling out. The film had been destroyed in order to get an R, only to disappoint Kaufman and fans alike (Kaufman, Toxic Avenger, 213-214).
Dan Atchison, an independent filmmaker who made The Pornographer also has complaints, “it seems making people comfortable is more important than actually shielding children from images that might influence destructive behavior. Suggest a bullet to the brain or a needle to the vein, and you’ll easily get an R. Suggest a blow job—and you’re history“ (Atchison, The MPAA vs. The Pornographer, 1). Indeed, the obvious bias of the MPAA seems more geared towards pampering audiences rather than offering them useful cautionary notices about graphic films. In the end, the MPAA seems to merely be another marketing tool for the Hollywood system to keep independent films at bay and avoid competition.
When Atchison specifically asked Eric Watson, producer of Requiem for a Dream, if he felt the MPAA discriminated against independent films like Requiem, his answer was clear. "If you're a major studio film, you're in a position of having leverage over the MPAA because you're paying their budget. So, essentially, we're dealing with a paid jury. To me it's an unconstitutional concept. It's a jury that must answer to the people who are paying their paychecks. I think that's why films like Scary Movie and 8mm get R ratings, even though the content is extremely shocking and the moral content of the film is suspect" (Atchison, Separate and Unequal?, 1). Indeed, many big budget films have managed to sneak through the MPAA’s filtering system with nothing more than an R, and sometimes, even a PG-13.
The MPAA’s PG-13 rating means “parents are strongly cautioned” about the movie in question and that “some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.” An R rating means that the movie is restricted and no one under seventeen is permitted to view the movie at a theater unless accompanied by an adult, period (MPAA Official Website, Movie Ratings). PG-13 movies tend to have mildly vulgar language and more innuendos towards sex and violence then an actual display. One specific blockbuster film from 1997 contained, according to the MPAA, “disaster related peril and violence, nudity, sensuality and brief language.” It was Titanic, and it was rated PG-13 (IMDB, Titanic: 1997). This and many other intriguing cases seems, to many anti-censorship advocates, to be happening because of the partiality of the MPAA to their own studio’s movie. It is no secret that Titanic was released by Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount Pictures, two of the studios in the Big Seven that make up the MPAA’s board.
While the MPAA claims that its goals are to make it easier for parent’s to decide what movies to see, their domination of movie ratings and theatre chains make it apparent that they are attempting to steal people’s right to choose what movies they want to see. By giving a smaller studio’s movie an NC-17, the MPAA is assuring their sponsors that there is one more theatre spot open for a big studio flick. However, audiences are no longer buying it. Kaufman says:
The lesson to be learned here is painfully obvious. Movie attendance is dropping even as the number of screens is growing. It may take a bankruptcy or two for theatre owners to realize that they must wrest control of their business away from the studio cartel that provides them with product. They will not make money by filling more screens with the same soulless crap... They will make money if they offer their customers a genuine choice.
No one knows what the future holds. Hollywood studios may continue to dominate the movie chains, and multiplexes across the nation may go bankrupt. On the other hand, many may see this as a call to action. Chains may begin to offer independent, radical, or taboo films in hopes of gaining attendance. Film buffs may get a chance to see a new indy favorite without taking a bus or plane to the closest film festival. While big studios are in it for the money, so are the big movie chains. Perhaps a few chains not enslaved by the studio system will have the entrepreneurial risk-taking spirit to begin showing non-mainstream films. Until then, we will see how the audience attendance turns out to be for Osmosis Jones and Cats and Dogs 2.
Bibliography
- Atchison, Dan. The MPAA vs. The Pornographer. MovieMaker Magazine, 2000.
- Atchison, Dan. Separate and Unequal? How the MPAA Rates Independent Films. MovieMaker Magazine, 2000
- IMDB: The Internet Movie Database: Titanic (1997)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120338. - Kaufman, Lloyd. Chains Without Balls: The Studio Controlled Movie Theatres Are Crumbling. Here's Why. Official Troma Website: http://www.troma.com/lk2/chains/index.php3.
- Kaufman, Lloyd. All I Need To Know About Filmmaking I Learned From The Toxic Avenger. New York: Penguin Putnam, 1998.
- Motion Picture Association of America Official Website, Movie Ratings
http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings. - Valenti, Jack. About the MPAA. Official MPAA
Website: http://www.mpaa.org/about/. - Valenti, Jack. Movie Ratings: How it Works.
Official MPAA Website: http://mpaa.org/movieratings/about/content6.htm