Halloween 2000

WAH! ROTD: My conversation with the weekend ROTD about ratings and censorship, and something finally struck me… the reason this issue is so blurry is that the responsibility is spread to so many players. Filmmakers are ticked at the MPAA. The MPAA tries to blame the theater owners for not enforcing the rules. The theater owners know that a lot of the product that is R-rated is making them money with the under-17 set, but that's because the studios make R-rated movies that appeal to teens. The studios buy advertising on "kids" shows (though a lot of adults are watching those same shows), but the networks take no responsibility for accepting the ads. Everyone suddenly gets nervous about content and starts telling the filmmakers what they can and cannot do, for reasons above and beyond ratings and, in turn, money. It's a big, fat, giant blur.

And in almost all cases, there are arguments to be made on both sides. Is the use of the F-word (this year's N-word) really going to improve the work? Do you actually need to see pubic hair? Will it work if you see the hatchet heading toward her neck, and then cut away with just the sound? Fine. I get it. But the distinctions are more subtle than that… especially if you are the filmmaker.

It is hard for the public—or congress—to understand that filmmakers fight and suffer over every cut in their movie, including ones that you don't even notice. Pacing, subtext, and details are critical, even on crappy movies. So, does it really matter that there were CG bodies in front of soft-core sex images in Eyes Wide Shut? No… not in the big picture. But it did change the weight of that sequence, make no mistake. So the answer, for those of us who care about the film, is also a definitive "Yes."

As I wrote to a colleague who cares deeply about the subject, this is a discussion for adults. But legislation is not about winning or losing a philosophical argument. When congress gets involved, it is about censorship, because censor is all they can really do. Rules, once defined, are amoral. They have moral implications, but the laws themselves are amoral, because they don't have the flexibility to engage morality. That's why we have judges in America… to interpret the laws and to deal with the subtleties.

I am for easy access to very specific information in connection with the ratings process. I am for a PG-13 that has a real connection to what a 13-year-old is ready for, not what a 16-year-old is ready for, but it's a step below an R, so we'll let it slide. I am for a soft R, allowing 13- to 17-year-olds into the theater, but making it clear to parents that this film is more mature. And I am for a hard R, disallowing unaccompanied kids under 17 into the theater at all… even if the parents buy the ticket. And I am for an adult rating, whether it's an NC-17 or an X or an A—one that disallows kids under 17 from seeing the film, but which the MPAA says precludes multiple acts of graphically shown oral, vaginal, or anal contact and which the MPAA will promote to theater owners, newspapers, and mall owners as separate from pornography. Let the lawsuit excuse die, along with the "Parents are happy with the system when polled" excuse.

MISS QUOTING: I got an e-mail last week about the lead quote for Pay It Forward from USA Today's Susan Wloszczyna. Warner Bros. pulled the first line of Susan's review: "Pay It Forward is one of those miracles-can-happen movies. You don't so much see it. You feel it." Hmm… sounds pretty good. I wonder why it was a 2 1/2-star review. Could it be the middle of the sentence that Wloszczyna wrote, but thatWarner Bros. left out? Here's the whole paragraph: "Pay It Forward is one of those miracles-can-happen movies, a living, breathing Hallmark card so infused with secular spirituality that you don't so much see it. You feel it. Right there. In your schmaltz zone." A little different, huh?

There are other tough pulls from the review: "Either you will weep uncontrollably during the final 10 minutes or so of this bittersweet fable, goosed to the heavens by Jane Siberry's cloying anthem Calling All Angels, or the urge to gag will be overwhelming." Or how about this one? "Forward, however, takes about three steps back whenever Hunt is on screen. An Oscar should not be a license to overact, but the actress—who won for a similar role in As Good as It Gets—is as hammy as it gets with overbleached locks, harsh makeup, and slutty outfits that make Erin Brockovich seem like Princess Di. The horrifying sight of her awakening from a vodka binge should be required viewing at AA meetings." And then there's this: "Tissues or barf bag, take your pick."

In the end, it seems that Ms. W (easier to spell than to figure out how to say) liked the picture. Her barf-bag comment was followed by, "Personally, I was glad I grabbed a handful of concession napkins. Judging by the chorus of sniffles, I wasn't alone." But not exactly a glowing endorsement either. Another reminder to read between the lines.

READER OF THE DAY: This note came from filmmaker and all-around-good-guy Jonathan Kaufer:—"October 30, 2000

Dear Mr. Nader:

The American people are grateful for your lifetime commitment to consumer advocacy and efforts to push for laws to protect people as consumers, workers, and taxpayers. We are grateful for your work in protecting the environment, combating corporate abuse, and increasing citizen access to government.

You are an accomplished writer and one of America's most effective social critics. Your inspiration and example have awakened consumer advocates, citizen activists, and public interest lawyers. You are an inspiration to any American who treasures fairness, equality, consumer rights, and the environment. In this moment of need, we ask you to continue this legacy and do what is right for the American people in these crucial three weeks before the 2000 presidential election.

Please do not distort the American political process by splitting the liberal vote and allowing the conservative right to steal this election.

Please do not waste the good will, respect, and admiration the American people have for you by throwing the 2000 American presidential election to George W. Bush and Bill [sic] Cheney.

Please do not enable the environmental exploitation of the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Preserve.

Please assure true protection of the environment by withdrawing your candidacy and encouraging your supporters to vote for Al Gore for president.

Please do not allow all of your courageous consumer work over the last 30 years to be wasted with the election of the most probusiness, anticonsumer rights administration since Calvin Coolidge.

Please do not allow your grand legacy to be destroyed in infamy by becoming the spoiler who enabled the radical right to dominate the presidency and the Supreme Court well into the 21st century.

Please be the savior, not the spoiler, of the 21st century, by encouraging your supporters to vote for Al Gore.

Mr. Nader, for the reasons you have dedicated your life to, please withdraw from the 2000 presidential election and throw your support behind Al Gore. Time is running out. Please do what is right for the American people.

Thank you.
Jonathan Kaufer

DAVID RESPONDS: This column has been swaying pretty far to the left lately. My apologies. I sway more toward the middle myself. I don't believe that a vote for Nader is a wasted vote… except perhaps because even he knows that he is not really a legitimate presidential possibility, so he is probably underprepared to make any inroads in Washington if elected by a miracle. I believe that your vote is yours… your message… your belief… and if your beliefs are different from mine, you should vote your conscience. If Al Gore can't beat Bush without Nader's votes, he doesn't deserve to win anyway. I cannot in good conscience vote for George Bush. But I would never call you names if he were your choice. I personally believe that Bush is a massive irony in light of Bill Clinton, a president the nation really likes but wouldn't trust around their daughters. And now the left screams, "How dare you vote for someone based on personality!?" Clinton has survived on personality, as did Reagan and as does the legacy of JFK and as does the dislike of Nixon. Bush may be too dumb to show guile. Gore certainly has. So, here we are in a nationwide referendum on how concerned we really as about Supreme Court nominees and drilling for oil in national preserves. That's about all the difference between the two cynical, unreal, slick politicians. When Snickers commercials get political, you know that everyone is in on the joke. But remember to vote. And remember, your vote is yours.

E ME: Long read today, huh?