STILL RATING AFTER ALL THESE COLUMNS:  I’m pretty much up for a discussion over the ratings system at any time.  The debates at the PG-13/R line and the R/NC-17 line are both pretty intense.  So I was not unpleased to see Variety’s Dade Hayes taking a run at making sense of it all, as things stand right now. 

Then I read the piece…

I don’t really get it.  Variety is the bully pulpit of bully pulpits inside the industry.  Yet, all we really get is a rehash of the same old stuff, misinterpreted yet again.  You have Blair Witch 2, Tomcats and Freddy Got Fingered being held up as victims of the recent crackdown on selling tickets to R-rated films to under 17s… when all three are examples of crap first and anything else after.  I’m most galled by the BW2 thing, since the film was marketed to teens like crazy on the web and failed so definitely that it should never be mentioned again except as an example of how marketing of one picture can confuse a studio so much as to think that the same tricks will work again.  (Swordfish is also mentioned and that is one of the few examples about which I agree that the rating really hurt… especially in light of near-R films that weren’t as good but did better business without Halle’s boobs… Dom Sena’s Gone in 60 Seconds, for example.)

Then we have your MarketCast absurdity, which doesn’t prove anything about the “marketing climate” except that kids want to see R rated movies.  Big news!   (For the record, I will be happy to support MarketCast if they do, indeed, prove to deliver a better service than the National Research Group.  They promised me figures for months worth of research and I haven’t seen it yet.)

The next part is the worst, though.   Hayes kind of shoots from the cuff about where the PG-13/R line is and why it matters, particularly regarding “gross-out comedies.”  Firstly, the Farrelly Bros. are not a guarantee of an R… their pictures are 50/50 in this regard so far, and with the release of Osmosis Jones, they will have one more PG-13 than R on their resume.  On the flipside, Eddie Murphy doesn’t assure a softer PG-13.  The Nutty Professor 2 may have been pushing what seemed reasonable, but in 1999 Life was R-rated and Bowfinger was PG-13 and did almost the same box office. 

Did The Animal’s ability to get the “magical” PG-13 make it a $100 million movie?  No.  It’ll top out at around $55 million domestic.   Seven of the top 20 grossers in 2001 so far (including most of the box office for Traffic) are R-rated.  Only four of the top twenty from last year were R-rated.  Are things getting better for R-rated films?  Five of the Top 20 openings of 2000 were R-rated… this year, only 4 so far.  Does it mean that R-rated movies are bad business?

DUH!  NO!  It’s the movies, stupid!

Hayes says that “a gross-out comedy grossing $100 million or more with an R rating will be a true rarity today.”  Well, a gross-out comedy grossing $100 million has ALWAYS been a rarity.  There are none so far this year (and Scary Movie 2 is dying on its merits, thank you.)  There was Scary Movie last year and unless you include The Klumps, there was no PG-13 gross-out $100 million comedy at all.  Road Trip (R rated) did $68 million… which, considering its quality and lack of names, I consider a small miracle no matter what the rating.  Back in 1999, unless you count Big Daddy, the only R-rated “gross-out” comedy to hit $100 million was American Pie ($101 million) and you have to go all the way to South Park: Longer, Bigger & Uncut’s $52 million (the 47^th highest grosser) to find another.  And while I agree that SP:LB&U lost $10 - $20 million to extra careful ticket sellers, it was never going to be a $100 million film.  In 1998, the only Top 50 film to be close to a gross-out comedy was There’s Something About Mary… the phenom. 

Why are “gross-out comedies” dying out?  Well, they never were really that viable.  They were always a low-budget pray-for-a-return item.  But for what cycle there was, the cycle is now over.  Does anyone really believe that Say It Isn’t So grossed less than $10 million because it was R-rated?  Might Me, Myself & Irene have squeezed out another $20 million last summer if it were a PG-13 rated Jim Carrey comedy?  Maybe.  But it wouldn’t have been… couldn’t have been… the same movie.  When I first saw the movie, I wrote that it wouldn’t have the wide appeal of There’s Something About Mary.  Was it the fact that it was an out-and-out raunch fest with little emotion or that the FTC is cracking down on the R?  I think the answer is obvious.

There’s very little new to discuss here.  Could Swordfish have been made as a PG-13 movie and made more money?  Yes.  Could it have been a better movie and made over $100 million?  Absolutely.  Would America’s Sweethearts have opened to $30 million if it were rated R?  Probably… maybe more like $26 million.  But the audience for the film is not young teens.  Would The Fast & The Furious have been hurt by an R?  Absolutely.  But crazy/beautiful might have doubled its box office had Disney had the guts to make an R rated movie about an R rated subject.

The big question for me is not the box office, but back at the MPAA.  Besides Halle Berry’s breasts, what really is the big difference between Swordfish and The Fast & The Furious?  What exactly is the difference between Dude, Where’s My Car? and American Pie 2?  Was Moulin Rouge inhibited by its PG-13 rating?  Where’s the line between Kiss of the Dragon and Tomb Raider?

Read the Variety story here.

JUST WONDERING:  Did you feel the hard smack in the face from Matt Drudge, who ruined the surprise twist at the end of Planet of the Apes for no apparent reason other than his urge to be a thoughtless asshole?   I am pleased that Harry Knowles wrote about the unkind act, though it was a few days too late to keep me form having my fun ruined, in that small way.  I’ll see the monkeys tonight and I’m sure there will be other elements to enjoy, but damned if I’m not disappointed.

HE MAY BE NUTS, BUT…:  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke out on Monday about film.  Actually, as much as I disagree with him, there is something refreshing about a censorship-minded leader being clear about what he wants to censor and why.  Amongst his quotes: 

“A religious art must dedicate itself to a propagation of the divine message, of justice and of morality and must distance itself from vulgarity.”

“One should not make sex the main theme of a production just to fill the movie halls.”

And Khamenei warned that artists should avoid “political games” and that the Iran’s enemies try to attain "their hegemonic goals through art and culture.”

The thing is, I can’t really disagree with any of that.  If America were a country governed by religion, he’d be dead on.  And even if not, there are more than a few people who would agree that using sex in movies just to sell tickets is bad.  And God knows that those of us who disagree with the kind of politics practiced in Iran aggressively use art to subvert those politics. 

And just so I’m clear, I don’t think that the MPAA is trying to censor film in America for religious reasons.  It’s pure politics.  Jack Valenti is there to cover the industry’s butt against government interference and he acts in a way he feels is supportive of that goal.  The censorship is just an unfortunate by-product… a by-product I will fight to my last breath, but a by-product nonetheless.

READER OF THE DAY:  PG-Far From 13 takes on yesterday’s ROTD:  “The answer to Coxman's question depends upon whom is asking it.

If it is a movie studio executive, then the answer is to help sell a quality movie that is "a difficult sell."

If it is the general public, then it all depends upon how you base going to movies.  For most people it is the trailer, commercial, cast, etc.  There are some people who still consult reviews (depending upon whom it is, because as we all know, especially if you read the Los Angeles Times, there are certain critics reviews that you immediately dismiss, and I don't mean Ken Turan).

As for us film buffs, it's to hopefully give us some insight into the medium which we all love.  Unfortunately, there are few great critics (a great critic isn't one that you would necessarily agree with, but rather one whom makes you think).

I hope this answers his questions...”

E ME:  And what questions can you answer?