Tuesday, January 31, 2006
This Film Has Now Been Nicked
Via Paul, an interesting (to me, anyway) story from America.
The American movie ratings board, the MPAA, has been accused of illegally copying a film submitted to it for a rating. The film, in fact called 'This Film Is Not Yet Rated', is an expose on how the MPAA works. It asks, amongst other things, why the MPAA board, which is usually described as 'an average group of parents', in fact consists of several members with 'children' in their twenties and thirties, whether independent films are treated more harshly than studio-produced ones, whether sex is treated more puritanically than violence, and other such miscellany.
In fact, the MPAA introduced the rule it has now broken, for it has indeed admitted copying the film. It claims it has done nothing wrong, and that the fuss is a publicity stunt.
It has to be said that, in fact, the MPAA have good reason to feel a bit hard done by. The film shows, amongst other things, a private detective going through the rater's rubbish, and following rater's as they take their kids to school (for those who actually do have kids). I was against the removing of anonymity from BBFC reviewers earlier this year, and I'm fairly against again here.
In true American style, both sides are threatening legal action. Apparently, the BBC have bought the rights to the film, so it will probably be on British telly at some point.
When it was eventually rated, by the way, it received the ghetto category of NC-17 for strong sexual content.
The film at the centre of the controversy.
The American movie ratings board, the MPAA, has been accused of illegally copying a film submitted to it for a rating. The film, in fact called 'This Film Is Not Yet Rated', is an expose on how the MPAA works. It asks, amongst other things, why the MPAA board, which is usually described as 'an average group of parents', in fact consists of several members with 'children' in their twenties and thirties, whether independent films are treated more harshly than studio-produced ones, whether sex is treated more puritanically than violence, and other such miscellany.
In fact, the MPAA introduced the rule it has now broken, for it has indeed admitted copying the film. It claims it has done nothing wrong, and that the fuss is a publicity stunt.
It has to be said that, in fact, the MPAA have good reason to feel a bit hard done by. The film shows, amongst other things, a private detective going through the rater's rubbish, and following rater's as they take their kids to school (for those who actually do have kids). I was against the removing of anonymity from BBFC reviewers earlier this year, and I'm fairly against again here.
In true American style, both sides are threatening legal action. Apparently, the BBC have bought the rights to the film, so it will probably be on British telly at some point.
When it was eventually rated, by the way, it received the ghetto category of NC-17 for strong sexual content.
The film at the centre of the controversy.
