Is fear of the MPAA the reason why most American horror films (like THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT remake) wimp out? by DARK SIDE
Just saw the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated (3 out of 5 stars) about how how the Motion Picture Association of America has one of the most powerful, secretive and arbitrarily unchecked bureaucratic systems in the U.S. When you can hand down a rating for a movie (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17) and not have to give a reason, nor reveal who made the decision, you’ve got an abuse of power there, sir! While I usually don’t have too many qualms with their system – because frankly, it doesn’t affect me one bit - I have been at employed by a hum-dinger of a bureaucratic system (not gonna say who) and I’m telling you, the MPAA is a bulls@#% system. They get away with murder without consequence, everybody knows it, they don’t deny it and they can’t be taken down. In the realm of Hollywood, this organization has been the one true fascist dictatorship since its creation in the late 60’s.
It’s actually hilarious that the documentary, which exposes the identities of the secret members of this cabal, received an NC-17 rating for two reasons: 1. For showing scenes that the MPAA deemed NC-17 worthy 2. Out of pure, obvious spite. What, did you expect them to be good sports about it?
After I saw it, I popped in the DVD of The Last House on the Left (rated version) remake and I got to thinking about how the MPAA might have influenced not only its rating, but also how the filmmakers actually filmed it.
For those who don’t know, House on the Left (3 out of 5 stars) involves a family (Tony Goldwyn, Monica Potter and Sarah Paxton who plays the daughter) who goes to their remote lake cabin for a vacation. The daughter takes the car to town to visit her friend (Superbad’s Martha McIsaac) and they both end up going back to this shy, cute boy’s (Spencer Treat Clark from Unbreakable) hotel room to smoke some pot. Unfortunately, the boy’s murderous father (Garret Dillahunt once again playing an extremely scary bad guy) and his psycho girlfriend (Riki Lindhome) and brother (Aaron Paul) show up and decide the girls must die for seeing their faces. Horrible things get done to the girls, the villains wreck and end up at the family’s cabin in a nasty storm. The couple take them in, but once they find out what these fools did to their daughter, look out! Ma and Pa suddenly get all homicidal-like.
I hated the original. Despite being Wes Craven’s first film, it looked cheap, ugly and had no style… but at least it pushed some boundaries. This version had a slick production, great acting and some extremely tense scenes, but in comparison with the original, it was obviously neutered.
Whether that lack of audacity came from the MPAA saying “take it out or you’ll get an NC-17 rating and make no money,” or the filmmakers saying, “The MPAA will never allow a castration-by-teeth scene or the father hacking them up with a chainsaw so let’s not even try,” we may never know. Actually, we might know if I had bothered to watch the commentary (if it had one) but I’m a busy clown. I ain’t got time to rewatch even the semi-decent horror films.
Instead I’ll use it as a point of discussion. Do you think horror filmmakers (aiming for theatrical releases) proactively neuter their visions to please the MPAA and avoid a NC-17, or do you think they make what they like then cut what they have to? Maybe a bit of both? Talk amongst ya-selves…
No movie about me would ever be anything less than NC-17.
-Dark Side
More great articles…
CLICK TO VISIT COOP'S PARANORMAL/HORROR SITE...
Click on the hilarious-looking lamb (he still makes me laugh) to access a great directory of the best independent movie blogs on the web!
I believe it is a combination or the two depending on the budget they have and the producers. I think writers will write it the way they want it, directors will love it, and the producers will cut it. Where the cutting happens in the process depends on how stringent the producers are or how afraid of the MPAA they are.
If the producers have the money they may shoot the film both ways and see what they can get away with. It probably also has to do with how much clout a producer has, something tells me if they have the power they can get almost anything through the MPAA. Ass you said, they don’t have to answer to anyone. However if they don’t have the budget to re-shoot or re-edit a producer is most definitely going to cow-tow to the MPAA and shy away from any possible violation. They need to make their money back and if you are on the fences between a wide release, limited release, indie or direct to video you have some major decision to make.
I think 9 times out of 10 the producers will please the MPAA.
Yeah, it’s certainly dependent. It usually doesn’t bother me because they are way more lenient now and ratings don’t affect me in any way. I just don’t like the idea of the MPAA causing the filmmakers to not take chances.
Exactly. As much as I personally would love to censor some art I really don’t like the idea that film makers feel like they need to censor their product to please a bureaucracy. People should create what they want to create. Makes me sad.