Film fans

[Matt_B]

If you haven't seen it yet, find a copy of "This film is not yet rated". It's an excellent look at the MPAA rating system in America and how obviously corrupt and ridiculous it is. The most striking to me what how anti-gay such a big organisation is.

Oh, I have also started a new blog trying to review films in around 50 words or less. It's a bit shit at the minute and I doubt it will get much better, but have a look. If you fancy having a go and joining me in submitting to it, let me know and I will set up an account for you. It has a reader base of 0 so far.

 

[David Gwilliam]

I have some sympathy for the people trying to do a ratings system. What is acceptable to Sarah Palin supporters is unacceptable to Obama supporters and vice versa. The Culture War in America is poisonous. Having got friends who worked for the Republicans in the 1980s and friends who are fanatical Democrats I know that the bigotry among intelligent Americans on both sides puts the Daily Mail and Guardian to shame.

With a movie there is the problem that more people will watch it in their own home than at the cinema and people often apply standards in their own home that they do not apply outside.

There is a further problem of context. I dislike the obscene language in "The Usual Suspects" (one of my favourite movies) which uses it in one scene just to get the rating they want. On the other hand in "The Kings Speech" the obscene passage is important to the film.

Perhaps the ratings people are not as bad as Hollywood itself. I am told that the new Dam Busters film changes the name of Guy Gibsons black dog to Digger. The makers of the movie "Fatherland" bowed to pressure from Edward Kennedy to omit references in the novel to Joe Kennedy's pro-Nazi beliefs. One of the most interesting characters in the novel "Angels and Demons" is left out of the movie in order to appease the religious right. And don't get me started on "Elizabeth The Golden Age".

 

[Mawsley]

the bigotry among intelligent Americans on both sides puts the Daily Mail and Guardian to shame.

You're equating the Mail and the Grauniad? Really?

 

[The Major]

You're equating the Mail and the Grauniad? Really?

Shocking, the Guardian is far worse.

 

[Mawsley]

Left of centre broadsheet with outstanding coverage of environmental, art & educational issues vs. rabid, far-right, cancer-obsessed tawdry rag aimed at thick, menopausal women

 

[The Major]

Hey yeah, gimme some of that outstanding environmental coverage.

 

[David Gwilliam]

Apologies to those looking for film criticism in this post and especially to anyone uninterested in recent History. I will understand if nobody except Mawsley (I hope) reads it. I strongly feel that The Guardian has got away with a most unpleasant record - and anyway Mawsley deserbes a reply..

You're equating the Mail and the Grauniad? Really?

Yes. It is always interesting when people denounce the extremists of one side while making excuses for their own side.
To be fair the Mail with one exception has never pandered to the really nasty extremists the way The Guardian has been given a free rise about its unsavoury past.
The exception was a brief flirtation with the British Fascists in the early 1930s which ended after a few months after Winston Churchill had a meeting with his friend the papers owner Harold Rothermere. Since then the Mail has opposed first Mosley, then the National Front and then the BNP.

The Guardians record by comparison is lamentable.
It supported Stalin in the 1930s and censored articles by its Moscow correspondent Malcolm Muggerisfe which were critical of him. It was constantly sympathetic to the British Commuinist Party.
It equated Stalin and Eisenhower - the height of absurdity.
It employed a Trostsky-ite columnist in Paul Foot - would the Mail ever employ a member of the BNP as a colunist?
It sympathised with tyrants such as Husak in Czechoslovakia and Kadar in Hungary.
Lastly on the death of any unrepentent old Marxist such as Christopher Hill and Rodney Hilton they are lauded to the skies; no doubt when the time comes the obituary of Eric Hobsbawm will do the same.

 

[Mawsley]

Apologies to those looking for film criticism in this post and especially to anyone uninterested in recent History. I will understand if nobody except Mawsley (I hope) reads it.

I just have done David, thank you. I consider myself apolitical these days and was referring to the journalistic content of the respective rags rather than their historical political leanings during their early years. It is for this reason I find their comparison risible. And I believe that the Mail contends that risible causes and cures cancer.

 

[David Gwilliam]

Yes. It is always interesting when people denounce the extremists of one side while making excuses for their own side.

Left of centre broadsheet with outstanding coverage of environmental, art & educational issues vs. rabid, far-right, cancer-obsessed tawdry rag aimed at thick, menopausal women

Thank you Mawsley for making my point.

Back to films.

I have just watched The Mechanic with Jason Statham and am disappointed. Statham is very good and is the one modern male star who looks credible in action scenes. The fight scenes are done very well. However, the dialogue is dreary and I could not find myself caring whatever happened to the people involved. In that way I thought the early version of "The Mechanic" with Charles Bronson was much better.

For me the best Jason Statham movie was "Transporter" where the three main characters were interesting, the dialogue witty and - for me the most important thing in a movie -I wanted to find out what happened next.

 

[Mawsley]

Thank you Mawsley for making my point.

Do you only ever read the bits you want to?

 

[Macky]

I have some sympathy for the people trying to do a ratings system. What is acceptable to Sarah Palin supporters is unacceptable to Obama supporters and vice versa. The Culture War in America is poisonous. Having got friends who worked for the Republicans in the 1980s and friends who are fanatical Democrats I know that the bigotry among intelligent Americans on both sides puts the Daily Mail and Guardian to shame.

With a movie there is the problem that more people will watch it in their own home than at the cinema and people often apply standards in their own home that they do not apply outside.

There is a further problem of context. I dislike the obscene language in "The Usual Suspects" (one of my favourite movies) which uses it in one scene just to get the rating they want. On the other hand in "The Kings Speech" the obscene passage is important to the film.

Perhaps the ratings people are not as bad as Hollywood itself. I am told that the new Dam Busters film changes the name of Guy Gibsons black dog to Digger. The makers of the movie "Fatherland" bowed to pressure from Edward Kennedy to omit references in the novel to Joe Kennedy's pro-Nazi beliefs. One of the most interesting characters in the novel "Angels and Demons" is left out of the movie in order to appease the religious right. And don't get me started on "Elizabeth The Golden Age".

I think you're in danger of over-intellectualising things David. To my mind, it's very simple, **** the ratings system and **** the ratings board. **** them rigid.

I object to any moral committee prescribing their subjective opinion to a movie, their function is one of censorship.
I pay absolutely no mind to the way that any film is rated and my young daughter is, and always has been, free to watch any film that she wishes. She is the arbiter of what is acceptable to her. Not me or anybody else.

 

[Mawsley]

I think you're in danger of over-intellectualising things David. To my mind, it's very simple, **** the ratings system and **** the ratings board. **** them rigid.

I object to any moral committee prescribing their subjective opinion to a movie, their function is one of censorship.
I pay absolutely no mind to the way that any film is rated and my young daughter is, and always has been, free to watch any film that she wishes. She is the arbiter of what is acceptable to her. Not me or anybody else.

Porn?

 

[Real Sharapova]

Porn?

As you ask, yes please.

 

[Matt_B]

I think you're in danger of over-intellectualising things David. To my mind, it's very simple, **** the ratings system and **** the ratings board. **** them rigid.

I object to any moral committee prescribing their subjective opinion to a movie, their function is one of censorship.
I pay absolutely no mind to the way that any film is rated and my young daughter is, and always has been, free to watch any film that she wishes. She is the arbiter of what is acceptable to her. Not me or anybody else.

If you let her watch sexually explicit stuff as a minor then you are guilty of sexual abuse in the eyes of the law.

 

[Macky]

Porn?

If you let her watch sexually explicit stuff as a minor then you are guilty of sexual abuse in the eyes of the law.

Who decides what is and what isn't 'porn'? Who decides what is and what isn't 'sexually explicit? How exactly would I be able to stop her watching anything? More importantly, why would I?

 

[Matt_B]

Who decides what is and what isn't 'porn'? Who decides what is and what isn't 'sexually explicit? How exactly would I be able to stop her watching anything? More importantly, why would I?

Your views on parenting are your own and I wouldn't ever attempt to offer opinion on them, I was just pointing out the law. If you expose a child or allow to be exposed to anything of an "inappropriate" nature then you are at fault. I suppose it is left vague to allow for each situation. As for why would you, I can't understand why you would want a 5 year old to watch a triple penetration gang bang ending in a bukkake.

 

[Blue Maniac]

I can't understand why you would want a 5 year old to watch a triple penetration gang bang ending in a bukkake.

I can suggest a motive some people may have...

 

[Mawsley]

Who decides what is and what isn't 'porn'?

The Daily ****ing Mail, that's who.

 

[Macky]

...I can't understand why you would want a 5 year old to watch a triple penetration gang bang ending in a bukkake.

No, neither can I. I'd also be very concerned about any child that wanted to watch anything like that.

 

[The Major]

The Daily ****ing Mail, that's who.

The bastards, and their environmental coverage is crap too.