When I read statements from the MPAA I'm reminded of what Mary McCarthy once said of Lillian Hellman: "Everything she writes is a lie, including the words 'and' and 'the'". But Freakonomics author Stephen J. Dubner recently put his readers' questions to Jack Valenti-successor Dan Glickman and the claims of movie industry losses to piracy, his affinity for the NC-17 rating and of course chastising the expose-documentary of his organization This Film Is Not Yet Rated begs response.
First, he throws down:
Q: How has the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated changed how movies are rated?
A: It hasn’t changed the way we rate films. The one
thing it did do, however, is help us realize that there was a lot of
misunderstanding about the rating system.
I think the most relevant thing that’s changed since the film is
that we have made a significant effort to be more transparent and
educate both filmmakers and parents about the process. We’ve also, I
think, spent more time getting out into the independent film community,
walking through the process, really letting in more sunshine, and
demystifying the process.
To be clear, Kirby Dick’s movie was a one-sided and
inaccurate view of the system and it should by no means be considered a
credible source on the topic.
Meow meow. But here's a more interesting nugget:
Q: What is the long-term vision of the movie business? Will hundred-seater cinemas still play a central role?
A: We ask moviegoers of all ages about the many
ways they enjoy movies. Across every category, they say going to the
movies with your friends is the best way to see a film.
Ultimately, audiences make these decisions, but my fervent belief
and hope is that there’s room for everyone. Another interesting fact:
We asked people who wire their living rooms with plasma TV’s, digital
video recorders, HDTV, and all the rest about going to the movies.
What we found is somewhat counterintuitive to what you might expect:
The more elaborate the their home theaters, the more they are going to
the movies — about 50 percent more each year for the die-hard home
theater folks. It’s not the either/or choice people often assume it is.
It is profoundly inappropriate that a (privately-owned but wholly accepted) regulatory agency would also be conducting market research. If memory serves, This Film is Not Yet Rated had equal concern about censorship and the lack of transparency (and for a documentary that Glickman claims had no credibility, it sure did inspire a lot of reform) but also the far-reaching but largely unknown influence the MPAA has over exhibitors.
Glickman, a former Congressman who held a cabinet-level position in the Clinton administration, later goes on to discuss his lobbying efforts in Washington DC to
strengthen intellectual property and copyright laws. He also makes a
point of championing local tax incentive programs with
an unverified statistic that cities who play host to film productions
see a 54% increase in tourism.
For someone who seizes every opportunity to mention how inaccurate he finds the documentary made about his organization, Glickman does very little to dispell the notion that the Motion Picture Association of America is little more than a political action committee cloaked in moral authority because they spend their weekends determining how much of Natasha Lyonne's O-face is too much.
Methinks it might be time for a sequel, Mr. Dick.
Recent Comments