MPAA Gives 'It's Complicated' An R Rating Because It Shows Pot Might Make You Giggle
from the what-are-they-smoking? dept
Via That Kevin Smith (who has had his own share of run ins with the MPAA over bizarre ratings) comes the story of how the MPAA decided the romantic comedy It's Complicated deserved an "R" rating, because it has one scene that involves two characters (played by Steve Martin and Meryl Streep) who smoke marijuana... and then giggle. Specifically, the MPAA appears to be upset that there are "no negative consequences" to the two characters smoking pot.Now, I've never smoked marijuana (or ingested it in other forms either), but I'm at a loss to see how this makes something deserving of an R rating. The NY Times article quotes someone from the Parents Television Council -- the group famous for bombarding the FCC with bogus indecency complaints -- who says "The last I checked, smoking pot was still illegal, illicit behavior." Indeed. But, then again, so is blowing up Los Angeles, and "last I checked," the movie 2012 got a PG-13 rating.
The larger point, of course, is just how incredibly out of touch the MPAA is beyond just its laughable ratings system. This is a group that's still trying to break your TV because it can't figure out how to release movies on TV in a reasonable amount of time without doing so (even though its own studios have figured it out). This is the same group that argues that blames tech companies for its own inability to recognize and embrace what technology allows. This is the same group that insists that piracy is "killing" the movie industry as the industry scores yet another box office record. This is the same group that insists that ACTA is necessary, but won't share what its own lobbyists helped write.
The NY Times article admits that the decision to rate this particular movie "R" is more of a political move from an organization that doesn't want to be attacked during the next elections -- and even that should be troubling. This is an organization that will do amazingly dumb things just to stay in the good graces of our politicians, so that it can continue to push through protectionist laws. One simple rating may not seem like a huge deal (and, by itself, it is not), but it's yet another sign in how out of touch the MPAA really is, and how its actions are entirely about protecting its political power and helping its members get favors from the government, rather than anything else.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: it's complicated, movies, ratings
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
*puts on sunglasses*
...has gone to pot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously though, I highly doubt anyone under the age of 18 would ever voluntarily see this movie anyway. I think that's why the producers left the scene it, they realize it won't hurt ticket sales anyway.
I realize that the MPAA should not have this much authority, but that sort of goes without saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And even another record...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And even another record...
But if we eliminated piracy the totals would have been even higher!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And even another record...
HOW WILL I EVER SLEEP AT NIGHT?!?!?
I think I might make it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And even another record...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And even another record...
But, you're of course neglecting the other financial acrobatics involved. like how they claim each of these movies had a multi-million dollar cost to produce in the first place, etc. etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't get out much, do you?
Political correctness is a major issue worldwide. It's why we don't have "black people" anymore, but "african americans". The only acceptable way to use the term "pack of fags" is when you are in the UK buying smokes. Heaven forbid that anyone even mention the N word. We all know the result of referring to a group of women as "nappy haired hos".
The reality is that certain things irk certain vocal groups. These groups are the reason why it took 30 or so years for TV to be allowed to show a married couple in the same bed. Some things are just not considered acceptable, and these groups will loudly complain and make a huge freaking stink for nothing. Pot smoking is one of those things that these groups tend to go all wild on.
Rmember too, all an R rating does is require a parent to attend the movie with the children. It doesn't bar anyone unde 18 from seeing the movie (that would be NC-17), it provides parents with a safety mechanism that allows them to choose what their children can and cannot see. If a parent is fine with the concept they can take their kids to see the movie. If they are not, they know that the children will not see the movie.
The whole rant about "break your TV" is just so misplaced. It is really too bad that you have so little imagination on these issues that you are down to scare mongering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You don't get out much, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?
Caught you lookin' for the same thing
It's a new thing check out this I bring
Uh Oh the roll below the level
'Cause I'm livin' low next to the bass C'mon
Turn up the radio
They claim that I'm a criminal
By now I wonder how
Some people never know
The enemy could be their friend guardian
I'm not a hooligan
I rock the party and
Clear all the madness, I'm not a racist
Preach to teach to all
'Cause some they never had this
Number one, not born to run
About the gun...
I wasn't licensed to have one
The minute they see me, fear me
I'm the epitome - a public enemy
Used, abused without clues
I refused to blow a fuse
They even had it on the news
Don't believe the hype...
Yes
Was the start of my last jam
So here it is again, another def jam
But since I gave you all a little something
That we knew you lacked
They still consider me a new jack
All the critics you can hang'em
I'll hold the rope
But they hope to the pope
And pray it ain't dope
The follower of Farrakhan
Don't tell me that you understand
Until you hear the man
The book of the new school rap game
Writers treat me like Coltrane, insane
Yes to them, but to me I'm a different kind
We're brothers of the same mind, unblind
Caught in the middle and
Not surrenderin'
I don't rhyme for the sake of of riddlin'
Some claim that I'm a smuggler
Some say I never heard of 'ya
A rap burgler, false media
We don't need it do we?
It's fake that's what it be to 'ya, dig me?
Don't believe the hype...
Don't believe the hype - its a sequel
As an equal, can I get this through to you
My 98's boomin' with a trunk of funk
All the jealous punks can't stop the dunk
Comin' from the school of hard knocks
Some perpetrate, they drink Clorox
Attack the black, cause I know they lack exact
The cold facts, and still they try to Xerox
Leader of the new school, uncool
Never played the fool, just made the rules
Remember there's a need to get alarmed
Again I said I was a timebomb
In the daytime the radio's scared of me
'Cause I'm mad, plus I'm the enemy
They can't c'mon and play with me in primetime
'Cause I know the time, plus I'm gettin' mine
I get on the mix late in the night
They know I'm livin' right, so here go the mike, sike
Before I let it go, don't rush my show
You try to reach and grab and get elbowed
Word to herb, yo if you can't swing this
Just a little bit of the taste of the bass for you
As you get up and dance at the LQ
When some deny it, defy if I swing bolos
Then they clear the lane I go solo
The meaning of all of that
Some media is the whack
You believe it's true, it blows me through the roof
Suckers, liars get me a shovel
Some writers I know are damn devils
For them I say don't believe the hype
Yo Chuck, they must be on a pipe, right?
Their pens and pads I'll snatch
'Cause I've had it
I'm not an addict fiendin' for static
I'll see their tape recoreder and grab it
No, you can't have it back silly rabbit
I'm going' to my media assassin
Harry Allen, I gotta ask him
Yo Harry, you're a writer, are we that type?
Don't believe the hype
I got flavor and all those things you know
Yeah boy, part two bum rush and show
Yo Griff, get the green black red and
Gold down countdown to Armageddon
-88 you wait the S1Ws will
Rock the hard jams - treat it like a seminar
Teach the bourgeoise, and rock the boulevard
Some sau I'm negative
But they're not positive
But what I got to give...
The media says this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?
you have managed to quote public enemy.
+1 copypasta
[/rolleyes]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?
The Anti-Mike thinks it's perfectly acceptable to copy-paste an entire public enemy song, and not add any words of his own, to make his point?
And yet, you angrily defend copyright on a daily basis... Did I miss something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?
Anytime you defend copyright in the future, I will link to that comment. And until you explain exactly why whatever you are defending is different, we can all happily ignore everything you say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?
Maybe you should start a new account, because right now your name tells us that you have no intention of being objective or impartial, and that you will oppose anything written by Mike regardless of any other factors.
If you participate in the discussion in a more constructive way, you might find people actually start listening to you, because I suspect that buried inside all your ridiculous rants there are probably some reasonable points that, even if I don't agree with them, are worthy of discussion and debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?
http://www.faqs.org/photo-dict/photofiles/list/3215/4275empty_room.jpg
I participate very constructively. In fact, two of my biggest detractors (Mike himself and Dark Helmet) will both tell you that I make them at least take a moment to think about their positions.
From my standpoint, I can read the stories Mike posts and almost always find an alternate (and usually simpler) explanation for what has happened or is going on. Too often, Mike is fast to jump to a conclusion either to slam whatever group he is hating on this month, or to build a less than factual foundation for later claimed that will be treated as "facts" (he usually links saying "we have already shown that...").
If Mike's concepts and ideas were without reproach, I would have nothing to write about.
So if you aren't enjoy my posts, well, skip them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?
But hey, I never said you had to care. Interact with others how you will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the smoking pot -> R-rating thing is ridiculous indeed, but at the same time, it reminds me of people's complaints against Google dropping them from its indexing/penalizing their pageranks, etc. Doubtless Google is enormously important for many websites to be found, but you can't rely solely on one other company to be the fuel for your business.
This applies to the MPAA as well, even though it's fundamentally a very different organization from Google. It's unfortunate that the MPAA would make such a stupid decision, but if that one detail is going to harm your movie beyond repair (which it doesn't actually seem it will -- back to your point of this being exemplary of a larger problem rather than a large problem on its own), then you need to figure out a different way to get your movie to the people who are going to watch it.
Granted, there is still the problem that the MPAA's decision affects who can _legally_ see the film, which is not the case with something like Google, and that's somewhat troubling. However, it's quite obvious that if minors want to see an R-rated movie, they're going to find a way (easily) to see it.
So, yeah, troubling in principle because of the legal hand the MPAA plays in things, but if they're going to make decisions such as these, it seems to me that the studios are just going to have to figure a way around them. Despite studios' generally proven inability to adapt, I have a feeling this is something they would find a way to overcome.
And I thought "historical smoking" was a ridiculous warning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not the case with the MPAA's decision, either. Contrary to popular belief, the MPAA's rating system is not legally binding or enforceable. You cannot get arrested for selling an R-rated ticket to a minor. The MPAA may fine the theater or punish them in other ways (e.g., withhold the next big blockbuster film from distribution to that theater), but it's not illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for clarifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is ridiculous that you can have films full of violence such as Dark Knight which get a PG 13 and a film where two adults giggle after smoking pot which gets an R rating. That they consider mild drug use to be more morally corrupting then dozens of murders perhaps says a lot about the people of the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reminds me of the old George Carlin routine, "What if we replaced the word "Kill" with the word "Fuck" in all those old movie cliches...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To Kill A Mockingbird would seem pretty odd with Kill replaced. =]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Time to kill
Killing two birds with one stone
Killing time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kill Bill
I Know Who Killed Me
wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
License to Kill
Dressed to Kill
Hard to Kill
You Kill Me
Kiss or Kill
How to Kill Your Neighbor's Dog
Killer's Kiss
Road Kill
A View to a Kill (um...?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The MPAA main charter is invalid anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The MPAA main charter is invalid anyway
Strange, I always saw it as an IQ test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smoking something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Declaration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right...
Oh come on....really? Didn't try it? Even once? Or is this some Bill Clinton overvaluing how much people would care if you said you did?
I mean, it even sounds defensive, since there was no reason for that statement to even be included in the post.
Nice try, Cheech :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right...
Nope, sorry. I'm really just not interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, that's not to say drug use should not be regulated. To the extent that your drug use can harm others it should be regulated (ie: drunk driving is illegal and it SHOULD be).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What should be illegal is hurting others. Passing additional laws don't actually improve anything.
Do you really have a problem with a guy driving at .08 BAC if his actual driving is actually safe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
propaganda
What should the audience expect - smoke a joint and your knee blows out all of the sudden?
Such propaganda agenda reminds me of how the Nazi governed films in the 40s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: propaganda
grow hemp for your country one year...marijuana makes you crazy the next. you can thank the DuPont plastic industry for the current cannibis stereotypes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big deal
Heck, I'm way over 17 and I'm barely interested in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That kinda makes sense in their ratings system. There are clearly negative consequences to smoking pot in that instance: the next day, they'll find out they are running low on groceries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA is Rated R
Their slow and certain death is very disturbing and gory to witness as they continue to make one bad decision after another in an attempt to prop up their old business model that doesn't work anymore.
Course Violence is A-OK to them. Nudity, sex, or drugs though? Bad news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a
It's the accepted 'official position' of the Government, I guess.
Funny, because pot is the ONLY pain killer you cannot overdose on. But it's also the ONLY 'medicinal substance' that the Pharmaceutical companies don't make either...
hmmmm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a
You forgot the most important part of that equation, the one that keeps it illegal:
It can pretty much be grown by ANYONE....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I typically don't notice them, nor did I care about them when my kids were young.. I preferred to see the movie first. They are pretty meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a one time thing...
This isn't one simple rating. Off the top of my head, "Everything's Gone Green" was rated PG in Canada and R in the States ... The PG rating is correct. The *only* objectionable material in the film is the portrayal of a grow op, but that's enough to make the anti-drug bias clear.
I have no strong feelings for pot, but it seems like a dumb thing to censor...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
View...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
horrific violence is OK just as long as they dont say any naughty words!
or smoke any pot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
useless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: RE: Right
Nope, sorry. I'm really just not interested.
Carl Sagan used marijuana for the purpose of enlightening. What's good enough for Carl is good enough for me.
"Sagan was a user of marijuana. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X", he contributed an essay about smoking cannabis to the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered.[41][42] The essay explained that marijuana use had helped to inspire some of Sagan's works and enhance sensual and intellectual experiences."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: RE: Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marijuana's twin talent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marijuana's twin talent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please let me know.
clarissabotha@ymail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]