As a kid, I was able to watch rated R movies as long as I was with my parents. If they didn't want me to see a particular scene, they would cover my eyes. They would let me view the violent scenes, but whenever someone was about to lean in for a kiss and then some, that's when they would tell me to shut my eyes. Thus is the type of "censorship" similar to the MPAA that I had growing up, in regard to movies.
Being the first documentary I watched in this class, I enjoyed learning about something I haven't ever really given thought about. I never would have thought that the MPAA is like an elite top secret organization that rates and changes movies before we are able to view them.
What I don't like about the MPAA, is that it seems very biased and hypocritical of themselves. They break all their own rules of who can or cannot be on the board. I feel that the members of the MPAA are very "conservative" in their beliefs, and that reflects on their ratings of films being biased on homosexual versus heterosexual sex content. Having the same type of scene but on opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to sexuality, and giving the heterosexual film the beloved "R" rating while the homosexual film gets the much hated "NC-17" is very unfair, and I feel like they should reevaluate the board and the way they rate movies.
The documentary itself also posed some other issues that came to my attention. The director of the documentary seemed to focus mostly on sexual content within movies. He gave abuse and violence less attention within his study of the rating system, and was a bit excessive in his numerous sex scenes shown back to back. He seemed to focus on one issue that showed fault within the MPAA, instead of the many other things that they also rate, thus making the MPAA seem completely devious. There has to be good in it somewhere, I believe, but the director did not show so. Then again, I just remembered that the documentary is his own uncensored view of the MPAA, not anyone else's.
This leads me onto another problem I find with the MPAA. They act as movie editors themselves instead of just being the simple movie raters that they are. The job of directing, cutting, and editing a movie is not theirs, but they are still able to have control over films in those aspects. I find this offensive to the art of film itself and sympathize with the plight of all the directors who have had to change their original works to appease the rating system.
Overall, I enjoyed this documentary. I was able to learn something new, and now when I view any movie, I'll look out to why the MPAA gave it the rating that it has, and wonder what filmmakers had to remove in their movies in order to be released to the general public.
