ZEITLER,+Jon

**JON -- I RESPONDED TO YOUR PAPER 3 BELOW. **
__**A8**__ **CHECK-PLUS** **Study Finds Film Ratings are More Lenient**

A study of 1,906 films released between 1992 and 2003 found more sex and violence in the more recent PG and PG-13 rated movie than those in the past, and more violence and profanity in more recent R rated films. It found that modern PG movies were approaching what PG-13 movies were in 1992 and modern PG-13 movies were approaching what R rated movies used to look like. Movies of the same rating were found to differ vastly in the quantity and severity of their violent and sexual content. The study also found the descriptions of the movies’ content provided by the MPAA to be ambiguous and confusing. For example, co-author of the study Kimberly Thompson wondered what the difference between “action violence” and just “violence” was, as well as between “sexuality” and “sensuality.”

"Study Finds Film Ratings are More Lenient. " Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom 53.5 (2004): 174,219. Social Science Module. ProQuest. Alma College Library. 28 Mar. 2009 


 * Three Decades of Film Censorship…right before your eyes**

After an introduction and brief summary of the history behind the MPAA film rating system, the author, Chris Roth, makes the case that it has become a form of censorship that obstructs “adult to adult communication” and violates first amendment rights. He then exposes what he sees to be some common myths and misconceptions regarding the rating system. One point he emphasizes is that the purpose of the ratings system is purely to help parents decide whether or not to allow their children to view a movie; the rating system should mean absolutely nothing to adults. While the MPAA asserts the fact that the NC-17 rating does not necessarily indicate that a movie is pornographic or obscene, most of the major studies will not release NC-17 films. This means that many movies have to be edited to earn the R rating, and Roth cites a list of such films. He asserts that since there can never be a clear line between R and NC-17, the ratings boards always meet and vote in secrecy, and the board members are composed of parents and not artists or experts, the rating system is a form of censorship and should be criticized as such.

Roth, Chris. "Three Decades of Film Censorship...right before your eyes." The Humanist 60.1 (2000): 9-13. Research Library Core. ProQuest. Alma College Library. 28 Mar. 2009 


 * The Naked Truth: //Showgirls// and the Fate of the X/NC-17 Rating**

Kevin S. Sandler recounts the history of the X and NC-17 ratings, from the birth and downfall of the X rating, to the replacement of X by NC-17, and, particularly, the attempt to popularize NC-17 movies in the marketing and release of the 1995 film //Showgirls//. At the advent of the Coding and Rating Administration (CARA), the X rating was very restrictive and within a decade, much of what would have been X-rated became R-rated. Although a few X-rated films such as //A Clockwork Orange// and //Midnight Cowboy// achieved success and received critical acclaim, since the X was not copyrighted by the MPAA, independent pornographers soon began to assign the rating to their films to draw attention to their explicit content. Eventually, as the stigma of such films tagged X-rated features as distasteful entertainment, X-rated films were produced less and less by major studios, and the rating was generally avoided because it would bring monetary failure. By the mid-70s, X-rated features had become rare. In 1990, the MPAA replaced the X rating with the copyrighted NC-17 (no children under 17) rating, hoping to free the new rating from the stigma of X. The rating change, however, found no improvement; the few NC-17 movies produced initially found little success, and the major studios still generally avoided NC-17 movies, editing for the R rating when necessary. One final attempt to popularize the rating was made in 1995 with the MGM/UA movie //Showgirls//. Sandler believes that the advertisement campaign for //Showgirls// proved that it was possible to revive the rating, since many newspapers and other media accepted ads for the movie. However, the film’s negative critical reception and box-office failure ultimately proved to seal the fate for the NC-17 rating. Sandler suggests that if another “respectable” NC-17 movie were to attempt what //Showgirls// did, it would be possible to lift the “X” stigma from NC-17 films and therefore encourage a decrease in film censorship present in the current state of the system.

Sandler, Kevin S. "The Naked Truth: Showgirls and the Fate of the X/NC-17 Rating." Cinema Journal 40.3 (2001): 69-93. Research Library Core. ProQuest. Alma College Library. 28 Mar. 2009 


 * __A7 - Research questions__**

**Jon -- I think once you start doing research and seeing what's out there, you will be able to narrow down which questions you want to focus on by yourself, and I am confident in your abilities to discern what will work and what won't. I suggest rewording any/all of these questions, though, because they seem biased right now. For example, you might ask instead, //What are the issues surrounding the MPAA NC-17 rating relating to censorship, sex, and violence?// Or, your last question might be a good one all on its own.** Should the MPAA get rid of the NC-17 rating? Should the MPAA change the "range" of the R rating? Is there too little, enough, or too much censorship currently in the American film industry? Do MPAA ratings overemphasize sex and under-emphasize violence? Are MPAA ratings biased? Are they too arbitrary? How do MPAA ratings compare with film ratings in other countries?
 * Film Ratings**

[|Review1.doc]  Jonathon Zeitler ENG 101.16 Movie Review Rough Draft 3-16-09
 * JON -- I DON'T KNOW HOW I OVERLOOKED YOUR PAPER. IN CASE IT IS TILL HELPFUL, I HAVE PROVIDED COMMENTS/FEEDBACK FOR YOU BELOW.**

//Into the Wild//, a film written and directed by Sean Penn and based upon a biography by Jon Krakauer of the same title, follows the cross-country journey of Christopher McCandless. After graduating from Emory University, Chris donates his savings to charity, shreds his identification, burns his cash, and embarks on a trip across the American frontier. His ultimate destination is the Alaskan wilderness, and along the way, he touches the lives of several people, including a farmer, a hippie couple, and an aging World War II veteran. While it is a well-made film that tells its story effectively, I feel that it misrepresents Chris’s character and that the “message” it attempts to communicate is empty. To start off, the movie was overall well made. The non-linear chronology of the story was particularly effective. It introduced the main plot clearly, kept the viewer’s attention, and also helped to separate the time lapses in the earlier sequence of the story. Since the Alaska sequence was somewhat repetitive, it was not only easier to watch it broken apart, but it provided a certain rhythm to the movie’s progression that wouldn’t have been so pronounced if the story was told in perfect chronological order. Rather than narrating Chris’s travels, or using cliché “map” sequences, the movie favors images—especially beautiful wide shots—to show his journey. There is enough stylistic flair in the cinematography and editing to keep the viewer interested, but not so much that it draws attention to itself without contributing to the story. The narration provided by the sister, although it occasionally disrupts the point of view (which seems to be centered subjectively upon Chris most of the time), is not distracting and provides relevant information to the story to help fill in sequences lacking in dialogue. Although the atmosphere bordered occasionally on the excessively melodramatic, which is not a good thing for a “based on a true story” movie, **I have little to complain about** in the acting or dialogue. On the whole, the movie deserves good marks in most, if not all, technical categories. Even in the end, his death doesn’t seem to be a failure of his idealistic philosophy, but, as Schickel puts it, a kind of “heroic martyrdom”**(par. 1).** **[FIX CITATION]** The movie seems to assert that Chris has not died in vain, but in death, has still left an important message for the world: “Happiness only real when shared” (//Into the Wild//). However, it seems unlikely to me that Chris could have truly learned this message. It seemed to me that he was happy enough to be alone when he was surviving well in the wild. It was when his survival skills failed him and there was no one around to save him—when he //needed// other people to escape death—that he “learned his lesson.” I think the real “lesson” here is not that “happiness must be shared”—it’s “You’re not as invincible as you think you are, Chris.” When you interpret the ending in this way, it begs questioning of the rest of the movie—how accurate or realistic is it? It seemed to me that the ending was the only absolute reality. The rest was an attempt to glorify the man’s life. It would be disrespectful to do otherwise, wouldn’t it? Unfortunately, I think that this blinds both the makers of the movie and the audience. To me, the sheer, blunt reality of that ending seems to clearly negate all that had happened up till that point. The real story has been twisted into some incredible fantasy except for the obvious truth—all that inspirational drive and contagious idealism did not save him from death, but rather ultimately caused it. The movie would much rather have us believe otherwise—that this guy really did have life all figured out, and achieved this profound self-discovery, and even in death, he had an important message which he left for all of us. Although the movie spends at least 80% of its time portraying Chris in this manner, there are still plenty of indications of character flaws given in the movie, though they are not so thoroughly developed. In one scene, for example, Chris is at a bar with his farmer friend and he reveals a hate for “society” and “people.” He’s a little intoxicated at that point and his companion seems rather amused. Throughout the movie, it is revealed that there were problems in his home growing up, and it seems apparent in this scene (a very incongruous scene among the rest of the movie, if you ask me) that he projects the flaws he has seen in his parents onto all of mankind. Growing up in a dysfunctional home, he probably felt insignificant in his parent’s eyes. He turned to the literature he read for a sense of self-importance, and I think in everything he does, this need to assert his self-importance is what drives him. His “humility” and rejection of materialism and “society” is a form of self-righteousness. He thinks he holds all the answers, and has something very profound to teach everyone, some bold new perspective that can solve people’s problems. The movie indulges this idea to an extreme. The movie shows his life exactly as he probably would’ve seen it and his sister’s narration only helps reinforce this infallibility by making excuses for all of the really obvious flaws in his actions. The parents’ point of view is not even considered, because the assumption is that they //are// villains and deserve to be condemned. What’s strange is that his parents, as Schickel observes, “are scarcely monsters, and the values they represent, though stodgy, are not exactly oppressive” (par. 2). The stereotypically adolescent idea that parents really are “oppressive monsters” is the image the film chooses to promote, though. The sister’s narration defends Chris even in his obvious flaws. When her brother doesn’t contact her, she accepts that whatever he is doing //has// to be done. This is not true—many of the people “he encounters on his way offer less radical alternatives to a life within the system” (Schickel par. 4). He certainly was not //forced// to go to the extreme that he did. However, the film insisted on making it seem that way. Do I think that Chris is “ a wacko narcissist who died out of arrogance and stupidity” **(Travers par. 1) or an “annoying man-child” (Schickel par. 5) [CITATION AT END OF SENTENCE. SEPARATE THE TWO CITATIONS WITH A SEMI-COLON] **? To a certain extent, I do. However, that doesn’t mean that I can’t or shouldn’t sympathize with the character. I do sympathize with his character, and I do enjoy the study of such an interesting and complex character. However, here is the problem. Travers asserts that “//Into the Wild// celebrates the person, not the myth” (par. 3). I find that he is mistaken. The movie //does// celebrate a myth. It tries to cover up the flaws that make Chris human, make excuses for his mistakes, and glorify his untimely, unnecessary death. That is why I feel the movie ultimately fails.
 * The problem I had was in the story that the movie told**—the content. **[TRY TO AVOID USE OF THE FIRST PERSON LIKE THIS. I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE STATED IN THIRD PERSON.]** One of the biggest issues was that Chris’s character was over-glorified. The film treats Chris like he is some sort of profound contemporary philosopher, a Christ-like figure. For the majority of the movie, he seems to be infallible. In fact, in one scene, a character actually asks Chris if he is Jesus Christ. The movie treats Chris’s confident view of life as “correct,” and never seems to challenge it. As Richard Schickel notes in his review, “the central mistake of this film derives from its lack of irony, a sense it refuses to impart that the world may not be exactly as the zealous Christopher perceives it to be” (par. 5). He carries himself as if he has all the answers, and knows how to find the “meaning of life” or has some deep, profound philosophical point to prove. Everyone he meets along his journey seems to respect and support this attitude—everyone likes him and thinks he is amazing. His interactions with the strangers he meets only seem to have positive consequences. After hitching a ride with two hippies, Jan and Rainey, he is soon able to miraculously patch up the couple’s struggling relationship. He gives an old widower named Ron a new drive and perspective on life. In a scene that should have highlighted his inability to commit to human relationships, he is made to seem saintlike instead. He refuses to have sex with 16-year-old Tracy, seeming to maintain some higher morality while remaining faithful to his “greater goal” and “mission.” He terminates their relationship with tact and grace; whatever pain he causes seems insignificant. Roger Ebert suggests that the people he meets “are people who take in the odd youth, feed him, shelter him, give him clothes, share their lives, mentor him and worry as he leaves to continue his quest, which seems to them, correctly, as doomed” (par. 6), **[CITATIONS GO AT THE ENDS OF SENTENCES.]** however I disagree. It seemed to me not that the strangers mentored him, but rather, the other way around, and that while they may have seen his quest as doomed, never seemed too concerned with stopping it. Ron, who wished to be Chris’s adopted father, actually assisted him directly with his journey, driving him a good deal of the way and giving him gear he would need to survive. It seems that there are never negative consequences for his interactions; the movie makes it seem as if he is right and he is infallible.

=Works Cited=

//Into the Wild//. Dir. Sean Penn. Perf. Emile Hirsch, Marcia Gay Harden, William Hurt, Catherine Keener, Vince Vaughn, and Hal Holbrook. DVD. Paramount Vantage, 2007.

Ebert, Roger. “Into the Wild.” Rev. of //Into the Wild//, dir. Sean Penn. //Chicago Sun-Times//. 28 Sep. 2007. 13 Mar. 2009. .

Schickel, Richard. “Into the Wild: Bad End.” Rev. of //Into the Wild//, dir. Sean Penn. //Time//. 21 Sep. 2007. 13 Mar. 2009. .

Travers, Peter. “Into the Wild.” Rev. of //Into the Wild//, dir. Sean Penn. //Rolling Stone//. 4 Oct. 2007. 13 Mar. 2009. .


 * __A6__**

__Roger Ebert’s Review__ Ebert’s review of “Into the Wild” praises the character study the film offers. He notes the appeal of the story, and applauds the acting. He focuses on the flaws of the character that bring about his death. He mentions that the people whom he meets all let him go with dread, fearing his death. He makes it sound more like the people he meets were mentors and parents for him. He also said that he had read the book, though. Not having read the book, I didn’t get out of the movie what Ebert did. I feel that the movie failed to communicate the tragic flaws in Chris’s character that Ebert clearly recognizes. Maybe if I had read the book, it would be easier to see that dimension to the movie. I agree with most of what Ebert says, but I feel that, contrary to what Ebert says, the movie glorified and celebrated Chris’s idealism and failed to give enough attention to his flaws. I thought it was interesting that Ebert had known someone so very similar to Chris. That probably helped give the film more meaning to him. In my review, I will probably quote, “These are people who take in the odd youth, feed him, shelter him, give him clothes, share their lives, mentor him and worry as he leaves to continue his quest, which seems to them, correctly, as doomed.” Another quote I found interesting was “He has a handful of books about survival and edible wild plants, and his model seems to be Jack London, although he should have devoted more attention to that author's ‘To Build a Fire.’”

__//Time// Review by Richard Schickel__ In this review, Schickel argues that Penn was too sensitive in his treatment of Chris’s character, riding the “line between heroic martyrdom and psychopathic self-destructiveness.” I agree with most of his points strongly. One particular point that I didn’t give as much attention to was that the movie made villains out Chris’s parents, who Schickel notes “are scarcely monsters, and the values they represent, though stodgy, are not exactly oppressive.” I think he’s right. The movie entertained that juvenile sort of outlook too much. He even calls Chris’s character in the movie an “annoying man-child.” While I think that may be a bit too harsh, I agree. This review so accurately expresses my opinion of the movie that I think I’ll just list a couple more quotes that I agree with: “And despite the best efforts of Emile Hirsch, there's something annoying about him, too. He's too secure in his self-righteousness, too smug in his conviction that his is the only viable path to self-fulfillment. A lot of the dropouts he encounters on his way offer less radical alternatives to a life within the system.” “I think the central mistake of this film derives from its lack of irony, a sense it refuses to impart that the world may not be exactly as the zealous Christopher perceives it to be. The film needs at least to entertain the possibility that its protagonist was driven less by high principle than by lamentable screwiness.” In my previous analysis, I said a lot of stuff really similar to both of these quotes.

__//Rolling Stone// Review by Peter Travers__ First of all, according to this review, if you “pegged Chris as a wacko narcissist who died out of arrogance and stupidity, then Penn's film version is not for you.” I agree with this statement somewhat, but I feel that it is an unfair simplification of my opinion of the movie. It’s not that I don’t want to understand Chris’s character or something. It’s just that I feel the movie actually made Chris seem like a “wacko narcissist.” Travers suggests that Chris’s relationship with Ron represents an “ache for connection.” I didn’t really feel that in the movie. It seemed to me that he was not at all prepared to be Ron’s adopted son. In the movie, Ron was the hurt one, but it made seem as if it was a necessary “sacrifice” for Chris’s greater “mission.” I think Travers makes a point that Chris’s journey to Alaska was not a “death wish.” I think it’s fair to say that Chris was most likely not suicidal, but still feel that his character was more flawed than the movie suggested. In the conclusion of the review, he says that “Into the Wild celebrates the person, not the myth. Mistakes didn't make Chris unique, his courage did. Through Penn's unmissable and unforgettable film, that courage endures.” I disagree completely. I feel that the movie celebrates a myth. I feel that the movie was not about “courage” either. I guess it might also be unfair to focus only on Chris’s “mistakes,” but to completely disregard them like this movie did… I might use the “wacko narcissist” quote to reinforce the image of Chris I felt the film communicated.


 * __A5__**

To start off, the movie was overall well made. The editing and sequencing were effective and sufficiently communicated the story. The choice to alternate between the chronological end sequence and the previous 2 years was effective and well executed. One of my pet peeves with poorly written movies is explicit exposition through dialogue—when the characters basically explain what is happening to the audience. Using explicit exposition by dialogue is not only lazy, but it is unrealistic. Often, characters in poorly written movies will make comments or explanations that would be obvious to those around them or generally awkward-sounding in real life. The letter displayed on the screen at the start, although it was also kind of lazy, was a decent choice for introducing the main plot. The general approach the movie took was to communicate the story more through images than dialogue, which I strongly support. However, there seemed to be something of the issue with the “narration” given by the sister. It made the style and point of view somewhat awkward and/or indecisive at times. It seemed most of the time as if the audience should be following Chris’s point of view, but at times his sister’s voice also gives some background details or makes comments. The information provided was usually necessary, though, and contributed to the story. One of the biggest problems with the story was that the body of the movie was rendered meaningless by the ending. For most of the movie, Chris’s character is glorified almost as if he were a Christlike figure. He carries himself as if he has all the answers, and knows how to find the “meaning of life” or has some deep, profound philosophical point to prove. Every he meets likes him and thinks he is amazing. It seems as if everything he does to the strangers he meets can only have positive consequences. He fixes a relationship between two hippies and brings new life to an old man. He’s infallible. At one point late in the movie, he encourages the old man who lives alone in his home to climb a steep hill. It’s a “touching” moment, but what if the guy really couldn’t have climbed that hill? It sounded like it was rather difficult for him—what if it had been fatal? Nope. Chris encouraged it, and Chris is infallible, so it must be ok. This is the way the movie treats him—as if everything he does is “right” and everything he thinks he knows is “true.” Then the end comes, and suddenly, there is a negative consequence. The distorted fantasy that the entire movie seems to present up to that point is suddenly punctuated by a harsh reality—death. The “message” that the movie, supposedly, has taught its audience is that true “happiness must be shared.” However, the point seems kind of moot when analyzed carefully. How did Chris come to this conclusion, after all? He seemed pretty happy up to that point with living his life alone in the wild to me. It was when he made a mistake and things got out of his control that he started to think differently. When he ate the poisonous potato root, he needed to be treated immediately if he was going to live. He needed someone else to be there—not for “happiness,” but for his very survival. So how can he have really learned this “lesson?” I think the real “lesson” here is not that “happiness must be shared”—it’s “You’re not as invincible as you think you are, Chris.” When you interpret the ending in this way, it begs questioning of the rest of the movie—how accurate or realistic is it? It seemed to me that the ending was the only absolute reality. The rest was an attempt to glorify the man’s life. It would be disrespectful to do otherwise, wouldn’t it? Unfortunately, I think that this blinds both the makers of the movie and the audience. To me, the sheer, blunt reality of that ending seems to clearly negate all that had happened up till that point. Bias and subjectivity twists everything into some incredible fantasy except for the obvious truth—all that inspirational drive and contagious idealism did not save him from death, but rather ultimately caused it. However, it seems that the movie would much rather have us believe otherwise. This guy really did have life all figured out, and achieved this profound self-discovery, and even in death, he had an important message which he left for all of us. I’m sorry to be disrespectful to the dead guy, but although the movie spends at least 80% of its time portraying some sort of infallible genius philosopher, there are still plenty of indications of character flaws given in the movie, though they are not so thoroughly developed. In one scene, for example, Chris is at a bar with his farmer friend and he reveals a hate for “society” and “people.” I assume he’s probably a little intoxicated at that point (or he’s just kind of crazy, which wouldn’t hurt my point), and his companion seems rather amused. Throughout the movie, it is revealed that there were problems in his home growing up, and it seems apparent in this scene (a very incongruous scene among the rest of the movie, if you ask me) that he projects the flaws he has seen in his parents onto all of mankind. Here’s my perspective. It seems reasonable to say that his parents’ fighting made him feel insignificant in childhood. As a result, he turns to these transcendentalist writers to find a means of asserting his self-importance. Everything that he does is driven by this desire. He mentions several times that he wants to write a book. It seems ironic- his “humility” is actually an extreme form of self-righteousness. He thinks he holds all the answers, and has something very profound to teach everyone, some bold new perspective that can solve people’s problems. The movie indulges his desires to an extreme. The movie shows his life exactly as he probably would’ve seen it. Even in death, he’s infallible—he has not died in vain because he has a profound “message” to tell all of us! His sister’s narration even helps reinforce this infallibility by making excuses for all of the really obvious flaws in his actions. This is not to say that the character that the movie presents is not a very interesting one. The movie, however, makes too much effort to hide the flaws that make his character human. Instead of a story of a broken individual trying to assert his importance, we get this distorted fairy tale of some infallible, humble man who makes a fantastical journey of self-discovery. This man didn’t have wisdom and insight beyond his years. He was troubled. What he did was far less than mature—like a little boy who runs away from home, thinking he’s invincible. The movie should have addressed these flaws.