You can't read the entire word above. I've self censored it in the interest of good taste. '****' is definitely crass. I decided to edit the 'sucker' too, but now that it appears alone, I am confident that it can be printed.
Let's try an experiment, shall we? **** sucker. Coq sucker. Rooster sucker. They all have the same intent and meaning, but I have edited only one of them. Why? An arbitrary imposition of censorship because meaningful characters combined in a very specific order have been superstitiously deemed evil? Almost, but not quite.
All this **** is for decency's sake. The children of the world can't be allowed to see any objectionable content. When it comes to movies, the MPAA determines the level of decency the young'uns are allowed to see. We wouldn't want our darlings to be influenced by a guy bashing in some dude's head with a baseball bat or two people *******.
Well, someone having their brains bashed in may get a PG-13 rating, but two people ******* is definitely an R. What does it say when the organization responsible for protecting our youth can let them see flagrant violations of American law while something in your daily routine, like showering, isn't allowed to penetrate virgin eyes? Why can't even the words to describe consenting, mutually pleasurable sexual acts be heard or printed? Because the ratings system is ******* re****ulous.
Maybe you are thinking, "I can't believe this ***-******* ***miester. Maybe the Ratings Board is a little off with their antiquated and reactionary stance on sexual congress, but in the end it does protect our dear little children. Look how cute they are. Come here Billy, and say hi to the nice columnist man."
Let me be the first to tell you and your child to **** off.
There is a host of problems with the current ratings system. Here is how movies get their ratings: there is a full time ratings board of parents who sit around and screen films. They vote and slap a rating on it. An appeal to the ominous "Appeal Board" can be made if necessary. Also, filmmakers can re-edit their film in order to get the rating changed, much like my self-imposed censorship in the article.
In theory, this board is above Hollywood influence, but that doesn't quite explain how George Lucas can fit dismemberment into his PG films or how "Kinsey" gets away with an R rating while containing a ****-in-**** slide.
Despite the subjective personal preferences of the ******bags that rate the films, there are some hard and fast rules. For example, swear quotas. I quote from the MPAA website: "A film's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context."
So it seems the MPAA is limiting human expression without giving thought to subject matter or intent. How about this for "one such expletive": **** my ******* ****, MPAA!
Don't worry, though, as arbitrary as these rules seem, they must have a purpose. For example, it is in my best interest to self-censor certain references in my column. *** *********. See? I eliminated the name I just wrote. In fact, I'm not really sure if I should reference the fact I can't reference these things, but hey, I'm doing my best to play by the rules.
While we are on the subject of arbitrary, the MPAA's default mode of operation is to expect the worst when they hear or see something that isn't offensive in itself but can be interpreted as lewd. For example, they forced "Team America: World Police" to cut out a puppet on puppet ****** in order to get an R rating. These puppets had no sexual organs, so the actual act of ****ing was imagined in the minds of the Ratings Board. On a similar note, I think I will censor the above word of "******." Should I censor "***** *******"? "Rear Admiral"? "***** ********"? "Santorum"? "Nard"? Only some of the words are asterisked out because taking after the subjective stance of the MPAA, I have used my own intuition to decide on a point at which something can be considered offensive.
Overall, the ratings system protects our children against the evils of words and genitals, but just like prescription drugs, they have some ****** side effects. Different ratings directly affect the box office intake of a movie. In the past four years, all of the highest grossing movies have been PG-13 or lower. Most large theater chains don't even take NC-17 rated movies, making that designation a stamp of monetary death. This means movies are written and produced with ratings in mind, severely compromising the free creation of filmic art. Just like a director changing his film to get it released to a wider audience, my own censorship has an ulterior motive beyond decency; I want people to be able to read my column.
I don't propose an abolition of ratings, but right now the system looks pretty ******* ****-filled to me. Limiting the money and audience of films due to vague notions of good taste is not healthy for the cinematic palette. Even if I am offensive and I say **** or **** or *****************************************************, I could still be making an important point. More importantly, if this were a film, I could still be creating art.
