Movies Watched (this past weekend)

Into the Wild

Director Sean Penn filmed a great movie and he didn't take (very many) great liberties with the source material. Kudos to him on that front. Emile Hirsch plays Christopher McCandless, a college graduate who yearns for freedom and a life less traditional. McCandless' great vision is to head, literally, into the wilds of Alaska where he can live off the land, a man alone with his thoughts.

Having read the book I can say I was a bit put-off by the fact that Sean Penn made no mention of McCandless' fatal missteps and no mention was made that had McCandless taken the map offered to him by the person who dropped him off he would likely be alive today.

But my problems with the film are few and the rewards for watching are great. Hal Holbrook should have won the Oscar for his performance.

*** 1/2 out of *****



This Film Is Not Yet Rated

This movie attempts to shed some light on the MPAA rating board that just so happens to operate in total secrecy using anonymous persons to rate every single movie released in the United States as either G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17. Oh, and if you don't like your rating you can appeal it, to the MPAA Appeals Board who again use people not named and you can't cite any other movies are references to what you can and can't display. Oh, and if you're an independent film maker good luck getting any kind of notes that the big studios receive for direction how a movie can be cut down to get a R rated (as apposed to NC-17). As for the members of Clergy who are on the ratings board, well don't ask them what they do or why they are there.

Now, some notes for the aspiring film maker: shooting a million people in a movie is ok, if you don't show any blood you're likely get aPG-13, so killing people is ok, and you can say FU**, but not as it relates to sex ("OH FU**!!!!" is alright but "I just fu**ed her hard" will get you promoted to "R"). Blood and guts is a R rating, but violence towards women? Violence towards women is ok, you can beat a women senseless and still not get a R but killing an animal will usually bring out the R. What about sex? Now that's just downright complicated. Showing people having sex is ok, as long as the camera angles are tight and you are only showing from the mid-back up. Pull the camera back where you can see some humpin-and-pumpin' and, well, that's an R (beyond the allowable first three pumps, really, I'm serious, any more than three and you are in R territory). Gay sex is totally out of the question and will likely get an automatic NC-17 no matter how little of the actors you show (or gender of the actors). Here's the weirdest part: having actors portray they are actually enjoying (if you get my drift) the filmed act of simulated sex will being out the NC-17 every time. Go figure. Except in the case of 'A Fish Called Wanda' but remember, you can't cite any past movie as defense against ratings of your movie.

Worse yet are military movies. If you want to use military stock footage, or any footage of any military member, stock or not, you have to get buy-in from the Pentagon who will, assuming they like your script, assign a handler to your film so they can be assured that the military is shown in a positive light at all times. Think Top Gun or Saving Private Ryan. You want to make a movie about Abu Gharib or Guantanamo Bay? Good luck.

While this documentary was entertaining it was, in the end, really complicated. Plus I think they could have included less sex in the footage, quite frankly. Some is ok but parts of the movie I confused for a straight-up porno. In the end Kirby Dick and his hired private investigators succeeded in finding out the name and occupations of the members of the MPAA review and appeals board. I'm not sure what that accomplished but it did shed some light onto the secret proceedings.

** 1/2 out of *****