“There’s no business like show business,” except maybe politics.

A recent live debate regarding the motion picture industry was held involving some very big names in the Hollywood community.

Spike Lee, one of America’s most talented movie directors (Do the Right Thing, Malcolm X, Clockers), Joe Eszterhas, co-producer and screenwriter of the controversial new film Showgirls, and a representative of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), discussed the variety of issues surrounding the ratings of films and the societal consequences some films can have.

I found this debate to be rather interesting, especially after considering the comments regarding Hollywood by those in the political arena, such as Sen. Bob Dole and political columnist Cal Thomas.

Showgirls has come under much fire recently for its supposedly graphic sexual and violent content, which earned it an NC-17 rating, which means no one under the age of 17 will be admitted to see it. Usually, this is the kiss of death for a film, and many directors are forced to make cuts in their movies to get the MPAA to give them an “R” rating.

Cases in point: Both Quentin Tarantino for Pulp Fiction and Martin Scorscese for Casino had to make cuts in their films to avoid the dreaded NC-17 label.

Eszterhas, however, is thriving on his film’s rating, because of the controversy that has followed this film since its conception.

And why shouldn’t he? The MPAA falls right in to advertisers hands in films such as Showgirls giving them millions of dollars in free advertising by indirectly instigating public discussion on these films.

As I watched Eszterhas sneak in references to his film as often as he possibly could, I thought of Steven Tyler, lead singer of Aerosmith, who once thanked record executives who slapped “Explicit Lyrics” stickers on his band’s albums, because it helped them “sell at least a million more copies.”

I find the rating system and stickering of music albums rather stupid, mostly for its inconsistent nature.

I remember a Prince single that received a warning sticker for offensive language despite the fact that it did not contain one obscene word (officials said the stickering was due to the suggestiveness of the lyrics) while a Neil Young record avoided a warning label despite the album containing a song entitled “Fuckin’ Up.”

Films are even more hazy. A film like True Lies not only avoids an NC-17 rating, but receives the ringing endorsement of Dole, despite its extraordinary amount of violence and high body count. Meanwhile, a film such as True Romance, which Dole publicly condemned without viewing it, has to be cut to receive an “R” rating. The only substantial difference in the violence in these films is that in Romance, killing someone isn’t depicted as fun, enjoyable, or even desirable.

Unlike others with opinions on this subject, I refuse to condemn either film. They both have their place and purpose in society. What I do criticize is an inconsistent system that does little practical good.

By the trailers and interviews I’ve seen regarding Showgirls, I can hardly agree with Eszterhas when he says that his film has a “religious and spiritual message.” Maybe so. I haven’t seen the film so I can’t condemn it, but all I’ve seen so far is a former supporting actress of a terrible teen sitcom dance around half naked and thrust her body like a human rapier. I also found Eszterhas’ previous work (Basic Instinct) to be boring and childish.

But the point isn’t whether we like such a film. The point is whether someone has a right to possibly diminish the profits of a film, or allow someone to view an artist’s work, by slapping a letter on it.

The supposed purpose for it is to serve as a guide to viewers, especially those with children, in determining whether they would like to see a film. Once again, we are letting someone else do our thinking for us. Rather than determining for ourselves by reading reviews and news articles, and watching trailers for films to use our own brainpower to decide if a film is appropriate for ourselves or our children, we are allowing somebody else to make those decisions for us.

I find it interesting that often times, those in positions of power, in an effort to “protect” society, often do so at the expense of allowing citizens to think for themselves.

This is an approach to maintaining the social order of which, I believe, Machiavelli would be most proud. Think for yourself. Don’t let anyone do your thinking for you.

---

Tim Davis is a junior from Carlisle. He is the editor of the Opinion Page.