Finally then, one must ask, what could possibly account for this difference in treatment? Why would the MPAA care about one film more than any other? The answer, not surprisingly, is a simple question of dollars and cents and can be traced quite easily back to the funding of the organization. There are six companies that pay for the MPAA to exist. They are Warner Brothers, Universal Studios, Walt Disney Pictures, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, and Sony Pictures. Interestingly, these six studios control ninety five percent of the American film business. So then, the independent filmmaker would be ridiculously illogical to think that they were being treated equally, seeing as ninety five percent of all films that the MPAA rates, are made with the same money that enables their existence. The seeding of the injustice however goes far deeper than simply the movie studios. Each of those six production companies are owned by larger media conglomerates: Time Warner, General Electric, The Walt Disney Company, Viacom, NewsCorp and Sony, who in turn control ninety percent of all forms of media in the united states. There is no objective nature to the MPAA's justice, nor - in light of the above - should this be a surprise .
The MPAA then, is the result of a series of self-created and policed policies, anti-communist pursuits and counter government actions. The result is a seemingly indestructible organization, which surpasses the responsibility of guiding parental decision making in an effort, once again, to maximize profit.
Conclusion
Most recently in 2005, writer and director Ang Lee released - after much editing to appease the ratings board - his award winning film, Brokeback Mountain. The movie won three Oscars and 76 other awards world wide, despite its controversial theme involving homosexuality. Lee's newest film, Lust Caution has already won the Venice Film Festival and is pending release in the US. There is however one caveat: he has elected to allow the film's release bearing an NC-17 rating. The question then, is will a bold decision by a foreign director at an opportune moment mark the beginning of a new chapter in the history of American film? Could this be the first step in undermining the rampant censorship in today's film industry, not by changing the censorship organization itself, but in shifting the perception of the society within which that organization functions?
Albert Camus once wrote: “Without freedom, no art; art lives only on the restraints it imposes on itself, and dies of all others”. So then, we can only hope that for the sake of the continued life of art, Lee will be but the first of a long list of directors to live within entirely self-imposed restraints. And perhaps someday, essays will be written about the causes and consequences of the fall of the MPAA and the dawn of true artistic freedom in America. But for now we must live without such things. For now, such things are still rated NC-17.
