“最喜欢的”欧格斯兰斯莫斯:兔子,巧克力蛋糕和其他安妮女王的“弱点”
本周在俄罗斯的雇佣中出现了“最受欢迎的”Yorgos Lanthimos。这部电影为兰蒂莫萨高度模糊,不像“杀圣鹿”或“龙虾”那样矫饰——……

继续阅读→

漫威电影宇宙的成功故事及其对文化的影响(下)
《奇异博士》提出了关于相信自己和世界的重要问题,关于对现实的感知以及如何影响现实的问题。置之不理是不可能的……

继续阅读→

《阿拉丁》:这部电影应该叫《茉莉花》
“阿拉丁”(阿拉丁),似乎是唯一的卡通黄金时代的迪斯尼,主要,中心人物的历史不是公主,它的意图——这甚至反映在标题上。但在……

继续阅读→

好莱坞自我审查的历史(下)

自我审查不工作。因此,在1968年,MPAA评级系统出现了。和关于它的争论仍没有消退,直到政府审查的威胁,一起案件的法院判决“州际电路诉达拉斯”和“纽约金斯伯格诉”,这两个被认为是指导审查城市规模不适当的内容,促使好莱坞采取任何行动的自我审查的代码的衰落。前MMPDA(1945年更名为MPAA)开始制定这一计划。在Jack Valenti总裁的领导下,组织做出的最重要的决定就是将自我审查改为分级系统格式的自我分类。该系统于1968年启动,是我们现在使用的系统的前身。电影制片人自愿提交他们的电影在美国电影协会进行评估,评估人员将来看电影,并选择它取决于标的物的类别和内容显示。在电影院,您可以显示等级,观众将决定他想要什么看,他不想要的东西。It’s the rating of the content, not its quality, but it does say something about the film.In the half-century of the system’s existence, its two main goals remain unchanged: – by Reviewing and classifying films, the MPAA keeps the government from influencing the freedom of artistic vision.- By providing information to viewers, the Association helps parents to make an informed decision (the focus is always on parents and children) about what to entertain children.At least at first glance, protecting artists from the government and providing useful information seem like useful things — most people can agree with that.But the MPAA ratings are a constant source of controversy, in part because society is constantly changing the criteria by which a film should be classified in one category or another. In 2013, for example, the system began to take into account the presence of Smoking scenes. In 1968, it was impossible to think about it.Looking now “Back to the future”, released in 1985 with a rating of PG (a year after the appearance of a rating of PG-13), you can be surprised that in a film with such a label can be so much swearing plus cruelty and obscenely ambiguous scenes (for example, the one where Marty’s mother, as a teenager, tries to kiss him). And this is not uncommon for most films rated PG in the early years of the system-both because of the fact that PG-13 was not yet introduced (in the case of “Jaws” in 1975 or “Dear mother” in 1981), and because of the tastes and preferences of those who put down ratings at the time (think “Beatlejus”, “who framed Roger Rabbit” and “big”, released in 1988).Clearly, they would now get a PG-13 rating, but not just because of the content itself. And also because PG-13 rated movies make the most money.In any case, for the market, a PG rating means that the film is family-friendly or for kids who have grown out of sliders; a G rating is already firmly tied to the “kids only” label; and an R rating, inherently, prohibits viewing by a portion of the audience. But the PG-13 rating works for a wide market: such films are suitable for both teenagers and adults, they are not too serious, not too detailed, and you can safely send a teenager without an adult escort to them.That’s why studios love to release PG-13 movies. They try to reach the widest audience. They want to get huge profits from huge investments.There are other factors in which to argue with the MPAA system. Sometimes films that come out in a row are judged controversially, and for half a century the MPAA has been criticized for the way it applies its own rules.For example, take language-it is easy to track, but the approach of the organization to it is simply ridiculous. In a PG-13 rated film, there may be one (and only one) word “fuck” and only if it is used as an interjection or not to describe sexual contact. Another such word — in absolutely any context, even in a historical film about the war-and the rating jumps to R. this happened with quite modest films like” Ghost Story”,” Once upon a time ” and “Eighth grade”, but pictures like the brutal superhero “suicide Squad” or slightly raunchy Comedy “Night school” remained with a rating of PG-13.But the biggest problems — and the most pressing in the case of the “Hunt” story-are related to how differently the organization evaluates sexual content and violent content: the system treats sex tougher than blood. In a film rated PG-13, there can be no nudity, but there can be a bit of cruelty, the main thing is that there is no blood and bloody battles shown in detail (in the description of the rating, this is often called “cartoon” cruelty). Any sexual content, except for the most transparent hints, raises the rating of the film to R. And in the framework of sex, not all content is equal. Until recently, it was easier to see female genitalia than male genitalia in R-rated films and fully Nude people (they can be seen in such films, but very rarely — and especially rarely in the case of black actors).The rating system is more squeamish about descriptions of female sex: for example, scenes of female Masturbation and cunnilingus were more likely to receive higher ratings than scenes with similar male actions — and sometimes they had to be cut out in order to avoid the NC-17 rating (and this rating ensures that very few people will see the film, since many cinemas do not even buy such content).But in 2019, the greatest discontent is caused by the sloppy standards of the rating system in relation to a specific category, important in the case of ” Hunting» — cruelties.The effect of the rating system on cruelty rarely affects violence outside of films in 2018, after the mass shootings in Florida, President trump met with lawmakers and discussed reducing the number of shootings. He noted that cruelty in films can be the reason: “You see these films, they are cruel, and at the same time a child can safely watch them, the main thing is that there is no sex in it. And murders can be. And maybe they should introduce a rating system for murders.”Even if you forget about the lack of visible connection between violence on screen and in real life and the fact that “they” have a rating system for murders for half a century-trump was not entirely wrong. If easier — in American films very many violent scenes with use of firearms.And not only in films with rating R (have “of Hunting” rating declare not typically recognized, but on trailer goes, that there should be R). A study published in 2017 by the Annenberg public policy center at the University of Pennsylvania claims that in grossing PG-13-rated films-like any films of the Marvel cinematic universe — there is more violence than in the top rated R movies. Moreover, PG-13 movies are more preferred to studios than R rated movies, so the pictures often cut out the consequences of shootings, like blood and suffering, in order to provide a lower rating.The study pointed out that while previous work has not looked at how violence in movies affects the real world, “the American Academy of pediatricians noted that there is a fair amount of research indicating that violent content can affect some Teens and make them more aggressive.” For a long time, American politicians have tried to link mass shootings to violent movies, even when there has been no research to support this theory; for example, in 1999, after the shooting at Columbine school, President bill Clinton said that he had contacted the national Association of cinemas, and now teenagers will be asked for a passport when they go to the sessions of films with a rating of R. the Annenberg study from 2017 said that “apparently, the MPAA believe that cruelty performed by comic book heroes causes less harm than cruelty showing blood and various other, more realistic consequences.”At the same time the relationship between the gun industry and Hollywood was carefully documented in another 2017 study — it was conducted by the Hollywood Reporter, which took into account the supply of weapons for Hollywood films and participation in product placement. And there is a similar relationship-also carefully described — between Hollywood and the US army (from army-backed films to the Pentagon’s long-standing collaboration with content makers), according to unconfirmed reports, prompting studios to choose those scenarios in which militarism and the army are promoted. Weapons and the army cannot be connected by a straight line, but when considering the MPAA’s policy on violence, the link between them must be considered.However, the goals of the ratings system remain the same — to keep the government away from running Hollywood and to provide viewers with information on the basis of which they can decide what to spend the entertainment portion of the salary. And it is these goals that the actions of Universal, which postponed the “Hunt”, can jeopardize.

普遍推迟的决定“狩猎”可能开辟新的领域的不愉快的前景self-censorykak许多已经注意到的,虽然我们不知道什么是发生在“狩猎”,在电影中美丽的丰富的自由主义者的概率成功狩猎农人和特朗普的球迷,喜乐在“普锐斯”的结果,然后在搜索的拿铁,非常小。在拖车通常试图隐藏细节,以便观众至少可以感到惊讶,当看到一个成熟的电影,和脚本编写的这张照片是最著名的球迷扭曲的情节,达蒙Lindelof(系列“活着”和“放弃”),和他忠实的合作者之一。那些甚至想了半秒钟的人,意识到在预告片中所显示的——并不是电影的全部内容。但问题并不完全如此。关键是仇恨。去年类似的《月球上的人》(Man on the moon)故事表明,关于“自由好莱坞”的合理说法并不是福克斯和它的朋友们,包括特朗普总统想要的。你是否希望像《猎杀》这样的电影在原则上存在并不重要(我认为这是一个理性的人可能会有不同意见的问题):稍微思考一下,你就会明白环球公司不应该以这种方式推迟上映。尽管美国电影协会(MPAA)评级系统有很多缺点,但它为艺术家和观众提供了自由。电影制作人可以创造出他们想要的东西。没有人力量看,政府不会禁止(是的,许多影院规则某些类别的观众可以为pg - 13级电影和R买票,但这些规则制定作为协议的一部分连锁电影院和MPAA——不是在国家或联邦级别)。每个人都可以自己做决定。这个系统尽管有许多缺点,但仍然有效。

如果观众讨厌这部电影,反对它所展示的内容,或者认为放映它是不体面的,他们就不能去看它——用好莱坞最理解的方式“投票”:用血汗赚来的钱。
当然,特朗普总统可以表达他对“狩猎”、“血腥运动”等他喜欢或讨厌的电影的看法,他是否赞同他在电视上看到的内容并不重要。但是环球影业在推特上发布了关于这部电影的消息后,就取消了《猎杀》的上映——即使只是巧合,该公司透露,国家元首实际上可以影响哪些电影可以上映,哪些不能上映。毫无疑问,如果剧本稍有不同,如果一个更左翼的总统公开评论这部电影,那么这部电影就会被删除,例如,因为雷切尔·玛多对它说了不好的话——福克斯将会非常愤怒。但即使没有合作关系,环球的行动也为整个行业树立了一个先例,在这个行业中,抱怨的政客可以影响影片的发行——这违背了好莱坞近一个世纪以来阻止政府介入的意图。再加上好莱坞并不相信观众的选择。当然,所有这些可能都是对未来毫无意义的猜测。流媒体服务不受为电影院制定的规则的限制,可以为小众、特殊的观众制作任何东西,而不需要评级。我感觉到我们的主流媒体即将因政治倾向而分裂。但是,如果好莱坞还想把政府排除在自己的业务之外,它就不应该屈服于压力。正如他们所说,电影公司不应该放弃自己的位置。

可怕的恶魔:来自电影世界的八个魅力十足的疯子(上)
我们继续发展恐怖的主题,这一次我们展示了从希区柯克到现在的电影世界中最有趣的精神病患者的选择乐动体育app 乐动体育app

乐动体育app

从鸟变成大象,然后膨胀到地球的大小
“如果没人想开枪,你就不能把一把上了膛的枪放在台上。不能保证什么。”。契诃夫。一个要求大家都称自己为“女士”的十几岁的女孩……

《掠夺性城市编年史》:图片战胜了意义
作家、艺术家和其他创作者经常为我们的世界想出各种各样的世界尽头,详细描述从灰烬中成长出来的世界……

《狮子王》:动物世界中的数字版
感觉就像迪斯尼决定重新拍摄它的整个目录。好吧,也许有一天他们会到达“黄金国”、“亚特兰蒂斯”或“宝藏星球”,但现在他们正在释放……