10部关于作曲家的最佳和最差电影
这个世界的一切都被电影覆盖,古典音乐也不例外。许多伟大作曲家的个性引起了董事的利益,这并不奇怪,......

继续阅读→

“Marvel船长”:友好的邻居卡罗尔丹维尔
虽然单个电影宇宙奇迹并出现了早期的Kinovselengoy DC,但是一部关于它在它中的女性角色的独奏电影。在录像带“船长Marvel”(队长......

继续阅读→

好莱坞自我审查的历史(第1部分)
审查是一个在前苏联共和国长大的每个人的熟悉的词语。令人担忧的是,它被憎恨,这是责备的,而是最可怕的......

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以进行评估,评估员将看电影并根据主题和所显示的内容选择一个类别。在电影院里,您可以显示评级,观众将决定他想观看的内容以及他不想要的东西。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.

Universal’s decision to postpone the “Hunt” may open up new unpleasant prospects in the field of self-censorykak many have already noted, although we do not know what is actually happening in the “Hunt”, the probability that in the film the beautiful rich liberals successfully hunt rednecks and trump fans, rejoice at the outcome and go in their “Prius” in search of lattes, is extremely small. In trailers usually try to hide the details so that the viewer could at least be surprised at something when watching a full-fledged film, and the script of this picture was written by one of the most famous fans of twisted plots, Damon Lindelof (series “Stay alive” and “Abandoned”), with one of his faithful co-authors. Those who thought about it even for half a second, realized that shown in the trailer — not all that will be in the film.But the point is not exactly. The point is hatred. And last year’s similar “Man on the moon” story shows that valid claims about “liberal Hollywood” are not what Fox and its friends, including President trump, want.And it doesn’t matter whether you want movies like “the Hunt” to exist in principle or not (I think this is the question on which reasonable people can have disagreements): a little thought, you can understand that Universal should not have postponed the release in this way.Despite all the shortcomings of the MPAA rating system (and there are many), it provides freedom for both artists and viewers. Filmmakers can create what they want. No one forces it to watch, and the government does not forbid (Yes, many theaters have rules under which certain categories of viewers can buy tickets for PG-13 and R movies, but these rules are laid down as part of an agreement between the theater chains and the MPAA — not at the national or Federal level). Everyone can decide for themselves. The system, despite numerous shortcomings, still works.

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。

“曼迪”:和一个在野外战士
没有必要唤醒睡眠,了解森林和猎人的所有居民。而不是唤醒尼古拉斯笼子应该被......

......

“米格”:25米。
在票房,一个梦幻般的惊悚片,具有简明的标题“Meg”联合美国 - 中国生产。宣布在夏季最热门的新电影中,......

......

17音乐视频与电影角色的参与
今天,我们记住了辉煌的,但不幸的是,被遗忘的艺术形式——电影风格的音乐视频。上个世纪的八九十年代是充满音乐的神奇时代……

......

奇迹电影宇宙的成功故事及其对文化的影响(第2部分)
《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……

......