DELETED

[Dr. Cakey]

All art makes a statement. It doesn't matter if it was intended, doesn't matter if it was received, and doesn't matter if the statement received was the statement intended - at the end of the day, it makes a statement.

If you'll forgive me for using anime examples, RahXephon intended to make a statement, and whatever it was it completely failed to reach me. Code Geass had no intention of making any kind of statement, but by god it made one to me. And (for a non-anime example), the message of everything by Ray Bradbury I've read has sent to me a different message than what he intended.

That aside, it seems like a bit of an odd position to take - although not quite as odd as the "art for art's sake" position - and demonstrates very little knowledge of art of any kind. You only need to take a cursory glance through the films look at in Kyle Kallgren's Brows Held High to see that some of them were created to make statements and some weren't, and there were good and bad in both categories, even though they're all "arthouse" films (hooray for words that don't mean things!). One could even go so far as to argue that the defining feature of art is that it does not make a statement.

snip

You may not be aware - I say with a jaw-droppingly unnecessary amount of sarcasm - but films already receive ratings. This is no different, except that, unlike the meaningless ratings on violence and sexual content which already exist, these ratings serve a purpose.

 

[SKBPinkie]

I don't even fucking care at this point if something is art or not. This discussion needs to be shot in the head, as far as I'm concerned.

If I enjoy a game or other entertainment product, I enjoy it. I genuinely don't care what anyone else thinks of it at this point. There was a time that I used to, but heck, it just felt so goddamn pretentious.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Art is made for whatever purpose the artist made it for.

 

[Salus]

Art is a word. It's a vibration of the air. (And it's not even that.) I don't know why so many people slash their wrists arguing over "what art is" because they're just arguing semantics as far as I can tell. "Okay, I concede, Mozart's Requiem isn't art." Is it somehow diminished? "I win the argument, Lady Gaga is art." Does the "in" club now get diluted? Does Lady Gaga have to sit next to Mozart at the awards ceremony? Eew. Can't have that. You're out of the "art" group. We could have two equal words instead, or ten words, but we have one and it has to fit what we deem worthy.

If you want to argue over what's art, just realize you're simply arguing about what's printed in the dictionary, not reality.

 

[Lieju]

This was launched as an experiment in four theatres in Sweden. The rating itself says nothing about the actual quality of the film... It's up to you and other movie-goers to decide whether your potential enjoyment of a film hinges on that one factor alone

It's not merely an experiment when a film festival and cable network hopped on-board with the idea (the latter blocked out a special day to run only qualifying "A" rated films).

And it's disingenuous to state that this rating leaves it up to the audience to decide. If people were left to judge for themselves (as it should be) then this system is totally unnecessary. This isn't about critiquing art as "entertainment", it's an absurd, objective litmus test that cannot be taken seriously.

Bechel test doesn't necessarily tell whether a movie is sexist or not (it is useful in epic movies with a big cast and lot of dialogue, like LOTR, which is a clear indication of sexism, not surprising considering when the books were written.), but what is your issue with that rating system, exactly?

I have my problems with the common rating system used for movies, but only if it limits the rights of the audience, especially based on arbitrary things. (Like underage kids not being allowed to see the movie because it has cursing.)

This whole point is moot, though, considering this is totally off-topic and you only brought it up because there aren't enough sexism-threads on the Escapist. How does this rating turn it into a matter of entertainment?

It's one thing to critique art, but a film rating is not a critical review of a subject. Bias is anything but objective and demands critical thinking, something people seem convinced is unnecessary and can be determined for them by a simple rule.

It's fair to make a story in which best friends and a third wheel, merely playing a love-interest, comes between them without developing other motivations.

It is a sign of bad writing, though, if the love-interest has no characterization outside of their relationship to the main two and the two friends never talk about anything else than the opposite sex.

A better example would be a movie with very little dialogue, or a small cast.

 

[BoredAussieGamer]

You have the right to have message statement being the exclusive priority.

And I have the right to sleep through your boring, pretentious, unentertaining piece of shit.

Entertainment with no message is enjoyable in some ways. Message with no entertainment if boring. And I'm not going to be paying attention to messages if I'm asleep.

 

[AgedGrunt]

You may not be aware - I say with a jaw-droppingly unnecessary amount of sarcasm - but films already receive ratings. This is no different, except that, unlike the meaningless ratings on violence and sexual content which already exist, these ratings serve a purpose.

Naked people and blood are material and easily fit a grading scale. Whether two female characters hold an "independent" conversation together is not an acid test for gender bias, much less criteria for grading a film. Even being generous toward its merits, it's void of substance.

what is your issue with that rating system, exactly?

I have my problems with the common rating system used for movies, but only if it limits the rights of the audience, especially based on arbitrary things. (Like underage kids not being allowed to see the movie because it has cursing.)

How does this rating turn it into a matter of entertainment?

The point is we can't be rating art as it pertains to value. If art is about expression that may or may not involve entertainment, then it should not be subject to this sort of appeasement process. Are we giving art free will or are we saying that it has to meet a standard and entertain us as well?

The clear difference between current rating systems and this one is that it introduces the moral question. At any rate, as long as we're discussing what art is we should examine what it's not and it's not about conformity.

 

[Lieju]

You may not be aware - I say with a jaw-droppingly unnecessary amount of sarcasm - but films already receive ratings. This is no different, except that, unlike the meaningless ratings on violence and sexual content which already exist, these ratings serve a purpose.

Naked people and blood are material and easily fit a grading scale. Whether two female characters hold an "independent" conversation together is not an acid test for gender bias, much less criteria for grading a film. Even being generous toward its merits, it's void of substance.

The way of grading movies for age-appropriate content is unclear and biased, though.
What amount of nudity is appropriate? What about context? Or the sexuality of the characters (as portrayal of homosexual relaionship tends to get higher rating.)
And how do you rate whether something is scary? Or what words are 'unacceptable'?

The clear difference between current rating systems and this one is that it introduces the moral question.

What?

You are saying that grading movies according to nudity, sexual content, ideology etc. is not about morality?