The Daily Procrastinator

Listen to this:

Now, if you’re anything like me, you can’t listen to this beautiful piece of music without thinking of this:

Or try listening to Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries” without thinking of this:

During my formative years I watched a lot of Merrie Melodies cartoons, and while Bugs and Daffy will always hold a special place in my heart (if you don’t know how to respond when I say “Wabbit season!” I can’t be friends with you), Chuck Jones and his crew absolutely ruined me on classical music.  I often wonder what it would be like to listen to  Strauss’ “Blue Danube”, and not automatically think of Bugs slapping Elmer Fudd, or not immediately associate Franz Von Suppe’s “Morning, Noon and Night in Vienna” with Bugs Bunny conducting an orchestra. I suppose I should be fair and say it’s not all Mr. Jones’ fault: “The Lone Ranger” ruined Rossini’s “William Tell Overture” for me, and I can’t hear Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” without thinking of Nakatomi Plaza.  But still, it was those Saturday morning cartoons that led me to connect so many pieces of music with animation – and today those hi-jacked works are the only classical music I’ve ever bought.  Hell, I even bought Bugs Bunny on Broadway.

One of the few classical music CDs I own

Because the Merrie Melodies cartoons are no longer being aired on Saturday mornings, I don’t believe my daughters will have this problem, and honestly I’m a little jealous of them in that respect.  My older daughter takes piano, and I eagerly await the day she’ll be able to play even a simplified piece of Strauss’ “Danube”, and be able to ask her what the music brings to mind for her.  Maybe even get an idea of what Strauss himself intended.

I know it won’t be Daffy Duck.

With The Watchmen hitting theaters this past weekend, and the reports of its levels of violence, sexual scenes, and grim themes, it’s time that Hollywood re-tool its ratings system to bring it more in line with sanity and reason.

Honestly, I have no idea what “R” means to Hollywood, other than that it means the film is for restricted audiences, i.e., the 17 and over crowd (side note: parents, if you take your pre-teen kid to The Watchmen, you are an imbecile and proof that we should require licenses to become parents). Beyond that, it seems to have no real definition. Let me illustrate: There Will Be Blood and The Watchmen received the same rating. Gladiator and the new Friday the 13th received the same rating. Wedding Crashers and Hostel received the same rating.

Do you see something wrong here?

The MPAA website defines each rating here, explaining that an ‘R’ movie “contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously.” I could probably make a case that The Dark Knight deserved an R rating based on the above criteria, but it was given a PG-13. This is a movie where, among other scenes, the Joker slams a man’s head onto an upright pencil, another man has a cell phone rigged with explosives sewn into his stomach, half of Harvey Dent’s face is burned away, and, because of its serious (“adult”?) themes, it was considered a possible candidate for Best Picture. Why was DK not given an R? Because most of the violence was either off-screen or not bloody, there was no nudity, and the “hard” language did not include the word fu*k. And it works – DK is a PG-13 movie because of the steps the director/producers took while filming and editing, knowing that Batman is a comic book first, and thus will pull in a younger audience.

The R rating, though, is often a failure because there seem to be no set limits to an R movie’s content; the MPAA Rating Board’s decision-making appears arbitrary, at best. The Watchmen‘s Dr. Manhattan, for example, is naked throughout the film. Now, I’m a fan of the comic, and the film doesn’t blink on his nudity (except in its advertisements where he always has the briefs on), and I understand that he’s a demi-god: he’s beyond clothes. Still, male frontal nudity has ALWAYS received an R rating (and, yes, I recognize the MPAA’s double standard with regard to full frontal female nudity), and Manhattan’s nudity is at times sexual in nature. Then there’s the non-blue penis sexual scenes, which are explicit. Beyond this is the language, which is most definitely “hard.” Then there’s the violence, both stylized and graphic. Blood flows, limbs and bodies are destroyed, and the camera does not flinch. All of this, in the MPAA’s mind, adds up to an R rating.

Compare this to Gladiator. In Gladiator, there is no nudity. None, not even a male backside. There is, to my knowledge, no cursing, and if there is it is tame. The word “fu*k” is not uttered. There are no sex scenes; Commodus’ (Joaquin Phoenix) feelings for his sister are implied, though nothing happens between them, on screen or off. The only “objectionable” material is its violence, which is, of course, graphic, as Roman gladiators tend to be violent. Ridley Scott’s Oscar winning film received the same “R” rating as The Watchmen: to the MPAA board, there is no significant difference between the two movies’ content to warrant a different rating.

But you and I know better.

The interesting thing is that the MPAA has another recourse: the NC-17 label. The MPAA site describes that an NC-17 rating “can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.” Who here believes that The Watchmen does not fit this description? The Comedian attempts rape on screen. He also kills a pregnant Vietnamese woman. And if Rorschach’s behavior is not “aberrational” (even while being held up as a hero of the film), then whose behavior is?

But we all know why The Watchmen received an R rating rather than an NC-17: profit. NC-17 is seen as a kiss of death for any film because of the stigma associated with it, and it severely limits the film’s ability to be marketed. Many theaters would not carry a film tagged as NC-17. Directors often go back to make cuts to their films to avoid the rating, knowing that an R can mean millions more at the box-office. So much for artistic integrity, huh? And the MPAA turns a blind eye to it all, as if cutting 30 seconds from a sex scene here, two impaled bodies there, makes the difference.

This discrepancy is particularly egregious when considering The Watchmen. Despite its actual content, it has been marketed as a superhero movie, and I suspect many venturing into the theaters this weekend had no idea what they were getting themselves into. Yes, this is partly the fault of the film-goers; there are plenty of reviews out there that warn of the content. But I know plenty of parents who take their kids to “R” rated films (my dad took my brothers and me to see Rambo: First Blood Part II when we were 13, my younger brother 10 ), and that’s the problem: the R rating does not sufficiently describe the film. There is a definite difference between the R of Rambo, of Gladiator, of Wedding Crashers, and the R of The Watchmen, and the MPAA has done a real disservice to its audiences in pretending otherwise.

If the MPAA is truly interested in rating its films, then it needs be honest in its classifications and its ratings decisions. A good first step it could take is using the NC-17 label more regularly, allowing the label to give people a better idea of what a film contains, and take away the “verboten” stigma the label now holds because of disuse.

At the very least, such a step will allow me to concentrate on the film, rather than the 8 year old sobbing in his mother’s arms.

So how YOU doin', red?

I have a confession: I have a girl crush on Felicia Day.

I revealed this crush to the guys of this very blog, thinking that this would be some sort of startling revelation. Instead, my confession was met with shrugs. “Who doesn’t have a crush on her?” one asked.

So it appears that if you don’t have a crush on her, too, the only conceivable answer is that you must not know who she is. I’m sure that you would recognize her, even if you don’t know her by name. Please refer to this or this. No, really. It’s ok. I can wait.

I’m not sure when the crushing started. Maybe it was when I realized how much my heart broke for Penny at the end of Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog (many thanks to Joss Whedon for reducing me to tears yet again), or maybe it was when I realized that I had a ridiculous level of interest in The Guild in spite of the fact that I know nothing of the world of gamers. Or maybe it even goes back to the Buffy days. I can’t pinpoint it, but it’s there.

There’s just something about her that’s funny and quirky and sweet and easy to like. Since her Twitter posts seem to be a reflection of her on-screen persona, I have to assume that it’s the real person that I like, and not just some well-written characters.

Short hair works, too.

So I just wanted to take a moment to suggest that perhaps there should be more Felicia Day in the world. There should also be more Nathan Fillion (Joss, are you listening?), but that’s another story for another post.

Anyone else feel the same way?