Seeing What the Web Offers: or Another Linkroll Examination

This week I explored the web again in a search for sites and blogs that would be not only informative, but pertinent and lesser known. As before I used IMSA and Webby criteria in discerning these sites. First I explored the website of the Motion Picture Association of America, this site is an excellent resource for any concerned movie-goer, however it is often times hard to navigate, and is ultimatley weak unless a visitor only cares to know the rating of a specific title. The second site I visited is the website of Janus Films, one of the premiere foreign film distributors. Their site offers visitors information on some of the greatest foreign films ever made, in addition to information about screening of these films and resources on how to purchase them. The third site I visited is SlashFilm, this site has a wealth of new posts regularly which is their greatest gift, however they also have a cluttered and cumbersome layout that is neither welcoming nor pleasing to the eye. Next I visited Rotten Tomatoes, which, with it's unique voting system has become a resource for interested fans. Their site is well maintained and informative, however because of their voting system they are not the most reliable source on the web. The Internet Movie Database (IMDB) has become one of the most popular websites for movie lovers, and it is a great resource. The site is easy to navigate and highly informative, but because of their more relaxed standards in fact-checking the site is in many ways unreliable. A valuable resource in movie news, Total Film, is a charming site that focuses on providing visitors with the latest news in the movie world, however it too has a cluttered layout that is not welcoming to the eye.

Empire Magazine's webiste offers the online experience of the phenomenal publication. It has a busy but sophisticated layout that is informative and welcoming. The Hollywood Reporter, one of the most respected trade publications, is a website that is near flawless. Their simple design and layout is pleasing to look at and it makes a visitor enjoy reading the articles which are uniformly brilliant. One of the other trade publication, Variety, offers a similarly wonderful experience. In addition to have some of the most insightful reviews in the world today, they offer unique stories that are more pertinent than most other sites and have a more industry slanted viewpoint. In a similar vain to the MPAA, but less administrative; in a similar vain to The Hollywood Reporter and Variety but less official is the wesite Kids In Mind. This site is a haven for concerned movie-goers to rate and review a film's appropriateness (or lack thereof), it suffers from the same problem as some other, comparable, sites in that it is by no means an official source, however it is an interesting and unique way to learn about the public's reaction to a particular film.

Violence in the Media: What an MPAA Rating Means for a Film

The Motion Picture Association of America has been used domestically to rate a film's appropriateness since it was founded in 1968. Currently the MPAA has five ratings categories including G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 (originally there were four categories), and these ratings are the standard by which an audience member (or more specifically a parent) is able to judge content used throughout a film's exhibition. These ratings, and the ratings board, are upheld by the studios, including Paramount, Disney, Sony, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Warner Bros. Something that is fascinating about the ratings system, and the MPAA, is what the rating itself can say about a film. Even more fascinating is that many of the most quality films (at least if the Oscars are the determinant of quality) are R-rated (the last time a film not rated R won the best picture Oscar was in 2005 for Million Dollar Baby; the last time a film won the best picture Oscar that did not contain any violence as part of the rating was in 1999 for Shakespeare in Love), and the thing that all of these films have in common is violence. The MPAA cites "intense or persistent violence" as one of the criteria capable of earning an R-rating; there is the sense that films these days must contain at least a minimal amount of violence in order to gain any sort of recognition, financial or critical. It is about time for American audiences to be hit with a wave of "summer" movies, which are often big budget action films, and so this topic seems relevant now more than ever. Violence in film is a tool, and is neither inherently good or inherently bad depending on how it is used.

Of the twenty top grossing films of 2007, according to the MPAA's own 2007 U.S. Theatrical Market Statistics Report, ten of the films were rated PG-13 (Sony's Spider-Man 3, pictured left, has the top spot with $336.5 million dollars; of these ten the only film that is not rated as containing violence is The Simpsons Movie), six of the films were rated PG, three films were rated R (one of which, Knocked Up, does not contain violence), and one film was rated G. Whenever terrible things happen in our culture there are always people who are prepared to blame violent films and video games (as well as other media); but are we a violent culture because of films and video games, or are films and video games violent to reflect our culture? In J. Hoberman's article in The Village Voice, "If It Bleeds, It Leads," he makes the claim that American films have become more violent due in part to the war that we have been fighting, "Why shouldn't we be preoccupied with homicidal sociopaths? America's been at was for the past four and a half years." On a different, but related note, Peter S. Goodman in "Economists Say Movie Violence Might Temper the Real Thing" for The New York Times wrote that, in a study conducted by University of California professors Stefano DellaVigna and Gordon Dahl, movie violence actually helps to deter violence in real life, "violent films prevent violent crimes by attracting would-be assailants and keeping them cloistered in darkened, alcohol-free environs." There is no question that there is violence in movies, and it is also unquestionable that as a culture we have grown accustomed to watching some violence, but the thought that the violence in films could account for the acts committed in reality does not follow. Violent films are often shocking and brutal, but, like all great art, they exist to instigate thought and discourse, not violence. When a film ceases to strive for these goals it also ceases to be art, and instead becomes a weapon.

There is, in a sense, the belief that films might lack academic or intellectual merit if they are not of a certain rating. Many of the more prestigious films that come out are often times dealing with more "hard-hitting" subjects and warrant R-ratings. This years Oscar winner for best picture, No Country for Old Men (pictured right), is one such example. But this begs the question of whether or not it is possible for a film to be both topical and without age restrictions. Movies like Knocked Up and Romanian import 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (which is actually unrated in America, but would certainly warrant an R-rating or worse) are both films that concern themselves with the issue of unplanned-for pregnancies. This is an issue that is current, relevant and pertinent, and there are other films like Juno (rated PG-13) that deal with similar topics; however the fact is that there should be films with a variety of different ratings, aimed at a variety of age groups, that all promote thought and discourse. To say that movies are better or worse, less or more relevant, because they fall under a certain rating is ridiculous. Filmmakers (artists in general) should be able to express themselves any way that they see fit, a film being more or less respected on the grounds of it's objectionable material is in it's own right reverse-censorship.

There is an ongoing debate among filmmakers about whether or not the MPAA ratings system exists purposefully or not, that is whether it is a valuable system or an inappropriate form of censorship. That debate will probably never be settled, many filmmakers will continue to believe that it is a form of censorship and concerned people will continue to believe that it is a necessary outlet of vital information. But whether or not a film is good or bad because it has a certain rating, whether or not a film is credible or not, should not be determined by the rating it receives. There are good and credible films in every ratings category.

Linkroll Examanation: Exploring the Internet's Film Sites

This week I explored the blogosphere to try to find some of the most interesting websites I could. While conducting this search I started by looking at many familiar favorites and I ended up discovering some sites I never knew existed. In an attempt for this blog to be a resource I have included these sites in my linkroll; in deciding the sites that should be included I applied the Webby criteria in both my decisions of a sites inclusion as well as my analysis of that sites strengths or weaknesses. When I began my search of what sites to include I started in fairly common, comfortable territory, as a subscriber to The Village Voice (in print) I have always found their film section to be brilliant; Village Voice film is a very strong site overall, the content is strong and the site is easy to navigate and wonderfully designed. The biggest weakness I found on Village Voice Film is in it's functionality, the site is very functional but due to The Village Voice's strong regional dedication someone not from New York might find the site a bit impractical. This drawback on Village Voice Film is what inspired me to find my next two sites, Los Angeles Times Entertainment and New York Times Movies. Los Angeles Times Entertainment is a sophisticated site which allows a visitor to receive film related headlines in an eye-catching manner, this strength is also the sites greatest weakness, because of the sites emphasis on the headline-style layout many of the most interesting stories are pushed toward the bottom of the site. The New York Times Movies page has much the same problem having a daunting number of links and an emphasis on visitor convenience with checking showtimes this page's great strength is in its search tool which allows a user to search the entire site or just the movie section. Premiere's site has an emphasis on visitor appeal which gives the impression of it being watered down, it is easy to navigate and highly interactive but the articles are given a backseat to the glitz and glamor. The critics of Premiere's site made me consider critics in general, and it is that that led me to Roger Ebert's site. This site has it's emphasis on film reviews and the content is rather strong; the visual design of this site is lacking, the site is sloppily and busily designed which makes the experience overall less than pleasant (but the reviews make the site tolerable to endure). A review on Roger Ebert's site (in this case Chicago 10) made me think about the Sundance Film Festival (debatably America's foremost festival), and when I connected to their site I found it to be visually arresting; Sundance Film Festival has some of the strongest visual design I have seen from a site. Their content is strong, the structure and navigation are also strong, the only weak point I found was with the site's functionality, it took quite a while to load. Internationally the Cannes Film Festival is one of the most renowned in the world, their site exhibits their prestige. The site is very sophisticated in its design, it is functional and has informative, academic content for any film lover. Cannes Film Festival is one of the strongest sites that I found. While on the Cannes Film Festival site I became inspired to explore the site of DVD publishing company the Criterion Collection. Their site has a strong visual design with an emphasis on the films themselves, not the DVDs, and the site has many wonderful links to read about the DVDs as well as to buy them. The sites overall experience is not bad, however it in many ways leaves a visitor wanting more; in many ways the site is just a store for the DVDs which is ultimately unrewarding. This problem occurs too in the Independent Film Channel - Film site. The site tries so hard to be edgy and modern that they collapse under their own weight and a visitor (or at least I) is left pondering why they came to the site in the first place; the site is a good resource if a visitor is willing to brave the abrasive visual design and get to the quality content. The final site I visited was the American Film Institute, this site has strong functionality and interactivity, the content itself, however, is lacking being mainly comprised of "best of" lists and up-coming events. In exploring the blogosphere this week I discovered just how vast the world of film can be, all of these websites are valuable resources in their own respect and I am happy to have spent the time to visit them.