Excerpts From the Miramax vs. MPAA Ruling

Following are excerpts from Judge Charles E. Ramos’ opinion in dismissing the petition brought by Miramax Films and director Pedro Almodovar against the Motion Picture Assn. of America and the X rating given to Almodovar’s “Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!”

* Censorship is an anathema to our Constitution and to this Court. The (Motion Picture Assn. of America) which created and administers the present rating system also proclaims that it is against censorship. However, notwithstanding the denials of censorship by the (MPAA), the present system of rating motion pictures is an effective form of censorship. It is censorship from within the industry rather than imposed from without, but censorship nevertheless. . . .

It is evident that the MPAA standard is to rate films . . . based upon the tastes of the Average American Parent (AAP). The stated purpose of the rating system is “to provide advance information to enable parents to make judgments on movies they wanted their children to see or not to see.” As such the MPAA rating system is clearly not designed to rate the merits of a film or even to advise adults as to which films they may wish to see.

The MPAA’s list of cinematic no-nos is predictable: language, violence, nudity, drug use and sex. Notably absent is any sensitivity to the offenses suffered by women, minorities, the disabled and those who may not share the values of the (Average American Parent).

This Court cannot avoid the notion that the standard is reasonable only if one agrees with it. This standard, by definition , restricts material not because it is harmful, but because it is not average fare. . . . The manner in which the MPAA rates all films . . . causes this Court to question the integrity of the present rating system.

* An even more substantial concern is the question . . . of whether (the MPAA) is adequately meeting the needs of America’s children in film rating. . . . An often leveled criticism of the MPAA is that violence in films is condoned to a far greater extent than displays of sexual activity. Without professional guidance or input it may well be that the interests of children are not adequately protected or are even endangered by providing color of acceptability to extremely violent and psychologically damaging films.

. . the inference of concern for the welfare of children is not borne out by any scrutiny of the standard and the guidance given to the rating board members. The standard is not scientific. There are no physicians, child psychiatrists or child care professionals on the board, nor is any professional guidance sought to advise the board members regarding any relative harm to minor children. No effort is made to professionally advise the board members on the impact of a depiction of violent rape on the one hand and an act of love on the other, nor is any distinction made between levels of violence.

It may well be that the MPAA ratings are skewed towards permitting film makers huge profits pandering to the appetite for films containing “hard violence” and “drug use” while neglecting the welfare of children intended to be protected by the rating system. . . . reliance upon a non-professional rating board is misplaced and that the effort by the MPAA to encourage a more lenient policy toward violence is indefensible.

The failure of the rating system to provide a professional basis leaves only the viewing taste of the (Average American Parent), the consumers, as the standard. This standard may serve as a basis for a successful marketing strategy but may not coincide with the advice child care professionals might offer.

Contrary to our jurisprudence which protects all forms of expression, the rating system censors serious films by the force of economic pressure. The MPAA requires that American films deal with adult subjects in non-adult terms, or face an X rating.

* What is offensive is the unprofessional standard itself, not the manner in which the rating board applies it. The standard . . . is a marketing standard, a tool to aid in promoting films.

* There are also questions of the good faith of (Miramax and Almodovar) in instituting this proceeding . . . The allegations of economic prejudice and discrimination are unsubstantiated and the exploitation of the X rating by the petitioners in their advertising and their refusal to cooperate in the review process until after they had physical possession of the X certificate leads to the inference that this proceeding may be just publicity for (the movie).

. . . in view of the dominant and preemptive role played by the MPAA in the film industry there is an obligation to administer the system fairly and with a foundation that is rationally based. This proceeding has raised certain issues which need be addressed (by the MPAA) . . . The initial problem is the need to avoid stigmatizing films of an adult nature, which ought not be seen by children, but which are clearly not pornographic. The MPAA, having acquiesced in the use of the X rating by the pornography industry, may well have some affirmative responsibility to avoid stigmatizing films with an X rating.

. . . the rating system’s categories have been fashioned by the motion picture industry to create an illusion of concern for children, imposing censorship, yet all the while facilitating the marketing of exploitive and violent films with an industry seal of approval.