The ratings game in Hollywood

I want to applaud Patrick Goldstein for his excellent article on “The Cooler’s” struggle with the Motion Picture Assn. of America (“Arguing Their Case Against NC-17,” July 1). As a filmmaker, I sympathize with “The Cooler’s” plight and feel that the article illustrates the prejudice the MPAA displays against independent films not connected to studios that finance the MPAA.

The punitive, stigmatizing NC-17 should be used only as a rating of very last resort. An R rating is a formidable and restrictive tool that gives sufficient warning to filmgoers about content and yet lets the film enjoy a regular release pattern.

It’s high time the MPAA got out of the business of trying to dictate to adults in America what they can or cannot see. The MPAA should back off and let the American consumer decide.

Chris Iovenko

Los Angeles

*

PATRICK Goldstein’s article about the imponderables of motion picture ratings really underscored a point no one seems to want to discuss: art vs. the dollar.

The only thing the ratings system does is put a warning sticker on a finished film. The only reason that sticker is sometimes objectionable is box office, not art. If the ratings sticker is unacceptable, it’s not about art for art’s sake, it’s about product for monetary return.

There is, in short, a certain hypocrisy in protesting cuts made voluntarily to films in order to boost the box office. Either it’s art, and you are indifferent to the sticker placed on the film, or it’s a product, and you chop and change it as the market dictates. You really can’t have it both ways.

James A. Gorton

Pasadena