Hallmark Holidays

So, I guess it's, like, Valentine's Day this week or something....
Yes, another holiday (ANY holiday) means another chance for people to be mad at the old Drewmeister, and since this one is targeted at women, it's a big double whammy for me.


In years past, I could skip Valentine's Day, since I was totally alone and had no one's feelings to hurt. This year, however, I got myself one of them fancy new fiances, so...you know...I should do something nice. I feel like a phony buying anything standard, though. It's like, "I got you this same box of chocolates last year. Why would you want it again???" If I were a chick, I'd just ask my boyfriend for money each Valentine's Day. I'd say, "Just gimme the cash value of whatever you would have bought." The BF would gladly oblige, and everyone would be happy. The end.

In THIS reality, however, I want to do something interesting. The best plan I could come up with was to go and see Sinbad, the comedian. Hey, nothing says romance like Sinbad, right? He's gonna be down in South Bend on Sunday, and that should work out OK....

Of course, not long after Valentine's Day comes "Sweetest Day", which is basically the same thing, only more pointless. I distinctly remember when Hallmark invented Sweetest Day. It came totally out of nowhere, and my first experience with it involved (you guessed it!) a lady getting upset. I was in the tenth grade, and had just managed to snag my first girlfriend EVER. Her name was Krystal, and she was just a little bit crazy. Well, one day, I was standing there in the hallway of my high school when Krystal came up to me with her best friend and some fella that she'd been dating. The friend had a rose in her hand, and I was like, "Hey, what's with the rose?" Krystal looked irritated and told me that it was Sweetest Day, and that the school had been selling Sweetest Day roses in the cafeteria for one dollar each. I guess the friend's BF had been thoughtful enough to pick one up. "You were SUPPOSED to get me one," Krystal lectured.

First of all, I didn't have a dollar, and had no way to come up with one on such short notice. I mean, did she just think that kind of money grew on trees??? Secondly, I resented my friends for not warning me about this new "Sweetest Day" phenomenon in the first place. I had never even HEARD of it; how was I supposed to know that I'd need to buy a rose that afternoon??? The whole thing was so unfair, and I still blame Hallmark (and my friends) for the fact that my first love dumped me within the week. That stupid Sweetest Day crap must have played a role.


Anyway, another good thing about Valentine's Day is that it always brings with it some really great snack foods. As I've written before, I live for seasonal snack foods, and the month of February is a good time for such items, since they tend to be brightly-colored for the big V-Day festivities. You know -- the more flashy the food coloring, the better the snack tastes. It's a friggin' law of NATURE.

My old pals at Little Debbie always step up to the plate in this regard. At my supermarket, I'll see such seasonal delicacies as heart-shaped brownies with red frosting...pink rice marshmallow treats...and, of course, my favorite, the coveted and rare Valentine's Cherry Cordials. These delicious little numbers combine several tastes I enjoy: cherry, chocolate, and marshmallow. You cannot go wrong, and I declare Little Debbie Valentine's Cherry Cordials the Snack of the Month!


Hey, since this post is all about love, let's take a look at a film that delves into a subject that's just as mysterious: the Motion Picture Association of America.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/


Netflix description:
Kirby Dick's provocative documentary investigates the secretive and inconsistent process by which the Motion Picture Association of America rates films, revealing the organization's underhanded efforts to control culture. Dick questions whether certain studios get preferential treatment and exposes the discrepancies in how the MPAA views sex and violence. Interviewees include John Waters, Darren Aronofsky, Maria Bello, Atom Egoyan and more.

So, this one is a documentary about the process by which motion pictures are given ratings in preparation for their theatrical release. You know -- G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 -- those kinds of ratings (folks outside the US, I'm sure, have a similar, parallel system) . They tell the public how violent or sexually-explicit a given film might be, and play a large role in determining how a release is marketed and where it's sent.

But here's the thing: the Motion Picture Association of America's Ratings Board is a highly secretive body. No one really knows who comprises its membership, and it's not clear EXACTLY what its standards are. Some rather violent films get a tame PG-13 rating, whereas others with mild sexual content get a hard R. Why is that? Who sets the standards?? Can ratings be influenced by outside lobbyists??? This Film Is Not Yet Rated attempts to answer such questions.

Now, this picture may sound a little bland, but I gotta tell you that it's one of them FUNNY documentaries. Director Kirby Dick clearly just LOVES to be a smart alec, and I admire him for it. He pokes and prods the MPAA Ratings Board, going over its history and even hiring private investigators to track down members. Gross discrepancies between the standards applied to sexual and violent films are examined, and a thinly-veiled homophobia on the part of the ratings board is also made apparent. There are plenty of things wrong with the MPAA ratings system, and I applaud Mr. Dick (smirk) for presenting them.

Then there are several fascinating interviews with some of my very favorite filmmakers -- Kevin Smith, John Waters, Matt Stone, Darren Aronofsky....That last one, in particular, raises some profound questions. For example, he points out that the MPAA will rate a film containing GRAPHIC displays of violence as an R, whereas a film featuring less explicit, BLOODLESS violence will get a PG-13. Well, here's the thing: wouldn't it, in fact, be better for society if a movie containing REALISTIC depictions of violence (IE, those with horrifying blood and gore) were to be rated PG-13, and the movies with NON-realistic violence be rated an R? That is, why does a James Bond movie, in which the hero shoots countless people and sees almost no blood, get the more family-friendly rating? It would seem to me as though a clean, more glorified depiction of violence is worse than one that actually displays the consequences. Is it socially responsible to show people, say, getting shot without making the audience feel uncomfortable??? That's deep, man.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated also points out that movies with "intimate scenes" involving homosexuals are almost always going to be rated more harshly than those featuring standard man-on-woman action. Make a movie with a gay theme, and unless it's as clean as your average episode of Frasier, the MPAA is going to slap it with an R (or, even worse, the box office poison known as an NC-17).

Of course, all of this is not to say that I oppose the MPAA Rating Board. In fact, despite all of its flaws, I think it's probably the best possible option. I mean, what is the alternative? GOVERNMENT regulation of film? At one point in this documentary, a filmmaker actually says that she'd prefer that kind of system, and I thought, "Are you FRIGGIN' NUTS???" The MPAA Ratings Board exists specifically so that the government WON'T get involved in the process of censoring art. Allowing it to do so would be the worst possible thing that couldn happen to free expression. Just look at Australia, a country run by a bunch of modern Nazis. I'll take the MPAA because at least it protects America's greatest art form from being strangled by the meddling of clueless politicians such as that nation's. It's a buffer; I'll accept it.

Nevertheless, This Film Is Not Yet Rated is an exceptionally well-made documentary. Although its conclusion may be wrong, its complaints are justified, and I tip my hat to Kirby Dick for providing us with a funny, thoughtful, and in-depth look into the world of filmmaking that's not quite like anything I've seen before. This is one that all film buffs should definitely check out. Good stuff!

4 out of 5.

b.