Sicko Ratings Conspiracy?
The outdoor marquee of the chain theater closest to my house is posting Michael Moore's latest film, Sicko, with an R rating. The film is actually rated PG-13, properly indicated on the theater's webpage. After seeing the film, I started thinking about what, if any, motivations the chain might have for posting an incorrect rating.
Cedar City, like most towns in Utah, is predominately populated by Mormons, many of whom refuse to see R-rated films (although they seem to have no compunction about watching them when the content has been clumsily edited to remove any hint of sexuality or overt violence, a process that makes films like Saving Private Ryan or Shakespeare in Love virtually pointless). Since Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore has become the Great Satan of American right-wingers, though Sicko takes shots at both political parties and is probably Moore's least politicized film in some time, at least in a partisan sense. But any Mormon curious enough to think for him/herself and actually go see the film would undoubtedly turn away after seeing that the film carried an R-rating.
I'm not sure why a theater owner would deliberately try to reduce the number of patrons coming in to see a film, so the marquee rating is most likely a mistake. But what sort of assumptions are behind that mistake? Did the theater worker (most likely also a Mormon) assume that Moore was such a flaming liberal that there was no way one of his films could earn anything less than an R-rating? Was the theater worker exercising some crude form of political protest, unbeknownst to the theater owner? Or is there a much larger conspiracy at work, one that would ensure that only an audience predisposed to agree with most of Moore's points would actually attend the film?
Moore's film alternately touches, amuses, and infuriates the viewer with its depictions of average insurance-covered Americans who have been ignored by a health care system primarily concerned with profit. It's inflammatory, sure, but Moore doesn't let people like Hilary Clinton slide by without an appropriate jab at the donations her campaign has received from insurance corporations. The film will piss you off, but probably not just because you're a right-wing religious conservative who doesn't want to be exposed to dangerous ideas or images. Political discretion is advised.
Cedar City, like most towns in Utah, is predominately populated by Mormons, many of whom refuse to see R-rated films (although they seem to have no compunction about watching them when the content has been clumsily edited to remove any hint of sexuality or overt violence, a process that makes films like Saving Private Ryan or Shakespeare in Love virtually pointless). Since Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore has become the Great Satan of American right-wingers, though Sicko takes shots at both political parties and is probably Moore's least politicized film in some time, at least in a partisan sense. But any Mormon curious enough to think for him/herself and actually go see the film would undoubtedly turn away after seeing that the film carried an R-rating.
I'm not sure why a theater owner would deliberately try to reduce the number of patrons coming in to see a film, so the marquee rating is most likely a mistake. But what sort of assumptions are behind that mistake? Did the theater worker (most likely also a Mormon) assume that Moore was such a flaming liberal that there was no way one of his films could earn anything less than an R-rating? Was the theater worker exercising some crude form of political protest, unbeknownst to the theater owner? Or is there a much larger conspiracy at work, one that would ensure that only an audience predisposed to agree with most of Moore's points would actually attend the film?
Moore's film alternately touches, amuses, and infuriates the viewer with its depictions of average insurance-covered Americans who have been ignored by a health care system primarily concerned with profit. It's inflammatory, sure, but Moore doesn't let people like Hilary Clinton slide by without an appropriate jab at the donations her campaign has received from insurance corporations. The film will piss you off, but probably not just because you're a right-wing religious conservative who doesn't want to be exposed to dangerous ideas or images. Political discretion is advised.
posted by Chazzbot at 9:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home