MPAA ratings discussion

Every so often, the MPAA gives a movie a certain rating and a huge uproar follows. Well, here's a thread where we can discuss such blunders by the MPAA, as well as instances where they may have gotten it right.

Here are two blunders, in my mind:

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Disney animated) - I think the G rating was a mistake, as the movie has very mature themes involving lust, religion and ethnic hatred. The song "Hellfire" alone should've made the film a PG. Thankfully, the MPAA hasn't been giving Disney a free pass as of late; almost every Disney animated film in the past few years has been rated PG, even the relatively innocent Lilo & Stitch.

The Outlaw Josey Wales - Plenty of violence and an attempted rape complete with nudity.... and it gets a PG??? Sure, this was in the '70s, but still...


And here are two movies that caused uproars when they were rated, but that I think deserved their ratings:

Fahrenheit 9/11 - It deserved the R-rating, not because of the brief use of the F-word, but because of the graphic nature of the Iraq footage. I had to look away several times.

Whale Rider - Everyone talks about the apparent pot-smoking by the girl's uncle, but I think the reason the movie got the PG-13 is because of two things: the "hold on to your dicks" line (that the grandpa says to the kids he is training) and the very disturbing smoking by the girl's best friend (who must've been no older than 14). These scenes were so out of place in an otherwise appropriate-for-kids film, that it almost seems as if the director was gunning for the PG-13 rating.


Feel free to discuss these and other controversial MPAA decisions.

..

Wasn't the first so called curse word used in cinema used by Clark Gable in Gone with the WInd with the word "damn"? I thought i heard something like that.

Well to point out the fairly obvious, I'll just say that the current MPAA ratings system is straight up bullshit. It's a complete double standard. If you have a specific pull in the industry, you can easily get the rating you want. Let it be G, PG, PG-13, or R. If you don't have any pull, then you're fucked. Simple as that. Not only that, but the ratings today are too "vague."

Take for example: Whale Rider gets the same rating as this week's King Arthur, which I thought was pretty violent for a PG-13 film? Sure. Almost Famous and Billy Elliot get the same rating as Basic Instinct? Ooookay.

Come on, if Hair was released today (a film that contains it's share of drug references and full frontal nudity), it would not get it's PG that it did back in 1979. It would secure an R, as simple as that. Same goes with most films from the '70s and early '80s.

While the MPAA rating system is supposed to be a guide for parents, do most parents use it anymore? Nope. I suggest we adopt Canada's rating system, but that will (sadly) never happen. Hopefully with a new person filling in Mr. Valenti's spot in the MPAA, we can ditch the current rating system and create a new one. One that isn't as "vague" and actually means something, but who knows...

The ratings mean shit now. Simple as that.

No.



Hair didn't have full-frontal - they were topless and wet, but not bottomless on camera. Logan's Run tosses in full-frontal - or comes very close - and gets a "PG", though...

There were topless creatures in Fantasia -- and loads of violence -- still a G rating.

That is insane. I simply do not understand how your system can work - especially when you factor in the unrated films.

Take the system here in NZ. All films must be rated.
We have G - General
PG - Parental Guidance
M - Mature. These are films with no age restriction, but more suitable for over 16 - currently films like Day After Tomorrow and Mean Girls.
And R-rated films, with a variable age rating, usually 16 or 18, but there have been R13 and R15 films.

Plus we have vague descriptors about the type of content that gave it that rating.

Thus, Almost Famous and Billy Elliot were M films (from memory), while Basic Instinct was R18. To me, it's a logical system that provides a lot more information about the type of film that a particular film is and the level of contained within.

Of course this all comes down to money. The bigger studios and best known producers/directors have much more leeway in getting their films out with the rating they want. The PG-13 rating, created for Spielberg and Indiana Jones 2 has blurred the line. Instead of helping parents, the system is now used for advertising and movie theater promotion.

My two recent "favorites"
Woody Allen's "Anything Else" gets an R rating for "scene of drug use". No, really. Woody himself took a cocaine hit in Annie Hall, causing a very comic sneeze.

On the other side Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" gets one of the most undervalued R ratings ever. This is the kind of movie they invented NC-17 for. If this was a less successful director, that's the rating it would have gotten.

Since PG-13 is already out there. I propose R-16 as well. This would say, "Look parents. We'll allow you to bring the kiddies, but, seriously, watch out for this one." As with PG-13, it would not impose strict bans, just provide information -- just as the ratings are supposed to do.

Anything Else - PG-13, Kill Bill 1 - R-16

I don't think there should be a rating in between R and NC-17. I thought the purpose of the R rating was to tell parents: "You can bring the kiddies, but watch out for this one." Anything stronger than that would be NC-17 (not appropriate for teens - let alone kids - to see).

I think many "soft" R-rated films should be re-rated PG-13 because most parents today consider those films to be acceptable for teens. And then many of the "soft" PG-13 films really are PG movies with a single F-bomb thrown in just to get the harder rating ("The Avengers").

Often this discussion seems to come up related to depictions of realistic war violence in films ("Saving Private Ryan," "Fahrenheit 9/11"). I agree with the R ratings for those films because they are very intense but not gratuitous/exploitative.

It does seem PG-13 mainstream action movies have gotten more violent in the last few years. These are the ones that strings get pulled and sneak by with a PG-13. I think "Minority Report," "X-Men 2," and the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy would have gotten R ratings for violence 10 years ago. These films are the hardest PG-13 films I've seen. I agree with the PG-13 for "X-Men 2" and "Lord of the Rings," but "Minority Report" really felt like an R-rated film to me...

So here's how I would re-rate some films:

American Pie 1 & 2: PG-13 (instead of R).
All the President's Men: PG-13 (instead of PG)
Amadeus director's cut: PG-13 (instead of R)
Almost Famous: PG-13 (instead of R)
Red Dawn: R (instead of PG-13)
Broadcast News: PG-13 (instead of R)
Whale Rider: PG (instead of PG-13)
Six Degrees of Separation: PG-13 (instead of R)
Minority Report: R (instead of PG-13)
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory: PG (instead of G)

I also saw something last week that said the director's cut of "THX-1138" is going out with an R rating. It was rated PG back in the '70s. What was added to take it past PG-13 and all the way to R? (I'm guessing some full-frontal nudity, which tends to get movies an unnecessary R rating.)

It's been re-rated R for "some sexuality/nudity". Since I haven't seen the film or read much about the changes, I have no idea if the content in question is part of the new cut or if it was already in the original film.

I thought American Pie 1/2 had quite a lot of sexual stuff going on, and probably deserve their R ratings.

PG-13 for American Pie 1/2? I enjoyed the movies, but those absolutely earned their R ratings. There was a decent amount of nudity in each, as well as massive amounts of cursing. That cursing is also what got Almost Famous its R rating, which I also agree with, f-bombs were tossed around like popcorn in that movie. Yeah, there's a quick flash of Kate Hudson topless, but there's been far more nudity in even a few recent PG-13 movies (see Titanic for the best example).

As for THX, since it's a new cut and is being rated today, it falls under modern, 2004 MPAA standards rather then the standards of the MPAA when it was released.

As for Lord of the Rings, yeah, there was a lot of violence, but it was "clean" violence in that people died, but there wasn't a lot of limbs or blood flying all over the place. Those movies pushed PG-13 to its very limits, but I don't think they went over it.

The whole system here needs to be redone.
But first, didn't 'Lilo & Stitch' have violence in the first 20 minutes or so? That's what uped it from a G.

The cuss words should only be used to determine a rating to bump it up from a 'Y'. How many kids in school haven't heard those words? Zero!

It makes me wonder if the MPAA rates stuff based on what is cool for kids to do. Smoking is NOT, so they bump up 'Whale Rider' Nudity is NOT, so they bump up the 'Pie' movies. (I think they're trying to tell us that being nude is bad).

But violence? Oh, that's ok. We see it on the news every day. They should rate every movies with a knife, (or anything worse) in it an R - at the least.

Glenn

I can fix it :0

2005 MPAA rating system:

*Not yet rated/Not Rated
*MPAA Approved
*PARENTAL ADVISORY; EXPLICIT CONTENT

The 2-tiered rating system has performed flawlessly for 20 years on music.

The MPAA is wholly perverted. Fortunately after 17 years they become irrelevant.*

*with one exception, being that if you, as an adult, want to take your teenage child with you to an NC17 film that you feel is appropriate for them to see, the MPAA and the theaters will refuse you entry, as if this were not America. That's the one step that the MPAA has taken which goes too far.

Look specifically at Michael Jeter's brief scene in the film. When he removes his undies, you can see a shot of his manhood for a second or two. I was watching the film with my mom when I purchased the DVD and we both did a double take.

Almost Famous does not have "fuck" being tossed around like popcorn in that movie. It had it's share of the word, but the theatrical cut only had around twenty uses of it in the 120 minute film. Now if you take a look at the extended cut, the film has an added scene where the word is tossed around like nobody's business, but I'm specifically referring to the theatrical cut. I'd rather have my child watch Almost Famous than say a violent PG-13 film... but that's just me...

I have never seen an NC-17 film that would be appropriate to take a "younger than 17" person to with the exception of Requiem for a Dream (which wasn't rated NC-17, but was slapped with an "Unrated"). I don't think my mom would've let me see Showgirls or Henry and June when they came out.

"flawlessly?"

What!?

I have huge problems with the PA stickers on music, I find them offensive, insulting and racist. And they work wholly against the artistic merit of particular works. They also seem to take a very commercial view of music which also offends me. Not to mention, that IMO they have no bearing whatsoever on the particular nature of the "offensive" material contained on an album.

That aside, I think the MPAA is better, but certainly not perfect.

What bothers me most is that "big-budget" things will get slacker ratings, while small budget flicks, foreign films and other such 'serious' fare will usually garner higher ratings. Some films that I was shocked did not receiver R ratings were the LOTR trilogy, Spiderman 2, and even star wars was surprising for its rating. I have no problem with violence per se, however, I do mind when it's 'toned down' slightly so as to be able to appeal to younger audiences and garner lower ratings.

Other smaller films, for instance LIE, (NC-17) will garner much harsher ratings because they are not mainstream. This bothers me. For instance, Kurosawa's 'RAN' (1985) netted an R rating, yet I found the LOTR movies to be equally as epic and violent if not moreso. This stupid thing about the presence or absence of blood and what color it is really bothers me. Decapitations in LOTR is fine, because there's no blood. But decapitations in RAN, which don't even show the action, but only the blood spurt (very artistically done, BTW) is inappropriate!?

I don't think parents should adhere to MPAA ratings for guidance as to the quality of the film itself nor the offensive nature of the material contained within (if you find it offensive/inappropriate for whatever kids you're dealing with).

I for one, would much rather show my future children films like Ran, for instance, rather than LOTR.

It also bothers me quite a bit that this country is so perturbed by nudity and foul language, yet long, extremely violent "epic" war battle scenes, are less problematic. If it were me, graphic violence would garner higher ratings far before foul language or nudity.

edit: dyslexic date.

..

Spider-Man 2? Really? What scenes did you think pushed the limit?

X2 I can understand a little more. Wolverine and Deathstrike's fight was brutal. And yet, if you watch the deleted scenes, it shows how originally when Wolverine impales a soldier for the first time, they had to cut to Bobby really fast cause the MPAA thought it was too intense to just see Wolverine yelling. Okay...

There was quite a bit of smashing all over the place, but mainly the hospital scene where the arms go nuts. I thought the presentation of that was very disturbing for a PG-13 movie. I know it's sorta comic-book, but the chainsaw and everything, and those people got *messed UP*. Ouch. Anyway, I thought that was certainly the most egregious.

You are so right about this. The most egregious example was Public Enemy's "It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back," a brilliant album that had hardly any profanity, yet it carried a PA sticker. Why? Could it be that the (white) power structure couldn't stand black artists articulatly decrying the injustices that their race has (and is) endured? Some would say the advisory labels are an alternative to outright censorship, but really they are a more subtle form of censorship because many big chain stores won't carry those kinds of records. The PMRC knew this and that's why they supported it; people like Frank Zappa and John Denver also knew it and that's why they opposed it. This is the reason that and the MPAA ratings are seriously flawed: they are value judgments as to what is "acceptable" and what isn't. Profanity is "bad", nudity is "bad", sex is REALLY "bad" but there is no consideration for context. Roger Ebert said it best: "it's not what a movie is about but how it's about it." We are conditioned to think that the sight of a bare breast (or any part of the body for that matter) will corrupt our children as if the breast and "sex" were the same thing, but films and TV shows with harmful stereotypes about blacks, women, homosexuals, and many others slide right on by. What's the harm in further marginalizing the already marginalized, right?

Probably because most films threatened with the NC17 just go the unrated route. I've no plans to take my kids to some uber-violent or uber-sexual film, but the MPAA is known for giving harsh ratings to films with gay themes, for example. So there may be a film that I feel is educational but which the MPAA feels morally anal about.

Unrated and NC-17 equal out to the same thing. Most theaters won't show an NC-17 films and most won't show Unrated films, simple as that. When Requiem for a Dream, Y Tu Mama Tambien, and other unrated films came to Vegas; nobody allowed under 17 was admitted. They even had signs in the front of the theater saying it. If you were under 17, you're screwed out of seeing the movie.

The only three "unrated" films I have seen in Vegas that everyone was allowed into have been the documentaries Super Size Me, Touching the Void, and the Chinese horror film The Eye. In those three films' cases, they didn't get slapped with an NC-17 through, they were just never rated until they hit video (exception being Super Size Me as it's still in theaters).

Around 15% of the theaters in this country will show Unrated/NC-17 films. The other 85% wont. I'm just happy that two of the theater chains here (Century Theaters and Regal Cinemas) have no problem showing them. And for that, I am happy.

I know the "American Pie" movies had sexual themes, nudity, and cursing ... but the movies were comedies about teenage dating and sex, and were made for a teen audience. To give the movie a rating just a hair shy of "adults only" seemed absurd to me (though at the age of 33 I may have become too jaded about those things).

And as for F-bombs: why is it so much different in a movie to have one vs. 3-5? (I didn't remember there being 20 or more in "Almost Famous," but it's been about 2-3 years since I saw it.)

I would agree with R ratings for movies like "Jackie Brown" or "Midnight Run" that have literally hundreds of them, but I've seen a fair number of R-rated movies that were essentially PG-13 movies with a couple of extra curses thrown in. I think I heard more than 20 F-bombs a day during the seventh grade, at the tender age of 12 ... so that kind of language in a movie wasn't any worse an influence on me than going to school every day...

And on THX-1138: Has any other film actually been re-rated to a harder rating without any increase in "adult content" (language, nudity, sex, drug use, violence)? I know the director's cut of "Amadeus" also went from PG to R, but the director's cut added more sex/nudity (and an element of humiliation) to a scene that justified a bump to a harder rating (though I'm not sure the R was justified). I can't think of any examples of a film that got a harder rating without changes in content. Otherwise, you'd have the effect of the MPAA saying: "This film was OK for kids in the '70s, but not today" (which I think would be a very difficult argument to justify).

See, I think American Pie deserved Rs. I think they featured heavy amounts of sex, nudity, language, risky situations, and things I wouldn't want kids to see over 13 without a parent.

Willy Wonka I will definitely agree with you on.

QUOTE]I can't think of any examples of a film that got a harder rating without changes in content.[/quote]

"Little Big Man" was originally rated PG but the DVD sports a PG-13 rating. To the best of my knowlege the DVD is the theatrical cut of the film and nothing has been added. For some reason the MPAA re-rated the film when it was released on DVD last year.

Just watched "All the President's Men" which had at least a dozen f-boms but was rated PG in 1976. Would definitely get an R if it went in front to the ratings board today.

The Bride was on cable recently. It featured Female frontal nudity that lingered for about 5-10 seconds - I think the rating was changed from PG to PG13.

Amadeus Dir Cut was given a R rated for the brief female topless scene that was added.

I think the MPAA is a bit erratic in their ratings and it did bother me at one time but the more I thought about it the more it lead me to my current conclusion: "If you are not a parent then the ratings are not FOR YOU."

1. If you are 17+, no rating will prevent you from seeing the movie. Go see any movie you want.
2. If you are <17, then you are not a full adult and your parents help decide what movies you can and cannot see. Sure sometimes the ratings are "wrong" but with your parents help, you can see any movie except NC-17 at the theater and you can watch anything at home.

So I ask you non-parents, why do you care about the ratings? They do not affect your ability to see movies and they are not for you anyway. If I thought my kids should see Almost Famous I could take them, despite it being R. Or are you saying that my kids should be allowed to see it over my objections (if I had any) and therefore should have been rated PG-13? Why are you trying to impose your personal standards to what my kids should or should not see by trying to lower R-rated movies to PG-13? That is my job and mine alone.

If you are upset that a movie should have been made R but was cut until it was PG-13, take it up with the studios and not the MPAA.

Now I do have one beef and the is with the NC-17 rating but the fact that most movie theaters won't show those movies is not the MPAA's fault. I have not seen the "The Passion of the Christ" but from every description it should have been rated NC-17 without a doubt. The irony of that is the same people who made it a box office smash are the same people who would have prevented themselves from seeing it if it had been rated honestly.

Chuck Anstey

Non-parents may care about the ratings because they can have the effect of creating censorship in cinema. If a film is rated NC-17 (or formerly X), many theater chains won't show the film, so studios put pressure on the director to tone down the content and resubmit the film until the R rating is achieved.

Though this "censorship" is voluntarily performed by the film industry, it has government backing in some localities. Some cities legally require movie theaters to comply with the "voluntary" rating system, thus making it compulsory - and a form of government control over the media.

I won't go any further into opinions here because that may politicize the thread, but suffice it to say that the ratings system has affected everyone, not just parents.

This thread also was to discuss the inconsistencies and hypocrisy in some film ratings - such as harder ratings being placed on independent films with the same "adult content" as mainstream studio releases. Parents can be misled into disallowing their teenage sons/daughters from seeing R-rated movies that really don't have harder content than the PG-13 films that they saw a week before.

One does not have to be a parent to see problems with the rating system. And for all the parents out there: you are handing your discretion over your kids' media exposure over to the MPAA ratings board if you simply say: "No PG-13 / R rated movies" to your kids without individually previewing evaluating each film for yourself.

That is why I think these age-based ratings should be replaced with quantitative ratings of the intensity of the content (such as a 1-10 scale for sex, violence, vulgar language, etc.).

Also, don't forget you don't have to be 13 to see PG-13 material.

So a 9 year old could go see American Pie if it were rated PG-13... and that's just not right I don't think.

Also, wasn't the topless Kate Hudsen scene in Almost Famous, from the bootleg untitled version? So even that's out.