MPAA ratings discussion

Yeah, Kate was topless in Almsot Famous (both versions) but the scene lasted half a second. Truly "blink and you'll miss it." To be honest, other then simply being there, I never understood why that scene was in the movie in the first place. Either way, I don't think that brief flash got the movie it's R, Almost Famous was R for language.

I'd agree that "American Pie" is too much for pre-teens to see, but right now we don't have a rating for movies that are appropriate for teens and adults but not younger kids. I thought PG-13 was supposed to fill that role though theaters aren't asked to bar pre-teens from seeing the films.

While I agree that the MPAA ratings are flawed, I don't really think there could be a "perfect" system. Different things are always going to offend different people, and you can't ever completely regulate that.

As others have said, things have changed somewhat over the last 30 years or so, but it's a strange dichotomy. Sure there are some PG-13 films that probably would have been R not too long ago, but there were several PGs in the '70s that would be R nowadays.

That said, however, I think the main problem is not so much the system itself, but rather people's perception of it (not all people, obviously, but many).

What I think has happened is that the proverbial "edge" has been pushed further and further, and now no one is really sure where it is. In the late-'60s and through most of the '70s, most kid- and family-oriented films used to be rated G, and there were more than a few adult-oriented ones that got a PG. But "G" attained a stigma of "kiddie-flick," so they started adding some slightly edgy content to make certain films PG so more people would go to see them. Gradually, throughout the '80s, "PG" came to be thought of as "probably okay for kids." Thus the PG-13 was created in 1984, because parents thought that Indiana Jones and Gremlins were too violent for PG (and by that point, they probably were). Now, when they want more "edge" than a "kiddie-flick" they have to go for PG-13, although even that is becoming less-and-less so.

Anyway, that's all just speculation; just an opinion based on what I've observed. When all is said and done, I just wish that parents would be parents and understand that the ratings system is not, and was never intended to be, the end-all, be-all of what is appropriate for their kids. It was merely intended to be a warning of possible inappropriate content. It is still up to the parent to decide what is right for their kids; the ratings are just meant to help a bit.

I do agree, though, that they have been incosistent. I would have given the uncut Requiem For a Dream an R, Whale Rider a PG, and the director's cut of Amadeus a PG-13. And it's true that many PG-13s are either pumped-up PGs (Spider-Man 2 probably could have been PG, except for the Evil Dead scene) or toned-down Rs (Minority Report did push it).

I don't really know what could be done, though. Like I said, I don't think any system would be completely perfect. I do think the current system itself is okay, but people need to try to understand it a little more. Just my opinion, though.

Double-post, sorry.

Gonna have to chime in as well; non parents have a *VERY* vested interest in what ratings are applied, and on the marketplace impact of said ratings.

American Pie is a good example (to use that genre); prior to that flick the pattern for Teen Comedies was PG-13. Studios were only interested in the "broadest possible audiences" for the Teen Comedies, and only greenlit PG-13 TCs. What did this mean content wise? Language, humor, and imagery, were limited compared to the 'grandaddy' flicks in the same and related genres.

American Pie was the first flick in its genre in many years that actually had significant amounts of language and adult situations (including nudity). The key scenes in American Pie aren't possible under a PG-13 rating.

Now, do they make it 'better' or 'funnier'? Subjective evaluation. Many folks seemed to enjoy the films, and personnally I wouldn't have enjoyed them hardly at all without the stripping scenes, without the pie, without the casual use of language that struck me as very accurate of the age group depicted.

A simpler, perhaps, example, is an action film that's PG-13 vs R. Black Hawk Down doesn't have the same kind of impact if depictions of violence are toned down to qualify for PG-13, as it does at an R level of graphic display.

So yes, non-parents DO have a very vested interest in what ratings are assigned, in how theaters react to films of various ratings (showing them or not), and in what audiences are demanding.

Aren't ratings a bit pointless nowadays?

With the advent of VCRs and DVD players, people watch movies in their own homes now and it's impossible to regulate what happens in someone's home.

Just using "American Pie" as an example, what's the point of strictly enforcing the ratings at the theater? That the "R" rating is going to keep 10-year olds from seeing it?

By the time the movie comes out on video and cable, there's no way it can be regulated. Sure, parents can keep their kids from watching it in their own home, but there's nothing preventing their kids from watching it another kid's house.

It just seems silly that, in recent years, rating enforcement at theaters has become so pedantic when the same movies -- and increasingly in "unrated" versions -- are actually more convenient and more available to view outside of the theater.

Don't most, (if not all) DVD players have a parential block on them? Even a kid taking it down the block to a friends house would still have to deal with 'their' parential block. This doesn't include any parents that don't bother to set it, though. That's just plain lazy - ok stupid.

Glenn

Talk about shooting the messenger. It is not the MPAA's job to make studios make R rated comedies and stop watering down movies to get a specific rating. They rate the movie as presented as a guide to parents. Point your anger / frustration at the studios who made that decision to force a specific rating rather than making the best movie and let the rating fall where it may. If your local theater will not show NC-17 movies, then vote with your wallet. If your local municipality has a law banning NC-17 movies then call the ACLU. The above arguments are like arguing that film critics should not be allowed because if they give a movie a bad review it will not make any money or will not be in the theater more than a week.

I have no love of Jack Valenti or the MPAA but if they were not created at that time it was quite probable that Congress would have passed laws the prevented some R rated and certainly all NC-17 movies from ever being made.

I am sure this sounds harsher than I mean it but I get frustrated when people have good points and then throw all anger / frustration / solutions at the wrong place. As far as the market wanting PG-13 now, if I recall correctly in the early 80s, R rated movies actually made more money than PG movies (before PG-13) as a whole so some movies were juiced up just to get the R rating.

Chuck Anstey

My post was in direct response to this comment. I'm not sure why you're attacking my post, since you seem to have solicited a reaction with your own above quoted comment.

Again, as long as ratings and what ratings are assigned and/or desired by filmmakers have a direct effect on the content of the resulting films .. EVERYONE has a vested interest in the ratings.

The Ratings may be *intended* to guide parents, but in reality they dictate content. They will continue to dictate content until studios and other green-light button pushers begin to tell filmmakers "make whatever you like, no I don't care what rating it comes out with". In reality, studios want specific ratings and often have that rating in mind before they ever permit the production process to begin.

This has the direct effect of dictating content.

I will note DVD, which doesn't have the theaterical or MPAA Ratings board pressures, has begun to see the release of "unrated" cuts of various films. This is a good thing, but also serves to illustrate the realistic impact of Ratings on theatrical releases of films.

I sm attacking the statement in bold which I believe to be completely misguided. It is not the MPAA's (the messenger) fault for the movie content changes. There are only two groups "at fault" here and they are the studios and the public. If you are tired of R rated movies being watered down to PG-13 then tell the studios that and do not go see the PG-13 movie. If you are frustrated with the new stigma against R rated movies then you need to educate the public that R rated movies are not bad / evil / etc., just not appropriate for children, and also go see those R rated movies. Vote with your wallet.

It is not the MPAA that forces a movie to PG-13, it is the studios, plain and simple, because they know there is a larger audience with PG-13 than R. When people who prefer R rated movie become the majority again then you will get more R rated movies and people who want more family friendly movies will start screaming about the lack of G, PG, and PG-13 movies. The pendulum has swung away from R and will swing back when there is more money in it.

Chuck Anstey

I can understand the "R" rating for "Almost Famous" I find it funny that there has been such an ongoing debate on this forum regarding that. According to MPAA guidelines, many of which I think are dumb, the use of "Fuck" gets the "R" rating alone. We can surely debate whether that word merits the "R" Rating, but look what we also get:

Many instances of drug use, Including a charater taking acid and nearly killing himself by jumping off a roof and a character who almost kills herself by overdosing on quaaludes, pot smoking etc.

A fair amount of sexual content. Several women "Deflower" an underage kid, "Blowjob" reference etc.

Topless Kate Hudson, however brief, but clearly not in the same "artistic" context as "Titanic"

So with a combination of all that, I can accept the "R" rating

Funny though. If they did enforce PG-13 to 13 & up like I think they should, no one that age hasn't heard the 'F' word, or seen a little skin.

As for the drug, they generally took on a negative aspect, and really put down their use, which is a good thing, no?

Glenn

Yesterday I got home and found this article in my newspaper about ratings creep:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts...ngs-Creep.html

Back to the source:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/re...s07132004.html

Ratings creep goes both ways. Dure, if you compare 1992 movies to 2003, the latter will have more sex and violence at equivelant ratings. However, compare 2003 to the 70s and you'll get a different picture. Nudity used to be much easier to get away with and the level of violence in Gs and PGs used to be much higher. Even if you compare these to modern PGs and PG-13s, the 70s are still more violent. Jaws would almost certainly have been are R these days, for instance.

Y'know Matthew, I think I WON'T look specifically at Michael Jeter's scene. RIP to him, but my own life is too short to spend time peeking for his pee-pee. I didn't remember any nudity other than B. D'Angelo, and I'm perfectly happy to keep that memory intact!

I watched "The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants" this weekend (with my wife, (beats chest and grunts)) and found it really odd that this film received a PG rating.

"Whale Rider" got a PG-13 for a pipe on a guy's chest, while this film gets a PG even though it contains statutory rape of a minor. I find that strange.

We do not "see" anything but the deed is implied. I was not offended or anything. It was handled in a very realistic way I felt, but it seems to me that it would warrant at least a PG-13 since any film with a sex scene between consenting adults that is remotely graphic gets an R.

It's like the MPAA watched "Sisterhood..." and said "Well, there's no swearing, nudity, or drug references. PG." Doesn't make much sense to me.

Funny, I just read about a movie that addresses this topic (and received an NC-17 in either a great example of irony or good self-promotion).