How the MPAA really works. (Read this article!) (1 Viewer)

[Will K]

Even with the ratings system in place for some thirty years, the puritanical types still consistently bitch about how filthy and immoral movies and TV are. They preach endlessly about protecting children and preventing from being exposed to such material. It never made logical sense to me that these people would oppose having an NC-17 rating because the purpose would be to keep kids out, right? It seems they would want such a rating, but apparently, the need to control what other adults watch outweighs any regard they may have for America's youth.

 

[John_Berger]

Which they wouldn't if the "R" rating is enforced properly. They wouldn't let my child in without me.

Whoa, hold on! DON'T do that to the theaters! When it comes to this issue, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place!
On one side they have those like you who want them to police your children for you so that when you say you don't want your children into an "R" rated movie because you deem that movie to be unacceptable by any margin, they don't see that movie. If they do otherwise, you're blaming them for usurping your "parental responsibility". So, the question to you is: why does the theater have to enforce your parental preferences?
On the other side they have those who want them to police their children for them so that when they say that their children can and should be allowed into an "R" rated movie (eg: "The Lord of the Flies") because they deem that movie to be acceptable by any margin, they see that movie. If they do otherwise, they'll blame the theater for usurping their "parental responsibility". So, the question to them is: why does the theater have to enforce their parental preferences?
The argument that you are using as an absolute can just as easily and just as effectively be used for the same purpose by the people who completley disagree with you.
I've seen both sides of this issue far too many times!
Parents would scream at me and the rest of the management staff because we let their kid in to see an "R" rating movie. The kid was with a friend of the appropriate age and therefore was allowed to enter. The requirement was met! A kid under 17 was accompanied someone over the age of 17 who took responsibility for him during the time that he was there. What the hell is the theater supposed to do? Demand legal documentation proving that the older kid is a blood relative or something?
Then we also had the parents who would scream because we DID enforce the "R" rating and prevented a kid from going into an "R" rated movie by himself when the parent determined that the kid should be able to see the movie! In the majority of instances, the parent dropped the kid off to see the movie in the first place! So, then we got s**t for enforcing the rules!
When it comes to MPAA ratings, it's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario for theaters, so lay off them! (And I say that to people on BOTH sides of issue here!)
The simple fact of the matter is that it's the PARENTS' job to deem what is and is not appropriate and to monitor what their kids are doing, not the theater's. That's why it's called "parenting" and not "babysitting", damn it.
**sigh** Okay, okay. I'm off the soap box. (Breathe, John. In the nose, out the mouth.)

 

[Malcolm R]

No theater management is required to enforce anything about the ratings.

Then how can the "R" rating make such a blanket statement as "no one under 17 admitted without parent or guardian"? Or the NC-17 "no one under 17 admitted"? Someone has to enforce those restrictions. If it's not the theater, then who? People expect theaters to enforce these age restrictions. If they don't, then who is and what good are the ratings at all? Sure, you can tell your teen they aren't allowed to see "R" rated films, but once you drop them off at the lobby doors and drive away, they will see what they want to see unless the theater prevents this. I don't agree with the need for theaters to be surrogate parents, but that seems to be the way it is and the way society expects it to be.

As the article said, the whole rating system is arbitrary and should simply be discarded. Notes on content should be sufficient without having to put the film in one age/rating category or another. A simple box with "MPAA NOTES" similar to those found in cable movie listings (i.e. language, sexual situations, nudity, violence) should be sufficient. An actual coded rating, with age restrictions which may or may not be enforced, is unnecessary.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

Well where I live "R" rated movies are heavily enforced. They have been for the past 5 years. When I worked at Sony Lincoln Square in NYC back in 98 we were told to enforce this. I personally stopped countless teenagers from seeing "R" rated movies without a guardian. They already bought tickets but I wouldn't let them in. It was the rule, in a way the same as not being able to sell cigs to anyone under 18. We weren't censoring anything, or doing the job of a parent. We were doing our job as part of a business.
I'm 23 now and I still get carded whenever I go to an "R" rated movie. I have the youngest face. It is annoying but at least they are doing their job.
Now how movies actually get their ratings I think is a total crapshoot.

 

[Chad R]

John Berger,

I wasn't meaning to speak in absolutes. When I said that theaters should enforce the policy was just to preemptive rebutt any argument that kids will see excessivley horrible stuff. But, honestly for films like that the wee little ones will have little interest in it, and the older ones will see it eventually if they really want to.

The point is that I should have to option to take my child to see anything that I want to. The theaters should just enforce the policy to the best of their abilities. If I show up wanting to take my child to a movie with me, the NC-17 prevents that.

I understand there will be some kinks in the system. Nothing is perfect. But a rating that completely disallows me from taking my child to a movie is the wrong answer.

 

[James Bergeron]

Laughable, and it's obviously just another "business" that has a strangle hold on their business.

really makes you wonder!

In Canada most of the stuff that is released in the US as "R" is AA (which is like PG-14). PG-13 is usually the same or PG depending on the content. We get R's but I don't think I've ever seen anything higher than R other than XXX.

 

[JonZ]

"The MPAA is biased against independents.........."
Which is why its ok to show dildos in a PG movie that plays during the day on HBO like The Naked Gun but its not ok for a film for adults like Requiem For A Dream.
"Why should adults who do not have dependent children care about the movie ratings? The ratings do not affect or prevent them from watching any film they want."
But it does effect whether I can view the movie in one of the 15 theaters around me or whther I have to go to NYC to see it(as I had to do with Req For a Dream). As stated in the acticle, NC17 means 400 theaters instead of 1400.
oh yea, please God,let that frontal scene in Femme Fatale be with Rebecca Romijn-Stamos

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Watch as i fix everything with a new system. Ok, I stole it off tv, but it works really well.
Garrett's New MPAA film-rating system.
No Rating: This film contains nothing exceptionably objectionable. Most Disney films would fit in here.
Un Rated: This film was never subjected to the MPAA for grading. Anything go's.
V: Violence. Any realistic violence would be subject to the V rating. Schindler's List and Fight Club would get a V, but unrealistic violence in films, such as Mars Attacks! would not.
L/B: Language and/or Blasphemy. This will be hard to grade, as what exactly can be said in a movie seems to change every other day. Thus I'll have to assume use of words such as sh!t, f*ck, and c*cks*cker would warrant a L, while blasphemy "Jesus f*cking Christ!" would get a B.
Most films probably wouldn't even bother with looking for a B grade, but it's included in the lists so that the MPAA can't be sued for being anti-religion.
N: Nudity. Showing peoples "Bathing-suit" areas gets the N rating.
S: Sex, graphic depictions of sex (including oral) get the S rating.
D: Use of Narcotics on-screen. I shouldn't have to explain this.
Ok, lets test my proposed ratings on some movies....
Robocop (The directors cut, as brought to you be The Criterion Collection DVD): VLND
Robocop (Theatrical): VLND
The Secret of NIMH: No Rating
South Park; Bigger, Longer, and Uncut: LB
Lord of the Rings; Fellowship of the Ring: V (yes, elves and orcs are fictional, but they die realistically enough)
American Pie: LN (possibly S, I couldn't tell if the pastry-copulation scene was "graphic" or not, I've never had sex with a pie. But the movie never shows intercourse, and the oral-sex scene wasn't graphic in its depitcions at all. So the S-judgment would have to be made by a pastryphiliac).
Garrett's Alternate-Alternate Movie Rating System.
None: This movie has nothing objectionable.
Parental Advisory; Explicit Content: This movie could in some way, shape, or form be objectionable.
Ok, I stole this from the music industry, but it works very well.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Most films probably wouldn't even bother with looking for a B grade, but it's included in the lists so that the MPAA can't be sued for being anti-religion.

Huh? Who would sue over what now? The MPAA currently has no standard "blasphemy" content descriptor, and they've never been sued for "being anti-religion" (which isn't a claim that can be heard in any court I know of, anyway).

DJ

 

[Thomas Newton]

Alternate Rating System
Advisory: (Unwatchable): This movie may or may not have violence, sex, foul language, etc. We showed it to one of our trained reviewers, and when (s)he came out of the film, his/her mind was as far gone as if (s)he had witnessed the return of Cthulhu, the many-tentacled one. We can say that the film is so incredibly inane that we could not print our true opinion of it in any family newspaper.

 

[John_Berger]

As the article said, the whole rating system is arbitrary and should simply be discarded. Notes on content should be sufficient without having to put the film in one age/rating category or another. A simple box with "MPAA NOTES" similar to those found in cable movie listings (i.e. language, sexual situations, nudity, violence) should be sufficient. An actual coded rating, with age restrictions which may or may not be enforced, is unnecessary.

I fully agree. But the problem is, then parents will start to complain if the theaters allow children into a movie with sexual scenes in it, and the whole "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't" cycles starts all over again.

Personally, I really like Garrett's version. No age restrictions. Just tell me what the content of the movie is. If a kid sees it and the parents find out, the only one that they can bitch at is the kind and not the theater management, which is how it should be, but I digress...

I really wish I had a perfect solution, but no matter what solution comes about some parents will still expect the theaters to do their jobs for them.

 

[Andy Olivera]

The rating system would be fine if they got rid of NC-17. That way, the film-makers could never be forced to change a film for fear of losing exposure, profits, etc.

The MPAA is there to help parents, right? Well, an R rating says "definite objectionable content; watch this before you let your children see it". All NC-17 does is say "definite objectionable content; your children can't see this". There's a very clear difference between the two: one is a guide, the other a road block. Tell me, which one of those doesn't belong in America?

 

[Josh Lowe]

is it my imagination or has the MPAA also done some retroactive re-rating of films over the years? I would swear on a stack of Bibles that Star Wars Ep4, in its original runs, was rated G. Now I see it's PG. Huh?

even if that's not the case, it certainly does seem the MPAA has gotten to be more and more conservative and easily influenced by whining special interests over the years when rating films..

 

[Malcolm R]

Or perhaps make another rating above NC-17 which would be used to describe your average hardcore adult film (bring back "X")? I think the problem with NC-17 and theaters is that there is no distinction between those films with some mature content, like those described in the article that starts this thread, and the average adult flick. Theaters don't want to engage films with the most extreme rating? Then make a new rating that is even more extreme than NC-17.

Right now, any adult film producer can submit their movie to the MPAA with the proper fee and have it rated NC-17. If there were some distinction, so that theaters would know they're going to be showing an actual "film" with mature subject matter, rather than a full-on adult skin flick, then they'd be more apt to engage an NC-17 film.

Of course, the problem with this is where do you draw the line between the two? How much "adult content" pushes the film from an NC-17 to an X (or whatever). However, the MPAA seems to have no problems now in determining whether films belong in R or NC-17 so it shouldn't be that different. Plus, one would think that most of those that would be rated X, (i.e. adult flicks) wouldn't even be submitted to the MPAA since it costs money to have the film reviewed/rated and the X would be the kiss of death in mainstream theaters and advertising anyway.

 

[Damin J Toell]

is it my imagination or has the MPAA also done some retroactive re-rating of films over the years? I would swear on a stack of Bibles that Star Wars Ep4, in its original runs, was rated G. Now I see it's PG. Huh?

Star Wars: Episode IV has always been PG. Films only get re-rated when re-submitted for re-rating by the distributor. The MPAA does not rate or re-rate anything on their own, they only do so by request.
DJ

 

[Damin J Toell]

Or perhaps make another rating above NC-17 which would be used to describe your average hardcore adult film (bring back "X")?

Anything above an R will still face the same treatment from exhibitors and parents, even if it were to be a two-tier system. It would just create a new (or revive an old) rating that wouldn't be used, anyway, leaving us in the exact same situation we're currently in.

DJ

 

[Will_B]

A kid under 17 was accompanied someone over the age of 17 who took responsibility for him during the time that he was there. What the hell is the theater supposed to do? Demand legal documentation proving that the older kid is a blood relative or something?

A theatre I worked at had a fanatical manager who did exactly that. Stopped a white parent who was bringing her asian adopted child to a film. He came within a hair's breath of being sued for racism, because he was essentially stopping the parent because the child "did not look like" the parent. I wish he had been sued - I objected to the rating system while I worked there, and I still do years later.

Since it was an "art house" theater it was obvious that the MPAA gave indie films and any films with realistic gay characters excessively restictive ratings, while waving through studio films. This was often enough so that it seemed to be a clear bias - I am not saying it is their primary goal, but the pattern is there, and someday all the odd films should bring some kind of federal lawsuit, get a committee to review their decisions over the past few decades and determine if the MPAA has conflicts of interest. Who knows what they'd find - the secrecy of who the MPAA is remains. Maybe they'd turn out just to be a bunch of bigots, or maybe they'd turn out to have massive conflicts of interest (stock in the majors, or what have you).

 

[Andy Olivera]

The ratings system insulates the exhibitors, giving them more freedom to run films without fear of backlash

It does, but that's a side effect, and one of the main reasons why NC-17 needs to be discontinued. In addition to the fact that it's superfluous, it also carries a stigma which allows the MPAA to be "censors" rather than "advisers".

As to "insulating the exhibitors", they should know what films they're running in the first place. They will certainly hear about controversial films, and have the opportunity to view them prior to exhibition. If the community protests or if the exhibitor is worried the film can be pulled, but to deny the film the opportunity altogether, based solely on a rating, is wrong.

 

[Derek Miner]

Which is why its ok to show dildos in a PG movie that plays during the day on HBO like The Naked Gun but its not ok for a film for adults like Requiem For A Dream.

Jon, I hope you're not at all serious here. That's not even close to a good example of the MPAA being biased against independents.

I think the real issue is the MPAA being biased against statistics over intent. As previously mentioned, films that a relatively tame in most senses, such as ALMOST FAMOUS and BILLY ELLIOT, suffer from having too much strong language.

Oh, and if you want to open another can of worms, note that SWIMFAN, basically FATAL ATTRACTION for teens, opens today with a PG-13 rating. A local reviewer noted (under the headline, "Can you boil a rabbit in a swimming pool?") that this allows in all the teens that parents probably wish weren't concerned about such things. So obviously, the theme of the film is of less importance than sheer numbers of profanities, naked bodies, or bloody visuals.

I'd also submit that the MPAA is really irrelevant on a large scale, because the biggest audience for a movie is now on home video, and that market is certainly not as strict on who rents movies. And even when an adult has to intervene to procure a tape or disc, that doesn't mean there's any guidance to the minor viewer.

Anyone notice that Blockbuster has started renting unrated DVD versions of some titles? I was shocked, after the years and years of BB refusing to carry any unrated versions of movies, that I could get VAN WILDER and THE SWEETEST THING in unrated versions at their store! And one of their stores about 45 minutes away carried STORYTELLING on DVD...

 

[Paul_D]

An alternate perspective that you all may be interested to hear about is the British Board of Film Classification. Essentially, the UK version of the MPAA...
They are an independent body, but unlike the U.S. ratings, theaters, and video retailers have a legal responsibility to enforce the ratings the BBFC impose. Local councils can overturn ratings decisions, but it only happens rarely (Spider-Man and Mrs. Doubtfire come to mind). There's been a new rating introduced this month.... 12A, which is essentially the same as PG13. the other ratings are U, PG, 12, 15, 18. No one under the specified ages can see or buy a film rated as such. The ratings are strongly enforced everywhere, mainly because jail-time can be issued for allowing entry to anyone underage.
The split of the ratings also makes cuts very common. The ratings which allow access to broader age ranges are obviously preferred by studios, so The Matrix was edited to achieve a 15, The Mummy trimmed to achieve a 12, Star Wars Episode 2 cut to achieve a PG. etc. The overly restrictive nature of the age ratings means that stricker definitions of what can and cant appear in a film with a certain rating are in place. Unfortunately, that often means a studio will prefer to edit out the objectionable material, as opposed to accepting the more restrictive rating.
The only upside is that along with being more restrictive, the BBFC also 'allows' more in the highest 18 rating. Because no-one under 18 will be seeing a film with this certificate, very mature content can get through. Here's some examples of the ratings we have in place:
Hannibal 18
Sleepy Hollow 15
Starship Troopers 18
Billy Elliot 15
Almost Famous 15
Goldmember 12