When I consider whether to plunk down hard-earned cash to see a film in the movie theater, there are a few things that I invariably do:
- If I can find a movie trailer online, I’ll watch it.
- I’ll glance at a few movie reviews (just a few, so as to not spoil the film).
- If the film has been out for a week or so, I’ll see what friends thought of it.
Surprisingly, I never check what a film is rated (G, PG, PG-13, R, or NC-17) by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Why is this the case?
It comes down to one word: inconsistency.
At this time, Jack Valenti, the current president of the MPAA, set up what would eventually become our current ratings system, along with a group called NATO (National Association of Theater Owners). Using only the classifications G (General), M (Mature), R (Restricted), and X (well, you know), these designations were attached to movies beginning in 1968. Since then, few modifications have been made outside of changing the M rating to GP in 1970, changing GP to PG in 1972, adding PG-13 in 1984, and changing the X to NC-17 in 1996. A committee oversees the ratings, while an appeals board is there for those times when a different rating is requested.
As for inconsistency, the MPAA has given films odd ratings that don’t seem to fly with their own standards. The King’s Speech, for example, received an R rating due to having 17 f-bombs implanted in the film. Yet The Big Lebowski had 281 f-bombs (in addition to lots of drug use) and also garnered an R rating. The same can be said for violence in PG and PG-13 films becoming more common and more gratuitous. What makes a movie an R film? Eleven acts of violence instead of ten?
Or something like this, perhaps?
It’s time for changes. But what kind of changes?
The first is transparency from those in the MPAA for their decisions. It’s easy to make a call if there’s no true accountability from others outside of the theater industry—and yet this is the way it’s been since 1968.
The second is a revamping of the current ratings system. I attempted to give this a try, and here’s what I came up with:
- G — All Audiences
- P — Parental Guidance
- T — Teen
- PT — Parental Teen (basically a lower-level version of R)
- R — Restricted (a higher-level version of R)
- A — Adult (no one under 18; contains material that would earn higher than a R)
- X — Explicit
- There would be no more promotion of films (in any form of media) using the phrase, “This film is not yet rated” and no NR ratings given.
- All trailers would receive one of the ratings above that would correlate to the actual film (i.e. a trailer of Saving Private Ryan would get a R rating, even if all the killing was removed, since the film was receiving that rating).
- Ratings would be based on agreed-upon standards for violence, profanity, nudity, drug use, and thematic elements that would be revisited once a year and shared with the general public.
Now it’s your turn.
- What needs to be done to make the MPAA ratings more relevant? Are they doing the best that they can with what they have to work with?
- If you could develop a new rating system for all US films, what would it look like?
Sound off!
April 2nd, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Relevance (second time I’m typing this, so not sure it’ll all translate) BUT… it’s for parents and those with conservative mores in my estimation. And the current system fails them with strange diagnosis of what’s PG/PG-13 and what’s PG-13/R. Those are the breakdowns I hear folks complaining about…
I’d tend to opt toward the way they handle TV (which is still tricky) with some variation.This isn’t for printing quite yet… I’ve been struggling with it a bit as I tried to work it out…Is that really any different?
All Audiences- Anyone could see this without offense.
Network TV Before 8 p.m./Parental Guidance- Thematically or for some subset (language, violence) might not be acceptable for all ages. (No one 12 and under without an adult.) The areas between PG and PG-13 are greying in some areas and this would make it clearer.
Network TV After 8 p.m./ Mature- For language, violence, sexual, or thematic content. (No one under 18 without an adult ) Again, PG-13 and R are blurring (number of f-bombs or amount of blood shown) and there seems to be a fine line (We Bought A Zoo was PG but had strong mature themes, War Horse on the other hand is PG-13?)
Cable TV/Adult Only- For excessive material involving language, violence, or sexual content. (Only those over 18 are allowed admission.)
PPV TV/Not Rated- Exceeding Adult Only, basically no holds barred, view at your own discretion.
April 6th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
I agree that the movie ratings system needs to be revamped. There are movies that are rated PG and have nudity in them and R rated movies that have no nudity but the language is excessive. It used to be that if the movie was PG then it was okay to take your kids. Not any more. Some PG movies are actually worse then R rated movies. We need consistency!!!
Thanks,
Marie
April 6th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Well said, Marie. The consistency thing bugs me to no end. And the ability to change ratings does as well. Note the clip of Bully above. It originally had a rating of NR, then got demoted to R because it was supposedly important enough for kids to see.
Now the rating has been reduced again due to the elimination of some words and capitulations by the MPAA. And now the bickering has started again. This is the problem in a nutshell.
The article on this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/bully-finally-gets-a-pg-13-by-removing-some-f-words/2012/04/06/gIQAdELVzS_blog.html
Our managing editor, Greg Wright, along with Official Best Of Fest (OBOF), came up with a tongue-in-cheek ratings system a while back. It goes like this:
MVE = SR * SF / FOMS
where
MVE = Moral Value of Entertainment
SR = Standard Rating on a ten-point scale
SF = Surprise Factor, rated as the percentage of the movie remaining
after the first surprising thing happens
FOMS = Fifties of Millions spent producing the film, rounded up to the
nearest ten
So for the movie Expiration Date, SR = 9.0, SF = 95%, and FOMS = 1, so MVE = 9.0 * .95 / 1 = 9/10.
For, say, the movie 2012, SR = 5, SF = 50%, and FOMS = 16, so MVE = 5 * .50 / 16 = 1/10 (rounded up)
Greg says, “It takes some math, but I think it’s a very fair, competitive, and
snarky rating system.” I think it’s genius (as much as I can understand it).
April 21st, 2012 at 12:43 pm
First of all, keep in mind ratings are voluntary and geared toward marketing. MPAA and NATO are trade organizations that adopted ratings in order to prevent courts and local government from creating a patchwork rating system. The mandate given to the less than transparent group who give initial ratings is to be a guide for parents. Whether that is accomplished is certainly open for debate, but for the most part, ratings give a broad reference. It is good that there are now some explanation of what has resulted in the rating.
I have no problem with a film opting out of the ratings process. Many films from overseas never submit for ratings because they will have their audience with or without the rating. Indie films are at a bit of a disadvantage in the process because if they want to appeal, they have no clout in the room of studio heads.