Rating the ratings

The MPAA rating system
Overall Rating: ****


Everyone knows what "R-rated" and "G-rated" mean. That's why the rating system devised by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) works.

In the 1920s, there was great concern that movies were getting too violent and too racy. In response, seven major studios formed the MPAA, and agreed on the Hays Production Code. The Hays Code was a strict set of rules restricting what could and couldn't be shown in movies. The MPAA would approve or disapprove any movie submitted, and the studios agreed not to release movies that violated the code. By the mid-1960s, however, directors with the major Hollywood studios were starting to gripe that they were being unfairly constrained. In 1966, MGM's director Michelangelo Antonioni made "Blow-Up." Because "Blow-Up" had full frontal nudity, it was denied certification by the MPAA--but MGM released it anyway. To prevent future crises, the MPAA devised four ratings, roughly modeled on a system previously developed by the Catholic Church. Anyone submitting a movie to the MPAA for a rating would be given one of four ratings--G, M, R, or X (all movies not MPAA rated would be considered X-rated; the other three ratings were trademarked to prevent misapplication).

Since implemented in the 1960s, the rating system has gone through some minor changes. M became PG; X became NC-17. An additional rating, PG-13, was added. The MPAA now makes public the reason(s) why a movie got a PG or stronger rating. The basic system still stands, however, and does what it was designed to: allows directors and producers a free hand regarding content, but also provides parents and theaters some guide to adult content.

There are still films not primarily intended for children that are made without the R-rated content; for instance, "The Boy Who Could Fly," "October Sky," and "Life is Beautiful" have content that is probably muted enough for the whole family (and probably would be approved under the old Hays Code with little or no modification). Even so, I don't think anyone would question that many films have gratuitous sex and violence. Have movies gone too far? Films filled with sex, violence, and gore are often hugely profitable. A large portion of the public actively wants the strong content, or at least doesn't object to it enough to stop going to movies with graphic elements.

As long as there's a demand for movies with salacious content, there will be a supply. The existence of modern technology makes it impossible to return to a Hays-Code-like system. Consider "The Blair Witch Project." One of last summer's big hits at the box office, it was made by a group of film students for $40,000. Consider, also, the pornographic movie industry. There is a demand for movies with stronger sexual content than mainstream producers will tolerate (indeed, this may still be on an MPAA disapproved list--I've read conflicting sources on this point). That doesn't prevent the existence of a supply--countless obscure companies produce hundreds if not thousands of titles each year--almost always releasing them directly on video or the Internet. If the big, American entertainment companies eschewed R-rated content, maverick smaller companies and foreign producers would quickly fill the void. And what would happen to the movies already out there?

Nor would it be desirable to return to a strict "approve or disapprove" system. Sex and violence have been a part of both popular and high culture at least since the days of Homer. Granted some movies demean themselves with pointless on-screen sex and violence, but that's not always the case. The problem with the Hays Code becomes immediately apparent when you try to picture "A Clockwork Orange," "Blazing Saddles," and "Breaking the Waves"--or, to cite three examples from last year alone, "Fight Club," "South Park," and "Eyes Wide Shut"--toned down enough to earn a PG rating (essentially, the limit of the Hays Code). Graphic content can be used to make a point, or it can be just vulgar entertainment; in both cases, sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't--whether or not it works, however, is an artistic concern. It's there, and some people want it but other people might object to it; that's why the rating system is desirable.

Is the current rating system perfect? Of course not. A movie's rating is decided by a board of about a dozen people who evaluate the film as a whole based on fixed guidelines. Some of the MPAA's guidelines are downright crazy. For instance, a movie can show a murder on screen, and still get a PG rating, but simply showing a marijuana cigarette requires a PG-13 rating. Sometimes the board misses. Looking back at my reviews, of 71 MPAA-rated movies I've reviewed, only 13 were misrated in my opinion. Of those, I thought nine were too harshly rated, and four were too leniently rated. Three of those four, "Fight Club," "The General's Daughter," "South Park" would have received an NC-17 from me--a financial kiss of death. That brings me to another problem; since NC-17-rated films often fair poorly at the box office compared to R-rated films, there is often a conflict between the studios, who are willing to recut and reedit their films for an R rating, and directors who are concerned about artistic integrity. For example, "Eyes Wide Shut" featured several digitally added people and plants, blocking more explicit shots, to allow the movie to be rated R--with the result that Kubrick purists were howling about the tampering with his final film. (I'd like to have seen the film as Kubrick intended--but I have no basis to judge how badly the film was "damaged" since I haven't seen the unedited version.) Splitting R into two ratings, one picking up some of the borderline NC-17 films, might solve the problem. Perhaps a better solution was proposed by Jack Valenti, the president of the MPAA, when the rating system was created. According to his article on the MPAA website, he opposed the X rating, believing, as I do, that parents should be allowed to take their children to any film they feel to be suitable. The MPAA included the adults only rating because an association of theater owners was worried about legal liability.

I used to think it would be a good idea to have separate ratings for violence, sex, drug use, language, and thematic content; in short, I used to wish that the MPAA ratings would be replaced by something more like today's TV rating system--however, of the various rating systems devised by the music, television, movie, and video-game industries, the television ratings are easily the most arcane. Since the MPAA makes the reason for any PG or stricter rating available on their website, they don't need to create a code that the NSA couldn't decipher--parents who want to know why a movie is rated R can look up the reasons, or, they accept the R rating without investigation.

The MPAA system is also far preferable to no rating system. Movie promotions are too often vague, inept, or outright misleading to rely on them as a guide to whether a film is family-oriented. (If you don't think ads can be misleading, consider that, based on the previews, I had no interest in "The Sixth Sense," but actively wanted to see "Supernova;" the former is easily among the best films of last year, while the latter is this year's big turkey so far.)

It would be easy to say that in an ideal world, parents would screen every film their children see; but then again, would such a screening even be necessary in an ideal world? In any event, we don't live in an ideal world. I have always made it a point to evaluate movies for violence, sex, drug content, strong language, and strong thematic content in my reviews; some of my readers have misconstrued my comments about the presence of such content for being a complaint about that content--they're not always (though I will criticize about what I perceive as gratuitous). Beyond my service, there are other services whose sole focus is providing this type of information. Neither my service nor the other services, however, are universal. The MPAA's rating system is; movie theaters always display a film's rating with the title on their marquee or sign, on the posters, and/or at the box office. All movie ads and previews, unless far in advance of a film's release, also show the film's rating.

The MPAA rating system isn't perfect, but as long as movies show material that some parents regard as unsuitable for their children, the rating system is an excellent means to acknowledge these parents' concerns and while preserving artistic freedom.

For more information about the history of the MPAA rating system, visit the MPAA's website:
http://www.mpaa.org
Jack Valenti's article on the rating system can be found at:
http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.htm [This link is not working as of August 2009.]

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/_MPAA.htm
Added to blog site: 8/5/09