Looking the Wrong Direction

The movie industry gets a lot of heat from a lot of people about the content they produce. This has been true since the very beginning, and from these concerns, we have grown from the restrictions from 1933 to 1968 to the ratings system we have now that continues to evolve. A lot of people don't know how exactly the ratings work, where they come from, who determines then, or what they're even for.

In 1968, following filmmakers getting around the studio rules and the federal government threatening to step in and control the creative products that the studios output, they devised a rating system comprised of 4 ratings: G, M, R, and X. G hasn't changed since it came out; M meant Mature was perceived as stronger than R, so they changed it to GP and then PG; R is the same as it is now; and X was for films that were either stronger than R or for films that didn't want to be rated. Since then, we've also gotten PG-13 for those in-between PG and R movies, and X was replaced by NC-17, but there intent hasn't changed.

The purpose behind the ratings was to give parents a basic idea of whether or not they should take their children to see a particular film. That's it. Who determines the rating of a film? Parents do. The ratings board consists of people who have children and they vote on the rating of a particular film after they screen it. Sometimes, studios are shooting for a particular audience, and will make cuts to the film based on the initial rating to try and get a lower one so they can market their movie to their intended audience.

So you can see this isn't rocket science; it's an opinion. An opinion of a group of parents employed by the MPAA as to which age group and above should be allowed to view the film based on the content along with a handful of criteria that no one is made aware of. They just figure it out over time. As a general rule, studios comply with the ratings system and submit their films to the MPAA to go through the screening process to be rated before they're released. This means that parents are given a simple system by the movie industry to decide whether or not they should let their kids watch the movie in question.

So why, oh why, do parents complain about the films that Hollywood produces? They complain about everything. The main complaint is that they're too violent, although those that are violent have a high rating, which makes me wonder why their kids are watching them to begin with. Don't parents have control over their own children?

Then there's the marketing complaint, which has some measure of validity, but it also shows how easily parents fold to their desires of their youngsters. McDonald's, to cite the example I've read most recently, marketed toys for the latest Pirates of the Caribbean film, which is rated PG-13. Parents complained that the studios were marketing a PG-13 film to children. They also complain that there are lines of toys for PG-13 movies that are played with by children and will entice the kids to want to see the movie.

As true as this is, it should also cause the parents to want to watch it first based on the rating it was given. From that rating, it is up to them to decide whether their children could handle the film and its content. The PG-13 rating, in my opinion, for Pirates and Spiderman and Transformers (these were the three prominent examples given for the toy lines) is based largely on the battle violence in the films, but it's also very comic bookish in that while it is intense, you also rarely see any blood. It's all hits, but very little damage, much like the cartoons from the 80's (remember GI Joe running through a field of lasers and not a one is hit?).

So while we can completely acknowledge that the marketing is a bit misguided, it remains the parents' responsibility to screen the movie before just blindly giving in to the little one. Sure, they put out the toys, but right there on the poster is a big PG-13. I can't see that the studios are trying to blind side us there.

Another rather interesting thing I learned of yesterday was a class about working against showing people smoking in films targeted to children. Newflash for those in charge of this program: the MPAA now rates any film with smoking with an R. This means no one under 17 without a parent or guardian. Makes me want to ask the person in charge of the class why they're allowing their children to watch R rated films.

So the studio has already handled the smoking issue the only way they can, and yet, there is a group of people out there that feel the need to beat the issue into the ground. They deal with the violence and sex issues through their ratings, and yet people want to attack that as well.

The reason the ratings were institutated to begin with is because filmmakers wanted to make the films they wanted to make. They wanted no restrictions from the studio system, and so they can now feel free to make any story at all. But guess what... They have issues agains tthe system as well. Why? Because certain store chains won't carry ratings over R, so if they happen to make a film that is rated an NC-17, it won't sell. And R rated movies cannot be advertised on network TV, so some studios won't deal with an R rating if they're looking for the advertising.

Because of this, the filmmakers feel all of a sudden restricted again because when they get their R rating, the studio wants a PG-13 so they can advertise on network TV. And if they get an NC-17, they want it cut to an R, so they can sell it in Wal-Mart. Of course, the irony there is that Wal-Mart will carry the "unrated" versions of the movies containing material "too hot for theatres." Um, that would be NC-17 without the rating. I think that's fairly close to the spelling of hypocritical.

This means that filmmakers can make the films they want to make, deliver the cut down PG-13 or R version, and then when the DVD comes out, put in all the stuff they cut and deliver the "unrated" version to the stores. But wait, if they got an NC-17, wouldn't they have to put that on the case?

Nope. You see, the MPAA ratings system is voluntary. So if they don't like the rating, they can strip it and call it unrated. Nothing requires them to post the rating, but it won't sell unless they do (except in the case of those fabulous "unrated" DVDs). Of course, the studios can submit their extended versions to the MPAA for a rating. The extended editions of Lord of the Rings, for instance, are still rated PG-13. They can't display that unless that version of the movie was submitted.

So the ratings system was created for a simple reason: to inform parents about whether they can take their kids or not to a movie without pre-screening it while allowing the filmmakers to make the movie they want to make. It has turned into something that a lot of parents clearly ignore, and filmmakers get restricted by. How ironic.