|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The five ratings
If a film has not been submitted for a rating, the label NR (Not Rated) is often used; however, NR is not an official MPAA classification. Films that have not yet received MPAA classification, but are expected to, are often advertised with the notice "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" or "Rating Pending." HistoryOriginsThe MPAA film rating system was instituted on November 1, 1968, as a response to complaints about the presence of sexual content, graphic violence, and profanity in American film following the MPAA revisions to the Production Code of America in 1966. Although the revisions allowed a designation of "SMA - Suggested for Mature Audiences", along with the Code seal, this warning was hardly very descriptive and its enforcement was far from standardized. (Please see Green Sheet for information about a related precursor to the ratings system.) The United States came rather late to motion picture rating, as many other countries had been using rating systems for decades. The erosion of the film production code had several effects: while it allowed for certain kinds of artistic movies like Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) to be filmed, it also sparked a rise in low budget exploitation films that became more and more explicit in their sexual and violent content.
Original ratingsThe original movie ratings (in use 1968–1970) consisted of:
Originally, the rating system was to have three classification levels ending with Restricted (similar to the rating system used in most Canadian Provinces at the time) however, pressure from theatre owners influenced the MPAA to create a film rating (X) exclusively for adults to protect theatre owners from complaints and legal procedures. Initially, the X rating wasn't trademarked: under the plan, anyone not submitting his or her film for rating could self-apply the X (or any other symbol or description, except one trademarked by the rating program). The M rating is replacedMany parents were confused as to whether M-rated films contained more mature content than those rated R. This was especially because during the pre-rating years of 1965 to 1968, an earlier form of crude classification allowed more graphic content to be included so long as the film's advertising bore the notation "Suggested for Mature Audiences" (often abbreviated as "SMA"). Some parents even mistakenly thought that an R rating was less serious than a M rating. This confusion led to its replacement in 1970 by the designation GP, for General Patronage:
The G in GP was meant to designate that the film had no age restrictions on audience admissions (as in the G rating, "All Ages Admitted"), while the P was to inform audiences that although no ages would be restricted, the discretion of parents was suggested. (The auditory similarity between G and GP soon caused this designation to be further revised into the PG rating, an acronym of Parental Guidance.) Age problems with the R and X ratingsAt the same time (1970) the ages on the R and X ratings were increased from 16 to 17 (where the R rating has remained ever since), although the age on the X rating would still vary in certain jurisdictions until it was officially changed to an NC-17. Some newspaper advertisements clearly show that ages on advertising even for R- and X-rated films would occasionally be altered to read 18 instead of 17. Other local boards involved in the early negotiations of the rating system even wished to classify the age as high as 21. The GP rating is replacedBy 1972, a number of problems with the GP rating emerged. First, the rating now sounded too permissive, and was not indicative of the film's actual content. During 1971 the MPAA experimented with designating some GP films with a special warning label. The exact wording would vary, but a typical label would read "Contains material not generally suitable for pre-teenagers" and thus was an early form of the PG-13 rating. Since this added message was referred to with an asterisk next to the GP symbol, this short-lived rating can be called GP*. However, the percentage of GP* films quickly grew to outnumber GP films with no special advisory, and early in 1972, as part of an overall standardization of the rating symbols as used in promotional material, both GP and GP* were redesignated with the new PG rating that would be used throughout most of the 1970s.
Today the rating reads:
By this time, the familiar standardized boxes with boldfaced text, the MPAA logo, and the explanatory message underneath were in common use. From the adoption of the system through the mid-1970s, it was common for mainstream films with slight adult content such as Airport, Planet of the Apes, The Green Berets, The Odd Couple, Tora! Tora! Tora! and 2001: A Space Odyssey to be released with G ratings, but by 1978 (with increasing use of the phrase "children" rather than "pre-teenagers" on the PG rating), the G rating had become increasingly associated with films intended specifically for children, while the PG rating became increasingly acceptable for designating "family" films. Most of the G-rated films from the early years of the rating system contain content equivalent to that of more strongly rated (PG and PG-13) films of later years. There have been some rating choices which, in retrospect, can be considered odd, though it must be remembered that the rating system standards were considerably different at the time. Violence, mild suggestive content, male nudity and mild profanity were more acceptable in lower rating categories while sexuality and female nudity were not. A rating also depended on the opinion of the indiviual commitee members at the time. For example, the 1967 G-rated film The Battle of Britain had mild British profanity as well as several fairly graphic scenes of both RAF and Luftwaffe aircrew being killed. True Grit also received the G rating after the film was edited however, it still contained some harsh language and western violence. Another example is Larry Cohen's cult horror film It's Alive (about a mutant killer infant) which was originally released in 1974 and re-released in 1977. It was rated PG despite being fairly bloody for its time. Its two sequels (It Lives Again, 1978; and It's Alive III: Island of the Alive, direct-to-video, 1987) both received R ratings. All three Alive films were banned in Finland under that country's rating system. Also, the film The Thomas Crown Affair received an R rating despite the violence being no more graphic than the average James Bond film at the time. It is believed that the only reason the film received this rating and not PG was due to some sexual tension during a chess game. A rather unusual wording of the PG rating accompanied the TV commercials for Jaws in 1975. The phrase May Be Too Intense For Younger Children was part of the rating. By the late 1970s, the PG ratings on some films were reworded, with the word pre-teenagers being increasingly substituted with the word children. An analysis of the proportion of films rated G and PG at this time (corresponding with a stricter shift in the rating standards) shows that fewer G ratings were issued while more family films were rated as PG with the less restrictive sounding "children" label. No clear system of applying either label was known to be a part of MPAA policy during the late 1970s, but by the early 1980s, the phrase "pre-teenagers" became little used, and in 1984 (see below) the PG-13 rating was established and effectively restored the clear distinction (see GP and GP* above) between films with lighter and heavier content levels. The end of the 1970s also saw, with the release of Star Trek: The Motion Picture in December 1979, what was probably the end of mainstream (heavily marketed, non-animated) big studio films with a G rating (although the director's cut got a PG for sci-fi action and mild language). Ever since, such productions would be released with at least a PG rating (and even Star Trek: The Motion Picture itself was subsequently re-rated PG for its DVD release). This period of transition was also the time when live action Disney productions, such as The Black Hole, The Watcher in the Woods, and The Devil and Max Devlin, began to routinely receive PG ratings. The addition of the PG-13 ratingPrior to 1984, when two films associated with Steven Spielberg (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins) triggered widespread calls for a revision to the ratings system, there was a minor trend of films straddling the PG and R ratings (as shown by the MPAA records of appeals board decisions of the early 1980s). This suggested that there needed to be a middle ground between PG and R. The summer of 1982 featured Poltergeist, which was originally rated R (for intensity and a scene of drug use) but then re-rated PG on appeal. Disney's Dragonslayer (although PG without appeal, and a co-production with Paramount Pictures) alarmed many parents with scenes of explicit violence and gore. A larger percentage of films were allowed a PG rating despite limited use of strong language (Tootsie, Terms of Endearment, Sixteen Candles, Footloose) that initially had warranted an R rating until the appeals board changed their ratings to PG (thanks in large measure to precedents set in the 1970s, with All the President's Men at their forefront) [1] Violent scenes in the 1984 PG-rated films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which Spielberg directed and Gremlins, which he produced, were the final straws. Public outcry about the violence led Spielberg to suggest a new PG-13 rating to MPAA president Jack Valenti, who conferred with theater owners and then introduced the new rating on July 1. The rating still allowed children under 13 to be admitted without a parent or guardian, but it cautions parents about potentially shocking violence or other offensive content, although not as offensive as an R rating. It is the highest unrestricted rating. The first movie to gain widespread theatrical release with a PG-13 rating was 1984's Red Dawn (although the first to receive the classification was The Flamingo Kid). It took a year for the PG-13 logo to shift into its current form. The initial rating, instead of using a line of boldface text followed by explanatory description below, bore the wording from 1984 to 1986:
Today the rating reads:
With the PG rating still being used without a change, it was unclear to some parents at first whether PG or PG-13 films were intended for older viewers. Until 1990, some of the same content that prompted the creation of the PG-13 rating was still being observed in some PG films. For example Big, Beetlejuice, Spaceballs, Spies Like Us, and Nothing in Common were five late 1980s widespread PG releases that contained more PG-13 rated innuendos (Four of which contained the word "fuck" in their dialogue.) The ratings board reacted quickly to parental protests, and over the next couple of years, the number of PG-13 films finally outnumbered the number of PG releases, as standards were tightened for PG classification. Around the turn of that decade, standards were also tightened for PG-13 films, at least for violence, as the ratings board became more likely to issue an R rating for violence that involved bloodshed and/or the slaying of policemen. Except for a brief reversal in 1994, the number of PG-13 films has outnumbered the number of PG films ever since, and the proportion of R-rated films (starting with the boom of home video product in the late 80s) has generally increased at the expense of unrestricted films. Only within the last two years has there been an indication that the proportion of restricted films has started to decrease slightly as a trend. Since these proportions tend to reflect the strictness of ratings criteria, this arguably refutes that so-called "ratings creep" (see below) occurred during the 1990s. The derivative PC-13 (Profound Carnage) rating was created by id Software in 1992 and used for several games, including the Wolfenstein 3-D and Blake Stone series. It was replaced in use by the RSAC rating system. X is replaced by NC-17In the early years of the ratings system, X-rated movies such as Midnight Cowboy (Winner, Best Picture, 1969), A Clockwork Orange (1971), and Last Tango in Paris (1973), could win Oscar nominations and awards. But the rating, which was not trademarked by the MPAA (as were its other ratings), was self applied by the "adult entertainment" segment of the industry to the point where an X rating could be included in advertising gimmicks and came to be equated strictly with film pornography, which was never the intent behind the original rating. This concern led to a large number of newspapers and TV stations refusing to accept ads for X-rated movies, and some theaters' landlords forbade exhibition of X-rated movies. Such policies led to a compromise with the distributors of George Romero's 1978 horror film Dawn of the Dead: the audience restriction would be enforced by participating NATO theaters, but the letter "X" itself would not appear in the film's advertisements or displays, a message instead being substituted: "There is no explicit sex in this picture; however, there are scenes of violence, which may be considered shocking. No one 17 and under will be admitted." After all, the MPAA stresses the voluntary nature of the system and denies that the rating system should cause a film not to receive widespread release. Various horror films, such as the sequel Day of the Dead and Re-Animator were marketed in this fashion. Some, like the horror parody Evil Dead 2 had actually earned an adult rating at some point, while others like Guardian of Hell or Zombie may have used such messages in addition to their R ratings (that were sometimes surrendered specifically) for marketing purposes. In 1989 two highly acclaimed films, The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover and Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer were released featuring very strong sexual and violent content. Neither one was able to get approved for an R rating so they were left as unrated with limited release. It was around this time that the MPAA decided to re-think the current rating system. It was earlier suggested by director David Lynch (who wrote and directed the controversial and explicit film Blue Velvet) to establish a double RR rating for more explicit films. The MPAA introduced the NC-17 (No Children Under 17 Admitted) rating on September 27, 1990, to finally make an official and standardized classification that could allow these films to be distributed with the MPAA seal. Part of this calculation was that the adult XXX (this rating is used in Romania to ban movies there) markets tended to have no reason to pay the fee to submit their product by that point (since the films were distributed either through independent theaters or simply direct to video), and a differentiation could therefore be inferred by viewers that MPAA rated NC-17 films were legitimate motion pictures with actual stories and developed characters, as with the first such film, Universal Pictures' Henry & June (1990), rather than merely prurient/pornographic fare. Some media outlets that refused ads for X-rated titles viewed ads for NC-17 rated films as equally unsuitable, despite studio claims, and thus simply transferred that policy to NC-17 titles, as did many theater landlords. A number of social conservative groups placed pressure on large video chains including Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video, as a result of which these chains do not stock NC-17 titles. However, similar and even more controversial sexual and violent product is often carried by these chains so long as no such rating was officially connected with its packaging. Later, in 1996, the age for the NC-17 category was subtly increased by one year by changing the wording from "No Children Under 17 Admitted" to "No One 17 And Under Admitted." The label NC-17 stayed even though the letters no longer stand for anything, as the word "children" was replaced by "one". While a number of movies have been released with the NC-17 rating, none of them has been a major box office hit. In a bold attempt to broaden the acceptance of NC-17 rated films towards the moviegoing public, United Artists marketed its big budget Showgirls heavily, with splashy TV and print ads. The film became the first (and, to date, only) NC-17 rated film to open in wide release, on 1,388 screens. But the critically savaged film's poor box office performance created only a larger stigma towards the rating, deeming any film rated NC-17 as being "box office poison." An acclaimed film, Requiem for a Dream in which the lead actress, Ellen Burstyn, was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress in the 2000 Academy Awards, was released unrated rather than go out with the stigma of an NC-17 rating. The MPAA threatened to give the film the NC-17 rating due to a montage at the climax of the film involving a graphic orgy/party scene. Although the scene is quite explicit even by today's standards, many protested it was very necessary to the entire message of the movie, which should be seen by teenagers under the 17 age limit to give them "an educational wake-up call" on the negative effects of drugs. Even though the purpose of the film was to show the realities of drug addiction, the MPAA stood by their decision by refusing to give the film an R rating on appeal. The NC-17 rating has more recently been limited to films considered to appeal to a limited "art house" audience, where the limited distribution and advertising of such films is not considered a major obstacle. The majority of NC-17 fare is still released theatrically either in an edited R-rated version, or with its rating surrendered. Periodically a mainstream NC-17 release, such as The Dreamers, will be attempted by a large studio. However, more commonly when the original cut of a movie is labeled NC-17, the studio will release a sanitized R version for theaters. Later, both the R rated theatre version and the original Director's Cut will be released to the home theatre and rental markets. The Director's Cut will often be labeled as such, and marked either NC-17 or left unrated. The rating processAlthough the MPAA does not publish an official list of all the exact words, actions, and exposed body parts used to determine a movie's rating as this would be considered tantamount to self-censorship[citation needed], some guidelines can be derived based on the MPAA's actual rating decisions:
Ratings criteria are intended to reflect changing norms and compromises between the diverse needs and rights of various interests in a large and complex modern society. Therefore, an evaluation of ratings criteria must specify what year or approximate period of time is being referred to, when modeling the standards relevant to each film classification. Homosexuality as an example (According to This Film Is Not Yet Rated) has supposedly been treated much harsher than hetrosexualism, in the 70's through the late 80's. Members of the MPAA's Classification and Rating Administration, which the MPAA claims consists of a demographically balanced panel of parents, view the movie, discuss it, and vote on the film's rating. In fact, many of the "children" of the "parent" members are adults. Further information about members is difficult to obtain, as they operate in secret. The only publicly member is chair Joan Graves. If the movie's producer is unhappy with this rating, he/she can re-edit the film and resubmit it, or can appeal to an Appeals Board. Appeals generally involve a film which was rated R for which the producer is seeking to have the rating changed to PG-13, or a film rated NC-17 for which the producer is seeking to have the rating changed to R. As of December 2005, the MPAA Appeals Board members are:
Effects of ratingsLegally, the rating system is entirely voluntary. However, signatory members of the MPAA (major studios) have agreed to submit all of their theatrical releases for rating, and few mainstream producers (outside the pornography niche) are willing to bypass the rating system due to potential effects on revenues. Therefore, it can be argued that the system has a de facto compulsory status in the industry. Most films released unrated nowadays are either relatively obscure independent films, foreign films, direct-to-video films, made-for-TV films or documentaries not expected to play outside the arthouse market, or large format (IMAX) films, which typically contain minimal offensive content and generally receive a G or PG rating when they are submitted for a rating. PG ratings have been associated with children's films, and are widely considered to be commercially bad for films targeted at teenagers and adults. For example, the 2004 action/adventure film Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, which was not targeted at children, received a PG rating, which some believe caused it to underperform at the box office as preteens and teenagers—both huge movie-going demographics—may have brushed it off as a kiddie flick.[3] On the other hand, according to Michael Medved's logic, the R rating also hurts box office performance, due to common social and cultural controversies. In 2001, in response to the Medved's logic, the film industry began to shift focus toward PG-13 rated films.[4] In fact, most R rated films released in the 1990s generated a box office revenue of less than $100 million.[5] While some may debate the degree to which any such things are truly unintended, since the ratings now have a clearly established use as part of the marketing strategy for a film, the whole question of children tending to scorn "unchallenging" G or PG fare in favor of whatever they can get away with seeing is a legitimate criticism of an age based rating system. Some R fare is not aimed at older adults, but at a high school and college age market eager to engage in what they perceive as mature activities. Thus, the pretense that offensive content can be considered "adult" serves as a misleading marketing strategy to attract a youthful audience, often for purely sensational and provocative content for its own sake. The minimum age for unaccompanied patrons at R films, and all patrons at X films, was originally set at 16. By 1970 it was raised to 17 (in some areas the age may be higher still—often 18—and in rare cases as high as 21). Theater owners could still allow children between 13 and 16 years of age into R-rated films without being accompanied by an adult since the rating system is technically voluntary and does not have the force of law behind it. Attendance at films with strong enough content to merit an NC-17 rating could be restricted by law due to the possibility of being considered indecent. In the 1970s the East Coast based Century theater chain used its own rating system, with only three categories instead of four: For All Ages, For Mature Audiences, and No One Under 17 Admitted, with most, but not all, R-rated films receiving the middle designation, under which no age limits were enforced. In 2000, due to issues raised by Senator Joseph Lieberman, the National Association of Theater Owners, the major trade association in the U.S., announced it would start strict enforcement of ID checks for R and NC-17 rated movies; however, only a small percentage of cinemas (as of 2005) are doing so.[citation needed] Many retailers of videos, especially Wal-Mart, tend to restrict the sale of R rated movies to minors. POS systems are set up to prevent a transaction without a sales associate checking an ID. The 2001 independent film L.I.E. challenged its NC-17 rating and waged a publicity campaign against the arbitrary nature of the ratings system. Lot 47, the film's distributor, lost its appeal, and released the film unrated. With the recent success of another NC-17 film, The Dreamers, some film producers and directors hope that the rating may begin to lose some of its stigma and more movie theaters will consider playing such films. Earlier, the NC-17 rated Kids waged a similar campaign, part of which included exhibiting the film to persons under 18 and publishing their (generally favorable) reactions to it. Another film to successfully challenge its NC-17 rating was the cult classic 1994 comedy Clerks., which eventually garnered an R rating. Director Kevin Smith announced he was prepared to release the sequel, Clerks 2, without a rating, but was surprised and relieved when the MPAA passed it uncut with an R-rating.Gunner Palace appealed to the MPAA and overthrew its R-rating in favour of a PG-13 rating. Earlier in the rating system, African-Americans complained that rating criteria was too heavily biased against inner city conditions and dialects. For his 1971 film Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, director Melvin Van Peebles came up with a winning ad slogan ("Rated X by an All-White Jury") that proved successful with the urban market. The revision of the ages upward corresponded with a slackening of standards that generally allowed most such product to receive an R rating thereafter. Since the rapid expansion of the home video market in the late 1990s, studios have been known to skirt the rating system and release unrated versions of films on videocassette and DVD. Sometimes these versions would have earned an NC-17 if submitted for rating, but often their unrated status is merely for marketing purposes. Films that have been rated PG-13 in their theatrical run are sometimes extended with footage equivalent to an R (but not NC-17) rating and marketed as "unrated" with the implication that the added unrated material is racier than an R rating would permit. For example, one DVD release of American Pie, rated R in its theatrical release, exclaims on the box, "UNRATED! The Version You Couldn't See In Theaters". Sometimes the difference between an R-rated feature and its unrated home video counterpart is as little as a few seconds, while other unrated video editions add scenes that have no sexual or violent content whatsoever, making them "unrated" in the technical sense even though they don't contain more provocative material than the theatrical version (one example of this would be Unleashed). A number of filmmakers have also taken to filming additional footage specifically for video or DVD release, with no intention of submitting this material to the MPAA. Some foreign and independent films do not bother to submit to the rating system, reasoning that they will not be distributed widely beyond their arthouse audience, so the expense is unnecessary. Critics of the systemThe movie rating system has had a number of high profile critics. Film critic Roger Ebert argues that the system places too much emphasis on not showing sex while allowing the portrayal of massive amounts of gruesome violence. The uneven emphasis on sex versus violence is echoed by other critics, including David Ansen, as well as many filmmakers. Moreover, he argues that the rating system is geared toward looking at trivial aspects of the movie (such as the number of times a profane word is used) rather than at the general theme of the movie (for example, if the movie realistically depicts the consequences of sex and violence). He has called for an A (adults only) rating, to indicate films high in violence or mature content that should not be marketed to teenagers, but do not have NC-17 levels of sex. Perhaps with these objections in mind, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting (a descendant of the formerly influential National Legion of Decency) maintains its own film classification system, which takes the overall "moral tone" of a film into account, rather than focusing on content alone. Many critics of the MPAA system, especially independent distributors, have charged that major studios' releases often receive more lenient treatment than independent films. It is widely assumed that Saving Private Ryan, with its intense depiction of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, would have earned an NC-17 if it were not a Steven Spielberg film. The comedy Scary Movie, released by a division of The Walt Disney Company's Miramax Films, contained "strong crude sexual humor, language, drug use and violence" but was rated R, to the surprise of many reviewers and audiences; by comparison, the comparatively tame porn spoof Orgazmo, an independent release, contained "explicit sexual content and dialogue" and received an NC-17. On the other hand, the studio distributed film The Passion of the Christ received an R rating despite graphic depictions of violence. Before its purchase by Disney, Miramax heads Bob and Harvey Weinstein often clashed with the MPAA, proclaimed the rating system unfair to independents, and released some films unrated to avoid an X or NC-17. Orgazmo director Trey Parker's ratings battles later inspired the (R-rated) film South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, which directly criticized the MPAA and holds the Guinness world record for most profanity and violence in an animated feature (399 profane words, 128 offensive gestures and 221 acts of violence). Another criticism of the ratings system is the apparent arbitrariness in designating PG-13 and R rated content. Many critics (professional, the general public and religious and moral groups) believe that the content of recent PG-13 films equals that of R-rated films from the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. For example, depictions of sexual content, violence, profanity and other objectionable content in a PG-13 film from the late 1990s on may have been considered "R level" in the 1970s and 1980s. Critics of film content seem to want that standard to continue despite shifting cultural norms about what is socially acceptable. These critics make the case that instead of the film industry simply reflecting societal values, the movie industry is in fact instrumental in desensitizing society to previously offensive content. Some other problems include odd ratings for movies. For example, most horror films that do not contain extreme graphic violence can get a PG-13 rating, whereas Kung Fu Hustle, an action-comedy movie with unrealistic, "animated" violence and minimal coarse language in the Cantonese version with English subtitles, gained an R rating, although the PG-13 rated movies are generally more realistically graphic. Other critics have argued that the sexual (and to a lesser extent, drug and profanity) standards for movie ratings are ideologically biased in favor of socially conservative values. They generally advocate allowing more slack in such categories as nudity and four-letter words, while maintaining the current rules for violence ratings. It has also been pointed out that allowing violence in PG-13 movies as long as there is no blood is a form of conditioning children to accept violence as consquence-free. Many filmmakers have called this obscene and said that, if anything, children should be allowed to see violence only if the consequences are shown as well, to distinguish between violence inflicted on a person and violence inflicted in a cartoon. Many critics of the system, both conservative and liberal, would like to see the MPAA ratings unveiled and the standards made public. The MPAA has consistently cited Nationwide scientific polls, (conducted each year by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey) which demonstrate that parents find the ratings useful. Nevertheless, critics respond that this is the only source of information available. Stephen Farber's internal critiqueOne internal critic of the early workings of the system was film critic and author Stephen Farber, who interned with the CARA for six months in its early years (1969–1970). His experiences with the board prompted him to write a book, The Movie Ratings Game (Public Affairs Press), which documented how, even in its earliest days, the board used many of the same tactics that persist to this day: the wielding of the X rating as a way to remove material from films that board members took personal affront to, the lopsided way sexual material was handled relative to violence, and later on the use of psychological jargon to justify placing certain films, even unexplicit ones, in restricted categories on the basis of theme alone. For example, an anti-war themed movie such as The Revolutionary were given a PG rating by the board, but later board members wanted an R simply because it was anti-war. Farber contended that the ratings board used its power to "punish" the most challenging, creative, and interesting movies being made—A Clockwork Orange, Midnight Cowboy—while "rewarding" more conservative, uncontroversial films with more open ended ratings. Farber also contended that the ratings board's stance about the ratings being used as guidelines to protect children was hypocritical in light of the fact that most of the severities imposed on certain films seemed less borne of their potential impact on children than on reactions to them by parents. He registered great annoyance with the board when they rated the film Woodstock R, pointing out that the original festival had no age restrictions and that it seemed hypocritical to age-restrict the film, which was arguably a far less traumatic experience than the festival itself. Another still-current problem Farber cited was how the threat of a restrictive rating was wielded freely by the board as a way to force studios to tone down submitted films; he cited a number of movies that were re-cut to not only be removed from the X category (sometimes going as far as two rating brackets to PG) but also be moved from R to PG, or even PG to G. This extended to screenplays submitted to the board as well, which were analyzed and given a projected rating; he used as an example the film The Panic in Needle Park, the script for which was given an X based on its vulgar dialogue and many references to shooting heroin. (The released film was rated R.) Farber recommended that the X rating either be abolished or relabeled to "A" or "AO", but leaned towards abolition on the grounds that the R rating really ought to be the most restrictive rating for a film in an enlightened society. He concluded by endorsing public pressure and activism as being the best way to proceed: "The rating system is certainly not going to be reformed from within." Defending the MPAASome people state that, contrary to popular belief, the MPAA is just as strong on violence as it is on sex, with many times horror films needing to lessen their amount of gore. Two examples are the films Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead, which are both unrated in order to avoid the NC-17 rating (or X-rating, seeing as they were released beforehand). Defenders argue that while not perfect, it is adequate in telling people the nature of a film, and it serves its purposes on reflecting the way a film would be viewed by the mainstream of American societal values. Scientific polls conducted annually have founded that 76% of parents with children under 13 found the ratings to be "very useful" to "fairly useful" in helping them make decisions for the moviegoing of their children. [2] See also
References
|
Sites |
Searched sites for "Motion Picture Association of America film rating system" |
|
No sites found. |
Sorry, no matching site records were found. |
Want your site listed here?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
