The Podium - Are Movie Ratings Meaningless?
Friday, June 25, 2010 at 4:15AM The Podium
The Podium is an internet symposium where we give one person the stage to voice an opinion of their's on cinema. Do you agree? Disagree? Comments that agree must include a hearty "HARRUMPH!", and you can show your disagreement with a "RABBLERABBLE COUGH".
So I've noticed a disturbing trend developing lately in the way we market and distribute movies.
The ratings we use on films are becoming meaningless.
Why is this bad? Well, the movie industry depends on having an in house regulatory board that can rate and review the films the movie industry produces. This board, the MPAA, serves a vital purpose in warning a potential audience member as to whether a film includes elements that might offend that audience member, or if a film is not appropriate for a younger audience member. This board is a necessary buffer between those who produce content and our government, who would otherwise just ban or censor “offensive” media. As with movies, the video game industry and music industry have all had struggles with elected officials, and in each case, the preferred outcome has been self-regulation.
There are general guidelines for film ratings, but the MPAA largely operates as a black box system. Films go in, come out with a rating, and if you’re VERY lucky you might get some comments as to why your film was rated the way it was. As the film business has gotten more sophisticated this has led to a general blurring of the ratings the MPAA issues. Films like The 'Dark Knight', 'Angels & Demons', and 'Live Free or Die Hard' are truthfully only PG-13 on paper. The fact that no one in those films says “fuck” and there’s no gratuitous sex or copious blood gushing does little to assuage the extensive scenes of violence, terrorism, emotional duress, physical torture, and instances of people being burned alive. These films are rated R in spirit, but by playing fast and loose with rules on paper, they’ve managed to come in as PG-13.
Even kids movies aren’t safe. Anyone who has read the books would gladly acknowledge that the Harry Potter stories are meant to grow with their audience, yet the most recent movie, while featuring scenes of demonic possession, mortality, and underwater zombie ghouls, maintains the same rating as the very first film. The book recognizes the growth of its characters, but the studio didn’t want to discourage any children (or parents) from seeing the film. I mean Harry Potter is for kids right? The cynic in me almost wonders if films that are supposed to be popular and generate a lot of income sometimes get an easier review from the MPAA…
For too long the MPAA has demonized the NC-17. It’s not really a rating. It’s a threat. “Don’t push the boundaries of decency too far, or we’ll make your film un-marketable”. With general fear regarding the future monetization of film, the R rating is starting to become something of threat as well. The money is in the film the whole family can see together. I feel this has lead to some very poor decisions regarding which films we market to a wide age range, and which films really should’ve been reserved for adults. In a time of record profits and attendance, even an R can shake the confidence of a studio trying to market a film to an appropriate audience.
I’m no prude. I believe that for an art form to survive it needs to grow, to evolve, break rules, and push boundaries. I think it’s time for Hollywood to legitimize the NC-17. Think what our horror, action, and thrillers could be like if NC-17 were legit and not just a threat. It would allow artists that truly want to push buttons a little extra elbow room to do so. Studios need to stop watering R films down into PG-13s. R films make A LOT of money around the world. Embrace them. Lastly, if we’re going to continue to make a distinction between PG and PG-13, then we REALLY need to make that distinction clearer.
Either we regulate from within, or we get censored from the outside…
Reader Comments (3)
I agree dude. The thing that bugs me most is the PG-13 rating, cause we know that 10-year-olds are going to see those movies. And for christ sakes, The Dark Knight was incredibly disturbing to me, and I'm 31. hearty HARRUMPH!
So true. At least sometimes you can impose a "no children under 17" ban on rated R films (not that it's always enforced), but you know there's NO way a theater would ever keep kids out of a PG13...
A big Harrumph! I was totally stunned to find out that the Dark Knight was PG-13. The joker killed a guy by shoving his head onto a PENCIL. How is that not an 'R'. But - Show some nudity and it's an instant 'R'.
Parents can't trust those ratings at all.
HARRUMPH (again!)