Yammering about Ratings

[gnomi]

So, please tell me: Why is it that the MPAA has no problem giving PG and PG-13 ratings to movies with huge amounts of violence, but show a naked butt and you get at minimum a PG-13 and more likely an R? Add in the spectre of homosexual overtones, and you're going to get a special warning on your TV episode. Feh.

I'm told - and from what I've seen via BBC TV, I'd buy it - that in the UK it's the opposite. Sexual situations are much less "taboo" than violence and they are much more likely to allow sexual situations (and what are considered "taboo" words) on the airwaves than scenes of explicit violence.

So what is the message we're trying to give here? Tommy is welcome to hit Bobby and blow up his house using a shoulder-mounted missile launcher, but heaven forfend he consider hugging Bobby instead and it becomes a Very Special Episode.

I just don't get it.

(I've been pondering this for a while; rikibeth encouraged me to write something up about it)

Comments

[arib.livejournal.com]

In the last presidential election the Democratic candidate was concerned about the level of nudity and sexual situations on television. The Republican candidate was concerned with the high level of violence.

In short, Bush thought there was too much gore, Gore thought that there was too much bush....

[asciikitty.livejournal.com]

oh my...

[farwing.livejournal.com]

I'd much rather have it the UK way. Gha. The U.S. is really immature sometimes most of the time.

[asciikitty.livejournal.com]

i think that is EXACTLY the message that we're supposed to take away- sex is BAD, and violence is the way to get what you want. the children that absorb that message then get to grow up to be national leaders...

it's interesting- i find that i go out of my way to watch sexy movies (or whatever) than friends of mine who grew up with more of a sex taboo. i.. think about other things sometimes. as far as i'm concerned, making sex a HUGE taboo while making violence commonplace makes us obsessed with the one, and immune to the other. this can't be healthy.

~a

[cheshyre]

I have heard Roger Ebert ranting about inconsistency, uselessness, and just plain stupid decisions by the MPAA ratings board for some time now, in essays, his TV program and in reviews.

From his review of Mel Gibson's Passion:

I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.

In other reviews, he's started keeping an MPAA List of Shame for movies he considers suitable family films that were given PG-13 ratings (School of Rock, Whale Rider, and Bend it like Beckham).

I don't know how influential Roger Ebert is in the grand scheme of moviegoing public, but he's certainly been speaking out against them a lot. I can provide further quotes upon request if you're interested... Actually, one other, because this is a good one:

As an entry in the PG-13 category, it's not as appalling as "Coyote Ugly," which basically instructs young girls that there's money to be made in the bimbo business. But it illustrates the same point: The MPAA's rating system, having first denied American moviegoers any possibility of a workable adult category, is now busily corrupting the PG-13 rating. The principle seems to be: As long as we act sanctimonious by creating a climate in which legitimate adult films cannot be made, we can get away with maximizing the box office by opening up the PG-13. The MPAA in the summer of 2000 reveals itself as more willing to peddle smut to children than to allow adults to make their own choices.

[I like Roger Ebert; can you tell?]

[rikibeth.livejournal.com]

I had no trouble bringing my then-seven-year-old daughter to "Bend It Like Beckham." And she enjoyed it a lot.

I was more troubled about bringing her to TTT when it came out, because she had been frightened during FotR, and TTT was said to be scarier. She, however, REALLY wanted to see it. We checked with other parents and siblings of children her age, and got no reports of screaming nightmares, so off we went. Her capacity for distinguishing real from pretend had improved over the year between the movies, I guess, because while I agreed that it was scarier, she didn't have a repeat of her fear.

I still wouldn't bring her to gruesome realistic violence. But I let her watch classic cartoons when she was quite small, and she had never shown any tendency to imitate their violence, so when she was four and I was sick unto death of kiddie movies, I took her to "Shanghai Noon," figuring Jackie Chan comic violence was about on the same level as Bugs Bunny. If she'd been like a friend's child, who leapt off couches yelling "To infinity and beyond!" I wouldn't have done it.

She loved that too. Totally missed about half the plot, but the physical comedy was right up her alley. Still is.

It's not so much about ratings for me. It's about understanding the nature of the content, and understanding my own kid.

_Whale Rider_? Seriously?

[half-double.livejournal.com]

Whale Rider is PG-13? Good gods, why? Did the ratings board think that 'whale rider' was some kind of sexual euphemism?

_Whale Rider_. Seriously!

[cheshyre]

Officially, it's rated PG-13 "for brief language and a momentary drug reference."

Not only that, but "the MPAA prevented the distributors from using a quote from [Ebert's] review saying this was a film for the entire family, because a PG-13 rating, you see, means to the MPAA that it is not." (link)

South Park Quote:

[csbermack.livejournal.com]

SHEILA: Men, when you’re out there, in the battlefield, and you’re looking into the beady eyes of a Canadian as he charges you with his hockey stick (or whatever he has), and people are dying all around you, just remember what the MPAA says: "Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don’t say any naughty words." That is what this war is all about!

[vettecat.livejournal.com]

I've wondered about that too. This is wild speculation, but... could it be a function of most of the ratings-givers historically being male (I'm assuming here), so their masculinity is threatened by love scenes, but they feel empowered by violence?

[cheshyre]

Actually, I thought the MPAA ratings board was mostly women (and specifically parents)

[pressburger.livejournal.com]

Great. Now I'm apoplectic again.

Story time! (sorry it's so long)

[half-double.livejournal.com]

L.I.E. is one of the most compelling films I've ever seen. My girlfriend calls it 'gripping,' & that's not a word she throws around lightly. It's rated NC-17. Why? you might ask. The MPAA says 'Mild Violence, A Sexual Situation, Some Profanity, and Strong Adult Themes.' What 'strong adult themes' are those? you might ask. The main adult character is a pedophile. But he's also kind of a nice guy. There is no gay sex. There is no gay nudity. There isn't much gay anything. There's just this guy, who likes to 'go around blowing boys' (as the main character says), but who also has some real human depth. And the MPAA just didn't know what to do about that.

Here's the thing: having a movie rated is a totally voluntary act on the part of the filmmaker. Nowhere is it written that a film has to have that rating. Michael Cuesta, L.I.E.'s director/co-writer/co-producer, really, really didn't want his film put through that process, but he had to, because certain big theater chains, like UA, won't play unrated films in their theaters. Americans like things to be easy. Categorized. We don't know what to do with a movie that - gasp! - has no rating. But Cuesta knew.

What did he know? you might ask. He knew that, far from being a board of industry professionals or child development professionals or anything logical like that, the MPAA ratings board is, in fact, about a dozen parents in Orange County, CA. And we all know how fair & open-minded they are in Orange County. But I'm sure their guidelines are all very simple & straightforward & not in any way influenced by their personal opinions.

Sex is a sin. Gay sex is an abomination. Gay people are always thinking about sex, so anytime you have a gay person, & they're thinking, that's gay sex, so it's an abomination.

Violence is our God-given right as Americans. Charlton Heston says so.

And that's where movie ratings come from, kiddies!