Thursday, August 07, 2008
The Motion Picture Ratings System
In the movie Be Cool, John Travolta, in the role of movie producer/shylock Chili Palmer, is sitting and talking with Tommy Athens, as played by James Woods, and Chili is considering leaving the movie business. Chili is unhappy with some of the hoops the movie business forces him to jump through, one of which is the fact that if a movie wants to avoid the R rating, the word “f**k” can only be used once during the film, after which Chili says, “You know what I say? F**k that.” [2] The movie was rated PG-13 for “violence, sensuality, and language including sexual references”, as was the movie Live Free or Die Hard, which was the fourth installment of the Die Hard series. Live Free or Die Hard featured “intense sequences of violence and action, language and a brief sexual situation”, but like Be Cool, Live Free only featured one instance, though slightly obscured, ironically, by a gunshot in the background, of the word “f**k”, [4] which leads one to believe that Chili Palmer might actually have been right. Therefore, I will endeavor to uncover the truth regarding the Motion Picture Association of America movie ratings system and how things like profanity, violence and sexual content effect how movies are rated.
It is common knowledge to most what the various ratings used by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) stand for. A ‘G’ rating means that the movie is for General Audiences or is suitable for everyone no matter the age of the viewer. Specifically, the rating indicates that there will be no nudity, no sexual content, no drug use, minimal violence, and the language will go beyond “polite conversation”, and will feature “common, everyday expressions”. A ‘PG’ film might show a slight increase in violence, might display what is called “brief nudity”, and might also feature some profanity, but there will be no drug use in the film. ‘PG’ means that the parent or guardian of the child interested in viewing the film should be certain that the content of the film is suitable for the particular child to view. A ‘PG-13’ film is one in which the nudity will go “beyond brief” but will not be of a sexual nature.[10] This is the controversy that Roger Ebert raises in his review of the film Beowulf for the Chicago Sun Times.
In his review, Ebert questions how the film could receive the PG-13 rating when it appears that Angelina Jolie, who appears in the film as Grendel’s mother, is completely nude in a particular scene in the movie. The justification for the PG-13 rating, as Ebert writes, instead of the R rating that Ebert obviously feels in his review that the film deserves, is three-fold: 1) The film features no profanity, 2) The “crucial areas” of Jolie’s body are obscured by “shimmering gold plating”, and 3) It is not Jolie at all but instead a character that was computer-generated and made to resemble Jolie. [3] Based on these factors, and because the nudity is of a non-sexual nature, though I am sure that the 13-and-older male crowd viewing the film in IMAX 3-D would disagree, Beowulf would appear to rightfully deserve the PG-13 rating, but what of Live Free or Die Hard?
“A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context.”[9] This explanation is included in the MPAA’s description of what qualifies a movie for a rating of PG-13. In short, you could actually say “s**t” in excess of 20 times and frequently use the words d**k, d**khead, a**, and a**hole, which Live Free does, [4] and as long as these words are not used within the context of a sexually derived conversation, then the language of the film would not force the MPAA to give the film an R rating. Included with this is the fact that, as Chili Palmer points out, as long as the word “f**k” is only used once, [2] and to add the MPAA proviso, it is not used in a conversation about sex or in the description of a sexual act, the film will not be “punished” with an R rating. As for the violence, MPAA states that it cannot be “both realistic and extreme or persistent”, [10] but what does this mean? Does “both realistic and extreme” mean that if the violent act is something that could actually happen, then it is acceptable as long as it is not torturous in nature and if it is a truly vile act, it has to be something that could not actually happen? Is it not true that if the vile act could be conceived within the mind of a screenwriter that it could also be conceived within the mind of a homicidal maniac? My guess is that any conceivable violent act, based on the fact that it could have been or has been conceived, is realistic, whether it has happened in real life yet or not. Also, if any violent act could be conceived for a film, and that act is of an extreme nature, then that film would fail to meet the criteria for the PG-13 rating. I am sure that “realistic” refers to films of a medieval, mystic or paranormal nature, but this discussion is about a film in which a New York police officer shoots himself through the shoulder in order to kill the villain who us standing behind him. This act would seem to be realistic (depending on the caliber of the gun and the distance between the two persons), and the measure of what is “extreme” would be based on individual perception. The consensus was that this film, in the version that was released in theatres, fulfilled all of the requirements for receipt of the PG-13 rating, and the over $134 million that the movie grossed [1] proves that the directors and the MPAA had the right idea.
Peter Reiher, as associate professor at UCLA, has researched the movies ratings system, and is especially critical of the R rating, as he writes “In practice, the restriction simply means the child can't buy his own ticket. If he can find a cooperative adult, even a stranger, who will buy the ticket for him, in he goes. In theory, it's supposed to be the parent or someone else with a strong relationship to the child.” The MPAA’s description of the R rating makes two assertions that, according to Reiher, seem to be unenforceable in junction with the effort to sell tickets to movies. [5] The MPAA states that, in regards to an R rated movie, “Children under the age of 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian”, and “Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.” This seems to imply that the ratings board for the Motion Picture Association of America would rather that people under the age of 17 not view movies that have received an R rating, but, as Reiher claims, as long as the child does not buy the ticket him or herself, then once the ticket is bought, there are no other safeguards preventing the child from viewing the movie. [5]
“An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements”, [10] is what the MPAA says qualifies a movie for the R rating, but, as with many issues regarding the media, there is and will always be differences of opinion over where the “line” is regarding what is suitable for a child, even if that child is 17-years-old and what is not. Was it suitable for 17-year-old boys to see a totally nude Kristanna Loken emerge from her “shell”, walk completely nude across the street with her bare bottom showing and her long hair and some well placed objects hiding her other “crucial area” in the opening scene of Terminator 3? [7] I guess as long as Ms. Loken’s nudity was not used in a sexual nature then it is acceptable. However, if we examine Terminator 3, particularly in a comparison with Live Free, it would appear that the differences that caused the MPAA to give T3 the R while giving Live Free the PG-13 are minor at best.
First, comparisons of the violence between the two seem to be comparable. Each film makes an effort to show as little blood as possible and also attempts to hide the more graphic depictions of death from the camera, leaving those only to the imaginations of the viewers. Second, there is no nudity in Live Free, and the only sexual scene happens when a female character has her breast groped by her date for the evening, though both parties are fully clothed. The existing nudity in T3 is the aforementioned scene featuring Kristanna Loken, which begs the question of what constitutes brief and whether one person would consider the nudity to have remained on screen longer than it should have, thereby exceeding the PG-13 requirement. Regardless of sides in this matter, it would appear that the R rating came down to two issues; drugs and language. In one scene, a man breaks into a veterinary office to find drugs to help him deal with pain that he is having, only to find that he has consumed animal sterilization medicine. [7] In some circles, this would be seen as a comedic element in the film while others would see this as something that should not be seen by children, but since the R rating permits attendance of 17-year-olds, then the scene, comedic or not, potentially was seen by people legally classified as children. This scene could possible have seen the film granted the dreaded NC-17 rating, but for the comedic element. The other issue had to have been language, and the three utterances of the word “f**k”. [7] That, and that alone, based on the literal descriptions of each of the ratings discussed thus far, had to be what pushed the film over the edge for without these utterances, the film might actually have been able to achieve a PG-13 rating. This, however, might actually have been bad for business.
Filmmakers often labor to obtain the PG-13 rating for their films because it means that a wider group of people can “legally” go to the theater and see their films. However, the R rating is not a true death sentence as evidenced by the fact that Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ grossed nearly $400 million in 2004. [1] The true death sentence, according to the movie industry, comes with the rating of NC-17, which was derived from the original X rating, which meant that no one under 18 was permitted to view the film. [6] The MPAA states that in an NC-17 film, the elements that separate a PG from an R are now too strong or too graphic for any child. [9]
Originally, the X rating was intended to stand for a film that the ratings board thought depicted sex, drug use, nudity, violence or language too graphically. [8] This rating did not appear to hurt the film industry, as some of the greatest films ever made, including Oscar nominated films such as Midnight Cowboy, A Clockwork Orange, and Last Tango in Paris all received the X rating with little or no effect. [5] It was not until the adult film industry began affixing the X to their films that the MPAA was forced to make the change to NC-17 because the MPAA had trademarked all of the others ratings symbols except for X. With both the MPAA and the adult film industry using the X, in order to avoid confusion, the adult film industry began using the XXX to let potential viewers know that, as Reiher states, “the film in question featured close-ups of genitalia in action”. [5]
According to the MPAA, NC-17 is not supposed to imply something obscene or pornographic was included in the film, but when films like Showgirls, with its graphic sexual and rape-related content, and Angel Heart, that featured a blood-soaked graphic sex scene are awarded the NC-17 rating, it is generally considered a box office death sentence, because people who are old enough to remember the transition from X to NC-17 usually relate these films as dialed back versions of pornography. The critics see this, the ticket-buying public sees this and as a result, the films see this in their bottom line.
Director Sydney Pollack, who played Victor Ziegler in Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut, was quoted in a CNN article written by Sherri Sylvester as saying, “If you have an NC-17 rating in this country, you can't advertise on network television, there are certain newspapers you can't advertise on, there are certain theaters you can't even play.” [6] This would tend to lend credence to the perception that an NC-17 rating hurts more than it helps. If you are the parent of a child who might have been interested in seeing Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut or a teen boy who had watched Saved by the Bell on Saturdays and now wanted to go to the theater to see Showgirls, a parent would have to be very careful to ensure that this did not happen.
Veteran film critic Roger Ebert, feeling that the NC-17 rating has become associated with “hard-core porn”, believes that the MPAA should create a new rating that would fall between the R and NC-17. Ebert believes that an ‘A’ rating would actually do what first the X then the NC-17 was designed to do. Ebert believes that the A should stand for “adult”, which would mean that the film is not suitable for children of any age. [6] However, the X rating was originally designed to serve that purpose, but the X became associated with the adult film industry, and then the NC-17 replaced the X, but with films scaling back their sex and nudity in order to avoid the NC-17 rating, the NC-17 rating also serves to make films seem undesirable to moviegoers. If history is any indication, before too long, the A rating will become associated with excessive sex or violence or language or nudity or drug use and then people in the know will be calling for there to be something placed between the R and the A for the purpose of identifying movies that are not suitable for children. This appears to be a cycle that will truly never end.
The movie industry is a money making business. Studios, producers, directors, investors, actors, and everyone else connected with the making of movies is in the business for the purpose of making money and making as much money as they can. Whenever a movie is released, the Motion Picture Association of America reviews the movie, assigns the movie a rating, and makes recommendations on how the movie could receive the next lower rating. PG movies want to be G, R movies want to be PG, and NC-17 movies want to be R because the more people who are able to see the movie, the more money the movie will make. It is because of this that the moviemakers will do whatever they have to in order to get better ratings.
G movies are designed to be suitable for all audiences, but as with any other situation, there will probably be someone who can find something objectionable on the screen, even in a G movie. PG movies are designed for to be slightly edgier than a G movie, so long as there is no drug use. There can be nudity, but only brief, and some bad language, not the movie must still be G rated content, but spiced up.
A PG-13 movie is edgier than a PG movie because the MPAA has determined what is suitable for a child of 13 or older. A movie like Beowulf or Live Free or Die, according to the MPAA, qualifies for the PG-13 rating even though the violence is rampant and, in the case of Beowulf, there is nudity, but nothing “crucial” is shown on the screen and, in the case of Live Free, John McClane’s signature catch phrase “Yippi-kay-ay, motherf**ker”, is only uttered one time during the movie and even then, there is a gunshot that obscures the curse word. [4] All it takes is a naked Kristanna Loken and two extra utterances of the word “f**k” to take a movie from a PG-13 to an R rating.
R ratings are supposed to be for 17 and older, but as Peter Reiher wrote, as long as there is an adult willing to buy the ticket, the children can get into the shows. [5] X, NC-17 and, if Roger Ebert has his way, A, are designed to indicate that a film is not suitable for children at all and that only adults are permitted. While these seem like good ideas in theory, it appears that as long as the movie industry insists on pushing the line further and further back, and is edging closer and ever closer to bordering the adult film industry in regards to content, then the “adult only” ratings will continue to decrease in significance and will continue to serve as the death knell for racy or ultra-violent films.
As long as filmmakers are willing to do whatever it takes to get the ratings on their movies reduced, then movies that genuinely qualify for these lower ratings will have to fight ever harder to be able to compete in the movie industry. How would a family PG-13 movie be able to compete with a Terminator 3 that, if they had cut out the two extra utterances of “f**k”, would feature car crashes, explosions, and a naked Kristanna Loken? Would the 13-year-old boys rather see the flower that speaks and utters a few sexual innuendos or a naked Kristanna Loken? When I was 13, it would have been Kristanna Loken all the way. It seems that there are a ton of hoops that the studios, producers, directors, actors, investors, and everyone else connected with the movie business are required to jump through in order to have their films be received by the widest audience possible, and even with that, there are going to be people like Roger Ebert who will insist that the ratings for the films are incorrect and need to be adjusted. Maybe Chili Palmer was right all along.
