Shouting Match: Should We Overhaul the MPAA?

Posted by FSR Staff (editors@filmschoolrejects.com) on September 21, 2008

At Film School Rejects, we like to have the final word, even when we’re arguing with ourselves. Although mostly, we just like to yell the loudest. This week’s contenders? Rob Hunter and Cole Abaius. This week’s point of contention: The MPAA.

Opening Statements

Hunter: The MPAA’s film rating system needs to be burned, gutted, cleaned, and completely revamped. This includes the inconsistent rules, the anonymous members, and the flaccid ratings scale. The system was initially created to prove the industry could police itself and didn’t need state or federal regulation. That stated intention is a good one, and it’s fair to say they’ve succeeded in their goal. Over the years though, their target widened from simply preventing government intrusion to the lofty goal of providing parents with the tools they need to help raise their miscreants and rugrats in today’s dangerously immoral society.

This is where the MPAA has failed miserably. Their ratings system is ineffective at best and byzantine de facto censorship at worst. They’ve moved beyond simply providing information for rational people to digest and act upon, and have instead anointed themselves as moral guardians and arbiters of decency, taste, and what exactly constitutes normalcy in the bedroom.

Abaius: Thanks for speaking in generalities. It makes my job a lot easier. I get it – once or twice every year a movie that younger fans get really excited about has to battle with the evil, mean, nasty MPAA over their rating. This year it’s Zack and Miri Make a Porno, and it’s easy to see why. Hell – the title alone should be enough to warn parents without having an R-rating. Every movie should be so direct.

Asking for change is great, Obama, but what exactly are you proposing? The rules are not exactly subjective. For example, three F-bombs earns an R-rating. Aiming for PG? Only use “fuck” twice. Furthermore, what does knowing the identity of the MPAA members do exactly?

You said it yourself – the MPAA has succeeded in avoiding government intrusion into the arts. Maybe I need more guidance, but I’m not seeing the blurry line between judging a film’s content and being a moral guardian of taste. How does one go about judging the content of a film to be recommendable for children without dipping into the pool of ethics?

The Rebuttal

Hunter: Thanks for being a dill-hole. It makes my job easier too. I never said the MPAA was evil, mean, or nasty. I am saying they’re uptight, conservative pricks, though. Critiquing my argument is great, Palin, but I suggest you get your facts straights before doing so. Per the MPAA’s website, a single “fuck” automatically earns a PG13, unless it’s used suggestively which is an automatic R. More than one “fuck,” whether it’s sexually suggestive or a simple expletive, earns an R as well. And I would argue aside from that one rule of language, every other aspect of their decision is subjective. Every rating (aside from G) can have nudity, adult language, and violence… the differences come in quantity and type. What are the rules on types and durations? There are none. Because of this their ratings can be wildly inconsistent.

What’s the difference between “sexual content“, “a scene of sexuality”, “sexuality”, “sexual reference”, “sensuality”, “suggestive humor”, “sexual innuendo”, and “suggestive content” exactly? How about “violent action”, “violence”, “intense sequences of action”, “intense sequences of violent action”, “intense sequences of violence”, “violent content”, “creature violence”, “hockey violence”, and “violence and terror?”

Some specifics for you. Shark gets a PG13 for “shark related violence” and Shark Zone gets an R for “shark attacks.” Twister gets a PG13 for “intense depiction of very bad weather.” Alien vs Predator gets a PG13 for “slime?” And as far as the importance of knowing who the MPAA board members are, I’ll point to ratings for films like Visitor Q and Crash, both of which received R’s for “aberrant sexual content.” Who are these anonymous strangers deciding what is and isn’t aberrant? If fucking a gaping wound in a girl’s thigh or sharing your mother’s breast milk with your father straight from the tap is aberrant than I don’t want to be normal.

Abaius: So what you really want is more regulation. It sounds like you’re interested in having a hyper-detailed rulebook that dictates how many thrusts constitutes an R-rating, how many pints of blood from a shark bite will maintain a PG-13, what kind of sexual behavior equates to an NC-17. It would leave the MPAA as scene-counters, tallying up and doling out the mathematically agreed upon rating. That, to me, seems impossible given the nature of the game.

Of course there’s inconsistencies. With at least an hour and a half of content for every film, there are going to be contextual differences. How words are used, how sexual relationships come about, how violence is depicted. No system will ever be complete enough to create across-the-board consistency. Debates are still going to break out.

And from your own aberrant behavior, it seems to me that the MPAA is less “uptight” and “conservative” and more “mainstream.” After all, they only exist for the controversial films, which is why people only gripe when the movie they love with the leg-wound-coitus gets an R-rating. The MPAA doesn’t exist because of the better angels of our nature. It exists because the trailer for Forgetting Sarah Marshall declines to mention that Jason Segal’s penis plays a prominent role – and parents need to know that. Besides, the real issue seems to be that rating plays a direct correlation to ticket sales. It’s obvious that you want movies you like to do well at the box office, and their ratings have a part to play in that, but do you really think the mainstream would be comfortable taking a 13-year old to a film with wound-fucking? Be honest.

Closing Arguments

Hunter: Actually, I’d like less regulation, but in this litigious and blame-game society of ours I’d settle for more specific regulation if that was the only option. For the filmmaker trying to deliver a contractual PG13 who gets slapped with an R and then told it’s due to “violence” it would be nice to know what they need to edit to get the PG13. Instead they have to guess and resubmit the film blindly. Or how about the filmmaker who gets the R or NC17 for “thematic material” and has even less of an idea where to trim?

So since we can’t get rid of the MPAA all together, let’s go the literal route and actually have a checklist of what visuals or dialog equates to what rating. Yes, it seems silly but it would take the subjective nature of biased individual opinion out of the equation making it easier and less controversial for every one involved. If the guidelines were this rigid, the MPAA members wouldn’t need to be anonymous for fear of industry bribery or persuasion. This would also prove they’ve watched the film in question and paid attention during the screening. An example… A topless woman gets a PG. Topless woman being fondled gets a PG13. Topless woman being fondled by a dude thrusting into her rear-end gets an R. Topless woman getting fondled by a dude thrusting into her rear-end while she fellates a donkey gets an NC17. Besides clearing up the confusion for the filmmakers, this system would also make it explicitly clear to parents exactly what’s in the film before their kids see it. (It would also make it easier for me to find movies featuring Asian slip ‘n slide soap massage scenes.)

Of course there will still be debate… do prosthetic boobs and dicks count? How about if the swear words are in other languages? What about animal sex? When these things arise they can be debated, argued, resolved, and added to the list. Again, this is admittedly stupid, but the preferred alternative of no ratings will never happen, and the current system is so irrational and inconsistent as to be useless.

Bottom line, the current MPAA makes no sense. They’re protecting no one. Every kid under the age of 16 has already seen a hundred R-rated movies in theaters or on DVD or cable. The only value it currently serves is to prevent local or federal regulation. It can continue to do that and clear up the misconceptions, inconsistencies, and mystery surrounding their ratings process by making the whole thing more transparent. A filmmaker and studio would know based on the script what rating to expect, and it would be passed on or greenlit accordingly.

Abaius: Judging by your long-windedness, this is obviously a complex issue. But there is a bottom-line. What is the MPAA for? To give a guide to parents and to individuals about what kind of content a movie contains and whether the average individual would find that content bothersome. Does it achieve that goal? Yes.

What’s the “average individual?” Will parents actually use the guide? Can more specific regulation make a difference? These are all important questions. Possibly ones without clear answers.

Your problem seems to be that there’s no standard – something that removing the human element completely might fix. Or might not. In truth, you’re replacing regulation for another form of regulation so that someone else can complain that the regulation doesn’t work.

There’s no displayable negative consequence to the function of the MPAA beyond a few culture warriors getting up in arms twice a year when a movie with questionable material gets an R-rating instead of the wider-audience-making-higher-ticket-sales PG-13. At the end of the day, there’s going to be some regulation – to keep the government away – and it’s going to piss off someone. Probably still you. As long as parents out there find the system useful and trustworthy, that’s the bottomline. Afterall, the ratings system is built for them, not the guy that wants to see men in Nazi uniforms gang-bang a dead, underaged horse while snorting cocaine and cheating on their taxes.

Not only does the system work decently the way it is, but changing it doesn’t ensure the problems you find with it will be fixed.

The Final Verdict

A lot of words and no closer to an answer, and as usual, neither of us will back down. So we’re leaving the final verdict up to you: Should we overhaul the MPAA?


Read more articles by FSR Staff

« Previous Article | Next Article »

Related Topics:

Shouting Match, Site Features, , , , , ,

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • I've always thought that movie theaters should just provide (Free of charge) a "movie license." Just a card that a parent picks up in person and signs, stating that their child, regardless of age, has permission to watch films rated _____________.

    The MPAA are a bunch of assholes - watch "This Film is Not Yet Rated." They're a small group of people who's personal values and personal feelings can create an impartial judging system - if we're already judging, can we at least strive for objectivity?

    That said, Governments don't censor books or regulate them, so kids could read any dirty book they want. Removing the MPAA doesn't mean the government would immediately fiddle with movies - especially considering the 1st Amendment would protect the films from being blocked or banned.

    I just think that government and governing bodies should back off and let parents do the work and decide what their kids can and can't see.
  • badjoke
    @Robert Fure

    I agree, in part, but how are parents supposed to know if the movie is OK for their kids? You can't know how naughty a movie is from the trailer (under they start adding nipple/violence counters to them.) Do you expect every parent to see a movie first, so they can decide if it's OK for the kids?

    The rating system is there to give a loose guess on the content material so that parents can set rules on which rating is OK for their kids.

    I actually approve the whole per-item rating system. You could assign point values to different events/acts/body parts and if the point rating gets high enough, it breaks through another rating limit. For example, "Fuck" could be worth 20 points, "Damn" being only 5. PG movies could require something like 15 points or less to remain PG. This would have to be tweaked, though, so that maybe "Fuck"s were worth many more points in PG than PG-13 to prevent lower ratings from getting too raunchy. Some things should be banned in lower age brackets, too, so no nudity was in PG.
  • My problem with the MPAA is less how it works and more how people treat it. It shouldn't be a parental substitute, which is how people are tempted to use it instead of doing their homework and really caring about what they expose their children to. As Hunter says, though, it seems no one listens to the MPAA anyway; most theatres don't card on R-rated films, and many parents don't seem to care, or at least don't enforce it. It seems the options are "let my kids see anything" or "listen so strictly to the MPAA they can't see anything rated R." Which is silly and I consider it a breakdown of parenting. On the other hand, there are some things the MPAA could do to reform.

    Hunter is right that some things need to be better defined, especially when sending a film back to be recut. The director shouldn't have to guess what the MPAA members found offensive, and they should tell him/her exactly what to do to get the desired rating. I doubt the completely specific system he describes would work, though - a film's impact (positive or negative, in terms of MPAA rulings) can't be reduced to how many swear words there are.

    You guys are mostly arguing between PG-13 and R ratings; isn't the R to NC-17 rating of just as much concern? After all, no theatres or rental stores refusing to carry R-rated movies. However, getting an NC-17 is commercial death, since virtually no mainline theatres or rental stores will carry your film, even if it's a legitimately non-pornographic or non-exploitative film. What can the MPAA do to resuscitate the NC-17 rating and separate it from XXX? (In a way, the same could be said for G and PG, which have been ghettoized as 'kids movie' ratings.)
  • D Train
    It would be nearly impossible to judge a movie based on a point system. After all, it may not just be specific actions or certain words that are bothersome to parents, but the context they are in. Can you put a rape scene in a PG 13 if it shows no nudity? At what point does an allusion to a violent act become unacceptable? You see my point. Films must also be judged on moral content as well.
  • D Train
    I do agree though, there needs to be some consistency. Batman Returns anyone?
  • Pretty much i side with fure, i dont see no purpose for mpaa at all and it dont really work as kids go to see a film regardless of teh rating they will find a way. kids a sneaky little suckers. I dont see a point or reason as to tell us what we can or cant see and who determines what classifies a film r or pg13. its all a matter of opinion and their opinions may not be the same as mine.

    Parents are the ones who should pull those kids reins in and know off hand what they are going to see and what is ok for those kids before going in to see showgirls thinking its an expose on working las vegas life. homework should be done before watchin a flick.
    No more watchin a midnight show and seeing parents carrying their 5 year olds to see saw and be shocked and asking for money back becasue of the violence.

    No one should tell me whats classified as r or anything. I WANT TO DECIDE FOR MYSELF AS AN EDUCATED MOVIEGOER.
  • Its ok for the ratings to exist as guidelines for parents, but Movie Theaters treat them as law and won't let people in. Its like a self-imposed restriction that I'm not sure I agree with.

    And the NC-17 and X rating should be done with anyways. To see a Rated R movie alone, you have to be 17. If a parent wants to take their kid into an NC-17 movie, that is their decision and they should be allowed to. By 17 you're virtually a legal adult, what difference does that one year make?. As for X, if it exists at all, should only be used for porn to signify "This is a porno." And porn is "defined" as having no artistic value, so a movie with penetrative sex (like 9 songs or something) should just be rated R.
  • @ Fure, "9 Songs" had no artistic value. But that does point to an interesting distinction between sex and violence in films. Unlike say, the rest of the civilized world, the USA (via the MPAA) views sex as much more dangerous to the children than violence. And that's fucked up. If I had custody of any of my kids I'd pay a lot more attention to the violence they were inundated with than the sex. An enraged child is more of a threat than a horny one.
  • @FURE
    And porn is “defined” as having no artistic value, so a movie with penetrative sex (like 9 songs or something) should just be rated R.

    I don't get it. it's probably obivous and all, but im a lil fried here at work and i just dont get it. just a lil slow here .
    do you mean 9 songs of jungle music?

    btw: love this topic
  • Jonathon
    The American fear of regulation never ceases to amaze. What is so wrong with laying out the rules? In Australia (and many other commonwealth countries) the laws governing the classification of films are clearly set out. They're even available online. The people charged with adjudicating weather a film does or does not fit classification criteria are professionals. They are paid by the government to decide what rating a film gets. And they have to show reasons why came to their decision. That way everyone - punters, parents, political parties, everyone - knows what is in a film and why a classification decision has been made. It's true, occasionally films are banned - ("Refused Classification") as was the case With Ken Park and 9 Songs a few years back. But as a rule of thumb, a film's classification generally matches well established public values and tastes. In fact these tastes have been, in part, shaped by the regulatory system itself.

    Of course, the way any other country classifies a film really doesn't mean shit given American studios only care American audiences. Everyone else in the world has to put up with this insane system. We are all slave to the MPAA.
blog comments powered by Disqus