Mike's Musings: Why PG-13 and R Won't Save Your Kids From Seeing Something They Shouldn't
I suppose this is as good a time as any to publish my first rant about the biggest turd in the film industry: the MPAA, the board who does out ratings of G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 to movies. It may be the first time, but I guarantee that it won't be the last.
For the record, the ratings lay out like this:
G: General Audiences. Nothing objectionable.
PG: Parental Guidance Suggested. Relatively harmless; only those who are tightly wound and/or psychotic will find something they don't want their 5 year old to see.
PG-13: Parents Strongly Cautioned. Movies for teenagers. Contains relatively racy material including lots of action and violence, profanity, and tame sex scenes (emphasis on the word tame).
R: Restricted. No one under 17 allowed unless you got the guts and the silver tongue to bring your parents along. Contains every sort of "inappropriate" thing you can think of, from two uses of the work "fuck" to brutal violence, torture, rape and everything inbetween. The only movie you're going to find legitimate sex scenes and nudity in a multiplex.
NC-17. No one under 17. Period. On paper, it contains extreme violence and/or sex, but 99.99999999999999% of the time, its because there's too much "thrusting" in the sex scenes.
Even if you have no idea what the MPAA is, you've still probably been a little confused as to why a certain movie got an R rating while another got a PG-13. Consider "Waiting for Guffman," which got an R rating solely for the fact that it had two uses of the word "fuck" in it. Or how about the "Clash of the Titans" remake, which earned a PG-13 rating despite the fact that it showed a guy getting ripped in half by a king-sized scorpion. Maybe it's just me, but I would much rather have my 13 year old self see a movie with the former as opposed to the latter.
In all fairness to the MPAA, they're assigned to give a ruling on something something that is so obviously interpretive. A person may find a person who is stabbed to death far more disturbing that seeing a giant machine punch a hole in a skyscraper. Fair enough, but if you look at their track record, something is clearly wrong.
One of the most frequent criticisms that critics of the MPAA have is their harsher views on sex as opposed to violence. Their arguments are backed up by more instances of this than all of them together can count. One of my favorite movies is called "Mrs. Henderson Presents." It's an inspirational story about an elderly woman who opens a theater that showcases nude women during the musical numbers. The nudity was hardly explicit, and never in a sexual context. Violence was limited to historical newsreels from World War II. Language was minimal. And the message about the movie was a positive one: be proud of who you are and what you look like. Your body is something that should be celebrated, not hidden like its something dirty.
What did the movie get? An R rating.
To me, this is absurd. I mean, don't girls look at themselves in a mirror? Isn't it impossibly easy for a sexually curious teenager (or a mischievous middle schooler) to find a naked woman on the internet? Being this restrictive in a movie aimed at teens is useless, and the only thing it does is make it obvious that the director was forced to be coy about a scene that should have unfolded naturally in order to secure the lucrative PG-13 rating.
One of the frequent places to lay the blame is at the feet of the social conservatives. Admittedly, this isn't far off. With organizations like the American Family Association-affiliated One Million Moms causing an uproar about a Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream flavor called "Schweddy Balls" after the Saturday Night Live skit, no doubt they would have an apoplexy if they thought their kids saw a nude girl in a PG-13 movie. While not everyone goes as far as they do, it's impossible to deny that Americans are very tightly wound about sex and nudity. There's also an incredibly obvious double standard when it comes to males and females in terms of sex. If a guy has sex with a lot of girls, he's a stud. If a girl does, she's a slut and a whore. This is reflected in movies, too. There are dozens of movies about young guys trying to score, and every movie with a bachelor as the protagonist has him banging chicks left and right. Ever see any girls do that? NEVER!
And while I do lay some of the blame at them since they pitch a fit over the littlest things, I think by and large they just like to hear the sound of their voice and keep their followers riled up to keep bringing in the money and the press. Look at the Parents Television Council, who has blasted "Family Guy" almost constantly for its bad taste and sexual content. Whatever happened to entertainment for non-self righteous zealots and people over the age of ten? Isn't the foundation of America protecting the rights of people to say something unpopular? Apparently it is unless you don't agree with it.
The real culprits are the studios themselves. Action and violence brings in the big bucks, much more so than movies with plot and characters. Plus there are foreign audiences to worry about, many of whom have similar or stricter views about sex.
Another frequent criticism is that the MPAA is more restrictive on independent films than ones from major studios. Again, this is completely obvious. Although everyone pays the same fee of $3000 to get their film rated, the ratings vary wildly in films with similar content. Consider the 2005 thriller "Confession" starring Chris Pine. The violence is minimal and never intense, and yet it received an R rating. The Lord of the Rings movies are filled with epic violence and gore, and earned PG-13 ratings for all three movies. Go figure.
The strange thing is that everyone, conservative and liberal, film critic and average filmgoer, young and old, has the same opinion about the MPAA: it sucks. No one likes them. Filmmakers hate them as much as I do, if not more so since the films they've spent a year or more developing are at stake (and the financial difference between a PG-13 and an R rating can be substantial, and the NC-17 rating is a kiss of death because the theaters that will show it and advertisers that will publicize it are so limited).
The bottom line is that when you're deciding which movie is appropriate for your kid, you can't trust the MPAA. The best way to make sure what the film contains is to see it yourself first.
For the record, the ratings lay out like this:
G: General Audiences. Nothing objectionable.
PG: Parental Guidance Suggested. Relatively harmless; only those who are tightly wound and/or psychotic will find something they don't want their 5 year old to see.
PG-13: Parents Strongly Cautioned. Movies for teenagers. Contains relatively racy material including lots of action and violence, profanity, and tame sex scenes (emphasis on the word tame).
R: Restricted. No one under 17 allowed unless you got the guts and the silver tongue to bring your parents along. Contains every sort of "inappropriate" thing you can think of, from two uses of the work "fuck" to brutal violence, torture, rape and everything inbetween. The only movie you're going to find legitimate sex scenes and nudity in a multiplex.
NC-17. No one under 17. Period. On paper, it contains extreme violence and/or sex, but 99.99999999999999% of the time, its because there's too much "thrusting" in the sex scenes.
Even if you have no idea what the MPAA is, you've still probably been a little confused as to why a certain movie got an R rating while another got a PG-13. Consider "Waiting for Guffman," which got an R rating solely for the fact that it had two uses of the word "fuck" in it. Or how about the "Clash of the Titans" remake, which earned a PG-13 rating despite the fact that it showed a guy getting ripped in half by a king-sized scorpion. Maybe it's just me, but I would much rather have my 13 year old self see a movie with the former as opposed to the latter.
In all fairness to the MPAA, they're assigned to give a ruling on something something that is so obviously interpretive. A person may find a person who is stabbed to death far more disturbing that seeing a giant machine punch a hole in a skyscraper. Fair enough, but if you look at their track record, something is clearly wrong.
One of the most frequent criticisms that critics of the MPAA have is their harsher views on sex as opposed to violence. Their arguments are backed up by more instances of this than all of them together can count. One of my favorite movies is called "Mrs. Henderson Presents." It's an inspirational story about an elderly woman who opens a theater that showcases nude women during the musical numbers. The nudity was hardly explicit, and never in a sexual context. Violence was limited to historical newsreels from World War II. Language was minimal. And the message about the movie was a positive one: be proud of who you are and what you look like. Your body is something that should be celebrated, not hidden like its something dirty.
What did the movie get? An R rating.
To me, this is absurd. I mean, don't girls look at themselves in a mirror? Isn't it impossibly easy for a sexually curious teenager (or a mischievous middle schooler) to find a naked woman on the internet? Being this restrictive in a movie aimed at teens is useless, and the only thing it does is make it obvious that the director was forced to be coy about a scene that should have unfolded naturally in order to secure the lucrative PG-13 rating.
One of the frequent places to lay the blame is at the feet of the social conservatives. Admittedly, this isn't far off. With organizations like the American Family Association-affiliated One Million Moms causing an uproar about a Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream flavor called "Schweddy Balls" after the Saturday Night Live skit, no doubt they would have an apoplexy if they thought their kids saw a nude girl in a PG-13 movie. While not everyone goes as far as they do, it's impossible to deny that Americans are very tightly wound about sex and nudity. There's also an incredibly obvious double standard when it comes to males and females in terms of sex. If a guy has sex with a lot of girls, he's a stud. If a girl does, she's a slut and a whore. This is reflected in movies, too. There are dozens of movies about young guys trying to score, and every movie with a bachelor as the protagonist has him banging chicks left and right. Ever see any girls do that? NEVER!
And while I do lay some of the blame at them since they pitch a fit over the littlest things, I think by and large they just like to hear the sound of their voice and keep their followers riled up to keep bringing in the money and the press. Look at the Parents Television Council, who has blasted "Family Guy" almost constantly for its bad taste and sexual content. Whatever happened to entertainment for non-self righteous zealots and people over the age of ten? Isn't the foundation of America protecting the rights of people to say something unpopular? Apparently it is unless you don't agree with it.
The real culprits are the studios themselves. Action and violence brings in the big bucks, much more so than movies with plot and characters. Plus there are foreign audiences to worry about, many of whom have similar or stricter views about sex.
Another frequent criticism is that the MPAA is more restrictive on independent films than ones from major studios. Again, this is completely obvious. Although everyone pays the same fee of $3000 to get their film rated, the ratings vary wildly in films with similar content. Consider the 2005 thriller "Confession" starring Chris Pine. The violence is minimal and never intense, and yet it received an R rating. The Lord of the Rings movies are filled with epic violence and gore, and earned PG-13 ratings for all three movies. Go figure.
The strange thing is that everyone, conservative and liberal, film critic and average filmgoer, young and old, has the same opinion about the MPAA: it sucks. No one likes them. Filmmakers hate them as much as I do, if not more so since the films they've spent a year or more developing are at stake (and the financial difference between a PG-13 and an R rating can be substantial, and the NC-17 rating is a kiss of death because the theaters that will show it and advertisers that will publicize it are so limited).
The bottom line is that when you're deciding which movie is appropriate for your kid, you can't trust the MPAA. The best way to make sure what the film contains is to see it yourself first.
Comments
Post a Comment