What risk is a theater taking by not enforcing movie ratings? (U.S)

[Revtim]

I see from the front page on http://www.michaelmoore.com/ that at least one theater isn't enforcing the R rating for F911.

Are there actual federal or state laws being broken? Or do they just risk industry reprisals, such as distributers refusing to do business with them or something like that?

(let's not debate F911 here, OK? This is a factual question that simply uses it as an example.)

[Burrido]

I'm sure the threat of litigation by angry parents would be enough. I wouldn't see it above someone sueing the movie theathers for emotionally traumatizing their underage kids by allowing them to see R rated movies :rolleyes: . After all the recent lawsuits (Mcdonalds, Tobacco, etc...) I see it as very plausible.

[mike1dog]

The system is voluntary. It was set up by the movie industry to avoid censorship by the government when the old code died out. I think you'd probably piss off a lot of parents if you let their kids in to see some movies. Why does anyone think a teenager would be interested in Fahrenheit 9/11 anyway?

[mks57]

Leases for movie theaters will often impose restrictions on the theater, such as prohibiting the exhibition of x-rated movies. Anyone know if they require enforcement of the MPAA ratings?

[citrus x paradisi]

Why does anyone think a teenager would be interested in Fahrenheit 9/11 anyway?

I don't know about where you live, but there were a lot of teenagers in the theater when I saw it. ;) You can argue their views, but they are politically aware.

Follow-up question here-- showing an X-rated movie to a minor would be 'distribution of obscene materials to a minor', but an R-rated movie would be fine?

[ftg]

Why does anyone think a teenager would be interested in Fahrenheit 9/11 anyway?

If you are a kid a couple years away from draft age, you will be extremely interested in seeing this movie. Similarly, if you are sub-baby boomer in age (which includes teens), due to the mammoth tax increases Bush has imposed on you. Etc.

This is a movie for those concerned about the future of the US. That should definitely include teens.

As to ratings enforcement: Many states have laws requiring theaters to enforce ratings restrictions. Note though: The First Amendment supercedes all state laws. A really good case could be made that enforcing such laws, at least in this case, denies teens of their First Amendment rights. (The First Amendment is generally interpretted to include both stating ones views as well as being able to hear the views of others. Otherwise the government could just stick all vocal opposition in Guantanamo and say "talk all you want.")

[Tuckerfan]

I don't know about where you live, but there were a lot of teenagers in the theater when I saw it. ;) You can argue their views, but they are politically aware.

Follow-up question here-- showing an X-rated movie to a minor would be 'distribution of obscene materials to a minor', but an R-rated movie would be fine?It depends upon why the film got an X rating. Hardcore porn is one thing, but a violent movie is another. It also depends upon your definition of obscenity. Henry & June was originally slapped with an X rating, then the MPAA agreed to create the NC-17 rating, which the film was given. This didn't stop some folks from suing to stop the film from being shown in certain theaters because of it's original X rating. IIRC, the theaters caved in and refused to show the film, rather than risk the court fight. Martin Lawrence's You So Crazy got slapped with an NC-17 because of language. Wide Sargasso Sea got slapped with it's NC-17 rating because of a 1/10th second shot of some guy's wang (though I suspect the interracial sex had more to do with it than anything else). Scarface was originally rated X, but had some scenes recut to get the R rating. None of those films can be truly considered pornographic, and as far as obscene goes, well, that's as an arbitrary decision as the whole MPAA ratings system.

As WAG, a theater not enforcing MPAA ratings runs the following risks: 1.) Lawsuits from angry parents. 2.) Lawsuits from angry local government officials. 3.) "Blacklisting" by movie studios wishing to project a "We care about the children." image. In the case of MM's movie, I think that the only people who're going to be bent out of shape over kids seeing it are ones who've got such an axe to grind with Moore and this movie, that they'll get torqued off about anything.

[ruadh]

Why does anyone think a teenager would be interested in Fahrenheit 9/11 anyway?

If this movie had come out when I was a 15-year-old political activist you can bet I would have been pretty darn interested.

[Otto]

Follow-up question here-- showing an X-rated movie to a minor would be 'distribution of obscene materials to a minor', but an R-rated movie would be fine? Nitpick: the MPAA has abolished the X rating. It has been replaced with NC-17.

[rfgdxm]

I'm surprised that nobody has stated the obvious here yet. With the exception of not letting kids in to see X rated films, there has been no serious enforcement, voluntary or involuntary, of movie ratings for *decades*. The "slasher" R rated films (the "Friday the 13th" series, "Nightmare on Elm Street", etc.) were *hugely* popular with teenagers long ago. And those films were very graphic. Given F911 is genuine political speech, THAT would be more controversial?

[rfgdxm]

Nitpick: the MPAA has abolished the X rating. It has been replaced with NC-17.

Incorrect. The X rating still exists; they just added NC-17 and registered it legally. Since the beginning, *anyone* could self-rate a film X and the MPAA was quite happy with that. They didn't want to waste their time reviewing obvious hard core porn. NC-17 was created for films that were thought to have artistic merit, but included some sexually graphic content.

[Tuckerfan]

I'm surprised that nobody has stated the obvious here yet. With the exception of not letting kids in to see X rated films, there has been no serious enforcement, voluntary or involuntary, of movie ratings for *decades*. The "slasher" R rated films (the "Friday the 13th" series, "Nightmare on Elm Street", etc.) were *hugely* popular with teenagers long ago. And those films were very graphic. Given F911 is genuine political speech, THAT would be more controversial?
You're wrong there. In TN there's been periodic "sweeps" by the police to check the levels of enforcement going on there. When I went and saw Henry & June the first time, there was a Metro Nashville police officer in uniform checking IDs. Currently, there's talk of legal action against theaters for not enforcing MPAA age requirements in this area.

[flickster]

I think the enforcement generally falls under local jurisdiction (if any). Violations could get the theater fined or have their license pulled.

I'm not sure when the last time I ever heard of a local teen being carded to see an R rated film. There have been splashes of enforcement stories in the local Central Illinois media over the years, but nothing ever came of it that I could see.

[rfgdxm]

You're wrong there. In TN there's been periodic "sweeps" by the police to check the levels of enforcement going on there. When I went and saw Henry & June the first time, there was a Metro Nashville police officer in uniform checking IDs. Currently, there's talk of legal action against theaters for not enforcing MPAA age requirements in this area.

Wasn't Henry & June given an NC-17 rating? My post specifically mentioned enforcement of the R rating, and excluded adult erotica films. F911 is rated R. Can you cite any recent cases where a theater owner was hauled into court letting minors in to see R rated films? When I was a teenager in the 1970s nobody at theaters batted an eye about letting me in to see R rated films.

[Whiter Carpet]

I think the enforcement generally falls under local jurisdiction (if any). Violations could get the theater fined or have their license pulled.

I'm not sure when the last time I ever heard of a local teen being carded to see an R rated film. There have been splashes of enforcement stories in the local Central Illinois media over the years, but nothing ever came of it that I could see.

I got carded the other day :). Funnily enough, one of the people in my group bought a ticket with mom's credit card at one of those automatic ticket machines, and another person bought it from the same teller I did just moments before I did and wasn't carded. Maybe it's because I just had to shave the night before, heh. We saw Saved! instead, which was a wonderful movie that the type of teenager who wanted to sneak into Moore's film would have enjoyed just as much instead. Coincidentally, the theater it was showing in was right beside 9/11. Too bad there was an armed cop standing in front of it though.

[Tuckerfan]

Wasn't Henry & June given an NC-17 rating? My post specifically mentioned enforcement of the R rating, and excluded adult erotica films. F911 is rated R. Can you cite any recent cases where a theater owner was hauled into court letting minors in to see R rated films? When I was a teenager in the 1970s nobody at theaters batted an eye about letting me in to see R rated films.
Henry & June was given an NC-17, but I've seen cops checking IDs at R rated movies in Nashville as well. And Henry & June is more a biopic than adult erotica. As for court cases, no, but given that most theaters are now owned by multinational chains, many of them barely breaking even, I can see them bending over backwards to eliminate the risk of going to court. Sen. Lieberman was threatening legislation a while back to deal with the movie industry and it's rating practices. That's why the MPAA rating code now has things like "Violence, Sexual Language" listed below the ratings.

Apparently, you missed the hue and cry which broke out over Gremlins and inspired the PG-13 rating. Many folks felt the film was too violent for the PG rating, and bitched about it fiercely enough that the MPAA created the PG-13 rating.

[rfgdxm]

Apparently, you missed the hue and cry which broke out over Gremlins and inspired the PG-13 rating. Many folks felt the film was too violent for the PG rating, and bitched about it fiercely enough that the MPAA created the PG-13 rating.

No, I remember that. The problem there wasn't kids going by themselves to the theater. Under the MPAA guidelines, a 12 year old can go to a theater unattended and see a PG-13 film. The problem was that in the mind of a lot of parents, PG = Perfectly Good. Thus they split the PG rating.

[MovieMogul]

Wow, that's my neighborhood theater! It's probably a 3-minute walk from our house.

It should be noted that this theater is independently owned and operated, and is not part of a chain or franchise of any sort. Also, the marquee typically has a political statement of some kind--always of a decidedly leftist stance (the current one goes off on Bush stealing the election, etc. and runs on the right of the marquee, around the corner from what's visible in the picture).

Given that we're in a decidedly liberal area (Jerry Brown's our mayor, Barbara Lee our congresswoman), I don't think anyone will raise a complaint that the proprietors will deem worrisome. They also already get most of the major movie bookings (4 of the top 6 current b.o. leaders are playing on its four screens) so I don't think they're worried that advertising F9/11 as such will impact their relations with distributors.

[ruadh]

Apparently, you missed the hue and cry which broke out over Gremlins and inspired the PG-13 rating. Many folks felt the film was too violent for the PG rating, and bitched about it fiercely enough that the MPAA created the PG-13 rating.

Was it Gremlins? I thought it was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (the scene where someone has his heart ripped out) that prompted the creation of PG-13.

[rfgdxm]

Was it Gremlins? I thought it was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (the scene where someone has his heart ripped out) that prompted the creation of PG-13.

It was both:

http://dvdmg.com/gremlins.shtml

[Otto]

Incorrect. The X rating still exists; they just added NC-17 and registered it legally. Wrong. The MPAA initially created four ratings categories: G; M; R; X. It registered G, M and R, allowing anyone who did not want to submit a film to be rated to self-rate with X as you said. The MPAA abolished the X rating as part of its scheme, which is what I said. The MPAA does not issue an X rating for any film and within the MPAA scheme X has no meaning as a rating except in those rare instances when a previously X-rated film is re-released, but I am unaware of any instance in which the film was not resubmitted to the MPAA for a new rating (see for example Midnight Cowboy which was rated X by the MPAA when it was released but was re-rated R). Certainly any filmmaker is free to self-rate a film "X," just like they can self-rate a film "Z" or "22" or "Fred" but within the context of the MPAA's rating system, which is the system I was discussing, such self-rating is meaningless and the film will be considered by distributors, newspapers and probably the general public as unrated.
NC-17 was created for films that were thought to have artistic merit, but included some sexually graphic content. Wrong again. NC-17 is not a measure of artistic merit, nor is any other MPAA rating. All NC-17 means is that the film contains material which parents would consier unsuitable for minor children. This usually means sexual content but may also mean "adult language" or extreme violence (or a combination of factors).

[Excalibre]

Wrong again. NC-17 is not a measure of artistic merit, nor is any other MPAA rating. All NC-17 means is that the film contains material which parents would consier unsuitable for minor children. This usually means sexual content but may also mean "adult language" or extreme violence (or a combination of factors).

I think you're misinterpreting slightly, Otto. No, the MPAA doesn't rate for artistic quality (obviously - I mean, they let little children in to see Garfield. :)) but part of the legal definition of obscenity is that it doesn't have any literary or artistic value. I assume that the MPAA doesn't bother to rate obscene films - after all, I believe such cinematic masterpieces as Big Butt Bimbos VI are unrated. So the NC-17 rating presumably only goes to non-obscene movies, which, if they contain a lot of sex, would have to have artistic value of some variety.

[Revtim]

The "slasher" R rated films (the "Friday the 13th" series, "Nightmare on Elm Street", etc.) were *hugely* popular with teenagers long ago. And those films were very graphic. Given F911 is genuine political speech, THAT would be more controversial?I've heard that the R rating for F911 is because of violent scenes from Iraq, which makes sense. They never give R ratings because of non-profane speech, do they?

Also, I wonder how successful Moore would have been if he had simply made it unrated. I suppose since many theaters don't show unrated movies, it would have hurt the film.

[rjung]

In a related vein, a few days ago I read about a theater chain in the midwest that offered the "R-card". If a parent bought an R-card for their child, the child could go see R-rated movies without an adult escort.

And IMO, Fahrenheit 9/11 probably merited a "strong PG-13" more than an "R". The gory scenes tended to be only a few seconds long, at best, and the profanity is nothing that most 15-year-olds haven't heard already.

[Giles]

Most cinemas in the US have multiple screens. When my son (then 15 or 16) was in the US, he and his friends used to get into R-rated movies by buting tickets to another movie being shown at the same time, then just going to see the R-rated movie instead of the one that they'd bought tickets for. (Or at least, so he told me afterwards.) They only way to stop that happening would be to have somone check ID as they went into the specific part of the cinema where the R-rated movie was being shown.

[Renob]

From my experience, it's up to the owner's discretion. Where I grew up, the theater owner didn't really care if kids saw R-rated movies. The only time he enforced the rule was when he showed Pulp Fiction.

Also, can't let this go by without a comment:
Similarly, if you are sub-baby boomer in age (which includes teens), due to the mammoth tax increases Bush has imposed on you. Etc.

I think you meant to say the "cut in taxes Bush has pushed through." Bush cut taxes; he didn't raise them.

[Otto]

I think you're misinterpreting slightly, Otto. No, the MPAA doesn't rate for artistic quality (obviously - I mean, they let little children in to see Garfield. :)) but part of the legal definition of obscenity is that it doesn't have any literary or artistic value. I assume that the MPAA doesn't bother to rate obscene films - after all, I believe such cinematic masterpieces as Big Butt Bimbos VI are unrated. So the NC-17 rating presumably only goes to non-obscene movies, which, if they contain a lot of sex, would have to have artistic value of some variety. The MPAA has nothing to do with the legal definition of obscenity. Obscenity, as defined by SCOTUS in Miller v California, is determined by a three-pronged test: The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489;
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It's entirely possible that the MPAA could rate a film (for example, R) and some local prosecutor decides to file charges and a local jury returns a guilty verdict. The reason Big Butt Bimbos VI is unrated is because the producers of BBB4 didn't submit it to the MPAA to be rated; if the producers submitted it the MPAA would rate it. All not submitting it to be rated means is that BBB4 can't legally be marketed with one of the MPAA's legally-protected ratings attached.

[Otto]

And yes, I know that "VI" is "6" in Roman numerals.

[MovieMogul]

Most cinemas in the US have multiple screens. When my son (then 15 or 16) was in the US, he and his friends used to get into R-rated movies by buting tickets to another movie being shown at the same time, then just going to see the R-rated movie instead of the one that they'd bought tickets for. (Or at least, so he told me afterwards.) They only way to stop that happening would be to have somone check ID as they went into the specific part of the cinema where the R-rated movie was being shown.
Or to check tickets at the door to make sure that the title of the film being shown matches the title on the ticket bought. A theater close to me does this for shows they know will be popular with teens.

[MovieMogul]

And when I say door, I mean door to the specific theater in question, not just the door to the multiplex where the ticket is usually torn.

[Excalibre]

The reason Big Butt Bimbos VI is unrated is because the producers of BBB4 didn't submit it to the MPAA to be rated; if the producers submitted it the MPAA would rate it. All not submitting it to be rated means is that BBB4 can't legally be marketed with one of the MPAA's legally-protected ratings attached.

Yes, of course. However, I imagine very few obscene films are submitted to the MPAA for review.

[foolsguinea]

I once worked at a movie theater briefly. We didn't try real hard to enforce the "R" for most films; lots of films have "R" ratings. But there was this one Paul Verhoeven film we considered very nearly an NC-17, so for that film the policy was stricter.

Michael Moore's probably OK.

[foolsguinea]

That said, if armed cops are standing in front of the door to the screen showing F911, something more is wrong.

[rjung]

That said, if armed cops are standing in front of the door to the screen showing F911, something more is wrong.
How about if they're in the theater while you're watching it? :eek:
The View From America: Responses to Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/breakingnews/index.php?id=32)

Columbus:
"I went to AMC Easton in Columbus, OH, and after getting in the movie i saw a thing that i never, but never saw before in my entire life, and belive me, i go to movies a lot, i mean a lot, almost every week. Police officers were inside the room where the movie was going to be shown, i don't really know the reason why. Almost all the seats where taken and i never saw such a commotion with a movie, it was more like a follow through, applause were given at almost every sentence spoken, and sometimes scenes just made your hair stand up."--G.L.

[threemae]

I remember there being an armed cop (as opposed to one of those unarmed, touchy feely ones, but I do appreciate the flair for the dramatic you guys) when I wanted to sneak into an alternate R rated movie from my ticket with lots o' pretty nipples in it but not being able to, again due to said cop, so I don't think that this is anything new.

Of course the great Michael Moore will no doubt decry the existance of any cop within 500 feet of a theatre showing his film as a product of a vast right wind conspiracy against his film.

At the same time, although I doubt I will care much for the film when I finally get a chance to see it, it seems as though youth should have a particular right to see this film in spite of the violence, etc. within. It seems okay to restrict The Terminator from every potential audience member (although maybe stupid), but certainly Moore's film has more political merit than a film like The Terminator. This seems to be a gray area because the MPAA ratings are self imposed, and it seems like movie theatres should be able to deny service to anyone they feel like for reasonable reasons, like age, but then what are all of these public agencies like cops doing helping to enforce them in the first place then? Why is a resource like a police officer wasted on something that theatres should be doing themselves if they really want to? Are the cops being paid overtime by the theatres a la special events when they hire off-duty cops?

Certainly a lot to ponder. Anyone have more clear explanations?

[Tuckerfan]

In the Nashville area, a lot of the theaters hire off-duty cops as security. These cops will be there, in their police uniform, checking IDs, keeping the riff-raff from causing problems, and this has ben going on long before Moore's current film.

[mcott]

And when I say door, I mean door to the specific theater in question, not just the door to the multiplex where the ticket is usually torn.

Well, can't realy speak for MPAA sanctions, but when I worked at a theatre here, we not only carded people at the box office, but checked tickets and carded again at the theatre door. Of course that was motivated by the fact that in Ontario, at least in 1992, not only could the company and specific theatre be fined for letting a minor in to an R rated film, there was also a personal fine of CAD5000.00 to the cashier who sold the ticket.

Thus being very picky when checking people. Now, I don't think they care much.

[rjung]

In the Nashville area, a lot of the theaters hire off-duty cops as security. These cops will be there, in their police uniform, checking IDs, keeping the riff-raff from causing problems, and this has ben going on long before Moore's current film.
All R-rated movies, or just the "special" ones?

[Tuckerfan]

All R-rated movies, or just the "special" ones?
Don't really know. Last time I was popped for ID at a movie was for Henry & June, so I haven't paid much attention to the cops checking IDs at which theater (and I haven't been to the movies since Moore's latest opened, so I can't tell you how they're handling that).