Cinema fans always talk about how the MPAA ratings are arbitrary and silly, and how filmmakers have to do absurd things in order to get an “R” rating, blah, blah, blah…
Here are two alternative systems I thought of:
Have three ratings: PG, PG-13 and NC-17. PG means everyone can get in. PG-13 and NC-17 means that nobody under 13 and 17, respectively, can enter – regardless whether they’re with a guardian or not. This would give filmmakers more leeway, and also make moviegoing more pleasant (ie. no kids in certain theaters.)
Have studios release movies in both rated and unrated versions. The cool city theatres will play the uncut versions like they’ve been doing all along. Eventually, people will catch on that the world’s not going to end just because an edgier version is out there.
There are several problems, particularly the gap between 13 and 17. That is currently the movie industry’s choice demographic, for they are most inclined to dee a movie over and over again. Unfortunately, about 90-95% of the films today is catered tot his audience, even the R-rated ones.
NC-17 has backfired tremendously, for it does nothing about curbing excessive over-the-top violence. Only ‘Scarface’ was nearly NC-17 exclusively because of violent content, and the guys behind thre South Park movie bragged about adding more violence in the film in order to get the R ratinginstead of NC-17! Yet it is decreed that the most dignified, sensual and intimate of nude scenes can’t ever be fully and properly shown in an R rated movie, but instead must be relegated to NC-17.
Do you know how limited a release a movie is forced to have if ir gets labeled NC-17 or unrated? Many theater chains, including Loews, won’t show movies with this rating. The bottom line is especially affected in video sales andrentals, where one never get the movie from huge chains such as Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. This is really why the directors have to have their movies editied: for the movie to be suitable for wider release. Then they can slip in the director’s cut if the movie is very popular, or has a cult following.
True, but filmmakers are also getting in trouble with Congress (!) for supposedly marketing R-rated films to this demographic. I think the system I proposed would take the heat off them and make everyone happier.
Well, this was kind of my point. That’s why I talked about scrapping the R rating entirely and limiting to adults everything that;s above PG-13.
This was also precisely my point. That’s why I suggested releasing unrated and rated versions to theatres. Each theater can then decide which version they want to play. I think this would in the long run result in more acceptance of “unrated” movies.
Don’t take this as a flame, but it seems like you’re attacking the current system, not my suggestions.
Let’s say I’m a parent who wants to take my 15-year old to your NC-17 (formerly R) film. What right does anyone have to say that I’m unable to judge for myself what is and isn’t appropriate? Let’s say the film is Saving Grace or Saving Private Ryan or something else that is either largely innocuous or otherwise redeeming (language, violence notwithstanding). Why should some anonymous panel decide? And how is this going to be enforcable? Should the theaters call the cops if I sneak my own kid into the movie (by sneak I mean buy an “adult” ticket for him)? Isn’t that a little extreme? And will the same policy apply to renting videos?
Believe it or not, this was the policy in the United Kingdom (although the age was 15, not 13). Even if informed, conscientious parents wanted to bring their kids to an “18” movie, they couldn’t. Technically, it would even be illegal for them to exhibit a rental to their kids is they were outside the age parameters. As an American living there, it seemed particularly disturbing to think the government would make that decision for me on something so subjective as art (even art-as-commerce). An end result was that an increased amount of censorship would occur, snipping a few seconds here and a few seconds there in order to get the film down to the right age level, or in some cases, just to get the film released at all. This will not give the filmmakers more freedom; it will give them less, because now the studios will say “You can’t release an NC-17” for fear of losing an enormous amount of money in b.o. revenues now that most teenagers are prohibited from watching these films under any circumstances.
Also, the NC-17 was designed for particularly adult material. By elminating the R, aren’t you throwing the baby out with the bathwater? After all, like capacitor said, some theaters won’t show NC-17 and some papers won’t run ads for them. By elminating the R, what you are essentially doing is painting all those films with an even larger brush (ooo, this film’s so bad, kids aren’t allowed at all).
This is impractical on so many levels. First of all, you have an open season on logistical nightmares re: shipping of the prints and getting pre-orders on which theater will show which. Speaking from personal experience (as a former multi- and megaplex manager), bookings are often negotiated up to the last minute; theaters don’t have the time or resources to wade through the additional bs of figuring out who’s getting what version on what days in what town. This will also mean they have to make more prints and worry about whether the “right” print is being transferred from a first-run to second-run house. It’s too big a pain in the butt to worry about this.
Second of all, this doesn’t solve your marketing problems. What happens if you have two versions opening in the same market (let’s say the city vs. the suburbs)? Getting the public informed on a film’s content is already hard enough without confusing them about which version’s which. And what are the chances that a theater is going to show the unrated one if they have a choice? Blockbuster won’t now, and if there’s any remote possibility they’ll bring in fewer people with the unrated version, they won’t do it.
And capacitor is also right not only that the 13-17 age demographic are more likely to be repeat viewers, but they are also ones who tend to buy a lot of junk at the concession stand. Losing their business on such a scale would kill most exhibitors (heck, they’re already wading in debt as it is)
L.C., your suggestions will only exacerbate the problems of the rating system. One main result will be that the only movies in wide release will be those that cater to children. And, alas, you sadly underestimate most entertainment geared for adults, including movies. A movie that is declared ‘adult’ often depicts the most indulgent and immature of, usually, sexual behaviours. Although there is a fan base of this, there are many, many more people who want to depict adults as adults doing real adult actions in adult situations. Real adult life is not about a series of strangers dropping pants and skirts right after introducing each other.
If it was up to the MPAA, the movie in question might never have gotten released (uncut) or even made in the first place. I think my approach is the lesser of two evils. Imagine how much better movies could potentially be if it wasn’t for the MPAA song and dance.
Same way it’s enforceable now. Kids have always been sneaking into and getting kicked out of movies. And most video stores already require the person taking out a membership to be 18.
I agree, it sucks. But like I said, the MPAA is also dictating what gets released and made in the first place. And I think that’s worse. Also, the UK has the power to outright ban stuff from theaters. With my system, there would be nothing like that -just give everything an NC-17 that seems adult-oriented. You’re right that kids would have to wait for video to see a lot of movies, and that’s an unfortunate effect.
Well, I think my proposal creates a pretty clear distinction between PG-13 and NC-17 films – so filmmakers wouldn’t start out making an adult movie and then be forced to edit it down to a teens’ movie before releasing it. And it might even create a new “genre” of movies that are truly geared for adults, not teen movies in disguise.
On the contrary, I think it would free filmmakers to make the movies they want, without having the MPAA hanging over their heads. Eliminating the R would just get rid of the silly situation where films are crafted around the R rating itself. Maybe more directors would be allowed to have final cut on their projects. And there’s no way theaters would ONLY show PG-13 movies if the R rating disappeared, they’re not going to give the finger to all adults.
Come on, not to sound dismissive but it’s the theater owners’ job to deal with questions like this and the industry would adapt to it in its own way. Of course it would cause disruptions, but as a theater goer, I think it would result in better films.
Hey, despite the confusion I think it would be a really cool situation myself. Sure, most theaters probably will show the rated version, at least at the beginning – but there are always edgier theaters around that’ll show unrated stuff. Why let Blockbuster dictate what can get released? And don’t you think in the long run, it’ll result in more acceptance of unrated movies? Maybe audiences will feel cheated if they’re not getting the uncut deal. I know I would.
You might be right, I don’t claim to be an expert on the theater business. But I’m skeptical that 13-17’s going with their parents currently make up a big chunk of the R-rated audience. And my system might encourage more adult-oriented films to be made, therefore more adults might feel like going to the movies. (Plus, I’ll repeat my point that film companies are already in hot water for supposedly corrupting teens by attracting them to R-rated movies. This would solve that problem.)
Despite the problems, don’t you think my proposals would create an atmosphere that allows better movies to be made?
I have to disagree on this. If you limit to adults everything that’s above PG-13, then there’s no reason for filmmakers to feel they have to “push the envelope” or be exploitative. They’d have more freedom to do what they want.
They’ll make real adult movies, rather than teen movies with adult elements.
I don’t see how this would give film studios more leeway when it came to the content of movies. For starters the rating system has changed over the years. A movie that was PG in the late 70’s might be rated R today because of the nudity. Ever see a movie called The Great Scout and Cathouse Thursday starring Lee Marvin and Robert Culp? It was rated PG in 1976 or 77 and there were several scenes of topless women. Have you seen any PG or PG-13 movies in the 90’s with topless women?
The whole reason the the MPAA rating system is useless is because it tells you nothing about the movie. Friday the 13th Part Whatever is given an R rating for its graphic violence and some nudity. Stand By Me gets the exact same rating but has no graphic violence or nudity. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Heck, Star Wars used to be rated G but when they rereleased it with the additional footage it was bumped up to PG. Was it any worse? No.
How many directors do you think would actually go for such a system?
Another problem is that there is a very vocal segment of the American population that doesn’t want anyone seeing what they don’t think is acceptable. When the NC-17 rating was first created, the idea was that it would enable filmmakers to produce true “adult” films without the association with hard-core porn that the X rating had picked up. Unfortunately, as soon as movies like Henry and June, Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! and The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover started appearing, the Moral Majority fundies picketed the theaters, accusing them of “peddling pornography to our children.” As a result, most big chains stopped showing NC-17 films.
No matter what rating system you use, these guys won’t stop screaming until there’s nothing in the theaters but Disn…, no wait, uh… Teletub…, no that’s not it. What do these guys want us watching, anyway?
Gs are harder to get these days as well. Very few movies that are not intended for young children are rated G anymore, while in the '70s the rating was quite common. ‘The Andromeda Strain’ is rated G, yet has some very suspenseful moments and scenes of mass death. ‘Airport’, ‘Sounder’, ‘They Might Be Giants’, and ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’ are all examples of movies intended for adults that got the G rating in the 1970s. Towards the end of the decade things started to change, G started getting a reputation as a rating for kiddy movies and filmmakers started adding unnecessary language or violence to avoid it - there is a rumor that the shot of Luke Skywalker’s aunt and uncle’s charred corpses was added solely to avoid a G rating, though today it would get a PG without it because of the high level of non-graphic violence in the movie.
I was born in 1976 and to be honest I don’t remember G rated movies being anything but for kids. Of course I’ve heard some people complaining about all that violence in G rated Disney movies.
I was in error then. I thought Star Wars was rated G in 1977 and didn’t get a PG rating until the special edition was released. My mistake.
I think the most useful rating system I’ve seen is what they have on television. They’ll but something like TV PG followed by letters to signify why it is rated TV PG. While it isn’t perfect it makes more sense then a movie being rated by one letter.
Indeed. I wouldn’t take a child to a film which was rated R due to nudity and sex, but I may well allow a child access to a film which was given that rating due to violence or thematic material, if there was redeeming value, such as in Schindler’s list.
In fact, the same could apply if I were seeing a movie with one of my parents. No matter how old I get, I don’t think I’ll ever avoid cringing if clothes start coming off in a movie I’m watching with my mom.
The idea I like the most, which Roger Ebert has espoused, is to bring back the “X” rating for hard-core pornography and gratuitous “Faces of Death” violence, and add an “A” rating as a middle ground for movies that are clearly intended for adults, but are not “Totally Anal III”. This would catch movies like “South Park: BLU” and “American Psycho” that just missed the mark, and whose “R” ratings imply that it’s OK to bring the kids, as long as you’re there.
The solution in an ideal world would be to allow the studio to choose between R/A/NC-17. That way, they could decide whether the message they want to send is “This is probably OK for your kids, if you think they can handle it,” “This movie is not at all intended for those under 18”, and “Hot XXX girl-on-girl action!” Hopefully, public pressure would keep studios honest, but most of them would probably pull out the old, “We believe that the parents are the best ones to decide whether it is appropriate for their child to see ‘Buttman and Throbbin’.”
I understand those parents who believe that the choice should ultimately be theirs, but I really have no problem with restricting public screenings of certain movies to those 18 and up. A lot of parents believe that their teenager is mature enough to handle a beer or a glass of wine, but we don’t let them drink in bars. If parents want to let them drink at home, or want to show them an “A”-rated movie, it doesn’t bother me, but I don’t like the implication that every place is a good place to bring your kids.
The “A” rating would suffer exactly the same fate as the NC-17. Nobody would take it seriously.
I still think we should just scrap the “R” and rate everything X (NC-17, whatever) that’s potentially “adult” --everything from Chuck Norris movies to hardcore porn. I’m serious. That would shut up the prudes and also be good for the more adventurous viewers.
Most of them, I think. They always complain of being cut by the MPAA and they end up releasing “director’s cuts” to video later on. Why not just release the director’s cut right away and avoid all that silliness.
I hate to say it but it seems to me that most directors cuts just include scenes that were cut for a reason. In generally I’ve found that cut scenes do not add much more then time to any movie. There are obviously exceptions but that’s just my opinion on the matter. No I don’t think most directors would want a censored movie as well as an uncenesored movie to be released. There’s a difference between a directors cut that simply has some scenes taken out and a cut that is just censored beyond reason.
From a practical perspective, the MPAA has outlived its usefulness. For it’s stated purpose–informing parents about what movies are appropriate for what ages–it has become effectively useless. G rated Disney movies routinely have more violece than many PG-13 movies. PG has virtually ceased to exist. R is so broad as to be meaningless.
Parents who want to be informed about the content of films their children want to see have a huge body of information available to them that will tell them exactly what is going on in movies. Narrative reviews are good at conveying all the information a parent needs, and those with internet connections have access to sites of all sorts of flavors especially for that purpose.
Of course, the MPAA has long ceased to be a service for parents. Its has become a business that needs to justify its existence, disregarding the needs of parents and the artistic merits of the film.
The R rating is particularly cumbersome. There is a formula for what you can get away with in a PG-13 movie that the MPAA denies exists, but everyone knows anyway. For example, you can have one non-sexual “fuck”, but use it in a sexual manner or more than once, and get an R. A single, brief, non-sexual flash of a woman’s breasts is likewise acceptable in a PG-13.
{6 checks his copy of “Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down”} Sigh. It really is rated NC-17. This is truly bizarre.
Random trivia: The makers of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre removed nearly all of the graphic violence from the movie in hopes of getting a PG rating so that they could sell it to a teen audience. When I told my friends this, they were amazed, but look carefully, and you’ll see the camera always cuts away just before the final act or it happens just offscreen. The most graphically violent act shown on screen is when the hitchhiker cuts the guy in the wheelchair.
Random trivia 2: John Larroquette was trying to imitate Orson Welles in the spoken intro.