What entity at a national level rates movies? I know some states even had their own boards, but MD for one, did away with it. So, who are “they”? Where do they draw the line between PG and R? How much nudity in a PG movie can be allowed until it becomes R-rated? Or, is the answer none - at best, it is all the power of suggestion in a PG movie? - Jinx
Why the MPAA rates the movies.
From their website
The ratings are decided by a full-time Rating Board located in Los Angeles. There are 8-13 members of the Board who serve for perods of varying length. They work for the Classification and Rating Administration, which is funded by fees charged to producers/distributors for the rating of their films. The MPAA President chooses the Chairman of the Rating Board, thereby insulating the Board from industry or other group pressure.
The criteria that go into the mix which becomes a Rating Board judgment are theme, violence, language, nudity, sensuality, drug abuse, and other elements. Part of the rating flows from how each of these elements is treated on-screen by the filmmaker. In making their evaluation, the members of the Ratings Board do not look at snippets of film in isolation but consider the film in its entirety. The Rating Board can make its decisions only by what is seen on the screen, not by what is imagined or thought.
This site was pretty informative.
I was going to say, “idiots and cretins,” but I see Zebra’s already posted a link to the MPAA.
Dang it Miller I was going to say monkeys pressing random buttons with a total disconnect from the actual content and rational consistent behavior.
As with many organizations, their stated policy and what they actually do differ greatly. Some key points:
-
No big budget studio film gets an “R” unless they are really asking for it. But a low budget indie film gets an “R” just because.
-
They do look at isolated bits. “Whale Rider” was rated “R” for extremely trivial stuff. A bong in the background in one shot. A great family film that most families didn’t even know about.
-
Violence is fine, dirty talk is bad. Not all bad things are equally bad, some are badder than others.
-
Any board member that doesn’t “play along” gets booted and replaced. So free thinking, open-minded people are excluded. So the board is heavily skewed to one side.
ftg,
as much as I agree with you I have to point out Whale Rider was stuck with a PG-13 not R.
Yeah. It should have definately been a PG, though. That was a great movie.
In another recent insult, the MPAA re-rated the director’s cut of Amadeus from PG to R because of a brief, wide-angle tit shot. :rolleyes:
I thought wide-angle tits were only PG-13! (It’s the narrowly-focused tits that’re supposed to get’cha.)
Here’s another example of the MPAA’s selective policy enforcement:
According to their official policy, you can say “fuck” in a PG-13 movie, but you can only say it once, and it has to be in a non-sexual context. If you say “fuck” more than once, or you say “fuck” once in a sexual context, your movie is supposed to automatically get an R rating.
Well, the movie My Best Friend’s Wedding was rated PG-13, and there was a scene in it where Julia Roberts was pretending that her gay male buddy was her boyfriend. To emphasize this point, she said, “He came out here to, um, fuck me.”
That doesn’t sound like much of a non-sexual context to me!
Although you won’t find it officially stated anyplace, the PG-13 rating came about basically because of parent’s outrage over the excessive violence in Spielberg’s Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom (directed) and Gremlins (exec produced) both of which were rated PG.
A lot of Hollywood was also pissed. They felt Spielberg’s clout had influenced the MPAA’s decision to let these films ‘squeak’ under an R rating.
But according to their website:
“These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents.”
This, essentially, gives them an Out to be as inconsistent as they like–usually because they are subjected to studio lobbyists who will petition for lower ratings for movies with big stars or big budgets.
And as for Amadeus, technically, that nude scene was in a sexual context (although I agree on the :rolleyes: )
Let’s not forget that they were going to slap “Big Fish” with an NC-17 because of a brief Ewan McGregor nude shot. It was cut from the American release of the film.
Uh, I think you’re thinking of Young Adam, not the Tim Burton film.
In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, lots of PG movies had bare breasts, and now that gets Amadeus an R? Great.
Another unwritten MPAA rule is that we mustn’t let teenagers see any frank, realistic movies about teenagers.
You’re thinking of Young Adam. And it wasn’t cut (neither was Ewan).
I remember as a child going to Tommy with my family. My older brother was a huge Elton John fan and he really wanted to see him in the film. The film is rated PG.
It has sex, drugs and rock and roll.
To this day, I’m terrified of Tina Turner.
Oh and I really want to cover Ann Margret in beans.
But at that time America wasn’t so prudish. Times have changed and people don’t want their kids growing up like me.
I personally feel that ‘black’ films will get their ratings a bit higher than an ‘white’ film.
There was a big blow up over the South Park Movie because Parker and Stone released the memo from the board to the public.
To change a NC-17 to an R they had to change
What’s a rim job?
That’s where you throw your legs over your head and someone licks your ass.
(that’s NC-17)
That’s where you throw your legs over you had and someone licks your anus.
(that’s R)
There were a few other changes but Parker and Stone thought everyting the board wanted to change made the movie funnier.
Weird huh?
I always find it amazing how you can take out or change less than a second of footage and get a different rating.
If anyone cares, my parents have been using http://www.kids-in-mind.com to make decisions about what my sister and I can watch for a few years. It explains and justifies its ratings, but can occasionally contain spoilers in its explanations. On the other hand, I would argue that it has made some mistakes. For example, The Matrix got 7/10 for violence, but I would say that all the violence in it is obviously fake, to the point of being almost comical.
I get a kick out of old PG movies. Clash of the Titans has some breast shots and a worthy amount of violence.
One of my faves was an old horror movie (no idea what the title is) that was PG. In one scene a girl walks totally nude through a dark room but there’s shafts of light. You get a very clear shot of her breasts and pubic shot as well. There’s also another scene where a guy gets crushed by a falling cross and a huge pool of blood forms under him. I ment to write the title down so I could rent it and see what else was in there (this was on some classic movie channel) but I forgot.
Why wasn’t The Passion of the Christ given an NC-17? I mean, that “R” rating is incredibly broad the way it’s used.
I’d argue that PG-13 is more broad then R material wise.
However the reason Passion of the Christ wasn’t NC-17 is that in the current ratings system NC is just a polite way of saying X. I agree with Ebert when he says there needs to be an adult non-X level.