The Rant

The more quotations and statistics and articles and analyzations and accusations that I am subjected to, the more I despise the Motion Picture Association of America. Its faults are undeniable and fairly simple to adjust. The MPAA's clear bias towards major film studios, the ridiculous NC-17 rating and its effects, the unnecessary mystery behind the process, the simplicity of tricking the MPAA, and the strange preference of violence over sex are all the greatest and most apparant flaws of the system, yet the MPAA refuses to acknowledge such problems. This is because the MPAA benefits directly from all of these flaws. Regardless of the amount of press statements or assurances on the official website, the MPAA does not serve the parents. It serves the studios. It serves Hollywood. It serves the government. It serves the conservative, Republican agenda. It serves to blunt the growth of inteligent cinema, constantly condemning the so-called "deviants" of society. The filmmakers that have spoken out against the MPAA are hardly radicals or evil; they are the people that I admire and aspire to be. Kimberly Peirce does not deserve a limited audience for exploring grey matters of sexuality in the film Boys Don't Cry. Maria Bello does not need to feel guilt for a fleeting shot of her pubic hair in The Cooler rendering the film limited to audiences. John Waters should not be seen as a danger to our children for telling them to not fear their own sexuality. It is the MPAA that should be at the receiving end of the accusatory finger, not the artists or, even, humanitarians that have the courage to express their voices.

The Facts

Whale Rider, widely considered a family film and a feminist statement, received a PG-13 rating for a flash of drug use which was inherent to the story.

Lost in Translation, an Oscar-nominated and benign film about a deep and meaningful connection between a man and a woman of different generations, received an R-rating for one scene of completely meaningless sexual content.

In a study involving the top 100 grossing films of 1994, it was discovered that 10 percent of the PG-13 films had more acts of violence than the average R-rated film, and it is no coincidence that these films were all mainstream.

Previous president of the MPAA, Jack Valenti, was granted the honor of getting his own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and he was accompanied by an interesting group of people, the heads of Warner Brothers Studio, Universal Studios, Walt Disney Pictures, Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, and Sony Pictures.

The MPAA so firmly planted the idea that all films with any rating more severe than an R were essentially pornography that, when the NC-17 rating was created, religious groups criticized the move as an attempt to broaden the audience of pornographic films for more money.

Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, and Matt Stone are well-known for their ability to trick the MPAA into giving the desired rating.

What the experts say...

What the supporters of the MPAA say...

"...the rules permit movie producers to re-edit their films and re-submit them in hopes of receiving another rating. Producers may also appeal a rating decision from the industry organizations that sponsor the rating system. A two-thirds secret-ballot vote of those present on the Appeals Board may overturn a rating board decision."

"Submitting a film is purely a voluntary decision made by the filmmakers. However, the overwhelming majority of the producers creating entertaining, responsible films do in fact submit their films for ratings."

"While the decision to enforce the rating system is purely voluntary, the National Association of Theatre Oners estimate that the majority of theaters observe the Classification and Rating Administration's guidelines."

--MPAA official website

"[This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated] made it clear that we probably haven't done as much as we can to explain how it all works."

--Dan Glickman, MPAA president

What those opposed to the MPAA explain:

"The MPAA rating system is guided by the greed of the movie industry and its fear of the religious right."

"Terrified of outside censorship, the MPAA is more sensitive to content involving language, mild sexuality, and subtle drug references than the average American moviegoer."

--Roger Ebert, highly-regarded film critic

"In a way, there is an exception to this rule [of no objectionable content in G-rated films], and it's Walt Disney Studio...They can get away with more violence and still get a G-rating...I think if anyone else tried to do that...[there] might be a different yardstick."

--Don Bluth, president of Don Bluth Films

“If you want to see the best Hollywood has to offer, better think before bringing the kids."

--Heldenfels, film critic

"[Independent] movies are often R-rated for language alone, while studio-backed movies like Titanic, with full frontal nudity and thousands of dead bodies, get off with PG-13 ratings because of their clout.

--Rhys Southan, writer

“Valenti [the previous head of the MPAA] has been very good publically about, ‘We serve the public. We serve the parents.’ It’s crap. They serve the studios. That’s who pays their bills. That’s who they are. I mean, they are the studios."

--Matt Stone, writer/director/producer

"Unfamiliarity is what breeds these NC-17s.”

--Kimberly Peirce, writer/director of Boys Don't Cry

“In Dedham, outside Boston, an intense public debate and threats of lawsuits ensued when 2 town council members, arguing that the NC-17 rating was nothing but a disguised X, prevailed upon a movie theater not to show the movies."

--Larry Rohter, reporter

“’The studio won’t release your movie if it’s NC-17.’ I was so floored."

--Kimberly Peirce

“If you are limited in your ability to market a film [due to an NC-17]…[people] are not going to know to even go to the theater to see that movie."

--Paul Dergarabedian, a box office analyst

“There’s no reason why the movie ratings…can’t be dealt with in a responsible, public way so there’s accountability."

--Jay Landers, former member of the MPAA

“That is what is odd about the whole thing, that in an industry as big and public as this that there is an organization that is supposedly accountable to the public that is run in such a shadowy way."

--Matt Stone

Argument #2: NC-17 Ratings

One of the more controversial ratings of the MPAA is the much-dreaded NC-17. Films with an NC-17 rating are intended for adults only, and children 17 and under are forbidden to view them. Filmmakers and audiences alike commonly resent an NC-17 rating. For the filmmakers, the rating can be highly detrimental to finding an audience; an entire age group is lost, and studio executives are likely to insist upon a re-edit that may require a filmmaker to abandon his or her own vision.

While a film that has enough mature content to receive an NC-17 rating is undoubtedly inappropriate for children, viewing an NC-17 film can be a difficult feat for adults, as well. Certain publications refuse to advertise any film with an NC-17 rating, disregarding them as pornographic. This prohibits news of a film from reaching a general audience. In addition, certain theaters or video stores refuse to show or carry a film with an NC-17 rating following a series of criticisms from the public. Theaters or stores occasionally fear giving the impression that they have no moral value. Thus, even if an adult is aware and interested in an NC-17 film, he or she may never be able to find it.

The controversy surrounding the NC-17 rating is due to the MPAA's little distinguishment of what it means to obtain such a rating. In fact, people continue to associate the NC-17 rating with an X-rating (used for pornographic films). In the months following the creation of the NC-17 rating, communities and religious groups alike protested the new system, accusing it of attempting to bring pornography to the masses. The respected film critic Roger Ebert asserts the need for an A-for-adult rating in order to establish a clear difference between pornography and art. Until such actions are followed through, the NC-17 rating will always be received with anger from filmmakers and audiences alike.

Argument #1: Bias

The Motion Picture Association of America is well-known for its clear bias towards major film studios and against the struggling independent filmmakers. Some argue that this is true because studio-backed films are more commonly tame in anticipation of receiving a wider audience and in fear of possible controversy, where as independent films are able to explore the darker, grittier, and more realistic aspects of life. Regardless, however, studio executives supposedly do have quite some power on the MPAA. Countless comparisons have been made between highly popular, big-budget films and lesser-known independent films, both with similar content, and the latter almost always receives the harshest ratings. Unfortunately, a harsher rating is exponentially more damaging to an independent film than to a major studio's film. Independent filmmakers are desperately seeking audiences and attempting to "get their films out there." As it is, these artists hardly had enough money to produce their films in the first place; if the film does not gross enough, then future films will be even more difficult to create. Big budget films, however, have no reason to fret over an R-rating, considering only a small portion of an audience is lost, and many teenagers will manage to sneak in, regardless. This makes the MPAA's bias towards a major film studio's work all the more upsetting and unjust.

Not only is the MPAA biased in terms of the people who produced a film, the committee is also fairly biased to letting certain content slide while condemning others as immoral. Violence is commonly disregarded as a minor offense in films, where as films that contain a hint of sexuality are immediately stamped with a PG-13 rating or worse. Any sexual taboos, even the ones as commonly accepted as homosexuality, are considered extremely more offensive than any sex scene between a heterosexual couple, sometimes even garneing an NC-17 rating. Films such as The Departed or Kill Bill, which are full of gore and pain, are simply rated R.

The Pros and Cons

The debate over the effectiveness of the Motion Picture Association of America's rating system has been heavily debated for many year, and both sides have genuine points and concerns that have postponed any real action.

Filmmakers and critics are most frequently the objectors of the MPAA rating system. Their arguments are actually fairly popular in the United States, which begs the question of why no alterations have been made in the face of popular dissent. The reason, however, is the overwhelming amount of differing views and opinions of how the MPAA should be changed. Some radicals argue that the MPAA should be abolished completely for its essentially immoral attempt to censor films from certain Americans. While a ratings system is important for parents, guardians, or even children to be aware of the objectionable material in a film, the rating system should serve as a guideline rather than a decreed law. An R-rating film requires the attendance of the guardian of a child or teenager, which is a hassle but a possibility. NC-17 ratings, however, completely disregard a guardian's approval and forbid any person under the age of 17 to view a certain film. This, some argue, is a total abandonment of the MPAA's goal: to inform the parents, not ignore them. On the other hand, however, some people argue that the MPAA should create a harsher system of ratings, or at least be more open to rating a film NC-17. The MPAA is often criticized for its bias to big-budget, studio films (i.e. Titanic, which received a PG-13 rating, even with the prescence of nudity, language, and violence) and films featuring Christianity (i.e. The Passion of the Christ, which received an R-rating, even though Roger Ebert, who has viewed many NC-17 films, called the most violent film he has ever seen). The MPAA is highly unpopular in the country, and, though motives for such dissent differs greatly, many are insisting upon change.

Many people oppose to alteration or abolition of the MPAA for the very reason provided by the dissentors: the country cannot come to an agreement. The current rating system is already well-known and understood throughout the country. The truth is that the entire country can never be in complete approval of a ratings system, and "mistakes" are inevitable. While some site specific injustices and examples of favoritism, these are essentially isolated events. Most MPAA ratings are hardly ever debated for their accuracy and fairness. The MPAA works as it is, and, until the public is in general accord over a new ratings system, it should be left alone.

"Parents Strongly Cautioned": The MPAA is taking your jobs

I have always been heavily interested in film. Ever since I was in elementary school, the movie theatre was my safe haven and a place of heavy self-reflection. As I grew older, I attempted to expose myself to a variety of films that have garnered critical acclaim and historical recognition. But there was a monster that stood in my way, a vague, distant, and overbearing committee of conservative, irrationally concerned people that took the form of the Motion Picture Association of America. The MPAA's supposed goal was for the welfare of the nation's youth, myself included. Thanks to the MPAA, I was free from the moral atrocities that films such as Sideways, Little Miss Sunshine, and Brokeback Mountain--all films that I was forced to overcome countless obstacles to see in theatres--contain. I was free from the "gratuitous" violence. I was free from the "crude" language. I was free from the "overwhelmingly offensive" expression of sexuality. But, most importantly, I was free from the right to see the films that I so desire.

The truth is that no prudish committee can be aware of my personal level of maturity. There are full grown adults who cannot handle certain films. That said, there are certain teenagers who can see a fleeting moment of violence and a love scene between a caring couple without a sudden loss of innocence. It was this frustration that drove me to hate the Motion Picture Association of America. I cringed at the sight of their seal of approval prior to every preview of coming attractions. I lamented the plainly stated, "Rated R," that shook my television following a commercial for an interesting film. Though I am now a seventeen-year-old, I refuse to let another teenager with a need to quench some strange creative thirst be stolen from his or her right to do so.

Thus, I decided to begin researching and writing in favor of the alteration or, even, abolishment of the current ratings system in America. Partly motivated by the need to hear both sides and partly motivated by the justification of so many years of resentment, I hope to gain a full understanding of the Motion Picture Association of America and how we Americans can improve upon it. The need for a change is not to be overlooked. Now, that, MPAA, would be immoral.