We are all somewhat familiar with the movie ratings system. We are aware of the letter designation assigned to each movie at the end of the trailer (G, PG, PG-13, R) or perhaps the phrase “This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated.” Many of us know the restrictions our parents set for us, dictating the movies we were allowed to view. However, I doubt that many of you are actually familiar with the Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA) who actually assigns these ratings. From my experience, many people actually believe that these ratings come from some government agency, and the ratings are somehow law, but as I will explain, this is simply not the case. The heinous transgressions of this group are largely unknown to the public because they view the MPAA as mostly unimportant. The problems with the MPAA range from their definitions of the ratings to the process to their biases to their preoccupation with business. My proposal is that the public must be informed of the failings of the MPAA so that they can voice their opinion and change the system for the better. These ratings cannot stand any longer as they are.
As for the ratings themselves, the MPAA defines many aspects of them strangely. The G and PG ratings are reasonable, and I have no major qualms with them, but the others are less agreeable. It seems around this point they begin counting obscenities apparently changing the rating if it reaches some critical level. In PG-13, the film can drop the f-bomb but only once in general. Moreover, the word can only be used in a more abstract context because if you make the word at all sexual, the rating suddenly jumps to an R; a distinction that defies any reason I can conjure. At the R level, a filmmaker can get away with much more realistic violence and the nudity can be in a sexual context, but anyone under 17 must be accompanied by a guardian. The most trouble lies within the dreaded NC-17 rating – No Children 17 or Under. Defined by “violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong,” the rating is used to change whatever things the raters have a problem with. The rating is essentially the kiss of death for a film, so filmmakers will often do anything to get the R.
Bear in mind that just because these ratings have a short definition by the MPAA, that does not mean the ratings board process is at all orderly or clearly defined. The MPAA claims the raters represent the interests of kids and the “average American family,” but this idea of an objective American morality is antiquated and absurd. The most notable and perhaps most disagreeable aspect of the board is its secrecy. The raters are said to be “parents with no past affiliation to the movie business,” yet the raters’ identities are kept secret by the MPAA. They claim that this is to protect the raters from outside influence, but they have direct association with people from the movie studios that have the most to gain. America is the only country with an anonymous ratings board. The raters are even made to sign several nondisclosure agreements with vague guidelines so that the MPAA can sue if any information they deem compromising to their interests is disclosed. From the couple of past raters who have broken the agreement, it is clear that the board is given no standard. The raters are simply put to work upon hire and don’t receive any training. This leads to ratings that are inconsistent and wildly unpredictable.
Despite their unpredictability, the ratings do follow a few trends based on the board’s obvious biases. The most apparent of these biases is the extremely harsh treatment of sex as compared to violence. Films receive an NC-17 for sex four times more frequently than violence. In PG-13 movies, a filmmaker can include appalling amounts of violence provided that there is not blood. Once blood is shown, the rating jumps to at least an R. Filmmaker Darren Aronofsky suggests that this concept should be reversed. He argues that it isn’t blood that kids cannot handle; it’s the unrealistic concept of violence in PG-13 movies that they shouldn’t be exposed to. If kids see the horrors of violence and war, they will be less likely to engage in these things. What’s even more concerning is that the target audience of these violent movies is the demographic most likely to commit violent acts. The true thing to protect these kids from is the violence they are at risk for. The real problem here is that, despite the saying, violence simply sells to American audiences in a way that sex doesn’t. In the modern age of this “American morality,” it seems that violence is always held to be less damaging than sex. This is a novelty specific to America, where sex has been demonized as an adulterator of the mind instead of a wonderful part of life.
However, the MPAA’s bias towards sex is not unified hatred; they create dichotomies within sex and are even further biased along those lines. For one thing, the judgments of the MPAA are extremely misogynistic, displayed through their condonation of violence against women and condemnation of female pleasure. Violence against women is a common plot device that raters have never seemed to have problem with but pleasure is much different. They have cited a “too-long female orgasm” as reason for the harshest of ratings. In another aspect, observing a wide range of movies reveals that raters historically allow more images of the male form than the female form. There have even been occasions where a movie received an NC-17 rating for “a shot of a woman’s pubic hair.” Misogyny is a problem still strongly gripping our society, and we cannot have a film industry that promotes it.
Another dichotomy is heterosexuality versus homosexuality, and the MPAA once again feels the need to reinforce harmful cultural biases. Remember that the NC-17 rating includes a provision for “aberrational behavior,” an ambiguity that allows for penalization for homosexuality. The MPAA disgustingly views homosexuality as something too inappropriate and harmful for children under 18 to view. When comparing nearly identical sex scenes in different movies, the heterosexual scene receives an R while the homosexual scene receives an NC-17. This discrepancy exposes the huge problem with the MPAA; they attempt to stifle the art form which they are supposed to protect. Art finds much of its value in promoting ideas, and if the MPAA chooses which ideas are acceptable, film ceases to be true art.
The biases and ratings are certainly concerning matters, but the MPAA is only worth discussing because of the business aspect. This Motion Picture Association is comprised of Sony Pictures, Warner Bros., Universal, Walt Disney Pictures, Paramount, and 20th Century Fox who make up over 95% of the film business. Each of these companies is owned by Sony, Time Warner, General Electric, The Walt Disney Company, Viacom, and New Corp respectively who make up over 90% of all American media. The association they have created is essentially vertical integration free of competition, with a single group owning almost all production and distribution of film. The hold they have is so strong that theaters must strictly enforce the MPAA’s ratings, or they will not receive films.
Unfortunately, the MPAA use their tenacious grip on the industry to squash the dissenters, independent filmmakers. The ratings board has always favored those making films through their own organization. Matt Stone has noted that during his first encounter with the ratings board, they claimed that they would not give specific notes on how to improve the rating. However, when he was with a major studio on a later project, they told him the specifics for getting an R rating. The NC-17 rating is therefore only a real problem for independent filmmakers. Most theaters and retailers don’t even carry NC-17 films which is why the ratings are so crucial. An NC-17 makes one’s film unmarketable because no network would advertise such a film. The MPAA’s ratings are technically voluntary, but an unrated movie is even harder to sell, so the only option is to conform to MPAA standards. Any ideas or words or images that the MPAA doesn’t like cannot be seen by the public. The initial head of the MPAA, Jack Valenti, claimed this was an end to censorship, but it is one of the last vestiges of censorship. If one is independent and wants one’s movie to be seen, one cannot avoid the MPAA.
In conclusion, the MPAA must be changed or dissolved. Film is an art form that has become entirely too dominated by the business aspect. The ratings board imposes misogynistic and homophobic ideas of morals onto films, and censors anyone who doesn’t share their narrow-minded values. Anyone who appreciates film in any capacity must agree that the MPAA is bad for the art. We do not need an authoritarian censorship organization; we need more freedom of expression for our filmmakers. I urge everyone to contact the MPAA and let them know that this will not stand.
As for the ratings themselves, the MPAA defines many aspects of them strangely. The G and PG ratings are reasonable, and I have no major qualms with them, but the others are less agreeable. It seems around this point they begin counting obscenities apparently changing the rating if it reaches some critical level. In PG-13, the film can drop the f-bomb but only once in general. Moreover, the word can only be used in a more abstract context because if you make the word at all sexual, the rating suddenly jumps to an R; a distinction that defies any reason I can conjure. At the R level, a filmmaker can get away with much more realistic violence and the nudity can be in a sexual context, but anyone under 17 must be accompanied by a guardian. The most trouble lies within the dreaded NC-17 rating – No Children 17 or Under. Defined by “violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong,” the rating is used to change whatever things the raters have a problem with. The rating is essentially the kiss of death for a film, so filmmakers will often do anything to get the R.
Bear in mind that just because these ratings have a short definition by the MPAA, that does not mean the ratings board process is at all orderly or clearly defined. The MPAA claims the raters represent the interests of kids and the “average American family,” but this idea of an objective American morality is antiquated and absurd. The most notable and perhaps most disagreeable aspect of the board is its secrecy. The raters are said to be “parents with no past affiliation to the movie business,” yet the raters’ identities are kept secret by the MPAA. They claim that this is to protect the raters from outside influence, but they have direct association with people from the movie studios that have the most to gain. America is the only country with an anonymous ratings board. The raters are even made to sign several nondisclosure agreements with vague guidelines so that the MPAA can sue if any information they deem compromising to their interests is disclosed. From the couple of past raters who have broken the agreement, it is clear that the board is given no standard. The raters are simply put to work upon hire and don’t receive any training. This leads to ratings that are inconsistent and wildly unpredictable.
Despite their unpredictability, the ratings do follow a few trends based on the board’s obvious biases. The most apparent of these biases is the extremely harsh treatment of sex as compared to violence. Films receive an NC-17 for sex four times more frequently than violence. In PG-13 movies, a filmmaker can include appalling amounts of violence provided that there is not blood. Once blood is shown, the rating jumps to at least an R. Filmmaker Darren Aronofsky suggests that this concept should be reversed. He argues that it isn’t blood that kids cannot handle; it’s the unrealistic concept of violence in PG-13 movies that they shouldn’t be exposed to. If kids see the horrors of violence and war, they will be less likely to engage in these things. What’s even more concerning is that the target audience of these violent movies is the demographic most likely to commit violent acts. The true thing to protect these kids from is the violence they are at risk for. The real problem here is that, despite the saying, violence simply sells to American audiences in a way that sex doesn’t. In the modern age of this “American morality,” it seems that violence is always held to be less damaging than sex. This is a novelty specific to America, where sex has been demonized as an adulterator of the mind instead of a wonderful part of life.
However, the MPAA’s bias towards sex is not unified hatred; they create dichotomies within sex and are even further biased along those lines. For one thing, the judgments of the MPAA are extremely misogynistic, displayed through their condonation of violence against women and condemnation of female pleasure. Violence against women is a common plot device that raters have never seemed to have problem with but pleasure is much different. They have cited a “too-long female orgasm” as reason for the harshest of ratings. In another aspect, observing a wide range of movies reveals that raters historically allow more images of the male form than the female form. There have even been occasions where a movie received an NC-17 rating for “a shot of a woman’s pubic hair.” Misogyny is a problem still strongly gripping our society, and we cannot have a film industry that promotes it.
Another dichotomy is heterosexuality versus homosexuality, and the MPAA once again feels the need to reinforce harmful cultural biases. Remember that the NC-17 rating includes a provision for “aberrational behavior,” an ambiguity that allows for penalization for homosexuality. The MPAA disgustingly views homosexuality as something too inappropriate and harmful for children under 18 to view. When comparing nearly identical sex scenes in different movies, the heterosexual scene receives an R while the homosexual scene receives an NC-17. This discrepancy exposes the huge problem with the MPAA; they attempt to stifle the art form which they are supposed to protect. Art finds much of its value in promoting ideas, and if the MPAA chooses which ideas are acceptable, film ceases to be true art.
The biases and ratings are certainly concerning matters, but the MPAA is only worth discussing because of the business aspect. This Motion Picture Association is comprised of Sony Pictures, Warner Bros., Universal, Walt Disney Pictures, Paramount, and 20th Century Fox who make up over 95% of the film business. Each of these companies is owned by Sony, Time Warner, General Electric, The Walt Disney Company, Viacom, and New Corp respectively who make up over 90% of all American media. The association they have created is essentially vertical integration free of competition, with a single group owning almost all production and distribution of film. The hold they have is so strong that theaters must strictly enforce the MPAA’s ratings, or they will not receive films.
Unfortunately, the MPAA use their tenacious grip on the industry to squash the dissenters, independent filmmakers. The ratings board has always favored those making films through their own organization. Matt Stone has noted that during his first encounter with the ratings board, they claimed that they would not give specific notes on how to improve the rating. However, when he was with a major studio on a later project, they told him the specifics for getting an R rating. The NC-17 rating is therefore only a real problem for independent filmmakers. Most theaters and retailers don’t even carry NC-17 films which is why the ratings are so crucial. An NC-17 makes one’s film unmarketable because no network would advertise such a film. The MPAA’s ratings are technically voluntary, but an unrated movie is even harder to sell, so the only option is to conform to MPAA standards. Any ideas or words or images that the MPAA doesn’t like cannot be seen by the public. The initial head of the MPAA, Jack Valenti, claimed this was an end to censorship, but it is one of the last vestiges of censorship. If one is independent and wants one’s movie to be seen, one cannot avoid the MPAA.
In conclusion, the MPAA must be changed or dissolved. Film is an art form that has become entirely too dominated by the business aspect. The ratings board imposes misogynistic and homophobic ideas of morals onto films, and censors anyone who doesn’t share their narrow-minded values. Anyone who appreciates film in any capacity must agree that the MPAA is bad for the art. We do not need an authoritarian censorship organization; we need more freedom of expression for our filmmakers. I urge everyone to contact the MPAA and let them know that this will not stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment