Because I’m over the age of 18 and not a parent, I tend to pay very little attention to MPAA ratings. However, when I do notice them, it’s usually because they’re ridiculously illogical. Male nudity is appraised much differently than female nudity, and sex in general is considered dramatically more “obscene” than the most loathsome screen violence. These distinctions are usually most obvious in the PG-13, R, and NC-17 realms, but they can also be seen across the G and PG divide.Recently, I sat down to watch Neil Young: Heart of Gold, Jonathan Demme’s documentary of a pair of concerts that Young performed at Nashville’s Ryman Auditorium. The film is rated PG because of “some drug-related lyrics”. I’ll allow that there are probably very few pre-teen Neil Young fans whose rigid parents forbade them from seeing Heart of Gold because of the PG rating, but the principle of the thing is important. If there’s one kid out there who was saved from heroin addiction by not seeing Neil sing “Needle and the Damage Done”, a vehemently damning take on drug abuse (“I watched the needle take another man / Gone, gone, the damage done”), well, maybe the MPAA has a point. But I doubt it.
MPAA ratings have a dramatic effect on what kind of movies get made and what content is forced to be excised, since distribution and box office grosses are often directly tied into whether a film garners a PG-13 rating as opposed to an R, an R as opposed to an NC-17, etc. Most filmmakers grudgingly accept having to work within the MPAA’s capricious boundaries, but one director is tackling them head-on. Kirby Dick examines the MPAA’s highly secretive and hypocritical methodology in a new documentary titled This Film Is Not Yet Rated. The film, which includes interviews with high-profile filmmakers, critics, attorneys, authors, and educators, is due to hit theatres in early September. But because the MPAA recently slapped Dick’s film with an NC-17 rating (surprise!), it remains to be seen whether it will be playing in a theatre near you. If it does, though, make sure to bring the kids (you can sneak 'em in if you have to).
- Nathan Hogan
3 comments:
I think we can safely say that because the movie industry relies so much on the ratings system to sell a movie, this encourages offensive content more than it hinders it. Most movies aimed at family audiences are made specifically to get at least a PG rating, since the G rating has the unfair stigma of being too babyish. (Even though movies like CARS do extremely well at the box office, you can still probably count on your hands the number of G-rated pictures that will be released this year.) I read that the film FLY AWAY HOME (1996) had certain brief material included in it for no other reason than to avoid a G rating. And of course, the new SUPERMAN RETURNS, which you KNOW 8-year-olds are going to want to see (who else is all the Superman tie-in merchandise aimed at?) has no less than a PG-13 rating. So I think the industry's dependence on ratings has completely the opposite effect from what you describe. I mean, can you look at movies today and say that there is a dearth of adult-oriented material?
PAUL FITZPATRICK
It's possible that on the low-end of the spectrum (G to PG) you are right. I did some quick research on top grossing films, and in many cases, movies that I assumed were rated G (a lot of Dreamworks and Disney fare) are indeed PG.
However, only one of the top ten highest grossing films ever made received an R rating--The Passion of the Christ. And, clearly that's a film that was uniquely positioned to avoid the audience drop-off that occurs when films are rated R as opposed to PG-13 because its violence was seen by many as being of a different, more acceptable sort. In general, if you survey the top grossing movies, you'll see that it pays to receive a PG-13 or lower.
Obviously there is plenty of "adult-oriented material" available, but there's no question that talented, serious-minded filmmakers have been forced to modify their films to avoid the dreaded "NC-17" rating, which is seen as a box office kiss of death. Many theatres refuse to show NC-17 films, and I believe that it's impossible to advertise them on network TV. Eyes Wide Shut is one example of a film that was digitally modified to avoid the dreaded rating--it would be nice for Kubrick's vision to hold more weight than the MPAA's.
At any rate, I'm far from an expert on ratings and box office grosses, and I look forward to Kirby Dick's documentary to fill in some blanks.
Thanks as always for reading and responding.
- Nathan Hogan
It's curious that NC-17 films are so taboo, because the difference between an R and an NC-17 seems to be a case of splitting hairs. If theatres don't want to show NC-17 films, they should take a good look at some of the R-rated schlock they ARE showing.
As for the PG-13 rating being more beneficial to the box office than an R rating, if this is true, it is curious that so many films are released with the R rating, and I'll bet they weren't all shooting for the PG-13. At any rate, movies should be given ratings based on concern for parents and children, and not based on how it will affect their box-office performance.
PAUL FITZPATRICK
Post a Comment