To Be Blunt -- Movie Ratings Are None of Congress' Business
Filed under: Family Films, Politics
It should be end of discussion on the matter of Facing the Giants receiving a PG-rating from the MPAA. As I mentioned earlier this month, the filmmakers were under the impression the rating was given because of "religious elements." But as Martha reported in an update, the MPAA straightened the issue out and there was no appeal. Now everyone should be happy, right? Oh wait, the politicians still aren't. What do they have to do with ratings? Nothing officially, but that doesn't stop them from sticking their noses in. Roy Blunt and other members of Congress are so concerned with the MPAA's decision they are urging a close evaluation of the board's practices. Let's see if we can understand why this is still not clear to them. After hearing about the initial complaint, Blunt wrote a letter to MPAA head Dan Glickman which said, "This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence." There's his first misunderstanding. He seems to think that G-rated movies have gratuitous sex and violence. His second misunderstanding obviously came when Glickman replied, insisting that the movie was not given a PG because of religious content. Oh, and just to clear it up to our readers, too, the rating was said to be given for mature discussions, including one about pregnancy.
These misunderstandings continue because after a meeting with the MPAA, Blunt and others have apparently decided the ratings board is too subjective and inconsistent. On top of the issue with Facing the Giants, the House members are concerned about a Harvard study that concluded the MPAA's standards are lowering (With so few movies getting G and PG ratings, I find that hard to believe). Marsha Blackburn, of Tennessee, said, "I'm not satisfied. We probably will want to revisit this ratings process to have some commonality in the standards that exist for movies, videos and video games." She is hoping to have hearings conducted later this year.
I hate to get political about movies, but film ratings are none of the government's business. They don't have the authority and the MPAA is not law, so Blunt and friends have no reason to get involved, especially since it's a dead issue and it also borders on being a church and state thing.












Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-02-2006 @ 8:25PM
EO said...
Another non-issue made into a big deal by people attempting to push an agenda. I'm talking about the "religious right." Every chance they get to make their crazy "everybody's out to get Christians" point, they're going to take. It's amazing how good certain Christians have gotten at taking on the role of the persecuted minority, in a country that's at least 80% Christian. (This message paid for by Sun Worshippers of America)
Reply
7-02-2006 @ 9:42PM
DJ Erickson said...
Realistically speaking, its the government's business if the government decides its the government's business. Period.
And considering that the political party most likely to "reform" Hollywood currently controls all three branches of the federal government ... well, you can figure out the rest.
Reply
7-03-2006 @ 10:48AM
Brant said...
Actually, the MPAA is very much the government's business. It's easy to forget that the MPAA is, first and foremost, a lobbying group in Washington (similar to AAA or the AARP) whose representatives regularly petition the government for policies that will benefit their interests. And keep in mind that long-time MPAA President Jack Valenti worked in the White House under Kennedy and LBJ before he moved to LA and became an asshole. Also, the reason the MPAA ratings exist in the first place is because Hollywood worked out a compromise with Congress when they started threatening government censorship in the 1960's.
Now, all of this doesn't excuse the fact that conservatives are milking this current "assault on values" to score political points with their base. But the MPAA and the US government are inextricably intertwined, so we shouldn't be all that surprised when their relationship occassionally makes headlines.
Reply
7-03-2006 @ 12:07PM
Christopher Campbell said...
Brant, none of that changes the fact that the government shouldn't be involved in entertainment in the first place.
Reply
7-03-2006 @ 12:47PM
Anomaly1974 said...
Any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the constitution of the United States shall be regulated by the States. The feds have no business doing almost anything that they are doing. Sadly, that never stopped them before and probably will not stop them in the future. Not until they destroy our great Nation I think. :( Sad but true!
Reply
7-03-2006 @ 1:18PM
Brant said...
Shouldn't it? After all, I kinda LIKE PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts.
Reply
7-03-2006 @ 1:21PM
Christopher Campbell said...
Okay, I see your point. But they can support PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts and regulate that which they fund. They shouldn't have authority over commercial entertainment.
Reply