Discuss: When Ratings Go Wrong
Filed under: Comedy, Drama, Independent, Exhibition
So we've already torn the Motion Picture Association of America asunder for not displaying enough discipline with select film ratings, but what about the times that the MPAA maybe overdid it a bit with their judgment calls?Earlier this week, I watched Danny Boyle's Millions for the first time in a good while, and I'd noticed that it was only rated PG for "thematic elements, language, some peril and mild sensuality" after an appeal to the ratings board. It's a fitting rating for a film worthy of an audience of all ages, but it made me wonder what the similarly whimsical Son of Rambow did to merit a PG-13 for "some violence and reckless behavior". I suppose the argument could be made that the behavior in Rambow lends itself more to imitation, but I know that my theoretical children (they have their mother's eyes) wouldn't be watching one and not the other.
Later that day, I saw Ron Howard's Frost/Nixon, which gets an R for "some language". Now, I know that the MPAA tends to let adult-skewing PG-13 fare get away with an extra f-bomb or two (ex: About a Boy or the particular exception that is Gunner Palace), but by my count, F/N has a single -- albeit loud -- usage of Samuel L. Jackson's favorite expletive, and then nothing else that wouldn't earn an R. Isn't this just Once all over again? Are our nation's teens really going to stumble into this film and walk out worse off for it? (Robert Altman admitted on his Gosford Park commentary track that he intentionally swung an R for similar reasons.)
Now, I really enjoyed both Slumdog Millionaire and The Fall, and while I think they're fine films for mature teens, I also do think that their R ratings are justified. Can you guys and girls come up with any other examples of a rating that was perhaps too harsh? Are you flexible with your own kids if it's more profanity to blame than sexuality or violence, or if the film at hand has a positive message? Do any international readers have similar problems with their respective systems?
(Oh, and just between us, my favorite rating description yet remains 1996's Twister: PG-13 for "intense depiction of very bad weather".)
A Trailer for Gyllenhaal and Maguire's 'Brothers'
Ron Weaseley Has Swine Flu
Quick List: Romance for Boys
Christian Bale's Rollercoaster Career_thumbnail.jpg)
Michael Bay Trashes Megan Fox, Talks 'Transformers 3' and 3D
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-18-2008 @ 8:11PM
NP said...
Almodovar's Bad Education did NOT deserve the NC-17.
Reply
11-18-2008 @ 9:39PM
Tucker said...
I'm sorry, but language alone is a ridiculous reason for altering ratings. For the love of god, they're WORDS.
Reply
11-18-2008 @ 10:48PM
Beeslo said...
Actually I found The Fall's R rating to be a bad one. It could have been a hard PG-13 easy. I'll tell you why it was a bad rating. Because seeing a rated R movie made by Tarsem automatically makes you compare it to his first movie, The Cell (which was definitely deserving of that rating). But in comparison, there was no violence, language or adult situations that really earned it an R. The only thing I can think of that got it this rating was the fact that the main character was trying to commit suicide using medical drugs...I believe it was morphine. So really, this movie was given an R just because it showed a character abusing a drug.
Reply
11-18-2008 @ 10:50PM
William Goss said...
What of the characters who are impaled with arrows and swords, blow themselves up, are shot, let themselves fall from great heights in a transparent act of suicide?
11-18-2008 @ 11:00PM
Beeslo said...
and yet not a drop of blood in any of it. Hence a hard PG-13. Not an R. Heck, Indiana Jones movies carry more realistic violence and blood than this movie did. And I don't remember suicide being the deciding factor for an R movie. Suicide by abusing drugs...I can sorta see that, but considering everything else. I feel it was a mistake.
11-18-2008 @ 11:06PM
William Goss said...
There's clearly a growing stain of blood when the villain is impaled by his own sword, and then he bleeds from the mouth when saying he doesn't feel too good.
Look, so far, it's my favorite film of the year. I've seen it three times, and ultimately -- personally -- I think it merits its rating with a sense of overall intensity. It wouldn't have played in any more theaters with a PG-13, and I'd be just as willing to let any interested fifteen-year-old give it a spin. (Same goes for Slumdog Millionaire, which is equally uplifting after putting the audience through a long, hard journey.)
I didn't rate either film, but I really can't say it's a surprise.
11-18-2008 @ 11:52PM
Beeslo said...
Like I said, I've seen much worse in typical PG-13 movies. I felt that this movie was unfairly rated based on it being a pretty small movie made by a man whose only other feature film contained a scene of a horse being cut into pieces, and slowly seperated displaying a still beating heart.
But biggest reason that this R rating was a bad move, was my girlfriend's reaction. She saw the trailer and she was interested but as soon as she saw Tarsem's name and the R rating, she became terrified. But I championed her through her fears and as we were leaving the theater, she was surprised it was rated R. So was I.
11-18-2008 @ 11:54PM
Alex Farquharson said...
I could go on for hours about why the MPAA is twisted and needs to just be redone, personally i agree with the simple canadian or Australian systems
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 12:13AM
Kurt said...
Anybody else hear about Joe Scarborough dropping an F-Bomb on a live morning show on MSNBC? He didn't even realize he'd said it because cursing is pretty deeply ingrained into the parlance.
Nowhere is this more noticeable than on television, but it definitely creeps up in the film rating systems as well. I think in the case of Frost/Nixon they could have gotten it knocked down to PG-13 with a little effort. I bet they just didn't care because they weren't expecting to draw the under 18 crowd anyway.
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 1:08AM
Saavik said...
Hmmm . . . I can't think of too many examples off-hand, but one is definitely The Object of My Affection. IMDb says that it was "rated R for strong language and some sexuality." I don't remember the language, so maybe that did get above the MPAA's arbitrary allowable quota (though it couldn't have been by that much if I don't remember it), but the second charge is just ridiculous. There's nothing in it in that vein that couldn't be shown on network television at 8 o'clock. (Okay, maybe that's not saying all that much these days, but you know what I mean.)
Going back to the 80s, I find it really strange that Labyrinth is PG, while The Last Unicorn is G. I'm not entirely sure which rating I would consider to be wrong, but I definitely found the Red Bull much scarier than anything in Labyrinth.
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 1:15AM
Eric D. Snider said...
"The Fall" earns its R rating only in a vacuum. If you compare it to other films that got PG-13 (or, in the case of "Prince Caspian," PG!), then the R rating is absurd.
As for "Frost/Nixon," I saw it today, and I was counting. There are four F-bombs. That includes a mother-effer, which generally guarantees an R rating since it's a literal use of the F word as a verb. (I'm not kidding: That's the MPAA's actual rule.)
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 1:16AM
William Goss said...
Well, ain't that about a bitch...
11-19-2008 @ 2:01AM
Gary said...
Can local Government overturn the MPAA's ratings?
There was a case in the UK last year where several local council's overturned the British Film Classification's 18 rating for the film "This is England". They felt that despite the very violent nature of the film due to it's obvious anti racist and violence never wins theme it would actually be a good thing for younger teenagers to see it.
A highly commendable attitude.
This I think should be at the forefront of all classification bodies minds when deciding what rating to give. Is there violence? of course, Is there sex? bad language? etc.. yes of course but the most important question should be what is the intention of the filmmaker? Is it violence for the sake of violence or is there a real attempt to make a compelling story that is honest about its subject matter.
As a parent (If I was a parent that is) I would let my kids watch a highly violent movie if it were made in a responsible manner, I would also say the same about nudity (I always struggle to understand America's problem with nudity sometimes) and even F bombs, again when used in context and of course they knew they were adult words. But I would not let them watch SAW 4 or a porno of course. The MPAA needs to stop being so black and white and actually start to think about, even have discussions with the director and producers to understand their motives before making a decision.
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 9:34AM
ML said...
There are no legal requirements attached to the ratings system; it's an industry standard, not a governmental one. Therefore, no one really has to go along with it if they don't want to.
11-19-2008 @ 3:08AM
doa766 said...
narnia 2+disney+decapitations=G rating
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 12:15PM
Tim said...
Why is there controversy about the rating of a movie that starts off with a torture scene? Slumdog deserves an R rating.
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 2:05PM
Mikey said...
in my opinion the ratings system is bullshit. You guys have mentioned alot of indy movies, which i feel alot of times go for the throat because they are indy films and they know major distribution will never happen. Now as for mainstream hollywood films, i feel they fear the economys bad situation so much, as well as the MPAA that they water down films. I enjoyed Die Hard 4 but HONESTLY.. how the F**K do you have John Mclain in a PG-13 movie?? ooo thats right .. do away with the realism that made the 1st 3 films so great.. and make it UNBELIEVEABLY RIDICULOUS.. note to studios.. the movies are for the fans .. stop kissin the mpaa's ass.. i agree with the guy who says words just words.. kids hear more foul language from each other in school and from just hanging out... i can be smoking pot with my friends and come out with filthier stuff than the movies and i never once said to my mother when she heard me ... i heard bruce willis say ittttt ... a word is a word and we give it meaning.. the word FUCK come from an old english term which means F.ornicating U.nder C.onsent of the K.ing so .. how is that a bad word? they kill a shit load of people in Eagle Eye and drop the F bomb.. but its PG-13 .. however NO Country for old men... rated R.. i didnt feel that film was anymore violent.. vulgar nor anymore mature in theme than say titanic which got a PG-13 ... go figureeee
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 2:05PM
mike said...
oh and by the way i agree with the person who spoke of nudity in film... every boy born on earth has a penis and he can look at it at anytime.. same with anygirl 12 or older.. so in the shower if we can all see our god given things... y is it so badd to see sum1 elses junk on film for whats usually a momentary thing.. we have all seen penis's vagina's and boobs... no biggie.. they show them in Jr High School Text books.. i didnt need a shaparone 17 or older to do my 8th grade science homework
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 10:14PM
Chelsea said...
Whale Rider. One near-subliminal shot of pot paraphenalia got it an R rating, if memory serves.
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 10:16PM
William Goss said...
"Rated PG-13 for brief language and a momentary drug reference."