Happy 25th Birthday, PG-13 Rating!
Filed under: Exhibition, Steven Spielberg
For elderly people like me, in our 30s, it's sobering to realize that on any given Friday night, the majority of people in an average American movie theater do not remember a time when the PG-13 rating did not exist. Yes, it was 25 years ago this summer that the Motion Picture Association of America added PG-13 to its roster of ratings, joining G, PG, R, and X (which in 1990 was replaced by NC-17). Perhaps you already know some of the trivia involved. 'Tis no urban legend: Gremlins and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom really were the catalysts that brought about the new rating, and Steven Spielberg -- who produced one and directed the other -- was the mastermind."I created the problem and I also supplied the solution," Spielberg told the Associated Press in 2004. "I invented the rating." Temple of Doom was released May 23, 1984, and horrified parents immediately began complaining that the PG rating was too lax, citing the heart-ripping-out scene in particular. (I'd have cited Kate Capshaw's performance, but I guess that's more "irritating" than "horrifying.") Gremlins, with its microwaved monsters and general bloody mayhem, opened two weeks later, and the uproar grew louder. I remember my aunt, who took my cousin and me to see it (we were 9), saying she thought Stripe's melting at the end was too gross for a PG movie. We just thought it was awesome.
To parents, both films seemed too graphic to be rated PG. Logically, that meant they should have been rated R instead, as that was the only other choice. But they'd be kind of tame compared to other R-rated movies, especially considering the content was aimed at teenagers. Somehow neither rating seemed right.
And so Spielberg came to the rescue. He suggested something like PG-14 to MPAA president (and founder of the rating system) Jack Valenti, who consulted with theater owners and parents and determined that 13 would be a better cutoff. Things moved quickly, too. Gremlins had hit theaters on June 8; the first film to be released with the PG-13 rating, Red Dawn, opened on Aug. 10, playing in multiplexes next to the two films that had inspired its rating.
Looking back, it's amazing that it took the MPAA as long as it did to come up with something between PG and R. It's not like Temple of Doom was the first film whose content fell somewhere in the middle. All the President's Men, released in 1976, had about a dozen F-bombs but got away with a PG rating -- on appeal -- simply because, well, it didn't seem R-worthy. (The swearing wasn't sexual in nature, and the film had no other adult content.) Seems like that should have prompted a discussion right there.
It also seems a little odd that Spielberg -- a brilliant filmmaker but not usually known as an envelope-pusher -- would be the one to inspire audiences to demand something new. Hollywood is certainly glad he did, though. The PG-13 rating meant that studios were free to horse around a little more without getting an R rating, to be a little more realistic or gritty without sacrificing the almighty teen movie dollar. Today, PG-13 movies are easily the most lucrative, representing 10 of the top 20 films of 2008 and 12 of the top 20 films of all time.
So this summer, raise a glass, say an F-word or two (or three, if you think you can get away with it), and toast the PG-13 rating. May it live forever, and may it always be as arbitrarily enforced and haphazardly applied as all the other ratings!










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-25-2009 @ 11:52AM
Chet said...
Interesting.
With a dozen F-bombs, All The President's Men would get an R rating today without hesitation. (Or, more realistically, the F-bombs would be replaced with something lame.)
And I suspect neither "bloody mayhem" nor "heart-ripping-out" would pass today's PG-13 muster, either.
The real problem is that the MPAA had kiddified PG and villainized R, creating a chasm. Unfortunately, PG-13 has made things worse: as they've bleached out the very things that spawned it, they've left behind a stilted sanitized form of violence.
We're overdue for an overhaul.
Reply
7-25-2009 @ 12:42PM
CParis said...
No one really cared about "All the President's Men" rating and F-bombs, because it wasn't a film targetted to kids.
The issue with films like "Indiana Jones" was that parents felt they could drop their 10+ years olds off at the theater to watch the movies with their friends and then pick them up afterwards. When the adults who actually accompanied their kids to the film saw the gross scenes, they put up a stink.
Reply
7-25-2009 @ 3:07PM
Wayne said...
I still loathe the PG-13 rating because I was a few years shy of 13 when the original "Batman" was released. I never got around to seeing it until very recently and found that it was very dated at that point.
Reply
7-25-2009 @ 6:36PM
Bffm79 said...
I went to the theater and saw Batman with my mom when I was ten. It's too bad you missed it, but it took you twenty years to see it? Of course it's going to be dated...
7-27-2009 @ 11:10AM
Edward Havens said...
Sorry, Wayne, but the PG-13 rating has never been a restricted rating. Except for theatres that have special rules (such as no children under 5 to PG-13 and R rated movies), anyone can buy a ticket for a PG-13 movie. The PG-13 does nothing more than add a stronger caution to parents.
7-25-2009 @ 10:02PM
JEREMY said...
THE REAL TRAVESTY OF THIS IS THERE ARE NO NC-17 FILMS EVER MADE. THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE COMPENSATION FOR PG-13 RATINGS, BUT TO DATE NO DIRECTOR OR STUDIO HAS HAD THE TESTICULAR FORTITUDE TO MAKE SUCH A FILM. EVEN "SHOWGIRLS" LOOKS LIKE A CULT CLASSIC NOW COMPARED TO WHAT PASSES FOR THE PG-13 RATING. SOME CURRENT FILMS COULD GET THE NC-17 IF THEY DARED TO BE A LITTLE MORE INTENSE. 25 YEARS AGO,"WATCHMEN" WOULD HAVE UNDOUBTEDLY BEEN "NC-17". ALL OF THE "SAW" MOVIES WOULD HAVE QUALIFIED,TOO.
Reply
7-26-2009 @ 2:35AM
patrick5779 said...
The ratings system is a gosh darn joke
Reply
7-26-2009 @ 2:30PM
hardcle said...
My recollection is that Siskel and Ebert were advocating an intermediate rating between PG and R long before it was enacted. They were also behind an adult rating to replace X but that didn't work out so well.
Reply
7-27-2009 @ 6:28PM
Greg said...
For my 8th birthday party we went and saw Temple of Doom. The other kids' parents were happy about that.
Reply
7-27-2009 @ 5:50PM
Randy Tayler said...
"PG-13 movies are easily the most lucrative" is open to debate. While they constitute a greater percentage of the record-breaking earners, they're not as consistently big-money as G-rated films.
On a rating-to-rating basis, G-rated releases fare far better on average than any other rating. (See http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/02/americans_want_movies_with_mor.html for example.)
Reply
7-28-2009 @ 6:07PM
Dougrad said...
I also heard that "Sixteen Candles," which came out in May of 1984, also caused talk that led to the creation of the PG-13 rating two months later. You have to remember that even though it was only PG, it showed bare breasts, a side view of a nude girl showering, one F-word and milder swear words, and endless mature sexual jokes and innuendo. I heard that director John Hughes tried to lower it from an R rating so younger teenagers could actually see it, and the MPAA gave in without having him make any changes. "Poltergeist" was also pretty violent to be only PG when it was released in 1982, but it got an appeal from the MPAA as well. But I am also surprised that it took 16 years, from when the MPAA ratings system was created in 1968, to come up with something between PG and R. However, I've noticed that many pre-1984 PG films contain a lot of material that would now be considered mandatory for a PG-13 rating. I'm assuming the term "Parental Guidance Suggested" was probably more enforced back then.
Reply
7-29-2009 @ 6:55PM
Dougrad said...
According to a New York Times article from 1982, a restrictive rating between PG and R, such as "R-13" or "R-14," was already a topic of great discussion among theater owners. The article also discusses R films that had been appealed to receive PG ratings by the MPAA, and how the G rating and X rating (used before NC-17) were both considered to equal box-office death:
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/02/movies/the-r-rating-a-lure-or-a-barrier.html?&pagewanted=1
Reply