motion picture association of america Tagged Articles at Cinematical

In the U.S., movie ratings are sometimes "baffling, illogical or just plain outrageous," as Eric D. Snider wrote last year. Greater leniency is granted to blockbuster action movies, as long as the beheadings and other violent acts are not too bloody or explicit, while more peaceful-minded feature narratives and documentaries find themselves saddled with a rating that restricts their audiences because they have one too many 'f-bombs.'

In the U.K., the British Board of Film Classification has issued its latest set of guidelines "following consultation with about 9,000 people aged 16 and older," according to Reuters (via The Independent). "The clear message was that [explicit sex scenes in movies such as Michael Winterbottom's 9 Songs] were acceptable at 18." The article notes that "films with an '18' tag are restricted to patrons 18 years of age and older." Greater concern was expressed about on-screen solvent abuse, such as glue-sniffing. Rules have now been stiffened in response, and more restrictive ratings may be issued in the future.

Of those surveyed, the report claimed agreement with ratings given "in 99 per cent of all cases" for films they had watched. Are film rating systems better or worse in other countries? I've never lived outside the U.S., so I'd be interested in hearing from our international readers about their impressions, positive or negative. For those inside the U.S., do you agree with the ratings given to movies you've seen? Or does the MPAA get it wrong more often than right?

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.)

Over at Offsprung.com (who snagged the list from allmovie.com), there's a humorous collection of ten of the most ridiculous reasons the MPAA has ever given for film ratings. You know, the list of offenses they put underneath a "PG" or an "R," to give parents a better idea of what exactly their child will be subjected to. (And then the parent can say, "Hmm, 'extreme pervasive graphic violence, including shootings, stabbings, beheadings, disembowlings, and castrations?' Oh well, as long as my son won't see a boob!"). I personally love it when the MPAA has to go all out with their rating descriptions, when it's clear that they just find a movie wrong on every level. When I see a full paragraph under that "R" rating, I know that it's probably a film I need to see. Take Grindhouse, for example. Rated R for "strong graphic bloody violence and gore, pervasive language, some sexuality, nudity and drug use." A grand slam!

My favorite MPAA reason on the allmovie list is probably the one for Twister, which was Rated PG-13 back in 1996 for "intense depiction of very bad weather!" The 1994 Jamie Lee Curtis thriller Mother's Boys was Rated R for "language and a mother's sociopathic behavior." Number one on their list is the Nick Nolte snoozer Jefferson in Paris, which was rated PG-13 in 1995 for "mature themes, some images of violence, and" -- get this -- "a bawdy puppet show!" That's fine and good, but while we're on the subject of hardcore marionette action, I prefer the reason given for Team America: World Police's R Rating -- "graphic crude and sexual humor, violent images and strong language - all involving puppets." The allmovie list is a solid one, although I'm fairly certain I've seen even funnier rating descriptions elsewhere. If you guys know of any, please share in the comments.