mpaa ratings Tagged Articles at Cinematical

I am not an apologist for the MPAA. As Cinematical's Eric D. Snider astutely observed recently, the Classification and Rating Administration of the Motion Picture Association of America continues to 'arbitrarily enforce and haphazardly apply' their own ratings, generally favoring big-budget studio pictures while lowering the boom on lower-budgeted independent films. With a track record of more than 40 years, though, does any parent today believe that the MPAA is solely responsible for telling them what is suitable for their children to watch?

Evidently Deborah Knight Snyder does. The mother of two children wrote an article for the GateHouse News Service in which she wondered about the movie rating system, which she described as an "imprecise, almost backward process." No argument there, but then she described Alex Proyas' Knowing as a movie that "scared the hell" out of her and questioned: "What parent in their right mind would let a 13-year-old see such a movie?" She continues: "Thank goodness our 13-year-old was otherwise occupied and chose not to join us for the film," and then relates an experience suffered by her older son when he saw The Ring just before he turned 13 several years ago. He later told her: "That movie was terrifying for a 12-year-old!"

Snyder doesn't address her own accountability in these two incidents, of course. One son "chose not to join us" and the other went with a friend's mother: "I confess I didn't think much about his going to see it." From this, we can surmise that an adult who has been watching movies for several decades and has two children -- one of whom is now in college -- had, until this very week, abdicated responsibility for deciding what her children could watch, ceding that role entirely to the MPAA.

Generally I try to stay away from the MPAA discussion. I understand that, in theory, a rating system is pretty essential when it comes to movies, but I've seen this studio-paid puppet group bend over backwards for their clientele again and again. (Really, who does the MPAA serve? The public or the Paramounts?) So while I'm never pleased to hear that people are losing their jobs, I felt a nice dose of schad as I read this Hollywood Reporter piece.

Seems that studios have decided to slash the MPAA's annual budget by somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million smackeroos. Now they'll have to get by with only about $75 million a year, which is still kinda high when you consider the MPAA's main goal is to sit down and watch movies. Surely they don't need $75 million worth of DVD players and clipboards. Yes, I know the MPAA is involved in anti-piracy, which used to give them an excuse to fly people all over the globe, but really ... if it weren't for the G, PG, and R, this organization would have folded up shop years ago.

Somewhere Kirby Dick is having a nice chuckle, but here's what I'm wondering: Does this mean that the MPAA can now adopt a "tougher edge" when doling out the ratings? You can't slash a staff's budget without creating a little animosity, so what's preventing the MPAA from tossing out old-school R ratings for sex comedies that normally get that coveted PG-13? Will this be an end to the PG-rated beheadings of Narnia 2? Or perhaps the MPAA ratings board will actually balance things out and start giving appropriate ratings to the indie flicks. Yes, I'm still pissed about Whale Rider being rated R. (Whoops, except it wasn't. PG-13 all the way.)

Apologies to the folks who lost their jobs, but if this brings a little more accountability to the MPAA, then I'm all for it.

The Motion Picture Association of America does a few other things too, but its most visible impact on movie-going is its ratings system. G, PG, PG-13, R, or NC-17, you gotta have a rating for your movie if you want most theater chains to show it, and the MPAA's secretive clan of breast-counters and violence-ignorers decides which label its gets.

An overwhelming majority of films get the rating they deserve -- or, at the very least, a rating that's consistent with how the MPAA has rated other films with similar content. But some MPAA decisions are baffling, illogical, or just plain outrageous. Here are the ones that perplexed us the most this year.

The Worst MPAA Ratings of 2008

1. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (rated PG for "epic battle action and violence"). The MPAA says, "The ratings are intended to provide parents with advance information so they can decide for themselves which films are appropriate for viewing by their own children." It's all about parents looking out for their kids. So how in the name of C.S. Lewis did this film -- rife with stabbing, throat-slitting, decapitating, and large-scale slaughter, much of it perpetrated by teenage characters -- get a PG? Does the fact that most of the violence is bloodless (and therefore not realistic) somehow make it family-friendly? Had there been even one sexual reference, it would have gotten a PG-13. Thank goodness Disney only packed the film with killing instead!

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.