Point/Counterpoint
The MPAA: Rating the Ratings System

This originally appeared at the Online Film Critics Society in November 1999, back when I was still a member; my cohort Eugene Novikov still is. The article seems to have disappeared since the OFCS joined forces with Rotten Tomatoes.

The relative effectiveness or lack thereof of the Motion Picture Association of America's system for rating movies released in the United States has come under heavy fire in recent months. MaryAnn Johanson and Eugene Novikov rate the job the MPAA is doing.

(This essay is rated NC-17 for graphic discussion of sexual expression that would not be allowed in an R-rated movie.)

As some Hollywood wag has famously, and probably apocryphally, said, "You can slice a breast off onscreen, but you can't kiss it."
Why? Because the Motion Picture Association of America, the organization that rates films for American release, says so.
The movie LET'S TALK ABOUT SEX initially received an NC-17 rating for a scene in which it is demonstrated, using a peach as a prop, how to perform oral sex on a woman. A similar scene using a banana as a stand-in for a man was not an impediment to an R rating.
An erect penis onscreen garners a film an automatic NC-17, but a film in which women are fully, graphically nude has no problem earning an R rating.
EYES WIDE SHUT initially received an NC-17 rating for intentionally unerotic missionary-position intercourse. (The rating was dropped to R when the glimpses of thrusting penises were covered up in some instances by -- you guessed it -- strategically placed nude women. An image of three naked women pleasuring one another for the benefit of male onlookers obviously was also not a barrier to an R rating.) Only a year earlier, 8MM got an R despite sexualized imagery of women being viciously murdered.
In the furor surrounding the posthumous editing of Stanley Kubrick's final film in order to earn a much more lucrative R rating, critic Roger Ebert suggested a new ratings category that would sidestep the stigma attached to NC-17 (few newspapers will run ads for NC-17-rated films, and Blockbuster will not carry such films for rental) -- an A rating, to distinguish films with artistic merit from those merely pornographic. The MPAA rejected this idea, responding that that would turn the board into critics.
But the fact is, the MPAA is already making the kinds of subjective decisions it says it is loath to avoid. The MPAA has subjectively decided that the depiction of male sexual pleasure is more important than that of women, that men deserve a measure of dignity when it comes to nudity that women do not merit, that watching a women being murdered is less objectionable than watching a women have an orgasm. I've lost count of the number of R-rated movies I've seen in which it is graphically suggested -- if not graphically depicted -- that a woman is giving a man a blow job. But I can't recall a single similar instance in which the roles are reversed, in which the woman is on the receiving end.
The MPAA's subjectivity comes into play when it deems that the brutal violence of movies like the R-rated ROBOCOP, TERMINATOR 2, and THE MATRIX -- to name but a few -- may be witnessed by children as long as they are accompanied by an adult but that under no circumstances may these children watch two adults make love with the same level of anatomical detail with which we frequently witness limbs get blown off a human body. I'm not of the school that subscribes to the belief that kids imitate what they see in the movies, but even if I were, I'd much rather chance my kid experimenting with sex than experimenting with violence. How can the MPAA, a group of people who don't know my child, determine what she is or is not mature enough to handle? How can that group determine what I should or should not expose my child to?
As much as I'd like to say that parents should watch any movie before deciding whether their children should see it, I realize that's unrealistic. And for all the times I've witnessed parents not giving a damn what a movie is rated -- the woman who was upset that the ticket taker would not admit her unaccompanied preadolescent children to THE PLAYERS CLUB, an R-rated movie about a stripper; the mom standing behind me on line, all of us waiting for the R-rated AMERICAN BEAUTY, asking the two young children with her what the film was rated -- I know that some parents do find ratings a useful if flawed guideline.
But the MPAA's ratings could be more pointed and more helpful while simultaneously becoming less subjective. The recent THREE KINGS is rated R for "graphic war violence, language and some sexuality"; AMERICAN BEAUTY is rated R for "strong sexuality, language, violence and drug content." But you won't learn that from movie posters, television advertisements, or newspaper ads for either of these movies. In fact, that information is not particularly easy to find, nor is it readily at hand when deciding what film to take the kids or oneself to.
The MPAA should take a cue from the new television ratings system, which tells us right up front what potentially objectionable content a program contains: D for suggestive dialogue, S for sexuality, V for violence, and so on. It's not a perfect system for television, and it wouldn't be a perfect system for films. But instead of the MPAA unilaterally deciding, using its own subjective criteria, that a film is unfit for consumption by a certain group of moviegoers, it could merely alert audiences to a film's content and turn the decision whether to watch that film back over to the people it belongs to: parents, and moviegoers in general.

The MPAA is innocent.
Flawed, certainly, but innocent.
The ubiquitous organization has been a controlling force in the movie business for decades, having the power to seal a film's box-office fate with its ratings system and often "forcing" filmmakers to alter their creations. This year, however, Hollywood has decided that it's not gonna take it anymore, and started a rebellion. Now, many high-profile industry types are rising up to publicly denounce the MPAA with all kinds of allegations, accusing it of artistic crimes ranging from suppression of auteuristic minds to full-blown censorship. I insist that it's doing none of these things; what's more, their ratings system is imperfect but it works, and it works well.
Fanning the flame that was already burning in the minds of disgruntled directors, the controversy surrounding the film EYES WIDE SHUT earlier in the year was the last straw for many who did not support the MPAA. The ratings board threatened to slap Kubrick's final film with the deadly NC-17 rating unless Warner Brothers edited its long, racy orgy centerpiece. The studio responded by inserting cloaked figures to conceal the sex acts being performed in the scene in order to qualify for an R, and by doing so it created an uproar among purists. Instead of faulting Warner Brothers for so blatantly putting business above art, the blame was laid on the MPAA, accusing them of censoring Kubrick's masterwork. That's ridiculous. When assigning films ratings, the organization needs to be as objective as possible so that it does not become a group of film critics, and it would not be prudent of them to change their standards to accommodate a filmmaker nor to placate fans. That responsibility should be on the studio's shoulders. The MPAA made a decision, just like they make a decision on any film. They decided that the original cut of EYES WIDE SHUT was inappropriate for children of any age. Warner Brothers could have released the cut with the NC-17 had they wished to do so, but they decided to cut it; there was no censorship or wrongdoing on the part of the MPAA.
Stemming from this conflict were bigger issues than just one film, the first of which being the validity of the NC-17 rating. Most studios simply do not release NC-17 films because some newspapers refuse to carry ads for them and some theaters do not show them. In fact, the NC-17 has become closely associated with pornography, even though it was originally created for legitimate filmmaking after pornographers took over the now archaic X rating (in fact, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE was originally given an X). Thus, the infamous R (nobody under 17 without a parent) has become all-encompassing and the severest classification many studios and exhibitors are willing to accept. Anything rated NC-17 faces certain death at the box-office, forcing filmmakers whose work is slapped with the rating to re-edit for an R. Roger Ebert came up with a solution to the problem: an A rating which would clearly mean "adults only" but would not automatically mean "trash." The NC-17, under Ebert's manifesto, would be reserved for films pornographic in nature. Jack Valenti, the head of the MPAA, responded (correctly) that this would force the ratings board to make subjective judgments about the nature of pornography, opening the door for civil law suits by filmmakers whose work was unjustly deemed pornographic. The NC-17 rating isn't perfect, but I simply haven't heard any better ideas.
The EYES WIDE SHUT controversy also led some to attest that the MPAA is more concerned with good old rumpy-pumpy than with violence. But when these same people are asked to name an R-rated film that, in their opinion, would merit an NC-17 because of violence, most are at a loss. This is because such films, if they even exist, are scarce. If there ever was a film that was genuinely brutal, with material going beyond the most liberal bounds of appropriateness, I am sure it would be rated appropriately. The sex content, however has gotten fairly extreme from time to time, and I am not sure there are people who would truthfully assert that something like SHOWGIRLS or CRASH should not have gotten an NC-17.
I'm not trying to say that the system is flawless. There are improvements that need to be made, and I trust that with time they will be made. But lambasting the MPAA is not only useless, it's uncalled for. They are not an evil organization bent on industry domination, nor are they a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth conservatives; rather, they are a group of regular people trying to bring some semblance of order to Hollywood.

Eugene: To figure out why violence is less controversial than sex, you need to look beyond the MPAA. How about the television industry, which you mentioned in your essay? Bloody shootouts and grisly murders? No problem! A glimpse of David Franz's ass and it's front-page news. It is a social mentality rather than a quirk of the MPAA, which is why the protests have been limited to the industry, without mass public participation. It is irresponsible to lay the blame on the MPAA without looking elsewhere for a solution.
I am a firm believer that the trends of the film industry, such as male nudity being more objectionable than female, stem from society rather than vice versa, which is why the MPAA is not where we should direct our attacks.
MaryAnn: I'm not laying blame on the MPAA -- I'm pointing out the board's hypocrisy. You're right in saying that the sex/violence thing is a societal attitude that the MPAA is only reflecting. But the MPAA is still making subjective decisions in rating movies, even if those subjective decisions coincide with the views of the American majority. When the MPAA has rules like "X number of thrusts" in a sex scene qualify for an NC-17 rating, that's subjective. How do they come up with these things?
And attaching ages to ratings is subjective. Eugene, you're what, 15 years old? You're obviously more articulate, thoughtful, and intelligent than a lot of other people your age. Do you feel the MPAA should have the right to tell you that you are not old enough to watch a certain movie -- that you, for example, are not old enough to watch an unedited version of EYES WIDE SHUT?
Eugene: I think it's obvious that some subjective decisions would have to be made. The "X thrusts" rule, for example, is an initial subjective decision that allows the MPAA to make perfectly objective ones when applying that rule to movies. That is hardly hypocrisy.
Attaching ages to ratings is about as subjective as saying one has to be 21 to drink or 16 to drive. Limits have to be set. Does the MPAA have the right to tell me that I'm not allowed to watch the unedited version of EYES WIDE SHUT? Yeah. I'm not special. Even if I am "more articulate, thoughtful, and intelligent than a lot of other people my age," which is a hell of a stretch, that doesn't mean I can cancel the rules, just like I can't drink at 15 or drive at 15.
The MPAA has tried to keep subjective decisions to a minimum by setting concrete rules. They may themselves be subjective but they wind up letting the board be objective later. I see no hypocrisy here.
MaryAnn: I don't understand. The MPAA can use "some subjective decisions" to make "perfectly objective ones"? That just doesn't make sense. If I develop a set of subjective rules and then hand them over to a group of people who have no choice but to follow them, that doesn't make them any less subjective.
You can't get around the fact that it is impossible to rate movies with the current MPAA method without using one's personal point of view about the point at which sex or violence onscreen becomes excessive. In your essay, you mentioned a hypothetical violent film that was "genuinely brutal, with material going beyond the most liberal bounds of appropriateness" -- but who defines "liberal bounds" or "genuinely brutal"? Right now, it's a group of people with whom I, and lots of other people, often disagree. And those people are effectively preventing the release of certain films.
It's all fine and good to say that it's not the MPAA's fault when a film is cut to garner a certain rating, it's the studios' fault. But that's like saying "Guns don't kill people, bullets do." The fact is, bullets without guns don't kill, and vice versa. The studios and the MPAA work in cahoots with each other, as when a studio contractually requires a director to deliver a film that gets a particular rating -- the studios are using the MPAA to do their dirty work. Remember when you were a kid, and your dad responding to some pleading request with "If your mother says it's okay"? Same thing.
And the MPAA can keep telling us that submitting a film for rating is voluntary, but the truth is that unrated films fare about as well as NC-17 films. They go nowhere, financially.
I don't think it's quite fair to compare movie ratings with laws setting minimum age requirements for drinking or driving. For one, those laws are a product of a democratic system and those laws can and have been changed. The MPAA is a secretive group that jealously guards the methods (and madness) by which they rate films. And drinking alcohol and driving a car can have immediate ramifications for others not engaging in those activities: young, inexperienced drivers have a higher proportion of accidents than older drivers (reflected in higher insurance rates); the kind of irresponsible drinking young people do can result in harm to others through DWI, fights, and so on. But movies are creative products that we assimilate intellectually. Age restrictions on movies to the point that they take away parental decisions in the matter are as unfair and dictatorial as refusing to let children read certain books would be.
Eugene: Though in theory, an age restriction may be "dictatorial," in practice it is at the very least a necessary evil. We cannot have a free-for-all on movies like CRASH, and an R-rating does not stop wee ones from getting in without parental permission (trust me, I know). The NC-17 does because it is the one theaters enforce; they promised to crack down on the R but evidently to no avail.
You are correct, and I admitted this earlier, that it is impossible to rate movies without a certain amount of subjectivity. But what do you propose? Should we do away with ratings all together? Elect people to be on the board? As I said, it isn't perfect, but I haven't heard any better ideas.
Say what you will about the MPAA, but it is the studio that makes the final decision on what rating to release a film with. They get the rating and the choice. Business-mindedness all but assures that an NC-17 film will not be released because it means certain death at the box-office, but that's hardly the MPAA's fault either. Rather, it's how society looks on the NC-17. Perhaps instead of attacking the MPAA, we should strive to change the conviction that NC-17=trash. First step: kill Joe Eszterhas.
MaryAnn: If age restrictions don't work, then why do we bother with them? Some parents are getting upset -- I've witnessed this -- that theaters are starting to enforce the R-rating, refusing to let unaccompanied teens into R-rated films. So whom is the MPAA's system serving?
I outlined my suggestions for improving the system in my essay: adopt a method similar to the one TV now uses, which alerts viewers to potentially problematic content and leaves the decision whether or not to view or let kids view up to the viewer and the parents.
In your essay you said about the current ratings system: "There are improvements that need to be made." Where do you see room for improvement? What suggestions do you have?
Eugene: There is a problem with the TV-style ratings. A hypothetical example: both GATTACA and FIGHT CLUB would get a V for violence. And yet the extent of the violence in GATTACA is a punch in the nose, while FIGHT CLUB features countless brutal, bloody beatings. At least the two are differentiated in the MPAA rating; PG-13 vs. R.
I believe I've already stated my main suggestion: to reform societal mentality towards the NC-17 and make the rating more acceptable. Release more films with it; change its reputation. It should not be restricted to porno.
It looks like we're already beginning to repeat ourselves, so how about we wrap it up and call it a tie?
MaryAnn: Well, I think altering the MPAA's system is a little more doable than changing American society, but since this is getting us nowhere, I agree that we should call it a draw.
Wait, I just realized: You mentioned CRASH and SHOWGIRLS several times in your essay and in our debate. Both those movies are rated NC-17, yet if you're able to comment on their content, you've obviously seen them, and you're under 17. The MPAA says that under no circumstances are these movies suitable for anyone under 17. How can you support a system that you've subverted yourself? Or is it just that the MPAA's rating apply to some people but not to others?
Also, do your parents know you've watched those naughty movies?
Eugene: I haven't, actually, though I did a little research enabling me to know pretty much exactly what's in there. I still do that in my reviews from time to time, to be brutally honest.
MaryAnn: Well, now I'm even more confused. What kind of research short of watching a film could you do to determine "exactly what's there"? Or if you do mean that you haven't actually watched these films, do you mean to say that there are films you've reviewed without having watched them?
Eugene: Never, ever, ever. What I was trying to say is that sometimes (rarely, nowadays) in a review I will make a brief reference to a film I've never actually watched, but read elsewhere about. I've never seen CRASH or SHOWGIRLS, but thanks to sites like Screen It! I was able to find out exactly what objectionable content is present and thus was able to allude to the films in my MPAA argument.

[home] [archive]
[oscars] [afi100]
[articles] [faq]
[reader mail]
[links]

[cinemarati.org]

thechick@flickfilosopher.com