Movie ratings are often a deep rabbit hole of debate, heated arguments, and hurt feelings. The rating system by the Motion Picture Academy of America, proposes to be a consistent guide to judging the the content of a film, but the prudent and self-aware viewer once taking a step back and comparing the content and tone of films across the rating spectrum certainly raises some interesting questions.
How these ratings are granted then at once appear both subjective and inconsistent. Take for instance the violence of The Dark Knight Rises (PG-13) to The Matrix (R), it at once becomes clear that the ratings system in place in America is not uniform, and cannot be accepted at face value.
I want to make clear that I am not writing to advocate for which movies to watch or not to watch. I am writing because inconsistent ratings have long been handed out by this board of five men and two women with PG or PG-13 movie rating have had far worse content then some R rated movies. The system reeks of having too much money shoved in too many pockets for too long a time.
I also will not talk about how I felt in this particular entry in regards to the mentioned movies, but I will cite content just to illustrate how flawed our country's rating system is at times. If you have questions on specific content in specific movies, KidsInMind.com or IMDB are great places to research - bearing in mind that simply reading online about the content of a movie, while being in the absence of the circumstance, tone, and intention of the content of the film, can easily create a misrepresentation in ones mind about what the true content and intent of the picture.
To quote Matt Goldberg from Collider (full article in the link):
Of course, it’s not like the studios created the MPAA rating system out of the goodness of their collective heart. Hollywood has always moved to police itself rather than let outsiders do it. They did it with the Hays Code starting in the 1930s, and when that died out during the 1960s, the MPAA instituted a ratings system. That way when someone in government says “Won’t someone think of the children?”, the MPAA can point to the system, say they’re being responsible, and keep the government and other outside entities from meddling.
It’s a system that—in theory—should benefit both Hollywood and moviegoers, but the stagnation of the rating system has led to it being hijacked by the major studios as a marketing tool rather than evaluating if the content is appropriate for a particular audience. The ratings now have less meaning because there are really only four (major theater chains usually won’t even show “NC-17” movies): “G”, “PG”, “PG-13”, and “R”. And for blockbusters, studios almost always want a “PG-13” regardless of content.
So something that should benefit both parents and the studios ends up misinforming parents and limiting filmmakers all so that “PG-13” becomes a magical goal where everything is okay. The rules of violence and character behavior are loosened so that as long as a movie fits a blockbuster mold and can sell toys, it gets a “PG-13” and really has no ceiling on how much money it can gross. No one is restricted from seeing the film, but if the Joker (Jared Leto in Suicide Squad) ends up torturing people, maybe little kids shouldn’t be allowed to buy tickets. Maybe a film ratings system should do what it’s actually supposed to do...It's a shame that movie ratings can be bought or swayed in the name of the almighty box office dollar, and even more shameful that because of a rating deemed appropriate by a notoriously secretive board of executives can decide what will and will not be seen by numberless concourses of individuals all because of a letter slapped on the bottom of a movie poster (that may or may not be bought off).
Most of the movies often brought up in these arguments are ones that closely (or not so closely) skirt the line between R and PG-13. It's important to remember that before 1984, there was no PG-13 rating. It was simply PG and then R (Much to the pre-teen's chagrin of the time, parents weren't too happy about seeing hearts ripped out of living people's chests in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom that summer. This caused quite an uproar and thus we have the PG-13 rating - thank you, Steven Spielberg!). For those interested, here are the intentionally vague rating criteria used by the MPAA to classify ratings:
The Matrix
The Matrix is one of the most ground-breaking, thought provoking, and all around well-made sci-fi action films of all time. Of all time. It's influence on modern cinema can't be understated. There is no sex, no f-words, and very little blood.
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Yes, this one was before 1984, but still, there's decapitations, a person is pushed into airplane propellers and blood is splattered, people shot at point blank range, and oh yeah, one guy's face melts and explodes and another guy explodes in very close up. Amazing effects work, sure, but when was the last time you got to see a human being explode in bloody fashion in a PG movie?
The Dark Knight
Christopher Nolan is well known as perhaps the man to have mastered skirting the line between PG-13 and R - mostly because of his avoidance of showing blood and keeping things just fantastical enough they can't be considered "real life". For example, do you realize that while the PG-13 Joker we see runs around jamming pencils in people's eyes, sewing explosives into the guts of living persons, and threatening to mutilate people with knives, that if any blood had been shown, this would have been rated R? No blood? All good! Right?
Mad Max: Fury Road
This one is the debatable on this list, but ultimately this movie is rated R for violence, and I'm telling you, Jurassic Park and The Fast and the Furious movies, are far more violent AND have more language and adult content in them than this movie does.
Anchorman 1&2
How Anchorman made it out with a PG-13 rating is beyond me. Full to the brim with all manner of sexual and racist jokes, bad language, and horrible imagery (not to mention some surprising violence), did the MPAA think it was OK because "we were just joking around"? Do jokes make this content OK? It's not just "locker room talk".
Other Mentions:
The Dark Knight Rises - Again, lots of people getting shot, tortured, etc. No blood and it's a superhero? You're good to go! PG-13 it is.
Taken - Torture, people getting shot, and the main character's daughter being sold off into a sex trafficking ring. Perfect for PG-13.
Forrest Gump - Drug use, war violence, sex, it's all here. I know, we all love Forrest, but he certainly runs the line here.
Titanic - Nudity, violence,, lots of people dying, freezing, language and not making room enough for two on a particularly large door floating in the ocean.
The Conjuring - Is listed on IMDB as being rated R for being "too scary" and not because of any content. There is no sex, no swearing, and very little blood.
Insidious - Again, if The Conjuring is R and Insidious is PG-13...is that because Insidious is less scary, or?
Suicide Squad - Dark, violent, sexual content, with lots of "people" dying. OK so they were weird zombies, but still.
Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice - Interestingly the "extended edition" is rated R, but not the theatrical version because of the scene in Africa where Superman saves Lois from the crime lord.
Noah - Noah (Russell Crowe) spends much of the second half attempting to murder his two baby grandchildren in unrelenting fashion. Seriously.
This list is by no means exhaustive, but you get the point.
For more information see:
http://www.mpaa.org/
http://filmratings.com/
http://filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment