This is an editorial about an oft discussed matter amongst
films lovers and the public at large: the MPAA film ratings system. The MPAA
(or the Motion Picture Association of America) is a voluntary trade association
with a wing for filmmakers to voluntarily submit their films to receive a
rating. The assignment of a rating (and what those ratings are) looks, from
afar, like an extremely basic thing, however, when we look under the hood the
process and system turn out to be more nefarious and functionless than presumed
on the surface. This editorial will dig into the current ratings system and
will propose some changes to make it better at achieving its aims.
Why rate films?
The only sensible first question is: why even bother rating
films? A movie is a movie and the MPAA provides ratings in a country that
values freedom of artistic expression, so why even assign a rating in the first
place? The most obvious reason (and the one the MPAA harps on frequently) is
the provision of information to parents and the protection of the child
consumer from things they “shouldn’t see.” It has also been said that the MPAA
rating system is a positive for the film industry because it keeps the
government out film in this way and things like the infamous Hayes Code won’t
be deemed necessary to protect consumers. In my opinion the first rationale,
consumer information, is far more convincing than the second, however.
What are the ratings?
Currently, the MPAA will assign one of five ratings to any
film provided to them for review. Those five ratings, as readers will likely be
familiar with, are G (for General Audiences). PG (for Parental Guidance
Suggested), PG-13 (for Parental Guidance Suggested for Children 13 and under),
R (for Restricted to Audiences Members 17 or older unless accompanied by a
parent or guardian), and NC-17 (for No Admittance to Anyone under the age of
17). What rating a film receives could critically impact the financial
viability of a film. There is a lot of focus on staying out of the R rating in
bigger budget blockbusters and there is an absolute goal of staying away from
the NC-17 rating as many theaters will not carry the film and it generally
means financial ruin for the given project.
How are the ratings
determined?
This is the murkiest part about the MPAA rating system. We
know for sure that there is a board of eight to thirteen people (who are
purportedly all parents) whose job it is to view films, meet, and assign a
rating based on some set criteria as well as some murky generalities. Some
specific rules we know of deal with the number of instances of coarse language
(particularly the “f-word”) that are allowed before a film moves from G to PG,
PG-13 to R, or R to NC-17. Most aspects of the system itself are obfuscated and
never explained. Whether violence or sexual content is more egregious in moving
up the ratings letter isn’t specified anywhere (although circumstantial and
anecdotal evidence suggest strongly that violence, especially without blood, is
dramatically more kosher than sexual content). At the end of the day, however,
there is no hard and fast information on the process and the MPAA has
purposefully obstructed this information getting out by not making public
statements about it and by keeping all of the members of the ratings board
completely confidential.
What is the problem?
Without digging deeper (or having a basic opinion on the
principle of ratings generally) there would seem to be no problem. If you’re an
adult, you can see whatever you want and we keep kids away from a select number
of movies (most of which their parents can opt to take them to if they believe
that the rating does not reflect the proper restriction for their child). Once
you dig deeper and think about the principle, however, the ratings system quickly
falls apart. For one, as suggested earlier, there is a lot riding financially
on the film based on its rating. That feature of the ratings system can lead to
artists making artistic choices based on concern for ratings at the end of the
day. If we do believe in artistic freedom, including the opportunity to succeed
even in the face of regulation by a para-governmental actor, then this would
seemingly fly in the face of such a principle. Moreover, without consistent
rules, the ratings that films receive can appear to be arbitrary and, due to
the influence of certain actors in the MPAA system, there is a deep appearance
(and possible truth to charges) of corruption.
The last huge problem, and one that the MPAA pays
lip-service to by having a committee, is that film ratings are entirely
subjective things in nature. What we find appropriate, or not, for people of
different ages depends greatly on our subjective opinions of things. Take a
film like the 2007 coming-of-age comedy Superbad.
This is a film I snuck into in high school because I was too young for the
requisite rating. For me, the film was a comedy with nothing I hadn’t heard
before or couldn’t understand. Nothing I hadn’t seen or knew about. It felt
very much like a film made for my 16-year-old self. For someone who grew up
with a more conservative and guarded childhood, there is a lot in this film
that could come off as shocking to them and might be very inappropriate in the
eyes of their parents. This fundamental divide reveals a point of genuine clash
of subjective perspectives that cannot be simply resolved because neither
answer is inherently right or inherently wrong. Both have merits and meaning
(especially to the specific actors involved). The current system doesn’t take
account of these as it has some objective features people don’t agree on, as
well as subjective factors people don’t agree on either. Further, it is not
clear (and we will never know) if the ratings board is truly representative of
every possible filmgoer in America (massively unlikely). This would lead to
systemic errors of questionable acceptability in this kind of system.
What is a solution?
There are certainly many solutions to this problem, but I am
going to propose three things that could help to alleviate the problems we see
in the current system:
(1) Decide
whether the rating system will be objective or subjective;
(2) Compile
a mass data set for the objective factors or individual ratings from an extensive,
random cross-section of the population to use the Law of Large Numbers to
arrive as close as possible to the objective measure inside of the subjective
whole;
(3) Reduce
the number of ratings to three (one for all audiences, one for teen audiences
and above, and one for adults).
The first key decision is to figure out whether we want
ratings to be objective or subjective. Due to this being largely an area of
opinion that cannot necessarily be boiled down to any specific set of objective
features one might lean on the side of subjective ratings. In many senses this
would be sensible and would be a decision I would happily support. However, due
to the difficulties brought up by the second element to my solution, objective
factors may be more expedient and could be assessed effectively by a group of
professionals trained to look for the particular elements people find
inappropriate for certain audiences. The main point here is you can’t have your
cake and eat it to. It needs to be one or the other or the ratings will become
heavily skewed and difficult to mend.
The second thing that needs to be done is to collect data
(and lots of it). We can’t rely on the eight to thirteen people presently
tasked with ratings, or even 100 people. We need a very large sample of
thousands of people who are randomly distributed and selected to provide this
data. Why do we need this data? To make educated econometric analyses of what a
rating should or shouldn’t be, or what is or isn’t inappropriate for young
audiences by the weighted average individual. If we were to go with the
subjective system, this would need to be done for each and every film (hence
the reasoning why the optimal option for the first point might not be the
optimal option overall). If we were to go with the objective system, this would
need to be done with enough frequency to reflect changing norms but could be
spread over the course of years, leaving the actual rating to professionals
tasked with analyzing films for the objective features. Of my proposals this is
the biggest pipe-dream of them all. This process would be brutally expensive
and presents the most difficult roadblock. That said, it is also essential to
guarantee accuracy that our system currently lacks in its entirety as a likely
non-representative (and surely due to the sheer small sample size) of the
potential audience as a whole.
Finally, I would suggest reducing the ratings from the
current five rating system down to a three rating system. Reducing complexity
will allow for more films to be properly classified, for starters, and it would
also get rid of ratings that are likely antiquated in this day in age. For
example, the difference between G and PG movies is almost nonexistent making
that differentiation less purposeful. Further, the differentiation between R
and NC-17 is similarly misplaced as both cut off at the same age and the idea
of taking away parental and consumer choice generally seems immensely improper.
As such, my proposed system would be as follows: a G rating for films acceptable
for all audiences; a T rating for films acceptable for persons in their teens
or older; and an A rating for films acceptable for adults only (or children
with parental guidance). This would help some of the issues and would allow for
a clearer analytical approach for the different ranges of maturity in the film
going public.
The deeply important thing about my proposal is that it is
an all or nothing suggestion. Without all three changes the system will remain
flawed in many of the ways it already is and the different changes would also
be ineffective without the modifications from the other two suggested changes.
All of this is, as mentioned, a pipe-dream as it is an expensive and tricky
proposition to overhaul an institution that many pay little to no attention to.
The fix, itself, would be similarly expensive creating yet another roadblock.
That said, it provides a meaningful way forward and is one suggestion amongst
many legitimate alternatives.
Thank you for reading this editorial and I would love to
hear your thoughts. Sound off in the comments below with your thought process
or how you would change the ratings system. Also check out the different videos
or sources cited in the list below for my inspirations in writing this article
and other suggestions for changing or repairing the ratings system.
Interesting Pieces
This Film Is Not Yet
Rated (IFC Films 2006).
Roger Ebert, Getting
Real About Movie Ratings, WSJ
(Dec. 11, 2010).
Dear Hollywood –
Fixing the Film Ratings System (CinemaSins Jeremy 2015), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwbf9mC9Whk.
Does PG Mean Anything
Anymore (Channel Awesome 2016), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL4vRihNk4s.
Kate Erbland, Gun
Violence in PG-13 Films Has Tripled Since 1985 – Report, IndieWire (Oct. 24, 2016).
And many, many more on both sides of the discussion.
Make sure to check us out and like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter and Instagram for all of our reviews, news, trailers, and much, much more!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment