R-13 huh?

[ulthar]

Vermin Boy wrote:

>  they
> are an organization of individuals, who base their ratings
> entirely on their opinions of films.

Who are they? Are they Hollywood 'insiders'?  For some reason, I always thought of the MPAA as being the major studios self-policing, and hence attributed a higher 'status' to them than ratings imposed by say a government group.

The point of ratings SHOULD be, imo, nothing more than information; "here's what you can expect from this movie."  At that level, it's hard to argue against.  But again, the standards for the boundaries between the ratings have to be, well, standard. And uniformly applied.

I did not realize certain sudios/distributors got different ratings than others.  That's certainly an issue.

[Vermin Boy]

Well, yeah-- PG-13 didn't even exist until the late 80s (it was created specifically for either Gremlins or Temple of Doom-- I don't recall which). This is another testament to the MPAA's biases-- I highly doubt the issue would have come up if either of those were anything but a high-profile blockbuster (or, more to the point, didn't have Speilberg's hand in them).

And, to be fair, you see a lot of stuff in PG films from the 70s and 80s that would warrant an R today. Hell, 1968's Planet of the Apes was rated G, despite having full rear nudity and humans stuffed in museums. Not claiming moral high ground on either side-- Just saying you'd never see that today.

[Mr_Vindictive]

On the same subject Vermin,

One of Planet Of The Apes' most famous lines would never get a G rating either.  'Damn' would definently put it in PG territory

[Vermin Boy]

Well, yeah-- My point was just that they have no legal authority, only cultural.

I agree with your point about objectivity. As much as it pains me to say it, on a conceptual level, the CAP system is actually a step in the right direction-- Working on a numerical scale, rather than going with one's gut. Their problem is that, in practice, that is NOT what they're doing. They are profoundly biased, much more than the MPAA. I have a problem with any rating system governed by a specific religious ideology-- if you're going to label a movie for having "Offense to God," why not offense to pagans? If a rating system warns for "occult" content, what's to stop them from labeling movies with, say, Jewish themes, or more likely, Islamic?

I mean no disrespect toward Christians; I'm just saying that, if you want to classify movies with religiously offensive content, you need to cover it across the board.

[Brother Ragnarok]

Thanks, Vermin.  That was a considerably more eloquent and informative version of what I was trying and failing to say.

[Eirik]

VB and Brother R:  Thanks for the info on MPAA.  What you describe is most definitely de facto censorship because theaters won't carry movies without certain MPAA ratings.  More egregious is the uneven application of ratings.  I was always of the opinion that Reservoir Dogs should ABSOLUTELY have been NC-17 (and I personally like the movie).

As for CAP, they're just providing a service for a very specific audience: the kind that is concerned with Christian values (as a certain substantial group of Christians define them - I personally am a Christian who does not agree with everything I saw on the site).  Their ignoring of the value sets of other religions or world views doesn't stem from bigotry, it stems from customer focus... and unlike other online websites (both Christian or non-Christian), they're pretty up front about where they're coming from.  Arguing that CAP reviews are biased is like arguing that Andrew's reviews are biased - of COURSE they are.  That's what their readers are looking for.  And I'm sure there are Jewish and Muslim and Environmentalist and Communist and whatever groups out there that also provide their take on how their values are depicted in movies.  And there's nothing in the world wrong with that.

[Eirik]

 "I think we'd a agree that murdering a person based on group status is wrong, so that is a value."

I should hope we'd agree that murdering a person on ANY basis is wrong!

:)

ulthar, I think you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, but one place I'd differ with you is the idea that we EVER had a moral consensus in this country.  I think the whole Civil War is one big ugly piece of evidence of that.  No country as ethnically and religiously heterogeneos and economically and geographically diverse as this one is ever going to have a moral consensus that isn't fleeting.  What we have had for certain periods of our history is the large scale public acceptance of a seeming moral consensus that was enshrined in popular culture, public education, and political discourse.  We sort of had that during the depression through the 1960's.  It was framed on one side by the suffrage movement and prohibition, and on the other by the Civil Rights movement and Vietnam (note: one noble cause and one total waste of time and effort on each side).  I think we've been struggling to get back to that ever since because it is very comfortable to have it, especially if you have children to raise.  I think we'll probably reach a consensus like that again someday, though it might seem impossible in the ugliness of contemporary political discourse.  The best people can do is find like minded people and band together to reinforce their own valuse in their own lives, much like evangelical Christians have done on the CAP site, and creative, open-minded cinematic masochists have done on this one.

[ulthar]

Well, I do agree that pure consensus has probably never existed (and probably never could).  Got a book recommendation for you:  "The Cousins Wars" by Kevin Phillips.  The premise of this book is that the English Civil War, The American Revolution and the American Civil War are all 'battles' in the same 'war,' and that the underlying cause, or link, is predominantly religion.

Keeping it somewhat on topic, I'd say consensus is easier to achieve in smaller social groups (ok, so that's obvious).  If one community prefers movies without overt nudity or foul language, the rating should provide them with info to know that.  That is, *IF* we are going to have a rating at all, it should mean something.  For example, the drive-in we go to shows only 'family friendly' movies, though some of their second features stretch this quite a bit; the FIRST flick of a double showing is geared to smaller kids. Anyway, they stay packed all summer, so at least in THIS example, a movie does not have to have a bunch of R-ratedness hidden in a PG-13 rating to pack a theater.

This is much, much harder to achieve nationally in a country as large and diverse as the US.  What those in Hollywood consider 'normal' I often consider either weird or even disgusting.  What I consider normal, many New Yorkers would probably consider plain and boring.

[trekgeezer]

The MPAA is a trade association just like the RIAA. Ratings aren't all they do (they also go around suing the fans just like the RIAA). The reason they have the ratings system is because the industry was threatened into it by the government.

This is another self policing industry, which it should be because I don't think the government has any business telling people what they can watch, read, or say.

The problems with the rating system are just what has been presented here.

I was a kid in the 60's when ratings first started and back then what was rated X, then would probably be played pretty much uncut on TV today. So standards have definitely changed.

I would say if a private organization wants to set up a ratings system of their own, more power to them. The MPAA ratings are no longer a good way to determine what objectional material might be in a movie.

[Eirik]

Sounds like an interesting read -- the premise sounds pretty strong to me.

I absolutely think the ratings should be more informative and more evenly applied.  I would have no problem with expanding the number of possible ratings to further describe a movie.  After all, Porky's and Alien were both rated R but not exactly for the same reason...  Just like the reason for Raiders and the Breakfast Club's PG ratings are different.  I'd probably let my kid see Raiders' goofy cartoon violence and minor gore at an earlier age than the Breakfast Club's profanity, sexual innuendo, and kind of scary-depressing (for kids) themes.  I just think a kid would be ready for one before the other.

[ulthar]

Eirik wrote:

>  I would have no problem with expanding
> the number of possible ratings to further describe a movie.

I like the 'grading' done by some newspapers and web sites, where each area is graded say 1-5.  Areas might include adult theme, adult language, sexual situations, nudity, gory violence, etc, etc.  This lets one see exactly WHAT might be objectionable (or desirable) in a given movie.

And it's done by individuals, not movie studio insiders or government.  Maybe with a few 'trusted' web sites providing such a service, we don't really need the MPAA rating system anymore, as I think this thread has pointed out it is corrupt and unevenly applied.

[BoyScoutKevin]

Actually, I think the PG-l3 rating, and someone can correct me, was created after the stir caused by the rating given to "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." And, while I have not seen it, the scene that caused the most stir in the film, was the scene where the man had his heart cut out of his body. Again, someone can correct me, if I am wrong.

I know what you mean by films that were once rated G and PG are now getting more restricted ratings. And alot of it has to do with the amount of violence in a film. A good example (IMHO) would be "The Green Berets." What does it have in it? Shootings, stabbings, impalings, and seemingly every other kind of violence in it. And when it was first released, it had something like a G or PG rating, which would now be a PG-13 or R rating.

On the other hand, films that have to do with the subject of sex, such as "Midnight Cowboy" would seem to ge getting less restrictive ratings. Originally, rated X. It is now receives a R rating.

[BoyScoutKevin]

As do the premiere movie channels. Before the film starts, they will show what is the MPAA rating for the film, then they will give their explnation of why the film received that rating. I believe the explanations are . . .

AL=Adult language
AS=Adult situations
N=Nudity. Also
BN=Brief nudity
R=Rape
V=Violence. Also
GV=Graphic violence

An example, that I can remember, would be for "Lair of the White Worm," which is reviewed at this site. Which is rated R by the MPAA, and the explanation, by the premiere movie channels, for it is . . .

AL=Adult Language
AS=Adult situations
N=Nudity
R=Rape
GV=Graphic violence

Of course, this explanation only occurs at the start of a film, as they run their films uninterrupted and uncensored, If you turn on a film after the beginning, there is usuall,y no  warning of what you might  get.

[trekgeezer]

Your right about Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. The heart scene is what caused all the stir.

[Eirik]

For some reason, I'm remembering Dennis Quaid's "Dreamscape" as the first ever PG-13 movie.