Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

MPAA rates an F for its decisions

By STEVE PERSALL
Published March 4, 2005

In the opening scene of Be Cool, the Get Shorty sequel, mobster-turned-movie producer Chili Palmer is griping about Hollywood. He's explaining to a friend that the Motion Picture Association of America rating system stifles his creativity.

One of Chili's pet peeves is the notion that dropping one f-bomb in a film can still qualify the movie for a PG-13 rating, while two or more such obscenities gets it an R, cutting out a sizable portion of the ticket-buying audience.

"You know what I think?" the former loan shark asks, before answering the question with an f-bomb of his own. It's the only time that particular four-letter word is heard in Be Cool, and yes, the movie is rated PG-13. It doesn't matter that racial and sexual slurs are a constant thread in the script and that shiny firearms are brandished with fetishistic energy. It doesn't matter that the film's skirting of nudity is gratuitous, or that nearly every character lacks morals.

Children of any age are able to buy a ticket to Be Cool because of its rating. Ten years ago - maybe five - the movie would likely have earned an R rating. That would have excluded anyone under 17 from buying a ticket unless they were accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. It's estimated today that 19 percent of all tickets are sold to moviegoers ages 11 to 17.

Even Chili can mind his language if it means getting a shot at that size of audience.

Be Cool is only one example of a Hollywood phenomenon known as ratings creep. The phenomenon isn't new; as soon as the motion picture association created the rating system in 1968, filmmakers, studios and popular culture have stretched the standards defining G, GP (later renamed PG when too many folks thought GP stood for "general public"), R and what was then known as X, now NC-17.

Nobody can deny that many movies available to children contain racier, more violent material than ever. Some call it a reflection of changing morals, while others blame Hollywood for the erosion of those social limits. Chicken or egg; take your pick.

The mutation of movie morality has been traditionally slow, sneaking up on parents who didn't know exactly what their children were watching until well after it was viewed. Movies might have needed to be entered as criminal-case evidence before anyone noticed.

Today, ratings creep isn't creeping anymore. Just read the motion picture association's rationales for some recent PG-13 movies. They're usually in small print on ads and posters, like any contract trying to sneak something by.

* Cursed: Violence/terror, some sexual references, nudity, language and a brief drug reference.

* Diary of a Mad Black Woman: Drug content, thematic elements, crude sexual references and some violence.

* Boogeyman: Intense sequences of horror and terror/violence, and some partial nudity.

* Man of the House: Violence, sexual content, crude humor and a drug reference.

Of that group, at least two films - Cursed and Boogeyman - were reported to have been trimmed just enough to escape an R. Sounds like they still have enough material for parents to question whether children should see them.

At the same time, a new adaptation of William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, a certified classic of world literature, is rated R. Why? Because a dozen or so prostitutes added for period flavor show their nipples. One breast is briefly groped. A classic work of art, brought to life by Al Pacino, one of our finest actors, and teenagers who may be reading the play in school can't see it as easily as Boogeyman. "Some nudity" is how the motion picture association justifies the R.

The association could look dumber only if it added "some shoving" to the rating because a few people get manhandled.

Since the ratings board operates in privacy that Howard Hughes would admire, we know only that it comprises between eight and 13 members chosen to meet regularly in Los Angeles to see films and decide ratings by majority vote. According to the association's Web site (www.mpaa.org) the members share "parenthood experience" and "intelligent maturity." Their identities are kept secret to prevent studios from influencing their decisions, but how many secrets are there really in Hollywood?

If a studio doesn't like the board's rating, an appeal process is available. Deals may be brokered to remove certain material to reach the rating the studio wants. Contrary to a common assumption, there are no written guidelines for the amount of profanity, sex and violence allowed within a certain rating. The rules constantly change and often become more permissive.

Studios and theater owners want more tickets sold, so there's constant indirect pressure to keep films aimed at children and teenagers at PG-13, PG and G, although G, except in isolated cases such as Toy Story and Finding Nemo, is as deadly at the box office as NC-17. Some filmmakers have reportedly added a few curse words or crude jokes just to get a PG.

On the surface, R-rated movies appear to be declining in number and popularity. In 1999, R films, including The Matrix and American Pie, earned 41 percent of the year's ticket receipts. Nine of 212 films released with that rating earned more than $100-million at the box office.

Last year, the number dropped to 147 total R movies, and only four - The Passion of the Christ, Fahrenheit 9/11, Collateral and Troy - surpassed $100-million.

But are those numbers a result of less risque filmmaking and lower audience appeal for R-rated films? Or could it be that moviegoers now get all the sex, drugs, violence and profanity they need at theaters as the PG-13 rating creeps into R territory?

My guess is the latter.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy a sexy, violent, profane, amoral movie as much as anyone, and probably more than most people. But I'm an adult raised in days when ratings weren't necessary since nearly everything making it to theaters was basically innocent. I'm not convinced that children need to be shielded from mature entertainment, but they can't simply be dropped off at the megaplex with $20, able to see things onscreen that make grownups blanch.

Parents need to read those rating descriptions and figure they're just sugar-coating what's in the movie. Filmmakers and studios should still push the envelope but make such material off-limits to kids without responsible adults nearby to decide if things are getting too rough. I say this as someone who grew up in a fairly strict home; taught high school, where I observed some parenting standards disintegrate; and now guide all ages to the movies that may do them the most good.

But no matter how much is written about the subject, ratings will be the dominant influence on what parents allow children to see. They're set up as guidelines, and they become an alibi of sorts when a child comes home and curses like a sailor: "I didn't think the kid would hear that kind of talk in a PG movie."

Censorship isn't the answer. But unless the motion picture association starts tightening its standards and calling an R an R rather than a PG-13, I have a feeling that cultural watchdogs will begin baying for censorship of some sort, and they have the conservative political clout at this time to make it a serious threat. The golden-egg goose isn't dead yet, but his neck is on the chopping block. Each ludicrous ratings board decision, such as The Merchant of Venice vs. Cursed or Man of the House, brings the blade closer.

It's no wonder that a slick mobster like Chili Palmer has contempt for the gang that can't think straight.

Steve Persall can be reached at 727 893-8365 or persall@sptimes.com

[Last modified March 3, 2005, 09:35:04]