Movie Ratings: If they're not broke, don't fix them

The Motion Picture Association of America Logo

There have been complaints about the MPAA’s movie rating system ever since it replaced the outdated Hays Code in 1966. Filmmakers have complained that it is too restrictive and parents and religious groups have complained that it is too permissive. Many remedies have been suggested to fix it, but I’d like to go out on limb and suggest that perhaps it isn’t the rating system that needs fixing, but the filmmakers and theater owner’s attitude towards it.

According to the MPAA website, "The basic mission of the rating system is a simple one: to offer to parents some advance information about movies so that parents can decide what movies they want their children to see or not to see. The entire rostrum of the rating program rests on the assumption of responsibility by parents. If parents don't care, or if they are languid in guiding their children's moviegoing, the rating system becomes useless. Indeed, if you are 18 or over, or if you have no children, the rating system has no meaning for you. Ratings are meant for parents, no one else."

That statement alone is nearly defense enough to any critics of the current system. The rating system is a guideline for parents. Assuming that most children under twelve years old are unable to get to a movie theater on their own (of course there are exceptions to this rule), and therefore will most likely be accompanied by a parent or other (hopefully) responsible adult. That child is unlikely to see anything that their parent or guardian doesn’t want them to see. Anyone over 17 is able to see any movie that they wish to, so what we are really talking about is what movies teenagers under 17 are able to see on their own. That age group is the focus of the arguments for and against the current ratings.

So why does Hollywood care about the teenage market? Because moviemaking is a business of course. Hollywood is a factory town that churns out a product. Naturally, it wants that product to make as much money as possible, and one way to ensure a movie makes money is by exposing it to the largest audience possible, especially the lucrative teen audience.

Of the top 100 grossing films of all time, less than 10 of them are R-rated and none of them are X or NC-17 rated. Clearly, on average, PG and PG-13 movies make more money than R or NC-17 rated ones. It’s easy then, to see why Hollywood wants their movies to receive the lowest possible rating. However, instead of strictly making movies that will obviously receive a PG-13 or R rating, filmmakers continue to try to stretch the definition of what is PG-13, what is R and what is NC-17.

I think the biggest mistake the MPAA ever made was in not copyrighting the X rating for movies. G, PG, R, PG-13, and eventually NC-17 were all copyrighted symbols, but not X. When that rating was co-opted by the porn industry, it lost all meaning and picked up a stigma that it still carries today, despite the name change. Without a doubt, there is a market for smart adult orientated films that aren’t intended for viewing by children. These wouldn’t necessarily be blockbusters, but then that shouldn’t be their intent. It would seem there could be plenty of such films, particularly in this day and age of small budget independent films, but even the most daring of today’s filmmakers still cringes at the thought of an NC-17 rating because of the stigma of porn.

I know that there are some who accuse what the MPAA does as censorship. I don’t think this is true. The MPAA cannot force any studio to alter their movie. When a studio alters their movie to meet the MPAA’s suggestions, it is a business decision. When movie theaters refuse to show NC-17 rated movies it is a business decision. Directors, writers and producers might complain that their artistic work is being destroyed, but the final decision is rarely an artistic one, it all comes down to cold hard cash.

If just one of the major studios would release an NC-17 rated film by a name director, with well-known stars and enough theaters showed the film so that it could earn money, then the stigma would start to be lifted. If studios saw that an NC-17 movie could make money, they would soon follow with other similar films. Hollywood loves to emulate success.

So, what’s the solution? It’s not to alter the meaning of the ratings. It’s for the studios to make their movies, submit them once to the MPAA, accept whatever rating the MPAA gives the movie and then release it as is. It’s for the theater chains to show those movies, no matter what rating it carries and to then enforce the age limit rules. It’s for parents to investigate each movie their children want to see. With the advent of the Internet, there is no excuse for any parent to be surprised by anything in a movie. They just have to take the time and the interest to put in the effort. Plus, if the definition of the ratings stop changing, then ratings will begin to have meaning again.

For too long the MPAA has been accused of having too much power and of wielding that power to enact censorship. Perhaps it’s time the studios stopped complaining and took the power back that they so willingly gave away. All they have to do is focus on making good movies and stop worrying about the rating. Good movies will find an audience no matter what the rating.