Movie Ratings - 40th Anniversary

[_____V_____]

September 10, 2008


On the verge of its 40th anniversary, the movie rating system remains vital as both a public service and a representation of the First Amendment at work, Motion Picture Assn. of America topper Dan Glickman will say in a speech today.

"Is the system perfect? No. Does it do a good job of conveying clear information to parents? Yes. Does it safeguard artistic freedom? So far, yes," Glickman will say to the Media Institute, according to an advance copy of the speech obtained by Daily Variety.

An MPAA spokesman said Glickman's extensive remarks are so far the only plans the org has to mark the 40th anniversary, which will occur on Nov. 1.

The speech reviews the history of governmental authority over movie content, at first directly with censorship boards, then indirectly through the notorious Hays Code, an ostensibly self-imposed system named after the MPAA's founding president, Will Hays.

"Viewed through modern eyes, (the Hays Code is) both humorous and troubling," the speech says. "Only 'correct standards of life' could be presented. No depictions of childbirth. No criticisms of religion. Forget about 'lustful' kissing or 'suggestive' dancing. If married couples were shown in bed, then typically each actor had to keep one foot on the floor at all times. Under the Hays Code, films were simply approved or disapproved based on whether they were deemed 'moral' or 'immoral.'"

The Hays Code lasted until the 1960s, when a then-new MPAA president -- Jack Valenti -- realized it was an outmoded proxy for governmental censorship. In 1968, Valenti devised the voluntary ratings system that is still in place today, though it has been tweaked and modified in the four decades since.

Glickman will say the system retains the sole purpose it has had since its inception: "to give parents clear information about a film's content to help them decide if a movie is OK for their kids. Ratings do not exist to cast judgment on whether a movie is 'good' or 'bad.' The system is not a gatekeeper of society's morality and values. It does not require artists to promote behavior and beliefs deemed socially or morally upright."

The speech also says film raters have not changed, either. "Raters themselves are parents. They have no prior industry affiliation. Their job is to reflect what they believe would be the majority view of their fellow parents."

Glickman will also note additions to the system, such as the category PG-13, which didn't exist until the 1980s, and then descriptors, which provide some detail about a film's content.

Of the more than 850 movies to which the MPAA assigns a rating each year, "the overwhelming majority are independent films," according to the speech.

Indie filmmakers in particular have criticized MPAA ratings as overly subjective, inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary. Kirby Dick's 2006 indie doc "This Film is Not Yet Rated" alleged that MPAA raters are unqualified and that the system is biased against independents.

Glickman's speech says that the MPAA is "working hard to make the system more transparent -- to help all filmmakers understand its purpose and value (and) that there is no censorship, just clear information to parents and an essential safeguard for filmmakers' ability to bring their unique creative visions to life."

Ultimately, Glickman will say, the ratings system is about "information, truth in labeling, allowing diverse voices and visions to be heard and seen, protecting freedom of expression, all while respecting parents' desire for the information they need to raise their kids according to their beliefs, not those of whoever happens to be in charge at the time in either Washington or Hollywood."

[The Flayed One]

The rating system has larger affects on movies than a lot of people realize. Threatening an NC-17 rating is the equivalent of a filibuster. There are many movie chains that have vowed to not give screens to NC-17 movies (their quest to remain "family friendly" ala Blockbuster philosophy) which can seriously impair a directors visions.

[Bub the Zombie]

Even after being hounded by a lot of criticism, it has done quite well for the past 40 years.

[The Flayed One]

Originally Posted by Bub the Zombie

Even after being hounded by a lot of criticism, it has done quite well for the past 40 years.

In what way do you mean? If you mean they've done quite well in surviving all the criticism and being a watchdog institution, I completely agree.

If you mean they've done a good job, I'm not so sure. The rating system doesn't hurt quite as much now that DVDs are prominent. Studios can easily cut whatever they want, and then just throw all additional footage on the "Unrated Directors Cut" It's gotten to the point where it's almost a scam. However, that doesn't mean that some movies don't suffer from the original artistic vision being skewed.

[Disease]

Just flat out banning a movie in a country or state has pissed me of enough times, I don't even think the guidlines that are given to viewers via the ratings are at all acurate most of the time.

I can see that there is a need for things to be rated, but after being around for so many years you would expect them to do it properly by now.