NOTE: This is a simple copy-and-paste from a report I did in my AP Language & Composition class last year. It’s a subject I’m deeply fascinated with and hope to touch on again in the near future. As for now, here are some letters excavated from the archives of yesteryear…
Rated R for Ridiculous: The Failure of the MPAA
The Motion Picture Association of America, or the MPAA, is the organization responsible for assigning movie ratings for films released in the United States. The organization stemmed from the previous Hays Code system, a moral censorship group where films were either approved or banned based on their content. Due to complaints of being too broad and restrictive, and facing the possibility of government regulation, the film industry devised a way to regulate itself, thus leading to the modern movie ratings system under the MPAA in 1968. Films were instead assigned a letter rating—originally G, M, R, or X—based on what the organization deemed as appropriate content for each specific rating. The new ratings made it simpler for parents to know what kind of content a movie would contain, and also allowed filmmakers more freedoms regarding the kinds of movies they could make. Over the years, the ratings themselves have generally stayed the same, except for a few revisions: M was changed to PG in the early ‘70s, the PG-13 rating was added in 1984, and the X rating was changed to NC-17 in 1990. Ever since its establishment, though, the MPAA has been criticized on numerous occasions as to how (in)accurate the ratings system really is. Many believe that the MPAA has become increasingly used as a marketing ploy instead, leading many to question their credibility as a trustworthy source. An overwhelming amount of movies rated under the MPAA expose some of their questionable decisions and standards, and ultimately show that the MPAA is an inaccurate and flawed organization.
The MPAA is flawed because the ratings they assign to certain films are horribly arbitrary. This can be partly attributed to the “ratings creep” that has been observed, which refers to how the rating guidelines have changed quite considerably over the years. A PG film rated today will not be the same as a PG film rated in the past. Originally, PG was a replacement for the original M rating, which stood for mature audiences—thus, PG-rated films at the time contained more adult content that would make parents think twice before sending their kids off to see it, whereas today the PG rating has been watered down into something that essentially means “family-friendly.” In the 1970s and early 1980s, it was not uncommon for these films to have violence, nudity, profanity, and adult themes as opposed to today’s PG-rated films where such things are virtually nonexistent. In fact, many PG films of the ‘70s, like Vanishing Point and A Man Called Horse, were even re-rated R under current MPAA standards. The same is the case for films with other ratings. In 1969, for example, The Wild Bunch was rated R due to its strong violence that was considered especially shocking for the time, but when it was re-rated in 1993 it was given the higher NC-17 rating. Based on this evidence, it may seem that the MPAA has gotten increasingly conservative over the years, yet ironically the opposite case is also apparent—several studies have shown that movies released today are beginning to contain more objectionable material than films given the same rating in previous years. For example, some PG-13 movies released today contain material that would have garnered an R rating twenty years ago, and some NC-17 material of the past has gradually been allowed to slip into R-rated films of today. While this seems to be the case with some films, an overall trend is impossible to identify given the MPAA’s seemingly random and sporadic inconsistencies.
Additionally, the MPAA is flawed based on the ridiculous standards they set for their guidelines. One of the most glaring issues is that they tend to be way too restrictive on sex and language while being incredibly lenient on violence. It would seem like these absurd puritanical standards would be absent from an organization originally created to allow directors more freedom in their films, yet the MPAA still continues to operate under these standards, leading to some ridiculous decisions on their behalf. For example, with very few exceptions, the MPAA allows only one use of the f-word in a PG-13 movie, so long as it’s not used in its literal sexual meaning. Any more uses of the word garner an automatic R, which is absurd given the fact that almost all 13-year-olds have heard such language before. Meanwhile, the MPAA seems to have no problem with brutal acts of violence in PG-13 films, where people’s heads can be chopped off and children are allowed to kill each other, as long as there is no excessive gore. For some reason the MPAA thinks that this is more acceptable than hearing an f-word more than once in a movie. This problem was brought to the forefront with the controversy surrounding The King’s Speech’s R rating, due to a brief instance when the main character says “f—k” several times in a row, lasting no more than a few seconds. Otherwise, the film contains nothing that would garner a rating as high as an R—keep in mind, the same rating given to ultraviolent films like Kill Bill and Hostel. The fact that an intense film like The Dark Knight (PG-13) has a lower rating than the relatively tame A King’s Speech is absurd, and shows that the MPAA fails to recognize the context of such material and only looks at a movie’s content in a checklist-like manner. This results in some ridiculous ramifications—coarse, vulgar language is permitted in a PG-13 film as long as there is no more than one f-word, but if a film has more f-words, even if used inoffensively, it’s an R. The same applies to sexuality and violence. According to the MPAA, crude sexual innuendos are fine as long as there is nothing they would call explicit, but frontal nudity, even if portrayed in a non-sexual way, usually gets an R rating. In the same way, bloodless violence—no matter how intense—will almost always be allowed in a PG-13 film, yet if some blood is added in it’s an R. These sorts of standards lead to ridiculous results and are a major reason for many of the MPAA’s inaccurate ratings.
Some may argue that the MPAA is actually accurate in rating movies because, no matter how absurd the guidelines might be, the organization still follows them for each rating. While the MPAA may appear to have certain guidelines based on what they’ve allowed in certain movies and their given ratings, the truth is that the MPAA actually has no specific set of guidelines that they’ve made public. The MPAA is a very secretive organization, operated by ratings board members whose names are not publicly revealed. This privacy frees them from taking accountability for their ratings decisions, and means that the filmmakers are less involved in the ratings process for their own films. The organization’s privacy also means that no specific information has been publicly released as to what constitutes a certain rating. The policy of only one f-word for PG-13 films was never actually officially stated by the MPAA, but was simply observed over time as being a continual “standard”. Furthermore, there have been several occasions where the MPAA has broken that “rule” for some films, as well as various other guidelines that the MPAA was always thought to have followed. Ultimately, the MPAA’s decisions are subjective, and so arguing for accuracy based on a set of guidelines that do not exist does not work.
The MPAA is a flawed organization in the way it rates films, and while a ratings system is advisable, it needs to be accurate. Many of their decisions have proved that the movie ratings they give out are inconsistent and inaccurate, based on standards that are outdated or don’t make any sense. The organization’s anonymity prevents the ratings board from being transparent, which would allow for more cooperation and a better understanding for how the MPAA operates. Most importantly, it would allow people to contribute their opinions on the matter, making the system more favorable. At the moment, though, the MPAA’s decisions only continue to prove how flawed the organization really is.