Thoughts on the MPAA

Now, I know this has been done before, and quite a bit lately, but it's something I'd like to discuss. Please regard this as a SPOILER WARNING for all movies I'll be talking about.

I have no credibility in this regard, except as a twentysomething, movie-loving American, and so you can take this however you like.

I've just watched the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated on Netflix. It's an excellent film, and it brings out some very interesting points on how the MPAA ratings board works. I'll summarize it here, as I know a lot of my readers won't watch it. The film does include scenes from R and NC-17 rated movies, to prove a point, and I would not recommend it, really. Anyway, the director, Kirby Dick, hires a private investigator to discover who really gets to rate movies. The film is interspersed with sound bytes from Jack Valenti, the man who started the ratings board. The basic theme from Valenti is that the people screening these films and deciding who gets to see them are parents of children of the ages five to seventeen. Upon investigation, it's revealed that the majority of the members of this board do not fit under these criteria. Also, the majority of the members of the appeals board are owners and presidents of theater companies.

Basically, nobody knows why these people are qualified to make any decisions about a film. They are secretive, not held accountable, and come off as essentially a censorship board.

I'm completely for film ratings. Do not misunderstand me. But when I see a film like True Grit (I echo my spoiler warning here), and I see a man's fingers cut off on screen, and then immediately after, watch a man BE SHOT THROUGH THE HEAD, I cannot understand the PG-13 rating. We see gruesome and horrific violence, with brains and blood and everything, and it's completely okay. Do you know why?

There's no sex in the movie.

If there had even been a little bit of kissing-and-wake-up-the-next-morning-in-bed-together, I bet there would have been a higher rating.

But here I am, with children in the theater, to see a great Western film, and the man is shot. Through the face.

Then a movie that I would love for everyone to see, The King's Speech, gets an R rating. Because the f-bomb is dropped a few times. The scene is fairly essential to the theme of the movie, and shouldn't be cut down for a PG-13, but the rest of the movie is completely clean and is something that so many won't get a chance to see, because of that rating.

Now, I understand that some people do not want to take their children to a movie and hear those words. But the rating is PG-13. I do not believe there is a child in America that has not heard that word by the age of 13. I honestly don't. Fight me on that if you like, but I went to a private, Christian school, and I heard it.

Parents, yes. Screen movies for your kids. Be a good parent and please don't let them see crazy adult movies. But be smart. Don't pretend that they don't know what those words are. And be careful about some of the other things you will let them see. PG-13 just means there aren't nipples on-screen, or more than one f-bomb (sometimes two), and a little bit of blood. There will probably still be violence (The Incredibles, I'm fairly certain [Disney, PG-rated], had a higher body count than Die Hard). There will probably be innuendo, and maybe even the afore-mentioned implied sex. And like I said, PG-13 almost always gets that word. (Speed Racer, PG, had the sh-- word. And quite a few cars flying off the track and exploding.)

Take this for what you will. I just am beginning to have serious doubts with the MPAA and what it will allow. I honestly have no idea why The Passion of the Christ received an R rating and then allowed children to get in with signed permission.

What's the point?