Pg-13 Rating

If you had to guess, which of these three movie scenes would guarantee an R-rating in the United States?:
A.) A couple engaging in consensual sex (no nudity, just simulated pelvic thrusting).
B.) A small group of close friends smoking marijuana.
C.) A man, standing in front of a scantily dressed woman, murdering hundreds of people with an assault rifle.

Obviously, if you live in America you know that the correct answer is both A & B—according to our current film ratings system, a movie that depicts simulated sex and/or the consumption of “hard” drugs receives an automatic R-rating. However, Option C, the one about the guy killing enough people to fill a high school gymnasium, well, that one is actually a prime candidate for a PG-13 rating. Our current film ratings system not only condones violent behavior, it serves violence up wholesale on a gold platter to anyone over the age of 12. In essence, film ratings, especially PG-13 and R ratings, are seen as veritable rites of passage for our youth. There is an unspoken implication that once someone reaches a certain age, certain material immediately becomes appropriate for

them. But who is the shot-caller that determines which material is and isn’t appropriate for children? The answer is The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), a controversial and secretive organization that is in dire need of some basic restructuring.

The MPAA is a trade organization that represents the six largest Hollywood studios in the United States.

The MPAA is tasked with limiting copyright infringement, curbing peer-to-peer sharing, and lobbying elected officials on behalf of the film industry as a whole; however, the organization is most well known as the enforcer of the aforementioned film rating system. A film rating is a symbolic classification of a film’s content, specifically designed to act as a guide for parents. However, the MPAA’s true allegiance is not to parents, but rather to the film studios and the industry as a whole. In his deftly titled book, The End of Cinema As We Know It: American Film in the Nineties, author Jon Lewis writes, “The MPAA supervises the self-regulation of film content and does so solely to protect studio products in the marketplace.”

(28)

This allegiance to the studios affords the MPAA great power in the shaping of values through the reinforcement and diminishment of taboos. Many organizations have self-regulatory wings, and on the surface, this isn’t such a significant issue; however, the MPAA is staggeringly ineffective. In truth, the MPAA does very little to actually inform parents on a film’s content. Furthermore, since its inception, the vast majority of the MPAA’s rating operation—including their rationale and their members—has been kept completely secret. This practice effectively cuts parents off from being part of the process and makes it difficult for the general public to determine the true rating criteria. Lastly, the MPAA’s rating division, known as the Classification & Ratings Administration (CARA), utilizes only five ratings—G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. The refusal to adopt a sixth rating classification in between PG-13 and R forces studios to re-edit films that truly don’t belong in front of teenagers, in order to maximize their box office gross. It’s because of these reasons that I believe a sixth rating should be added to the classification guide, the current ratings system should be reformatted to a more densely informational guide, and the overall process should be made more transparent and consistent, specifically in regards to the ratings of films geared towards adolescents.

On its surface, the MPAA’s ratings system appears to be a well-intentioned endeavor—all studio films are rated by an anonymous group of parents, solely for the benefit of other parents. “The ratings system exists for one purpose,” stated the head of the MPAA ratings board, Joan Graves, “To inform parents about the content of films.” (Banks).

It’s because the system is seemingly tailored for parents that MPAA advocates argue that a simple and concise rating system is the most effective way to inform them about movie content. Most working parents don’t have time to heavily research everything their children watch, so a simple “PG” or “PG-13” marker and a brief descriptor are much easier to track than a three paragraph analysis of a film’s content. In many cases, parents operate on the honor system, trusting the rating system to give an unbiased, albeit quick, assessment of a film. Seemingly, this system works for parents. A recent survey commissioned by the MPAA found that “93% [of parents] said both the ratings and accompanying descriptor were helpful tools.” (“Survey Shows 93% of Parents”)

Setting aside the potential bias of a survey conducted by the organization that the survey pertains to, one must ask how helpful the MPAA’s rating system actually is in a practical, real-world setting. In order to do this, let’s look at two films: The Expendables 3 (2014) and The King’s Speech (2011).

The MPAA’s PG-13 rating description for The Expendables 3 cites, “Violence including intense sustained gun battles and fight scenes, and for language.” (“The Expendables 3 Parents Guide”). What the descriptor doesn’t reveal is that during the film’s runtime over 200 people are violently killed on screen—this includes characters being shot, stabbed, impaled, and blown up. In addition to this, there is heavy language usage (including homophobic slurs), a “good guy” with a hard drug problem, scenes with copious amounts of cocaine, and plenty of drinking and smoking (Anderson).

The King’s Speech, on the other hand, is rated R. The MPAA’s rating description for the film cites, “Some strong language.” (“The King’s Speech Parents Guide”). What the descriptor doesn’t reveal is that in one scene, the film’s protagonist, King George VI, repeatedly yells the F-word as a means to overcome his speech impediment. There’s some other foul language in there, but not much (Robledo).

In general, one would be hard-pressed to find a parent of a teenager who would view The Expendables 3 as a more appropriate piece than an inspiring period-drama like The King’s Speech. Yet, this is the type of issue the MPAA’s ratings system presents, a film with excessive violence squeaks by, becoming readily assessable to anyone over the age of 12, while an uplifting film with a positive message is branded unsuitable for children. In general, the MPAA’s broad approach to branding subjective content leaves a glaring hole for its members to fill with their own values. Furthermore, what their ratings of the two aforementioned films fail to account for is tone. The Expendables is a cynical movie, one where life is as cheap as the title. Furthermore, the movie presents a false reality—in the world of The Expendables violence is as bloodless and consequence-free as a walk in the park. The King’s Speech, however, is an all-around positive film about overcoming personal obstacles; it encourages confidence. It’s the opinion of this writer that if put side-by-side, without the stigma of their respective ratings, the vast majority of responsible parents would prefer their teenagers watch The King’s Speech. In this regard, the MPAA failed, and in regards to PG-13 violence as a whole, The Expendables 3 is not an outlier.

In general, the MPAA frowns upon depictions of smoking, drinking, hard swearing, and certain sexual activity in PG-13 films, yet they have a longstanding blindspot when it comes to violence. There is no hard-and-fast rule for the number of murders a PG-13 film can depict. Perhaps, it’s because of this that PG-13 films have seen a large increase in violence. A study conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania concluded that gun violence in PG-13 movies has tripled since 1985, now surpassing violence in R-rated films (“More Gun Violence in Top PG-13 Films”).

According to Annenberg’s study, entitled, “Violent Film Characters' Portrayal of Alcohol, Sex, and Tobacco-Related Behaviors,” Dr. Amy Bleakey states, “The similarity in levels of co-occurrence between PG-13 and R-rated movies is troubling, and yet it is consistent with research on the questionable effectiveness of the ratings system as a tool to shield youth from inappropriate content. The reliability and validity of the movie ratings system are problematic, and its usefulness for parents limited.”

When it comes to gun violence in films, especially in America, this leniency is troubling. In 2009, after conducting “extensive research,” the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that “Media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and fear of being harmed.” (“Media Violence”) This is extremely troubling, one would hope that the MPAA would be taking steps to ensure the safety of America’s children, them being advocates for parents and all.

In 2013, The Motion Picture Association of America announced a plan to change their rating system, in order to combat violence in film and further aid parents in making appropriate viewing decisions. The MPAA dubbed this new plan the “Check The Box” campaign. One might think that the MPAA would tighten the reigns on violent films, or perhaps add a new rating symbol, but no. Rather than increases the amount of information given about a film, the MPAA opted to simply enlarge the descriptor boxes under the rating code, thus making it easier for parents to read why a film was given its rating. In an article published by The Huffington Post, entitled “Check The Box to Decide if a Film is Right for Your Family,” the MPAA’s CEO, Chris Dodd, declared that the goal of the new campaign was to, “[Help] parents make smarter decisions.”

This change to their system—if one could even define it as a change—was symbolic at best. No changes were made to the MPAA’s policy on rating violent films. Nor were any policy changes made at all. It was the bare minimum possible. A few clicks on Photoshop. Furthermore, this minimal action was proof that the MPAA was aware of the concerns about their ratings system, and were choosing to continue to serve the interests of the studios.
In a Fox News article entitled, “It’s Time to Get Real About ‘R’ Rated Movies,” journalist, Tim Winter, criticized the campaign, stating, “Media violence is a serious issue, and it deserves serious attention from the entertainment industry. Instead, all we get are form-over-substance solutions like this one, designed to make it appear as if Hollywood is doing something and to keep Congress off its back while allowing them to just keep on doing what they’ve been doing.”

The plan to enlarge the font of vague information does little to address the overall issue at hand. If the concern is that PG-13 movies are too violent, simply stating that they are violent does little to curb their box office appeal to teenagers.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Ms. Graves defended the MPAA’s approach, stating, “Our perception is that parents still feel the same way about bad language, especially in areas like the Midwest and the South, where they often have a problem with God, as in goddamnit. On the coasts, perhaps because they have more urban centers, they’re more concerned with violence.” (Goldstein)