Bellbrook graduation 2012
Fairfield Senior 2012 graduation
Kroger Aquatic Center opens
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2007 > March > 15 > Entry
Do movie ratings (PG-13, R, etc) work for you?
For decades, the Motion Picture Association of America has come under fire for its often ineffective, confusing and inconsistent ratings system. The group declared this year they would try some reforms, but this latest report doesn’t sound so encouraging to me.
Basically, R-rated movies will now come with the disclaimer, “Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.”
Thank you, Professor Obvious!
Then again, it is clear that some people need the obvious stated to them. I remain astounded at the number of people who bring small children to R-rated movies because they’re too lazy/broke to get a babysitter. I saw someone bring kids who looked like they were 7 and 8 to The Departed last year. Hope they had a good time explaining what Jack Nicholson was doing with those two ladies in the scene with all that white powder. Or what that thing was he showed to Matt Damon in the movie theater. Or why that guy got thrown off the roof and turned into a bloody pulp. Or….
You get the picture.
Still, it seems to me that the problem with the R-rating is that it’s far too elastic. There are some movies like The Breakfast Club and Almost Famous that most young teens could watch with no problem, but then wildly violent movies like Sin City and Natural Born Killers get the same rating.
On the other hand, a lot of kids these days are pretty tough customers. and I think parents tend to underestimate just how much they can handle.
UPDATE: Entertainment Weekly’s blog has chimed in on this issue, more or less echoing my thoughts, plus they linked back to an earlier piece asking why people take kids to R-rated movies. A friend of mine told me: “My opinion isn’t that ratings do or do not work, it’s that the American public refuses to pay any attention to them, which isn’t the same thing.”
So I wonder, especially from those of you who have kids: Do you find the movie ratings sytem useful? What changes should be made? What movies have you been shocked to see children attending?
Permalink | Comments (6) | Categories: Sir Critic muses
Comments
By MisterG
March 20, 2007 10:49 PM | Link to this
Small girl, I would estimate 6-8yo, at “Saving Private Ryan.” Yow. Small boy, 8-10yo, at “Hannibal.” Two I’ve witnessed anyway. When my kids were growing up, I monitored what they watched. More importantly, perhaps, I influenced their appreciation for film as a medium of storytelling, and now that they’re old enough to watch whatever they’re interested in, they have a well-developed ability to avoid the crap and spend their time with the good stuff. Unlike Dad, who will watch most anything once. “)By HollyGoKimsy
March 19, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this
What concerns me about the rating system isn’t whether parents pay attention to it or not - I already know that most don’t. When I went to see “Black Hawk Down” several years ago there was a child about seven in the audience scared out of his wits while his parents just sat there! What concerns me is that ratings get “dumbed down” in order for the studios to make more money - hence the PG-13 horror film and the HUGE ambiguity within the R rating. Most recently, I heard that “Grind House” may be getting a NC-17 unless they make major cuts. In my opinion, it’s going to come out as an unrated DVD so what’s the real difference? Give it the NC-17 if that’s what it deserves and go on with it. Don’t water it down for the R simply to get more money in the theater - you’ll get the money in DVD sales. That may be idyllic, but it makes sense to me.By Allie D.
March 16, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this
I’m also for the Ebert solution and I agree with everything you said. Also problematic is how the “R” rating has become so dreaded that directors are often forced to compromise their artistic vision so as to avoid that rating, and that’s just ridiculous. If there was an Adult rating that didn’t come with the stigma that it was a porno (like NC-17 has — thanks Showgirls!), a lot of problems would be solved. As for my personal use of the ratings system. I typically don’t allow more than PG fare for my kids given their ages. Once they pass a certain threshold — say 9 or 10, I probably won’t be as stringent, but it will depend on their maturity level, of course. For the most part, I don’t pay much attention to it for my own personal discretion.By SRCputt
March 16, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
To me, the biggest problem is too many violent Hollywood films getting PG-13 ratings when they are not appopriate. It is impossible to use the ratings system to determine which movies are apporpriate for my kids. I’m not worried about them hearing any curse words. I am worried about the violence level of too many of these movies. The ratings system is a joke.By Zack
March 16, 2007 1:15 AM | Link to this
Of course, I think it’s silly that relatively tame movies like THE BREAKFAST CLUB and ALMOST FAMOUS get “R” ratings just for their (very realistic) use of the F word. Those movies SHOULD be PG-13. It’s just as ridiculous, as you say, that a movie like NATURAL BORN KILLERS get an “R”, or EYES WIDE SHUT for that matter, when those movies are clearly intended for adults. That said, the reason so many movies fall into the R category is because NATO and the studios have put pressure on the MPAA to be more lenient with titles, as if cutting 5 minutes out of NATURAL BORN KILLERS or THE DEVIL’S REJECTS suddenly make them acceptable for 9 or 10 year old eyes (accompanied by an adult, of course). Aside from these misjudgments by the MPAA to be more lax, I think don’t think the ratings system is broken, or that we need an “A” rating as Ebert suggests. NC-17 (or whatever you want to call it) would work if newspapers, TV stations and mainstream theaters would accept advertising for them and book them. THAT’s what’s broken — the perception of the ratings, not the ratings themselves. THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED didn’t work for me because it refused to acknowledge this possibility, and insisted that censorship (never a good idea in a free society) would be a better solution, and also that there ought to be more standards for films (e.g. more than 10 seconds of suggested sex gets you an R, more than X gets you Y, etc.) when at the same time the EXISTING standards (e.g. more than 1 F-word gets you an R) don’t work, so why would more be better? Moviegoing is subjective, and so are parental guidelines, and so they should be. Parents should take their responsibilities seriously, both minding the guidelines and be wary of them, and the studios and theaters should accept the system as it is, rather than constantly acting like it’s broken.By Rob
March 15, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this
I’m with Ebert on this one, I think we need a workable rating above “R”. That way the Breakfast Clubs and Almost Famouses could still get their R but the movies that really should be only for adults can be differentiated while still being able to make it into theaters.