A publication of the National Association of Theatre Owners

Advertise in In Focus

©

Ratings ‘Evolution’
Nell Minnow writes regularly for the Chicago Tribune about movies. Calling herself “The Movie Mom,” Nell also reviews films for radio stations across the United States every week. (You can check her out at http://movies.yahoo.com/moviemom.) More often than not, Nell does a good job of presenting a parent’s view about movies and the appropriateness of movie content for younger patrons. I have participated in Federal Trade Commission workshops with her, and spoken with her regularly about her views.

Recently, Nell authored a piece for the Tribune that was highly critical of our movie rating system. She excoriated the ratings administration for what she calls “ratings creep” – whereby movies that once would have been rated “R” are now rated “PG-13,” and movie content previously rated “PG-13” now might receive the “PG” rating. After a lengthy diatribe, Nell concluded that our system deserves an “F.”

I fired off an e-mail response to Nell. MaryAnn read it in our office and suggested I share it with all of our readers. Here it is:

Nell- As always, I appreciate your comments/ writing and the copies of your columns. I read them all. I have previously described you to the FTC, to reporters and columnists and to others as one of the more reasonable minds of our ratings system critics. That was before I read your most recent piece. Do you really think our movie rating system deserves an “F”?? To be sure, you are correct that some material that used to produce an “R” rating now produces a “PG-13” – ditto for material formerly appropriate for a “PG-13” that now receives a “PG.” But what you fail to recognize and/or acknowledge in your piece is that the rating system is dynamic, not static. The guiding principle for the raters is to reflect what the majority of America’s parents believe would be an appropriate rating for any particular film. That principle necessarily suggests a dynamic system. The bottom line is that parents are much more accepting and lenient on the issue of content today than they were 15 years ago. As parents, you and I might wish that were otherwise, but it isn’t. Your “ratings creep” may be someone else’s “ratings evolution.” This change in attitudes isn’t limited to movies. Look at television, songs, video games and the Internet. My 13-year-old son is swimming in a sea of content much different than the one I confronted at the same age. Our job as parents is to help them stay afloat by learning something about the content choices available to them. That’s where our ratings system does a good, if not perfect, job. (Certainly better than an “F”!) On the information side, we have made gradual progress. The ratings explanations were finally added to advertisements, made available on Websites, and distributed for use in theatres after years of NATO’s pushing. The explanations are not complete, but do provide some guide about the content that garnered the particular rating. Parents who want to know more can and do access the myriad sites that provide additional information, some of which you reference in your piece. That is a good thing. The ratings explanations provided by the studios/MPAA are the starting point, not the end point, in a responsible parent’s effort to understand the content options. But that starting point wasn’t even available a few years ago. Any critic can quibble with particular examples of applied ratings that might be challenged. You have picked some good examples in your column. But that is the nature of line drawing. Any system that separates content into categories will by definition have some product at the margins of each rating. You can’t do line drawing without that effect. I agree that the “f-word” rules are formulaic. That may be an area where reform would be useful. But you are wrong that the MPAA is formulaic as a general proposition. Dynamic systems are by definition not very formulaic. In fact, the basic gravamen of your complaint is that the ratings are “creeping” – suggesting the system is not very formulaic at all. There is no doubt that some moviemakers attempt to manipulate the system. We fight them all the time, from “Fahrenheit 9/11” to “Star Wars” to “The Passion of the Christ” to every movie in between. But isn’t it a good thing that a system exists that forces filmmakers to make changes and edits in their pictures if they want to achieve a desired rating? How can a system with that much control over powerful filmmakers get an “F” in your book? They do cut material. They do edit scenes. They are forced to respect the system, at least to a significant degree, in order to release and market their product. What about the enforcement side of the system? Did you read the last FTC report? Theatre owners received high marks for an enforcement record that started as the best of any ratings system and got even better. You were there at the FTC workshop last October. Do you remember when the FTC staff asked the other retail groups to follow our lead and be as serious about their rating system enforcement as we are? Our enforcement necessarily affects content. Filmmakers will edit down content to achieve a “PG-13” because they know that most kids will be denied tickets if the movie is rated “R.” That’s a good thing. And the studios also received high marks for improving the way they market films. Yet none of that progress, even after documented by the government, makes its way into your indictment of the rating system. You also return to the old refrain that we need one standardized rating system across all media. But that is simply not possible. The products are produced, distributed, marketed and sold in fundamentally different ways. As one example, a cornerstone of our system is the ID check at the box office for “R”-rated pictures. A parent or guardian must “accompany” a child under 17. How do you adapt that element of our system to television? Or video games? You can’t. Because they are different industries. Despite my reaction to the atypically 1-sided nature of your piece, I will still take the constructive criticism to heart and discuss it with the MPAA. Thanks again for your ever-watchful eye, and your (more often than not) informed and reasonable critique of our ratings system. Everyone has an “off” day.