Our regular guest writer, Dodd (moviedodd at spout.com), tells us what’s the latest in movie rating news, and shares his mixed feelings about the proposed changes. Dodd is finishing up a Master’s degree in Film Studies at Ohio University.
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the current film rating system implemented by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Filmmakers have raised hell about it all on their own for the past few years, but now the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated has served as an expose on the selective standards of MPAA members. The film seems to have had an affect already. Since its release, MPAA head honcho Dan Glickman has admitted to the organization’s vague guidelines for what sets an R picture apart from an NC-17 one, and that proper actions would be taken to fix that problem.
It seems that Glickman was not just throwing words around for publicity purposes. According to a recent Variety article, Dan Glickman has announced that the MPAA is developing a “hard R” rating, which is not to be confused with the original “soft R.” In other words, films like Little Miss Sunshine, with its occasional F-bomb and sex joke, will be branded with a regular R. However, movies with blood-spurting decapitations, hardcore sex scenes, and f**k thrown into every sentence will be awarded the new, hard R rating.
Not only will there be a new R-rating, but the NC-17 rating may be eliminated. The hardcore rating limits film distribution and advertising on television, so the organization wishes to lump anything that is extremely graphic in nature under the new hard R-rating, with hopes that audiences, exhibitors, and advertisers will embrace it more than the much-feared NC-17.
I feel a little torn on this issue. Apparently, the new hard R-rating is the result of parents complaining that their children are being exposed to graphic content in R films. First off, the film is rated R, which means that the content is not appropriate for those under 17. Parents who choose to allow minors to watch these films have been warned to be cautious. Secondly, R-ratings currently contain little descriptions indicting the nature of the content–anything from drug use to angry sex to graphic conversations. Finally, if these descriptors prove to be too vague, there is a wealth of information about the graphic content of movies on the Internet, from movie reviews to the MPAA’s website to Yahoo’s Movie Mom. Therefore, my question is whether or not a new R-rating will stop parents from complaining. Teens will be teens, and they will always figure out ways to see hardcore content. While the rating system is useful, it will never magically babysit kids.
On the other hand, I am happy to see the elimination of the NC-17 system. Yes, it can be affiliated with the cult disaster known only as Showgirls, but the rating has also sunk potential pictures like a rock for miniscule details. It has also locked its sights on unconventional sex rather than violence. It will be nice to see art house gems such as Bad Education not being ostracized like a sleazy snuff film.
What do you think? Does the MPAA need a new R categorization, or will people complain about it anyway? Are you ready to see NC-17 get tossed aside, or does it still serve a useful purpose?
Ted at BigScreenLittleScreen
Anne Thompson points to the red-banded trailer for the Coen Brothers’ No Country For Old Men. In order to watch it, you have to prove that you’re over 17 by entering your birthday and zip code, as it corresponds to your government-issued ID. Leaving aside the fact that it’s totally creepy that movie studios now have access to some massive DMV database (that’s gotta be where they’re getting this info from, since the site wouldn’t accept the zip code on my passport), if you prefer Blood Simple to The Big Lebowski, then this trailer will likely be right up your alley. Warning: it’s, um, kind of violent. I counted at least 6 corpses, plus 2 implied human deaths, plus one definitely dead dog.
