Columns, Opinion

MOOTS: The MPAA Should Return to Stricter Guidelines 

These past few weeks, “Fifty Shades of Grey” dominated the domestic box office before being dethroned by “Focus.” “Fifty Shades of Grey,” as you may know, is a film focused on the sexual relationship between a prominent businessman and a young woman. While the film is essentially a how-to (or how-not-to) for a BDSM relationship, the film was only rated R. A few decades ago, this film would have been heavily rated NC-17. So what’s happened to the Motion Picture Association of America to make it so lenient on ratings nowadays? And why does it matter?

The MPAA started off essentially as a representative group of the eight major studios in Hollywood: Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Loews, Universal Studios, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Columbia Pictures, United Artists and RKO Pictures. The group served as a way to censor films to protect family values, as well as lobby the U.S. Congress in the stead of these studios. A set of rules were established that made anything that we would consider now to be vulgar from appearing in a motion picture. This remained until the end of World War II when it was replaced with the more favorable ratings system that we know today, which allowed filmmakers freedom of expression, but still allowed families to know what was in films and make their own choices as to whether the film is appropriate.

Films that have no questionable content are rated G for general audiences. Films with some questionable content, but nothing too vulgar are generally rated PG for parental guidance. Films with content not suitable for pre-teenagers are rated PG-13. Films that have a lot of content that is not suitable for teenagers is rated R for restricted, and films that are wholly inappropriate for anybody younger than 17 years of age are rated NC-17 for no one 17 and under admitted.

In a perfect world, this would be a good system. However, we do not live in a perfect world. Two of the major studios went bankrupt, and many of the others have been purchased and integrated into international conglomerates. The primary focus of these studios now is to make money, like all companies. To help achieve this goal, the studios have worked together to lobby for looser ratings to help increase profits for their movies.

A film that is rated R makes dramatically less at the box office compared to a film that has a PG-13 rating. Instead of film’s having to cut out bloodshed to attain this extra gross, the studios found it easier to make the rules fit their ideals.

But why does it matter? As long as families know that PG-13 and R-rated movies have essentially both moved down a rating, does it really matter? Parents can still make choices about what is appropriate for their families to watch.

To answer this, I am going to give an example from my recent past. Over the summer, I went to see “Neighbors” with my sister and some friends. This movie is rated R for pervasive language, strong crude and sexual content, graphic nudity and drug use throughout. To put this into context, the film shows a couple having sexual relations thrice, characters doing drugs and drinking alcohol almost constantly and the “f-word” is used 97 times. This is obviously not a family friendly movie. In the 1970s or ’80s, this film would have been rated NC-17. This film, again, was rated R. When I got into the theater, I saw a young man and woman sitting in front of me, with a toddler in between them. I did not know how inappropriate the movie was yet, so I did not think much of it. When one of the sex scenes in the movie occurred, the toddler in front of me asked his parents, “What happened to them?”

This is why the rating system needs to be tightened up again. This child was introduced to concepts that he is not going to be able to comprehend. And it is obviously not contained to this one child. There are parents all across America that do not know how the rules have changed recently. If the rules were truly what they say they are supposed to be, there would be no problem. “Neighbors” should have been rated NC-17, as well as “Fifty Shades of Grey” and numerous other films that have come out in recent years.

The R rating has allowed children to see things they are not emotionally ready for. The only way to combat this and still retain freedom of speech, which is equally important, is to return the MPAA rating system to the way it was created. Because this sounds ridiculous when you consider that the MPAA is run by companies that profit from the devaluated ratings, the solution to the rating problem is to make the MPAA independent of the major studios.

More Articles

One Comment

  1. You assume that because one couple brought a young child to an R rated film that it must be a common thing that occurs. You have stated a sweeping generalization that if one couple does this that a large amount of others do the same. You also assume that people do not understand the rating system and that is why it must be stricter, but how would that change anything? Someone would still go to the movie under the impression that it could not be that bad and be exposed to something you believe is unsuitable for them. The issue is not with the MPAA, which is truly a corrupt organization, but with the parents, who according to your argument, need to educate themselves on the ratings and decide if it is ok for them to take their child to see the movie. You seem to be pushing your views onto people that may or may not have differing views. It is the responsibility of the parents to decide what to expose their children to no matter the strictness to the rating system. The rating system is fine in regards to the content allowed, which is completely my own opinion, and most people understand what to expect in G, PG, PG-13, and R rated films. As something to note here the comment is for a College course, but the views stated are those I do hold.