The Unfairness and Vagueness of the MPAA Rating System Many people take notice of a film rating, whether in the theater or on the DVD case. The American culture, especially, relies very heavily on these ratings. Oftentimes, there is almost an incredible amount of trust put in them. But where did this trust come from, and is it really deserved? The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) determines the ratings on almost every film that is produced today. Although filmmakers are not required to have a rating attached to their films, the MPAA has great power in its ratings. After a close examination of the MPAA movie rating system, it is clear that there are many flaws both because of its unfair rating of different films and also because of its vague guidelines. Before the MPAA's rating system can be critiqued, it is important to understand society's need for censorship, the difficulty in rating, and the history and past critiques of not only the MPAA's rating system, but the other systems that came before it. It is impossible to look at the rating system without questioning the need for it in the first place. Media censorship is tricky, because it must “protect both free speech and children” (Jordan 235). There is a very tricky balance between these two sides. The American government recognizes the right to free speech. This means that, technically speaking, filmmakers are allowed to be able to express what they want to express in the way that they would like to express it. However, at the same time, some of the ways that filmmakers express their ideas are things that society considers immoral, and thus, society believes that children must be sheltered from these things. A balance must be met to provide a reasonable amount of free speech to filmmakers while still protecting children. This is where the need for a rating system comes in, as it allows free speech, with reasonable censorship. There are essentially three groups involved in ratings: the filmmakers, the rating board, and the government (French 28). When a rating board rates a film, they can go in two directions. They can either appease the filmmakers or the government. If the board is strict in the rating they give a film, it makes the filmmakers unhappy. On the flip side, if they are more loose in their rating of a film, the government is likely to restrict the board's powers by cutting or banning films (French 28). Admittedly, rating films is a tricky and often controversial endeavor. It is something that is very complex to do, and even difficult to approach. In the words of Joan Graves, the Chairman of MPAA, “the rating system exists to give parents clear, concise information about a film’s content, in order to help them determine whether a movie is suitable for their children” (Graves). The MPAA claims that its focus primarily rests on protecting children. However, many argue that this simply is not the case. There is much more that goes into a rating that the MPAA is willing to admit. The first signs of film regulation in the United States came out of the Production Code Administration (PCA), which was formed by the MPAA. Highly influenced by Catholic organizations, the first draft of the Production Code was created in 1930 (Vasey 103). When the need for film regulation arose, it was very conservative because of the heavy Catholic influence. Because of their beliefs, these ratings were extremely strict. The Bible, the source of their beliefs, includes many verses which backed up their need for ratings. For example, Psalm 101:3 says, “I will not look with approval on anything that is vile” (Holy Bible: New International Version). This verse, and others like it, led to very strict, and very religious-based ratings. However, that has all changed. Today, the MPAA is less influenced by religious beliefs, and their standards have become much more relaxed (Sandler 73). The MPAA is going in a direction which makes it seem less and less needed. In the past eighty years, film ratings have gone from one, overly religious, viewpoint to the polar opposite, very worldly, viewpoint. It has gone from going extremely strict, to being extremely lenient. Aside from the high level of strictness, the PCA had a lot of power as well. In 1930, the PCA had so much power that they were able to withdraw films from circulation and distribution (Vasey 103). Although today's MPAA does not have the power to control a film's distribution, the ratings that films are given still influence and greatly affect the success of a film. According to statistics which observe films in the 1970's, PG-13 and R ratings have proven to be significantly more successful than those with a G or X (now NC-17) rating (Austin). Many may see these statistics and connect the success to the content. However, as will be discussed later, further examination of films ratings prove to show that in most cases, there is little to no difference in content between films that are given an R rating and films that are given an NC-17 rating. Over the next few decades, the PCA received much criticism for its power, and in 1968, it was abandoned and MPAA took a new turn with the formation of The Code and Rating Administration (CARA) (Sandler 70). Since then, CARA has become synonymous with MPAA. The PCA wasn't perfect, and, unfortunately, MPAA is not either. Criticism towards the MPAA is not just a twenty-first century concept. It has been criticized ever since it moved on from the CPA. One of the earlier criticisms of the MPAA was its response to smoking in films. According to a study published in 1999 by Cornelia Pechmann and Chuan-Fong Shih, films with significant amounts of smoking influenced youth to follow suit (Pechmann 6). This is one example of an issue that had been completely neglected by the MPAA. There was nothing that the MPAA did to warn parents of smoking in films. It was not until 2007 that the MPAA addressed this issue and incorporated smoking warnings into film ratings (Graves 16). Smoking in films is not a new thing. Audrey Hepburn has become famous for smoking in the 1961 film, Breakfast at Tiffany's. After the change in the MPAA's guidelines, it took almost forty years to say something about smoking. Criticism of the MPAA is not a new thing. There have been issues in the MPAA's rating system ever since its genesis. The understanding of the history and background of the MPAA makes it more possible to look at the MPAA and better understand the biggest issues and controversies over the MPAA's current rating system. David Waguespack, a professor at the University of Maryland, and Olav Sorenson, a professor at Yale conducted a study that looked at film ratings. They compared the MPAA's ratings with the scores given by a website entitled Kids-in-Mind (Noah). Kids-in-Mind has three categories: sex/nudity, violence/gore, and profanity. Each film receives a score from one to ten in each category, based on how much of each category of content appears in the film (Kids-in-Mind). This rating system is fairly unbiased because of its strategic methods and lack of “financial dependence on either the major studios or the independents ” (Noah). There are six major studios in Hollywood: Disney, Paramount, Sony, Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros. The MPAA is only comprised of members from these six studios. The conclusion that Waguespack and Sorenson's study came to was that “films distributed by MPAA members are, on average, about 7 percent less likely to receive an R rating than films that are not distributed by MPAA members” (Noah). This goes to show that the MPAA is more strict on independent films, which are not produced by the six major studios. Going back to the MPAA's stated purpose, this contradicts the focus on informing parents of the content of films. Ratings bare a significant weight on the success of a film. Although filmmaking has become much cheaper because of improved technology, even independent films are very expensive to make. They can be anywhere from two million to two-hundred-fifty million dollars (Box Office Mojo). Because films are so expensive, the filmmaker hopes to make more on the film than what they spent on it. The MPAA's more strict ratings on films are significant because they hinder the filmmakers ability to make money. Rod Gustafson, a member of the Parents Television Council, an advocate group for positive, family-friendly entertainment, says: “There is no law in the United States that says a movie must have a rating, but... [the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO)] insists that any movies showing at a member's theater must have been rated by the MPAA” (Gustafson). Hence, the independent films that are rated NC-17 suffer greatly in the box office. This just goes to show that the MPAA's stricter ratings are greatly disturbing the filmmaking process by hindering independent films from making any money. Independent films, however, are not the only ones suffering from the MPAA's harsher ratings; religious based films are also feeling the heat. In 2006, the Christian filmmaking group, Sherwood Pictures, made their second film Facing the Giants, which they expected to get a PG rating for the minor violence involved in the various football games throughout the movie. They did receive a PG rating, but the MPAA's reasoning was for the film's religious content (“Film Rating Upsets Christian Groups”). This is another example of inconsistency with the MPAA's stated purpose, as religious themes should not be considered unsuitable for children. But who is to say whether religious themes are or are not suitable for children? Perhaps the issue is not whether religious themes should or should not be considered suitable, but rather, that the MPAA is not specific enough as to what is unsuitable for children. The vagueness of their purpose statement can very easily lead to inconsistencies and allow for loose interpretation. Aside from specific groups that are affected by the MPAA's decisions and poor rating system, the system is also flawed because of the politics that are involved. MPAA's duties encompass more than just ratings; they also work with the government to create legislation and policies in regards to more than just the censorship of films (“About the MPAA.”). This closeness with the key politicians, and the government in general, forces the MPAA to keep good relations with such groups (Williamson 79). This brings up the next criticism of the MPAA: that the MPAA is too connected to the government, and that there are further motivations when it comes to their ratings. There are too many factors that go into film ratings which do not actually relate to the content of the film itself. As mentioned previously, the group Kids-in-Mind is completely disconnected from the six major studios and, as a result, their decisions are not affected by who makes the film. However, the MPAA's ratings are not only affected by who makes the films, but they also do as much as they can to appease the lawmakers who continually give them the power and ability to do what they do. However, the MPAA is not the only one at fault in this issue. Filmmakers have also had an adverse effect to the MPAA's system. If filmmakers do not like the rating that their film is given, they has the option of reediting and then resubmitting the piece to the MPAA for a different rating. Knowing this, many filmmakers will put more sex and violence than what they really intended to have in their actual submission, so that when the film is rated the second time, the contrast from their original submission allows them to receive a better rating than what they may actually deserve (Prince 347). Though the MPAA does have its issues, this is one area in which the MPAA is taken advantage of because of its vulnerability. Again, this goes back to the issue of the openness and vagueness of the MPAA's rating system. It lacks specificity, which puts them in a bad place, not only on the issue of what is moral and what is not, as discussed earlier, but this also creates loophole for filmmakers to take to allow them to get ratings that they would not receive otherwise. Further than the logistics of the faults of the MPAA's rating system, how films are rated, and the groups that are positively and negatively affected by such ratings, is the issue of the legality of the system as a whole. As explored and discussed multiple times previously, the MPAA is extremely vague. The MPAA does not publicize its standards and, as a result, filmmakers are not ever able to know the specific reasons why they receive the ratings that they receive. This is technically a violation of due process (Friedman 219). Legally in the United States, a person who receives penalty for their actions is entitled to be fairly treated by the government and know for what they have been penalized. This concept should be the same for film ratings but, alas, it is not. Although the MPAA is not a government organization, part of its purpose is to avert governmental censorship (Friedman 220). In other words, it is in place so that the government does not have to step in to censor. It allows for filmmakers to avoid a potentially harsher rating, but the MPAA often holds the specific reasons behind its ratings from the filmmakers. This allows the MPAA to abuse its power. Due to the vagueness of the system, the MPAA gives itself the ability to potentially give false reasonings for their film ratings in order to cover up their wrong intentions. Going back to the beginning, the MPAA's stated purpose is to help parents to “determine whether a movie is suitable for their children” (Graves). However, Roy Bates of the Columbia Law Review questions “whether evidence supporting the claim that exposing juveniles to certain films precipitates immoral or delinquent behavior is sufficient to meet the heavy burden of justification for limiting children's right of access to nonobscene material” (Bates 643). The MPAA has a ton of power, but not a lot of justification behind even having the power in the first place. This completely breaks down everything the MPAA even stands for. So not only are they failing to meet their own standards, but their standards are even questionable to begin with. Therefore, they have nothing to back anything up on due to the injustice of the very basis on which the system claims to stand on. This examination of the Motion Picture Association of America's movie rating system shows that there are many things wrong with the system itself. There are some issues which have a great impact on filmmakers, especially those of independent and religious based films. Beyond that even, there are legality issues as well. The MPAA is something that the American society feels the desperate need for, but it has very low credibility, should not be trusted, and needs to be fixed to be fair not only to the filmmakers, but also to the audience who constantly use the ratings for the benefit of themselves and for their children. Works Cited
“About the MPAA.” Motion Picture Association of America. Motion Picture Assn. of America, Inc, 2011. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. .
Austin, Bruce A., Mark J. Nicolich, and Thomas Simonet. "M.P.A.A. Ratings and the Box Office: Some Tantalizing Statistics." Film Quarterly 35.2 (1981-1982): 28-30. JSTOR. Web. 24 Mar. 2012. .
Bates, Roy Eugene. "Private Censorship of Movies.” Columbia Law Review. Vol. 22. No. 3. (1970): 618-656. Online. In this source, Bates discusses the creation of the MPAA in 1968.
Box Office Mojo. IMDB.com Inc., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2012. .
"Film Rating Upsets Christian Groups." Good Morning America. ABC News, 22 June 2006. Web. 25 Feb. 2012. .
French, Philip, and Julian Petley. Censoring the Moving Image. New York: Seagull, 2007. Print.
Friedman, Jane. "The Motion Picture Rating System of 1968: A Constitutional Analysis of Self-Regulation by the Film Industry.” Columbia Law Review. Vol. 73. No. 2. (Feb., 1973): 185-240. Online.
Graves, Joan. “The Movie Rating System.” Film Ratings. MPAA, 21 Dec. 2010. Web. 7 Feb. 2012. .
Gustafson, Rob. “Changes in Movie Ratings.” Parents Television Council. Parents Television Council, 25 Jan. 2007. Web. 4 Feb. 2012. .
Holy Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. Print.
Kids in Mind. Critics Inc., 2012. Web. 24 Mar. 2012. .
Jordan, Amy B. "Children's Media Policy.” The Future of Children. Vol. 18. No. 1. (Spring 2008): 235-253. Online.
Noah, Timothy. “The 7 Percent Solution.” Slate 24 Feb. 2011: n. pag. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. .
Sandler, Kevin S. "The Naked Truth: 'Showgirls' and the Fate of the X/NC-17 Rating." Cinema Journal 40.3 (2001): 69-93. JSTOR. Web. 18 Mar. 2012. .
Smith, Jeffery A. "Hollywood Theology: The Commodification of Religion in the Twentieth-Century Films.” A Journal of Interpretation. Vol. 11. No. 2. (Summer 2001): 191-231. Online.
Vasey, Ruth. "Beyond Sex and Violence: “Industry Policy” and the Regulation of Hollywood Movies, 1922-1939." Controlling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era. Ed. Matthew Bernstein. New Brunswick: Rutgers University, 1999. 102-129. Print.
Williamson, P. A. (2007). Ratings and their reasons: An investigation of the efficiency, application and unintended consequences of the motion picture association of americas film rating system. Michigan State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/docview/304849984?accountid=13479.