The MPAA Needs A Reboot!
The MPAA. Those letters will either bring you relief or frustration. For years the MPAA has recommended content to ourselves or our children. What it does well is provide a general guideline that we can follow. Unfortunately, it does a terrible job at truly informing us of the content of a film. So what can be done? How can the system be updated to accommodate our ever changing society?
History of the MPAA
The MPAA has roots going as far back as 1922. It originally was a production company called the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA). It’s purpose was to ensure that Hollywood remained financially stable.
In the 1930s, catholic and protestant groups began to boycott movies. To appease these groups the MPPDA created a strict mandatory approval process. The purpose was to exclude any content deemed unworthy for audiences.
In 1945, the MPPDA was rebranded as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). However, the strict approval and censorship process remained in place until 1968.
This is when the approval process was replaced with a rating system. Rather than censoring the content, it informs and limits the viewing audience. The rating system is not mandatory, but any film without a rating is given the highest rating. To avoid this, most films undergo an MPAA reviewing process.
Changing Ratings
Initially the MPAA only had a 4 tiered system: G, PG, R, and NC-17 (not original letters). There have been small changes in age restriction and terminology, but the overall ratings are roughly the same. The most notable change came in 1984 after the debut of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
Complaints of violence came after Indiana Jones and Gremlins both received a PG rating. Steven Spielberg suggested an intermediary ranking between PG and R. Something that indicated that a film may be too violent for younger ages yet still alright for the majority. Thus the PG-13 rating was born.
Rating Manipulation: Script Intensifying
Even with the additional level, the problem with the MPAA rating system are audience perceptions. Initially movies very commonly received a G rating. Planet of The Apes (1968) has a G rating even though it has rear male nudity, language, mild violence, and mature themes.
Over time G movies became less associated with general audiences and instead were seen as kid movies. Since kids movies sell less tickets, studios began to manipulate their scripts. Antz throws in a curse word and Shrek used humor only adults would get. Studios do this so they wouldn’t get a G rating.
Rating Manipulation: Script Compromises
Manipulation goes even further than simply intensifying the script. Studios sometimes use less of some content in hopes that other content will be overlooked. The best example of this is with The Dark Knight. It easily could have been given an R rating with its mature themes, dark imagery, and violence. It was able to get lower by setting a good portion of the movie during the day and leaving out all extreme language and blood.
There’s nothing wrong with rating manipulation. However, better show how the rating system doesn’t always best inform audiences.
Rating Reason are Insufficient
Underneath the official rating the MPAA puts reasons for the rating. This is one thing the MPAA does reasonably well. Some examples are “some explicit language,” “cartoon violence,” or “brief nudity.” These can be great ways for audiences to decided if the movie works for them.
Even with that, it still has problems. What exactly does “some” mean for explicit language? To me it would mean about 3 to 5 f-bombs. However, I could understand if another interprets it as being as high as 10. With such varying views, how can we interpret these kinds of reasons? Luckily other’s have noticed the lack of detail and have developed other methods.
3rd Party Sites
On the internet there are many 3rd party sites that are available. Each gives a detailed account of the content in the movie. They list exactly how many times each explicit word is said, what kind of sexual content is seen, and how extreme the violence is. By using these, myself and others can easily determine if the movie is right for viewing. My personal favorite is using iMDB.com’s “parent’s guide.” Some other popular ones are commonsensemedia.org and kids-in-mind.com.
Even though these sites are great, they aren’t perfect. First, they are written by users which sometimes don’t hear or see everything that happens. Second, there is a significant delay between after the film is released to when the content is added. Third, each user may describe content differently which creates inconsistencies.
So what is the answer? If the MPAA isn’t detailed enough and 3rd party sites aren’t reliable enough, how can we improve our standard rating system?
Proposal
Ideally I’d like to get rid of the flawed rating system entirely. It encourages manipulation by studios and judgment by audiences. However, it does provide a quick and easy guide as to the kind of content one should expect.
Therefore, I think the MPAA should continue with their rating system as they are, but include a detailed content breakdown on a website before the movie is released. They already have early access to the film. So this allows them plenty of time to give an objective and comprehensive content description. This will allow audiences to give a quick judgment based on the rating and also drill down more if they want.
Every has different tolerance levels in their movies. That means that a universal rating system could never be perfect. However, by adding more consistent detail then we could get one step closer to a system that could work for enough.
