The Roots Of Ratings

With freedom of expression on everyone's agenda, it seems any attempt to restrict a segment of society from viewing or hearing another's opinion is stamped with the curse of censorship.

Motion picture ratings haven't escaped this curse, and with parents struggling to know what is and isn't appropriate for their children, Hollywood continues to use its seemingly inexhaustible resources in an attempt to make more movies available to younger audiences.

To understand where the battle began, it's probably time for a history lesson...

An Outcry

In speaking of the influence of entertainment on children, I recently read one writer's appeal:

"Is it not astounding that a city allows thousands of its youth to fill their impressionable minds with these absurdities which certainly will become the foundation of their working moral codes and the data from which they will judge the properties of life?"

A comment from a recent Ph.D. paper on the influence of media? The exasperated remarks of a mother trying to raise her children amidst today's influence of movies, music, and videogames?

Guess again.

Jane Addams, known for being the first U.S. woman to claim the Nobel Peace prize for her work with impoverished people and children, wrote this tirade in her book, "The Spirit of Youth and the City Streets." Publication date--1917.

In these early days of cinema which were mere "slide" productions consisting of a series of single frames, Addams was lamenting the graphic and violent depictions of young people avenging a wrong, making her one of the first to record her concerns regarding the influence of modern entertainment upon children.

As motion pictures became more common, exhibiting themselves in even the smallest communities, the cry for regulation of the industry became loud enough for Hollywood to take notice.

Censorship vs. Self Regulation

In the June 1990 issue of The Journal of American History, Stephen Vaughn reports that as early as 1907, the city of Chicago established a board to control movies. His research also notes that by 1929 approximately 100 municipalities had passed censorship legislation.

In an effort to stem government control of the film industry, Hollywood began its own campaign with the establishment of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA) in 1922. With PR smoothie Will H. Hays placed at the helm, the MPPDA was successful in keeping censorship of the movies at bay thanks to a list of "Don'ts and Be Carefuls" that studios were obligated to follow.

But with the advent of sound it became more difficult for film creators to stick to Hays' laundry list. Once again censorship was on the government's agenda, and the industry, represented by Hays, was scrambling to keep self-regulatory control. Working with prominent Catholic leaders and studio executives, Hays coordinated the creation of a new production code that was adopted by the MPPDA's Board of Directors on March 31, 1930.

Forever to be known as The Hays Production Code, the new rules not only satisfied politicians, but it gave the industry an image of stability--something badly needed to please the investment bankers upon which Hollywood was becoming increasingly dependent.

Demanding that movies include (among many other items) consequences for criminal and adulterous behavior and guidelines that ensured clergy were presented in a respectful and positive light, the Hays code had a profound effect on movies even until the late 1960's. An amazing feat considering the code was always under opposition from Hollywood even though studio execs agreed to follow it.

Dawning of the Groovy Movie

With the dawn of free love, men walking on the moon, and the liberalization of every aspect of society, the Hays's code (and even The Ten Commandments upon which the code was based) appeared as old as a 78-rpm record.

No longer the MPPDA, The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) had just placed Jack Valenti in it's presidential chair. A well decorated World War II fighter pilot who would later provide press consulting services to Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy, Valenti turned out to be the perfect mix of leadership and tact needed to please the industry and public.

Valenti, not anxious to be America's censor, was immediately confronted with studios wanting to explore edgier subjects--that is, more sex, profane language, and violence.

Said Valenti, "What few threads there were holding together the structure created by Will Hays, one of my two predecessors, had now snapped. From the very first day of my own succession to the MPAA President's office, I had sniffed the Production Code constructed by the Hays Office. There was about this stern, forbidding catalogue of "Dos and Don'ts" the odious smell of censorship. I determined to junk it at the first opportune moment."

In it's place, Valenti proposed a rating system where adults would be free to view any movie they pleased, but children would still be protected from inappropriate films. Backed with a 1968 Supreme Court decision that gave states and cities the power to prevent the exposure of children to books and films deemed unsuitable, Valenti spent hours meeting with different film production associations, critics, and religious organizations.

On November 1, 1968, the MPAA rating system, which we utilize to this day, was born.

With a board of 8 to 13 members whose qualifications include having been a parent, being able to put themselves in the role of most American parents, and finally possessing "an intelligent maturity," movies are voluntarily submitted for review with fees being charged to the producers for the board's services.

And while Valenti is proud to note that the MPAA ratings board has never bowed to pressure from studios to revise a rating, it certainly isn't because of a lack of opportunity to do so. Not unlike the Hays' Production Code era, studios and movie creators continually hound the MPAA for ratings revisions--usually hoping for a more lenient classification that will allow teen dollars to flood the box office.

The Mark of X

The X-rating, which wasn't trademarked by the MPAA and could be self-applied by anyone, soon became associated with pornography. Reluctant to have their products labeled with the X-stigma for fear i MPAA for changes.

To address the issue, the MPAA began making further revisions by introducing the PG-13 rating in 1984 (which would ultimately open the field for harder "teen" movies), and the NC-17 rating in 1990 to replace the maligned X. This time they trademarked the NC-17 insignia so that only the board had authorization to use it. Still restricting admittance to only those over 17 years of age, it was hoped the new rating would appease studios.

It didn't last long.

Adults Only Please

In the November 25 1994 issue of Entertainment Weekly, Benjamin Svetkey's article Why Movie Ratings Don't Work is laden with unhappy creators who accuse the MPAA board of manipulating its rules, allowing more violence than sex in movies. One creator even claimed that African-Americans having sex warranted a more restrictive rating than Caucasians engaged in a similar act.

In 1999 the battle got even hotter when famed critic Roger Ebert took Valenti on in an open letter to Variety, a major industry trade magazine. Fuming (along with many other critics) over the decision of Warner Brothers to digitally obscure an orgy scene in Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick's final movie) in order to avoid an NC-17 rating, Ebert brought the issue of movie restrictions to the melting point. His solution was to create yet another rating--an A for Adult which would sandwich between the current R and NC-17, providing mainstream movies a label free of NC-17's porno image.

In return, Valenti charged that the rating system is "not to placate critics--it was to protect parents. I haven't heard from a single parent who said, 'Gee, I wish you'd kept that orgy in there.'"

But the artistic community continues to defend its more lenient position. Jason Biggs, star of the infamous American Pie, which was carefully cut to avoid an NC-17 rating, sees his controversial pic as a basis for Sex Ed 101.

"I don't think that 13 or 14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to see this," says Biggs in a July 7 1999 Entertainment Weekly piece authored by Liane Bonin.

While co-star Alsyson Hannigan, quoted in the same article, concurs, she looks on the bright side. "If kids do get carded [asked for age-proving ID], that's just going to force them to go with an adult, so we'll get bigger box office."

But an NC-17 rating doesn't stop any adult from seeing a film, so why the battle to obtain an R-rating for a movie?

Where the Money Really Is

For studios, the thought of having the lucrative teenage box office slipping through their cash registers is too much to bear, explaining why even R-ratings are unwelcome labels.

It's no wonder studios are begging for your children's attention. It has been statistically proven time and again that R-rated and especially NC-17 rated films don't make nearly as much money as lesser-rated movies. (A search of the MPAA ratings database at www.mpaa.org reveals only about 60 NC-17 titles, with only a handful ever moving into "wide release.")

In the March 2000 issue of Premiere Magazine, author Jon Horn took figures from Entertainment Data, Inc. to prove the point: From 1994 to 1998, only 34 G-rated films were released, yet they were by far the best average box office earners per film. Second was the PG-13 rating, with the R-rating coming in last--even though that rating contained the greatest number of movies. NC-17 titles were not noted.

Are You Listening?

At the end of this 70-year history lesson of movie ratings, there is one overwhelming point that Hollywood continues to miss: The film industry still isn't delivering the products its potential purchasers really want to buy.

Imagine Ford making ten times as many Lincolns as Escorts, or Sony insisting on still building Betamaxes. Yet the motion picture industry continues to create products that ignore the marketplace's greatest potential audience... families.

Instead Hollywood insists on altering the ratings rather than its products. Creators continue knocking down the doors at the MPAA, and with Valenti pushing 80 years of age, it may only be a matter of time before this self-regulatory body changes its direction.

It seems that most critics and industry executives have long forgotten what ratings were intended to do -- to help parents avoid showing their children inappropriate movies. Not unlike nutrition labels on food products, movie ratings are an attempt to help parents know the content of a film before allowing their children to consume it.

Rod Gustafson

©2001 One Voice Communications. All Rights Reserved

Parents, do you have something you'd like to tell the MPAA about U.S. movie ratings? Write to them at the address below:

Motion Picture Association of America
15503 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, CA 91436
Phone (818) 995-6600

Did you find this article helpful or did it contain information you already knew? Do you have any questions on this subject or other family media topics? Please write us at parents@gradingthemovies.com and let us know what you think..